PDA

View Full Version : Reinsdorf: "Magglio took some bad advice; isn't worth $60 million."


santo=dorf
10-29-2004, 06:50 PM
In his interview with Comcast Sports Net, JR told Gail Fischer that Magglio should've taken the 5 year $60 million dollar deal that they intially offered him. He said someone was in Magglio's ear telling him not to take the money, and says he doesn't think that person can pay the difference from the $60 million offered by the Sox and what he'll get on the open market this offseason.

ouch.

say it with me folks:

PACK YOUR BAGS MAGGS!!!

Magglios_Girl
10-29-2004, 06:57 PM
In his interview with Comcast Sports Net, JR told Gail Fischer that Magglio should've taken the 5 year $60 million dollar deal that they intially offered him. He said someone was in Magglio's ear telling him not to take the money, and says he doesn't think that person can pay the difference from the $60 million offered by the Sox and what he'll get on the open market this offseason.

ouch.

say it with me folks:

PACK YOUR BAGS MAGGS!!!Yeah I watched that too...

Palehose13
10-29-2004, 07:08 PM
In his interview with Comcast Sports Net, JR told Gail Fischer that Magglio should've taken the 5 year $60 million dollar deal that they intially offered him. He said someone was in Magglio's ear telling him not to take the money, and says he doesn't think that person can pay the difference from the $60 million offered by the Sox and what he'll get on the open market this offseason.

ouch.

say it with me folks:

PACK YOUR BAGS MAGGS!!!
I happen to agree wiht JR here. Maggs got greedy and it is going to bite him in the ass.

DrCrawdad
10-29-2004, 07:08 PM
In his interview with Comcast Sports Net, JR told Gail Fischer that Magglio should've taken the 5 year $60 million dollar deal that they intially offered him. He said someone was in Magglio's ear telling him not to take the money, and says he doesn't think that person can pay the difference from the $60 million offered by the Sox and what he'll get on the open market this offseason.

ouch.

say it with me folks:

PACK YOUR BAGS MAGGS!!!

I guess we'll soon see what Magglio's value is on the open-market.

My opinion before Magglio got hurt was that he was not worth the same as Sheffield or Vlad. Now that there are responsible questions about Magg's health, his value has gone down.

samram
10-29-2004, 07:33 PM
I happen to agree wiht JR here. Maggs got greedy and it is going to bite him in the ass.
Well, I can't blame Maggs for wanting to test the market. It's really a bad decision in hindsight only. However, there's no way I would give him $12M now unless Boras changes his stance on seeing Maggs go through some workouts.

Palehose13
10-29-2004, 07:38 PM
Well, I can't blame Maggs for wanting to test the market. It's really a bad decision in hindsight only. However, there's no way I would give him $12M now unless Boras changes his stance on seeing Maggs go through some workouts.Yeah, hindsight is always 20/20, but all that crap about wanting to stay with the Sox, etc...

Heck, I'd play for 50K/year. Doubt that I'd be worth it though. :wink:

samram
10-29-2004, 07:49 PM
Yeah, hindsight is always 20/20, but all that crap about wanting to stay with the Sox, etc...

Heck, I'd play for 50K/year. Doubt that I'd be worth it though. :wink:
Good point about the talk about wanting to stay with the Sox. This could be one of those incidents that cause some players to question their desire to wait for free agency. This is a guy that was certainly going to make $13-16M, and now, he'll struggle to get more than $9, and the term will be decreased also.

Frankly, if I was an agent, I would advise that my clients not talk about wanting to stay with their current clubs in the year leading up to FA. It seems that it can just lead to hard feelings and charges of double talk if a situation such as the current one arises. Everyone would understand he wants to test the market, but his words about wanting to stay and not accepting fairly generous offers in tandem don't serve him well.

Palehose13
10-29-2004, 07:56 PM
Good point about the talk about wanting to stay with the Sox. This could be one of those incidents that cause some players to question their desire to wait for free agency. This is a guy that was certainly going to make $13-16M, and now, he'll struggle to get more than $9, and the term will be decreased also.

Frankly, if I was an agent, I would advise that my clients not talk about wanting to stay with their current clubs in the year leading up to FA. It seems that it can just lead to hard feelings and charges of double talk if a situation such as the current one arises. Everyone would understand he wants to test the market, but his words about wanting to stay and not accepting fairly generous offers in tandem don't serve him well.
Exactly! I understand about wanting to test the market, but don't give me any BS about wanting to stay with the Sox, etc. Because if he truly did want to stay, I would think the offer made to him earlier was very fair...deferred money or not.

RKMeibalane
10-29-2004, 08:19 PM
This marks the first time that I've ever agreed with Jerry Reinsdorf about anything. Magglio Ordonez was a fool to turn the Sox offer, and now that his health is a question mark, there is no question that he's not going to get the money he was originally looking for.

Ol' No. 2
10-29-2004, 08:26 PM
In his interview with Comcast Sports Net, JR told Gail Fischer that Magglio should've taken the 5 year $60 million dollar deal that they intially offered him. He said someone was in Magglio's ear telling him not to take the money, and says he doesn't think that person can pay the difference from the $60 million offered by the Sox and what he'll get on the open market this offseason.

ouch.

say it with me folks:

PACK YOUR BAGS MAGGS!!!Don't I recall hearing that the Sox offered $70M??? That was what he was asking for, and the Sox supposedly offered him what he was asking for, didn't they? Or did they?

misty60481
10-29-2004, 08:51 PM
If KW would have kept his big mouth shut instead of all the talk about trading Maggs for Nomar maybe none of this would have happened. I dont think they will find anybody to replace him. I think if he would submit to doctors check and prove that his knee is OK we should do every thing possible to bring him back, remember 30-35 hrs.--100++ rbis--and .300== is hard to top.

MRKARNO
10-29-2004, 08:58 PM
JR is absolutely right in this situation. 5/60 was about as good as he possibly could have gotten on the open market, even if healthy. He might have only gotten 4/40 on the open market. He would have taken the extremely generous offer that we offered him if he gave a crap about Chicago or the White Sox Organization. This one's to you Maggs:

NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
HEY HEY HEY
GOO-OODBYE

Flight #24
10-29-2004, 09:02 PM
Don't I recall hearing that the Sox offered $70M??? That was what he was asking for, and the Sox supposedly offered him what he was asking for, didn't they? Or did they?
I didn't see the interview, but the quote in the opening thread does say "initially" offered him. There was some back and forth, and all the reports that I saw was that the final offer was the 5/70 that he wanted, but his issue was supposedly with deferrals.

Brian26
10-29-2004, 09:03 PM
This marks the first time that I've ever agreed with Jerry Reinsdorf about anything. Magglio Ordonez was a fool to turn the Sox offer, and now that his health is a question mark, there is no question that he's not going to get the money he was originally looking for.
Yep. Uncle Jerry is 100% absolutely correct, and I agree with him totally.

mantis1212
10-29-2004, 09:19 PM
If KW would have kept his big mouth shut instead of all the talk about trading Maggs for Nomar maybe none of this would have happened. I dont think they will find anybody to replace him. I think if he would submit to doctors check and prove that his knee is OK we should do every thing possible to bring him back, remember 30-35 hrs.--100++ rbis--and .300== is hard to top.
You have that wrong- KW never opens his mouth when it comes to trades- it was the guys in Boston that couldn't keep their mouth shut

Flight #24
10-29-2004, 09:24 PM
If KW would have kept his big mouth shut instead of all the talk about trading Maggs for Nomar maybe none of this would have happened. I dont think they will find anybody to replace him. I think if he would submit to doctors check and prove that his knee is OK we should do every thing possible to bring him back, remember 30-35 hrs.--100++ rbis--and .300== is hard to top.
Ummmmm are you saying that if the trade doesn't leak Willie & Maggs don't collide?:?:

Or that Maggs really wanted to accept the Sox offer but didn't because there was a trade rumored?:?:

Or that Maggs isn't submitting to a drs review because he's upset there were trade discussions?:?:

At this point, there's no way Maggs is submitting to a knee exam. This tells me 2 things:
1) He doesn't really want to stay, and he wants to provide as little incentive as possible for teams not to sign him (i.e. draft pick compensation). Plus he wants to screw the Sox

and/or

2) His knee is nowhere near in good shape, and he's trying to delay any medical exams as long as possible in hopes it heals. This actually makes the most sense as I can't imagine why he'd want to fly to Austria to get what his agent says was routine surgery done.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-29-2004, 09:26 PM
Yep. Uncle Jerry is 100% absolutely correct, and I agree with him totally.
Look, I'm not going to disagree with the general sentiment here. However it is VERY DISINGENUOUS for Jerry Reinsdorf to make a statement like this. Why am I not surprised JR would charge right ahead and reveal himself yet again as a heartless bastard?

Nobody knew Magglio was going to get hurt, least of all Magglio or Jerry Reinsdorf. Whether Magglio was worth what he was asking, God only knows. What we do know is that Reinsdorf wasn't willing to pay Magglio's asking price except with deferred payments which anybody who has ever passed a finance course can tell you devalues what the contract is worth.

Like any professional athlete, Magglio took a chance of getting injured everytime he walked on the field. All of them are just one surgery away from becoming insurance salesmen. Instead of expressing any remorse for the plight of Magglio, Reinsdorf turns around and acts like a classless *******. He isn't smart for not offering Magglio the money. He had no clue what would happen to Magglio last June.

Anyone applauding the genius of Jerry Reinsdorf for these comments needs to study the timeline of events a little more closely.

gobears1987
10-29-2004, 09:27 PM
I have to agree with JR here. Maggs isn't worth it with that injury.

samram
10-29-2004, 09:27 PM
If KW would have kept his big mouth shut instead of all the talk about trading Maggs for Nomar maybe none of this would have happened. I dont think they will find anybody to replace him. I think if he would submit to doctors check and prove that his knee is OK we should do every thing possible to bring him back, remember 30-35 hrs.--100++ rbis--and .300== is hard to top.
Yeah, well, that "if" is the problem. Until there's proof that the knee is healthy, the team can't commit serious dollars to him.

As for KW talking about trading him, when there's rumors of East Coast Baseball trades, they're not being started in the midwest. Gammons, Stark, etc, are the ones starting those.

jabrch
10-29-2004, 09:57 PM
George, I understand it will not endear JR with other players and their agents. But the statements were true. Now it can easily be said that JR should **** and go be proud of being 100% correct in private. But at the same time, I like hearing messages sent publicly to greedy selfish dirtbag players who turn down fatantastic contracts because they have no intention on signing with a team while the meanwhile tell the public that they want to stay here and that it isn't about the $.

I don't applaud JR for boasting in public. I do applaud him for not oversigning Magglio or Colon. But I am honestly enjoying hearing that Magglio's greed and his lying to the fans is going to cost him maybe 8mm a year for at least two years, and possibly much much more. I wish no injuries on nobody. I'd love to see Magglio have stayed healty all year. Who knows how the season would have ended up. But karma is a bitch.

Look, I'm not going to disagree with the general sentiment here. However it is VERY DISINGENUOUS for Jerry Reinsdorf to make a statement like this. Why am I not surprised JR would charge right ahead and reveal himself yet again as a heartless bastard?

Nobody knew Magglio was going to get hurt, least of all Magglio or Jerry Reinsdorf. Whether Magglio was worth what he was asking, God only knows. What we do know is that Reinsdorf wasn't willing to pay Magglio's asking price except with deferred payments which anybody who has ever passed a finance course can tell you devalues what the contract is worth.

Like any professional athlete, Magglio took a chance of getting injured everytime he walked on the field. All of them are just one surgery away from becoming insurance salesmen. Instead of expressing any remorse for the plight of Magglio, Reinsdorf turns around and acts like a classless *******. He isn't smart for not offering Magglio the money. He had no clue what would happen to Magglio last June.

Anyone applauding the genius of Jerry Reinsdorf for these comments needs to study the timeline of events a little more closely.

hitlesswonder
10-29-2004, 10:40 PM
But at the same time, I like hearing messages sent publicly to greedy selfish dirtbag players who turn down fatantastic contracts because they have no intention on signing with a team while the meanwhile tell the public that they want to stay here and that it isn't about the $.

I don't applaud JR for boasting in public. I do applaud him for not oversigning Magglio or Colon. But I am honestly enjoying hearing that Magglio's greed and his lying to the fans is going to cost him maybe 8mm a year for at least two years, and possibly much much more. I wish no injuries on nobody. I'd love to see Magglio have stayed healty all year. Who knows how the season would have ended up. But karma is a bitch.I'm going to agree with George, it's stuff like this that makes the Sox look like a less than classy organization. Did Magglio lie to the fans? All I remember him saying that he'd like to stay with the Sox, but this was going to be his last big contract (given his age) and he had to take care of his family. So what if he really means that he'll only stay if the Sox outbid everybody because he wants to make more than the already ridiculous amount of money he was getting. I don't feel betrayed by that personally, as much as I would have liked Ordonez to finish his career with the Sox. I think he gave people their money's worth on the field, and seemed like a decent enough guy (buying the Venezaulan little league team their equipment should have been more than enough to ward off possibly career-ending bad "karma" from wanting a big contract). And how many times has the Sox management said they would do everything they could to sign a player long-term when they, just maybe, didn't intend to do that. When is the karma for that betrayal going to hit?

I'm sure Ordonez has enough money that he'll be fine whether or not he plays again and he has said some silly stuff about the Sox taking him for granted. But considering that his career might be over, I think refraining from gloating would be the classy thing for Sox management to do. Who knows, if the White Sox looked like an organization that treated current and former employees with respect, it might help convince players the Sox would be a good team to play for (I'm not saying they didn't offer Ordonez a decent contract, I think they did, I'm just saying they shouldn't say things like this now).

steff
10-29-2004, 10:48 PM
You have that wrong- KW never opens his mouth when it comes to trades- it was the guys in Boston that couldn't keep their mouth shut

Blame Otis!! :bandance:

Tragg
10-30-2004, 12:01 AM
Maybe the agent figured if JR is offering 12 Mill, he must be worth a lot more?

Just kidding, but I think JR's right; 12Mill was a fair offer and even without injury, it is doubtful that he could have gotten significantly more. So he took a gamble that had a mariginal upside- aka a bad gamble.

Mohoney
10-30-2004, 01:39 AM
He said someone was in Magglio's ear telling him not to take the money, and says he doesn't think that person can pay the difference from the $60 million offered by the Sox and what he'll get on the open market this offseason.
Could this person be Mrs. Ordonez? Does she like it in Chicago?

Mohoney
10-30-2004, 02:03 AM
Nobody knew Magglio was going to get hurt, least of all Magglio or Jerry Reinsdorf. Whether Magglio was worth what he was asking, God only knows. What we do know is that Reinsdorf wasn't willing to pay Magglio's asking price except with deferred payments which anybody who has ever passed a finance course can tell you devalues what the contract is worth.

Like any professional athlete, Magglio took a chance of getting injured everytime he walked on the field. All of them are just one surgery away from becoming insurance salesmen.
100% correct. Brilliant.

Why don't people just realize that THEY'RE BOTH GREEDY! IT'S HUMAN NATURE! They're both looking to squeeze every penny they can out of this game, and I don't blame them one bit. I would be doing the exact same thing if I were either one of these men.

Am I disheartened by the dollar signs that are perpetually in the eyes of every player and owner? Absolutely. Can I blame them for feeling this way? Absolutely not.

If anybody here says that they would take significantly less money and/or take the same amount of money but agree to be paid in cheaper dollars at a later date just to stay with one team, or that they would offer a ballplayer a huge amount of money without even exploring the possibility that you could sign him for less, then they are either purely blowing smoke or letting their Sox fan bias blind their vision.

Baseball is officially a business. It has been for quite some time. It's time that we get over this whole delusion that it is something pure and sacred, and realize that these men are only doing what every other human being would do in their situation: milking every red cent out of their profession.

P.S. What would everybody be saying if Magglio had another .300, 30, 100 season this year (which I firmly believe he would have done if not for the injury, given the fact that Frank's obscene OBP was protecting him in the lineup)?

munchman33
10-30-2004, 02:05 AM
Look, I'm not going to disagree with the general sentiment here. However it is VERY DISINGENUOUS for Jerry Reinsdorf to make a statement like this. Why am I not surprised JR would charge right ahead and reveal himself yet again as a heartless bastard?

Why is it always alright for the players to complain when management doesn't fork over more dough, saying they're greedy bastards, but when management rightfully calls out a player for it, it's classless?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-30-2004, 08:07 AM
Why is it always alright for the players to complain when management doesn't fork over more dough, saying they're greedy bastards, but when management rightfully calls out a player for it, it's classless?When is it classless? When the owner holds himself up as smart for having not paid the player's asking price while the timeline of events clearly shows the player got injured *before* he ever had a chance to find out whether he could get his asking price on the free market.

Is that clear enough for you?

Jerry Reinsdorf didn't know Magglio would get hurt and neither did Magglio. Reinsdorf failed to sign a HEALTHY Magglio, and now he wants props for not signing an injured one? Only one of us is dumb enough to get sucked in by that line of reasoning.

Give me a freaking break...

voodoochile
10-30-2004, 09:37 AM
Why is it always alright for the players to complain when management doesn't fork over more dough, saying they're greedy bastards, but when management rightfully calls out a player for it, it's classless?
It comes across to me personally as gloating - rooting for injuries is the same thing. JR effectively laughed at Magglio's plight.

In addition, it doesn't make the Sox as an organization look more attractive to other players. These are the exact kind of dumbass comments that lead big name FA players to sign elsewhere given similar financial considerations. This team is all about the money. Always has been and always will be.

As someone else said earlier in the thread - "baseball is a business and has been for quite some time". Unlike the Sox, most teams don't make that the house motto and make sure to rub it in the faces of the fans and players every chance they get.

JR talks about family and trust and loyalty and then the minute he gets a chance to rub some salt in a big name player's wounds, he jumps on it.

To me this paraphrase sounds very familiar...

:reinsy
"It's all Magglio's fault."

bigfoot
10-30-2004, 10:50 AM
PHG & VDC are all over this one. Had Maggs had a "normal" .300/35/115 season and had led the Sox into the playoffs, who among us would be applauding JR for failing to sign Maggs to a deal? What lackluster excuse would JR come up with to soothe the savage beast, WSI? You lay down your money and roll the dice, but only if you want to win big. If you want nice and safe, as JR seems to prefer, put your money into CD's making 4%. He won't go hungry, but he won't get rich either. And neither will Sox fans.

Flight #24
10-30-2004, 11:02 AM
When is it classless? When the owner holds himself up as smart for having not paid the player's asking price while the timeline of events clearly shows the player got injured *before* he ever had a chance to find out whether he could get his asking price on the free market.

Is that clear enough for you?

Jerry Reinsdorf didn't know Magglio would get hurt and neither did Magglio. Reinsdorf failed to sign a HEALTHY Magglio, and now he wants props for not signing an injured one? Only one of us is dumb enough to get sucked in by that line of reasoning.

Give me a freaking break...
I guess I read it differently. To me, JR was saying the contract offer was big enough that Maggs should have accepted it rather than take the risk of injury and the resulting decline in $$$. Not trying to get props for not signing an injured one, but calling attention to the fact that players often turn down relatively lucrative extensions while seeking more lucrative deals, and that the risk of injury is there, but rarely considered very seriously.

Paulwny
10-30-2004, 11:02 AM
Loyalty is a two way street. Where was the loyalty from the sox org. when they offered him to Boston for Nomar? Now some people expect Maggs to be loyal to this sox org.

Flight #24
10-30-2004, 11:03 AM
PHG & VDC are all over this one. Had Maggs had a "normal" .300/35/115 season and had led the Sox into the playoffs, who among us would be applauding JR for failing to sign Maggs to a deal? What lackluster excuse would JR come up with to soothe the savage beast, WSI? You lay down your money and roll the dice, but only if you want to win big. If you want nice and safe, as JR seems to prefer, put your money into CD's making 4%. He won't go hungry, but he won't get rich either. And neither will Sox fans.
Same argument can be made for maggs. He tried to win big and looks like he lost.

And if it's true that they made a 5/70 offer with deferrals (which could have resulted in a max reduction of 6% in the overall value of the contract), then I wouldn't exactly say JR cheaped out.

Paulwny
10-30-2004, 11:12 AM
And if it's true that they made a 5/70 offer with deferrals (which could have resulted in a max reduction of 6% in the overall value of the contract), then I wouldn't exactly say JR cheaped out.
You may be correct, however the one question which we'll never find out the answer to, would JR have KW trade $$$ players on the team to off-set Maggs' contract?

CubKilla
10-30-2004, 11:13 AM
Look, I'm not going to disagree with the general sentiment here. However it is VERY DISINGENUOUS for Jerry Reinsdorf to make a statement like this. Why am I not surprised JR would charge right ahead and reveal himself yet again as a heartless bastard?

Nobody knew Magglio was going to get hurt, least of all Magglio or Jerry Reinsdorf. Whether Magglio was worth what he was asking, God only knows. What we do know is that Reinsdorf wasn't willing to pay Magglio's asking price except with deferred payments which anybody who has ever passed a finance course can tell you devalues what the contract is worth.

Like any professional athlete, Magglio took a chance of getting injured everytime he walked on the field. All of them are just one surgery away from becoming insurance salesmen. Instead of expressing any remorse for the plight of Magglio, Reinsdorf turns around and acts like a classless *******. He isn't smart for not offering Magglio the money. He had no clue what would happen to Magglio last June.

Anyone applauding the genius of Jerry Reinsdorf for these comments needs to study the timeline of events a little more closely.
Post of the friggin' year :bandance:

I'm actually quite surprised at the general sentiment from Sox fans who are, for all intents and purposes, laughing at Maggs misfortune right now and treating JR like he's some kind of Nostradamus or some other type of psychic entity. But whatever.

jabrch
10-30-2004, 11:17 AM
Loyalty is a two way street. Where was the loyalty from the sox org. when they offered him to Boston for Nomar? Now some people expect Maggs to be loyal to this sox org.
After he repeatedly turned down a variety of fair contract offers...The sox were looking at any option they could get that would improve the team. By the time the Boston deal came around, it was almost assured that Ordonez was going to be leaving. He no proved very clearly that he no longer wanted to be here and be a part of this team. We were getting a shot at Nomar who would then have been sent to the Dodgers for young pitching.

munchman33
10-30-2004, 12:00 PM
Post of the friggin' year :bandance:

I'm actually quite surprised at the general sentiment from Sox fans who are, for all intents and purposes, laughing at Maggs misfortune right now
Cry me a ****'n river. I don't feel the least bit sorry for that lying jackass. Magglio Ordonez is a liar. He told the fans he wanted to stay and he told the team what he wanted to make. When he got that offered to him, he said it wasn't enough. And his behavior since being injured is just plain wrong. I can't believe the league doensn't have a problem with a player under contract not divulging medical records, or even submitting to examinations, to the team that owns his rights. If anything, the organization should be lauded for the way they have treated Maggs despite his being an incredible jackass.

soxtalker
10-30-2004, 12:11 PM
I did not hear the interview. I'm guessing that this was in response to a question. For those who are incensed at JR's response, what should he have said?

I'm assuming he had to give some sort of answer. It looks like he tried to transfer the responsibility for the negotiation from Maggs to a nameless advisor of Maggs. As for gloating, well, I'd have to hear the interview. It just seems odd that JR would gloat publicly; he has gone through too many interviews.

Lip Man 1
10-30-2004, 12:20 PM
He could have said something like this:

"Well we felt that we made Magglio a very fair offer based on what he's done for the Sox over his career and what we think the market will look like.

He chose to go in a different direction.

All of us were saddened by the unfortunate injury he received and we hope that he can work through it and get back to playing baseball again.

We still hope that Magglio and his agent will consider us when they look at his future. We'd still love to have him back with us."

Sounds better don't you think. It answers the question and comes off with some class and sympathy.

Lip

Mickster
10-30-2004, 12:29 PM
He could have said something like this:

"Well we felt that we made Magglio a very fair offer based on what he's done for the Sox over his career and what we think the market will look like.

He chose to go in a different direction.

All of us were saddened by the unfortunate injury he received and we hope that he can work through it and get back to playing baseball again.

We still hope that Magglio and his agent will consider us when they look at his future. We'd still love to have him back with us."

Sounds better don't you think. It answers the question and comes off with some class and sympathy.

Lip
I'm certain that if JR was issuing a written statement, this is exactly what it would have looked like.

jdm2662
10-30-2004, 01:23 PM
First off, I do not wish injury on anyone. As a Sox fan, this sucks. Mags has always been my favorite player. I don't want to see him go, but it's going to happen.

Now, on to the situation. Had Mags not said anything and said he was going to test the market, I would've been fine with that. It is his right as a free agent to seek the money he can get out there. The White Sox felt they gave him a fair deal, which I agree, it was a fair deal. Mags felt he can get more, and it was his right to do that. However, saying it's not about money and wanting to stay in Chicago is what bothers me. Also, pretending there is no issue with your knee then flying out to Austria of all places for another surgery. Not allowing your own team to see the medical records without a contract offer is another crock. So, if your knee goes out after signing the big ass guarenteed contract, the team is stuck paying for it. What is it for them. I currently have a job with good benefits and I'm working with my friends. However, if another offer came along with more money, more ideal hours, etc, I would jump in a heart beat. I don't make stuff up like I want to stay here, and it's not about the money. While money isn't everything in a job, it's a big part. I don't hide that fact, and Mags should've not either.

Do I agree with how Reinsdorf handled the situation? No, I don't. Do I think he was right? Yes, he was. Baseball is a business and both sides have their points. In the end, everyone loses. Mags won't be getting the fat contract he desires, the Sox won't be getting a quality player back, and the fans look forward to another medicore team. Mags is the double loser in this case because if is injury is recovering as he says, why wont he allow any doctor to examin it?
________
Growing Marijuana (http://growingmedicalmarijuana.org)

Rocklive99
10-30-2004, 01:56 PM
Gail Fischer: Would you ever think of getting rid of either team?
JR: Sure, when I die.

http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/multimedia.asp

Foulke29
10-31-2004, 01:53 AM
Look, I'm not going to disagree with the general sentiment here. However it is VERY DISINGENUOUS for Jerry Reinsdorf to make a statement like this. Why am I not surprised JR would charge right ahead and reveal himself yet again as a heartless bastard?

Nobody knew Magglio was going to get hurt, least of all Magglio or Jerry Reinsdorf. Whether Magglio was worth what he was asking, God only knows. What we do know is that Reinsdorf wasn't willing to pay Magglio's asking price except with deferred payments which anybody who has ever passed a finance course can tell you devalues what the contract is worth.

Like any professional athlete, Magglio took a chance of getting injured everytime he walked on the field. All of them are just one surgery away from becoming insurance salesmen. Instead of expressing any remorse for the plight of Magglio, Reinsdorf turns around and acts like a classless *******. He isn't smart for not offering Magglio the money. He had no clue what would happen to Magglio last June.

Anyone applauding the genius of Jerry Reinsdorf for these comments needs to study the timeline of events a little more closely.
I hate JR as much as the next Sox fan, but I see no problem with what he said. After all, isn't it Magglio that stabbed the knife in the White Sox organization by declaring Darth Vader as his agent? Perhaps what Jerry did lacks in class; however, what Magglio did is just completely classless!

It was classless to imply that he wanted to stay in Chicago with the Sox and then buck when he didn't get exactly what he asked for in negotiations.

Said it before and I'll say it again. Don't let the door hit you on the butt Maggs!

Foulke29
10-31-2004, 01:54 AM
Gail Fischer: Would you ever think of getting rid of either team?
JR: Sure, when I die.

http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/multimedia.asp
:?: That can be arranged. Who wants to start the collection? :tongue:

batmanZoSo
10-31-2004, 02:06 AM
:?: That can be arranged. Who wants to start the collection? :tongue:

Let's see...enough smileys to justify that...yeah, you're clear. :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-31-2004, 07:35 AM
Based on what others have opined in this thread, here are two additional thoughts on this subject.

1.) I feel stupid to have to spell this out for some of you, but here it goes. There are only about a million different reasons why any employee would want to STAY with his current employer over leaving for someplace else. Only one of the reasons for leaving is more money elsewhere. However staying is much cheaper (and less stressful) than leaving, and that's why an employee would be stupid to leave when the money was equal. For a million reasons, Magglio expressing his wishes to stay makes perfect sense, and he is no "liar" for expressing it.

2.) I know of only one ballplayer on the White Sox who openly chose to take less money to play on the South Side than what was reportedly offered from another team to leave. That player is Jose Valentin who took one fewer guaranteed year to play for the Sox in November, 2000. The Sox rewarded his loyalty by trading for Royce Clayton two weeks later.

I shouldn't need to point out to any of you that Jose Valentin has become one of the favorite whipping boys on this message board for his strikeouts and lousy play this past season. I guess the sort of loyalty you "Magglio Lied" bashers believe in only runs one way. I feel quite certain many of you have revealed yourselves as rank hypocrites for what you've written here and what you've written previously, too.

:manos
"Hypocrites."

gosox41
10-31-2004, 08:11 AM
Don't I recall hearing that the Sox offered $70M??? That was what he was asking for, and the Sox supposedly offered him what he was asking for, didn't they? Or did they?
According to the first post, the $60 mill was the initial offer. The Sox probably went up from there.

Good thing it didn't work out even if Magglio were healthy. Vlad gets an average of $13 mill per season. How is Magglio when he's 100% healthy better then Vlad?


Bob

gosox41
10-31-2004, 08:13 AM
Loyalty is a two way street. Where was the loyalty from the sox org. when they offered him to Boston for Nomar? Now some people expect Maggs to be loyal to this sox org.
Then why did he want to negotiate to stay here. If the SOx approached him about a contract back in spring training he should have just told him he wanted to test the market or didn't want the distraction.


Bob

gosox41
10-31-2004, 08:21 AM
First off, I do not wish injury on anyone. As a Sox fan, this sucks. Mags has always been my favorite player. I don't want to see him go, but it's going to happen.

Now, on to the situation. Had Mags not said anything and said he was going to test the market, I would've been fine with that. It is his right as a free agent to seek the money he can get out there. The White Sox felt they gave him a fair deal, which I agree, it was a fair deal. Mags felt he can get more, and it was his right to do that. However, saying it's not about money and wanting to stay in Chicago is what bothers me. Also, pretending there is no issue with your knee then flying out to Austria of all places for another surgery. Not allowing your own team to see the medical records without a contract offer is another crock. So, if your knee goes out after signing the big ass guarenteed contract, the team is stuck paying for it. What is it for them. I currently have a job with good benefits and I'm working with my friends. However, if another offer came along with more money, more ideal hours, etc, I would jump in a heart beat. I don't make stuff up like I want to stay here, and it's not about the money. While money isn't everything in a job, it's a big part. I don't hide that fact, and Mags should've not either.

Do I agree with how Reinsdorf handled the situation? No, I don't. Do I think he was right? Yes, he was. Baseball is a business and both sides have their points. In the end, everyone loses. Mags won't be getting the fat contract he desires, the Sox won't be getting a quality player back, and the fans look forward to another medicore team. Mags is the double loser in this case because if is injury is recovering as he says, why wont he allow any doctor to examin it?
You hit the nail on the head.

What some of the anti-JR pro Magglio people here aren't recognizing is that Magglio at his beest is still not worth the $13 mill. Vlad got. Someone was blowing smoke up Magglio's butt telling him how wonderful he was and how the market would be so good for him. Maybe someone would have signed him for more, maybe not. IMHO, if someone paid him (when he's 100% healthy) more then Vlad then they made a big mistake.

Looks to me like Magglio was trying to use the Sox as leverage at the time especially considering that the Sox offered him the much rumored $70 mill over 5 years. How can anyone think he is better then Vlad? Magglio and his agent should have recognized this was a good deal (IMO again a lesser player making more then a better player a few months after the better player signed a contract) and taken it if he really wanted to stay.

He didn't. He gambled and lost. JR shouldn't have said what he said. But there is something definitely rotten with Magglio going to Austria to have a surgery, hiring an agent who is known for marketing the heck out of players, and having an agent come out and say that if a team wants to meet with Magglio they need to offer him a contract first. It's pure BS.


Bob

PaleHoseGeorge
10-31-2004, 08:50 AM
...What some of the anti-JR pro Magglio people here aren't recognizing is that Magglio at his beest is still not worth the $13 mill....
Oh, brother...

What some of the anti-Magglio/pro-JR people aren't recognizing is that the White Sox aren't a competitive team without Magglio. There are NO PLANS for the White Sox to *build* the franchise in Magglio's wake. We have 23 years of evidence to back this up.

I know you have a reflexive need to root root root for Jerry Reinsdorf's wallet, Bob. Why don't you start a website named "Reinsdorf's Wallet Interactive" and I'm sure the world will beat a path to your door.
:cool:

voodoochile
10-31-2004, 09:32 AM
Oh, brother...

What some of the anti-Magglio/pro-JR people aren't recognizing is that the White Sox aren't a competitive team without Magglio. There are NO PLANS for the White Sox to *build* the franchise in Magglio's wake. We have 23 years of evidence to back this up.

I know you have a reflexive need to root root root for Jerry Reinsdorf's wallet, Bob. Why don't you start a website named "Reinsdorf's Wallet Interactive" and I'm sure the world will beat a path to your door.
:cool:
Exactly and since when did ANY team win by evaluating every's players worth down to the penny and find exactly the right players to fill those needs signed for exactly the right amount of money. It just doesn't happen.

You have to sign the players you need for as good a deal as you can get. Sometimes that means paying more for a given player than a comparable or better player has signed for because market forces and team need are dictating you do so.

Lip Man 1
10-31-2004, 11:35 AM
Mickster:

I came up with that comment off the top of my head in thirty seconds and I'm a dummy. I'm sure a brilliant businessman like Jerry Reinsdorf who is much smarter then I am could have said basically the same thing off the top of his head without it sounding like a handout.

In fact I can say that to you in person without making it sound like a handout. The written word does not allow for inflections or nuances.

Lip

Paulwny
10-31-2004, 11:42 AM
Then why did he want to negotiate to stay here. If the SOx approached him about a contract back in spring training he should have just told him he wanted to test the market or didn't want the distraction.


Bob
Probably to see where the bidding would start, knowing the sox would be the lowest bidder.

jabrch
10-31-2004, 11:53 PM
Oh, brother...

What some of the anti-Magglio/pro-JR people aren't recognizing is that the White Sox aren't a competitive team without Magglio. There are NO PLANS for the White Sox to *build* the franchise in Magglio's wake. We have 23 years of evidence to back this up.

I know you have a reflexive need to root root root for Jerry Reinsdorf's wallet, Bob. Why don't you start a website named "Reinsdorf's Wallet Interactive" and I'm sure the world will beat a path to your door.
:cool:
George, don't we have a better chance to build a better team without 14mm per year for 5 years sunk into Ordonez, even when healthy, than with that money spent? I mean, for 14mm per year can't we spend it more wisely, given that it represents such a large percentage of our team's total budget for the year?

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 07:53 AM
George, don't we have a better chance to build a better team without 14mm per year for 5 years sunk into Ordonez, even when healthy, than with that money spent? I mean, for 14mm per year can't we spend it more wisely, given that it represents such a large percentage of our team's total budget for the year?That's not hard to solve - expand the budget.

The way to win is to get the best possible option at every positon you need to fill. That's the way the Red Sox won this year with their collection of F/A talent. It's the reason the Yankees are consistently Pennant contenders.

I know. I know... It's not going to happen...

:reinsy
"And it's all the fans' fault."

PaleHoseGeorge
11-01-2004, 07:58 AM
That's not hard to solve - expand the budget.

The way to win is to get the best possible option at every positon you need to fill. That's the way the Red Sox won this year with their collection of F/A talent. It's the reason the Yankees are consistently Pennant contenders.

I know. I know... It's not going to happen...

:reinsy
"And it's all the fans' fault."
You beat me to it, voodoo. Good for you.
:cool:

Unless the Sox have a plan for at least *replacing* a ballplayer of Magglio's caliber, we're going BACKWARDS. Anybody who thinks that extra $14 million in Jerry's wallet is somehow going to deliver us to a championship simply hasn't been paying attention the last 23 years.

And then there is gosox41. He actually *roots* for Reinsdorf's wallet rather than the Sox. Some people are endlessly confused...

:)

Kilroy
11-01-2004, 08:29 AM
That's not hard to solve - expand the budget.

Its hard for me to make this comment w/out sounding as if I totally support JR. But that is really not my point.

It's always so easy to say things like that when the money is someone else's.

I'd love to see you say the exact same thing when its your $$ on the line and the risk is yours to take.

jabrch
11-01-2004, 08:30 AM
Sure Voodoo - we know that. Same holds for BCPizza. Spend more of what you are raking in - get better ovens, fresher ingredients, etc. You'll blow everyone's doors out of the water. Unless, that is, you go broke in the process.



That's not hard to solve - expand the budget.

The way to win is to get the best possible option at every positon you need to fill. That's the way the Red Sox won this year with their collection of F/A talent. It's the reason the Yankees are consistently Pennant contenders.

I know. I know... It's not going to happen...

:reinsy
"And it's all the fans' fault."

jabrch
11-01-2004, 08:35 AM
PHG - dont you think that JR is going to spend at least as much $ this year on salary as last year? Doesn't it sound like KW is going to upgrade at SS, has plans to go after a SP and will pursue other options?

You beat me to it, voodoo. Good for you.
:cool:

Unless the Sox have a plan for at least *replacing* a ballplayer of Magglio's caliber, we're going BACKWARDS. Anybody who thinks that extra $14 million in Jerry's wallet is somehow going to deliver us to a championship simply hasn't been paying attention the last 23 years.

And then there is gosox41. He actually *roots* for Reinsdorf's wallet rather than the Sox. Some people are endlessly confused...

:)

PaleHoseGeorge
11-01-2004, 08:44 AM
PHG - dont you think that JR is going to spend at least as much $ this year on salary as last year? Doesn't it sound like KW is going to upgrade at SS, has plans to go after a SP and will pursue other options?
Read my lips, jabrch. "We're missing Magglio's bat. Our #3/#4 spot is going BACKWARDS."

All the shortstops, pitchers, and bank account balances in the world don't make up for it.

Please don't tell me this is a revelation for you. You win by BUILDING UP the roster, not losing and replacing pieces in random fashion. That's a prescription for finishing second (or third) over and over and over again.

Go ahead. Tell me about all the times Reinsdorf has built up the roster. The last time was winter 1996-97 when he spent to acquire Albert Belle. White Flag happened less than 4 months into the subsequent season.

I'm mean this is really getting silly to argue about...
:?:

jabrch
11-01-2004, 08:53 AM
Read my lips, jabrch. "We're missing Magglio's bat. Our #3/#4 spot is going BACKWARDS."

All the shortstops, pitchers, and bank account balances in the world don't make up for it.

Please don't tell me this is a revelation for you. You win by BUILDING UP the roster, not losing and replacing pieces in random fashion. That's a prescription for finishing second (or third) over and over and over again.

Go ahead. Tell me about all the times Reinsdorf has built up the roster. The last time was winter 1996-97 when he spent to acquire Albert Belle. White Flag happened less than 4 months into the subsequent season.

I'm mean this is really getting silly to argue about...
:?:
How do you know that our TEAM is going backwards PHG? Can't you wait to see what we have on the field? If this team does lose Maggs and replaces him with Gload, but meanwhile replaces our 5th starter with Pavano or better, isn't that an improvement?

PaleHoseGeorge
11-01-2004, 08:55 AM
How do you know that our TEAM is going backwards PHG? Can't you wait to see what we have on the field? If this team does lose Maggs and replaces him with Gload, but meanwhile replaces our 5th starter with Pavano or better, isn't that an improvement?
Why don't you spend some time looking over the rosters of the teams that reached the playoffs and the World Series. Get back in touch with me if you find any resemblence to what Jerry Reinsdorf has done the past 10 years.

I could use the laugh.

Kilroy
11-01-2004, 08:57 AM
Read my lips, jabrch. "We're missing Magglio's bat. Our #3/#4 spot is going BACKWARDS.":?:
So you think a healthy Maggs is worth 14 mil over 5? Or more? Personally, I'd rather see that money spent on pitching, but that's just me. Pitching and defense win...

I'd love for the Sox to keep Maggs, but I'd rather not see them getting ass-raped in the process.

ode to veeck
11-01-2004, 09:10 AM
Lip Wrote:

It answers the question and comes off with some class and sympathy.

... which is exactly why you'd never hear it from the chairman's lips

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 09:18 AM
Sure Voodoo - we know that. Same holds for BCPizza. Spend more of what you are raking in - get better ovens, fresher ingredients, etc. You'll blow everyone's doors out of the water. Unless, that is, you go broke in the process.
Thanks, I'm half-way there as it is. That is exactly what we have been doing. Fresh ingredients, quality products, low prices. We are building for the long haul, not for the next 1.5 years. If I charged and arm and a leg, used cheap ingredients and abused my guests, I might survive a couple of years and turn a small profit in the process, but i would be flat done thereafter.

In fact, most pizza places in New Bern are using frozen dough and canned premade sauce. The locals call it pizza, I call it cardboard. I am in the process of educating the people about what good pizza should taste like. I have some regular customers who rave about my food. I am losing money presently, but next spring when the tourists return, we will be set up better than we are today.

In addition to build a delivery and carryout business - to offset the lack of tourists and my "huge" 40-seat dining room, I offer very nice discounts on food that is eaten outside of the house. That brings my food cost up, but puts my prices more in line with the "cardboard pizza" places around town. I am doing that to build a customer base. If I succeed, I will have a successful restaurant that will be able to weather any downturn in the economy and will become a New Bern tradition for years to come.

That's the exact tried and true method of building a successful business. JR wants to do it the other way. First we give him money then he builds a winner. If I tried that, I would be out of business already... :?:

But, thanks for proving my point...:cool:

Hangar18
11-01-2004, 09:48 AM
So you think a healthy Maggs is worth 14 mil over 5? Or more? Personally, I'd rather see that money spent on pitching, but that's just me. Pitching and defense win...

I'd love for the Sox to keep Maggs, but I'd rather not see them getting ass-raped in the process.
Heres a Novel Approach for Uncle Jerry. WHY NOT Pay Magglio AND ALSO
Pay for some pitching? Why does it have to be One or the Other all the time?
And I dont want to hear about payroll Constraints ........

:reinsy
"Hangar ...... I hate to break it to you ........ Ive got my
eye on a Yacht"

gosox41
11-01-2004, 10:12 AM
Oh, brother...

What some of the anti-Magglio/pro-JR people aren't recognizing is that the White Sox aren't a competitive team without Magglio. There are NO PLANS for the White Sox to *build* the franchise in Magglio's wake. We have 23 years of evidence to back this up.

I know you have a reflexive need to root root root for Jerry Reinsdorf's wallet, Bob. Why don't you start a website named "Reinsdorf's Wallet Interactive" and I'm sure the world will beat a path to your door.
:cool:
And whatever plans the Sox had to build a franchise while Magglio was still here failed miserably. If he were healthy it would be an issue. Right now as a Sox fan, I'm glad Magglio didn't sign that contract. And this isn't a rip on Magglio. It's just knowing that if the Sox had all that money tied up long term in one player would ruin whatever plans the Sox had with Magglio here. Luck ran the Sox way for once.

If you really think Magglio is worth the risks right now, he could be had for $14 mill. for 5 years. Do you really think he's worth Vlad money when 100% healthy?

And I don't know what any of this has to do with JR's wallet. But I'll be sure to work on that website.


Bob

gosox41
11-01-2004, 10:14 AM
You beat me to it, voodoo. Good for you.
:cool:

Unless the Sox have a plan for at least *replacing* a ballplayer of Magglio's caliber, we're going BACKWARDS. Anybody who thinks that extra $14 million in Jerry's wallet is somehow going to deliver us to a championship simply hasn't been paying attention the last 23 years.

And then there is gosox41. He actually *roots* for Reinsdorf's wallet rather than the Sox. Some people are endlessly confused...

:)

Show me where I 'root' for JR's wallet.


Bob

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 10:36 AM
Oh, brother...

What some of the anti-Magglio/pro-JR people aren't recognizing is that the White Sox aren't a competitive team without Magglio. There are NO PLANS for the White Sox to *build* the franchise in Magglio's wake. We have 23 years of evidence to back this up.


IMO there are 2 issues here. 1 is resigning Magglio or not, and knowing what I know right now (which admittedly isn't everything since Maggs & Boras won't let anyone near that knee), I'd say that the Sox are going to be without Magglio whether they resign him or not. Or at least without what we've grwon accustomed to as "Magglio production". So would I resign Magglio for $14mil - hell no, not unless I'm pretty darn sure that he'll be at or near 100% in 2005. If people want to argue with that, fine - but I'm not making that type of investment unless I know exactly what I'm getting. I'd hope that even the most diehard "increase payroll" advocates would agree that it's pretty hard to replace a $14mil player unless you're George Steinbrenner.

Second issue is what you do with the savings from not resigning Magglio. There have been conflicting reports, but if they bump payroll by $10 mil or more, I'll certainly feel as if they've got a plan to improve the team via letting Maggs go. At that point, how they spend the $$$ will determine whether they actually make any progres, but regardless - it' won't be JR's fault.

Example: make the latest rumored trade for Randy (Lee+Garland). Sign JD Drew & Omar Vizquel & a relatively cheap vet 5th starter to compete with Grilli. You effectively swapped Maggs for RJ & Vizquel, and Garland for a vet which I would see as a net improvement to the team.

oneil78
11-01-2004, 10:52 AM
And whatever plans the Sox had to build a franchise while Magglio was still here failed miserably. If he were healthy it would be an issue. Right now as a Sox fan, I'm glad Magglio didn't sign that contract. And this isn't a rip on Magglio. It's just knowing that if the Sox had all that money tied up long term in one player would ruin whatever plans the Sox had with Magglio here. Luck ran the Sox way for once.

If you really think Magglio is worth the risks right now, he could be had for $14 mill. for 5 years. Do you really think he's worth Vlad money when 100% healthy?Bob I agree 100%. Maggs isn't worth the risk, let him walk and if he can get a better contract, more power to him. But this guy didn't tear an ACL or MCL last year, he banged his knee and wasn't able to play after that (well besides a few games against the M's). Maggs future is a huge question mark at this point. Knee problems are never a good thing.

Now the key is to go get someone else to play right field because right now because there is no one. Sorry Everett isn't going to cut it out there for 162, I don't want to see Timo near 35th street ever again, and Borchard is one of the worst ball players I've ever seen.

As for PaleHoseGeorge's theory, hasn't JR already put much of that money to use already? The Sox aren't sitting on $14 million here, more like $4 million. And I understand the frustration, but to call JR cheap is, in my opinion, wrong. He is a businessman and has to answer back to the other minority owners. JR runs this team so that's it's in the black, wouldn’t you do the same?

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 10:57 AM
IMO there are 2 issues here. 1 is resigning Magglio or not, and knowing what I know right now (which admittedly isn't everything since Maggs & Boras won't let anyone near that knee), I'd say that the Sox are going to be without Magglio whether they resign him or not. Or at least without what we've grwon accustomed to as "Magglio production". So would I resign Magglio for $14mil - hell no, not unless I'm pretty darn sure that he'll be at or near 100% in 2005. If people want to argue with that, fine - but I'm not making that type of investment unless I know exactly what I'm getting. I'd hope that even the most diehard "increase payroll" advocates would agree that it's pretty hard to replace a $14mil player unless you're George Steinbrenner.

Second issue is what you do with the savings from not resigning Magglio. There have been conflicting reports, but if they bump payroll by $10 mil or more, I'll certainly feel as if they've got a plan to improve the team via letting Maggs go. At that point, how they spend the $$$ will determine whether they actually make any progres, but regardless - it' won't be JR's fault.

Example: make the latest rumored trade for Randy (Lee+Garland). Sign JD Drew & Omar Vizquel & a relatively cheap vet 5th starter to compete with Grilli. You effectively swapped Maggs for RJ & Vizquel, and Garland for a vet which I would see as a net improvement to the team.
No one that I have seen is arguing that Magglio should be resigned for the original contract offer at this point in time.

The argument centers around "If Maggs were healthy should he be resigned" and "should the Sox (knowing only what they knew then) have upped the offer to Maggs last spring" and finally "Should JR open his wallet and learn to keep his big yap shut"?

IMHO, the answer to all 3 of these questions is yes.

Until the Sox start playing finacial ball with the big boys, this will be a second class organization and the fans will recognize that fact and sit on their wallets.

Maybe the recent success of the flubbies will carry over another year and they will effectively be sold out again and the Sox can count on another large upsurge in "any game is better than no game" fans early in the year, but without a pennant contending club, this team is destined to have average or bad attendance late in the season.

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 10:59 AM
I agree 100%. Maggs isn't worth the risk, let him walk and if he can get a better contract, more power to him. But this guy didn't tear an ACL or MCL last year, he banged his knee and wasn't able to play after that (well besides a few games against the M's). Maggs future is a huge question mark at this point. Knee problems are never a good thing.

Now the key is to go get someone else to play right field because right now because there is no one. Sorry Everett isn't going to cut it out there for 162, I don't want to see Timo near 35th street ever again, and Borchard is one of the worst ball players I've ever seen.

As for PaleHoseGeorge's theory, hasn't JR already put much of that money to use already? The Sox aren't sitting on $14 million here, more like $4 million. And I understand the frustration, but to call JR cheap is, in my opinion, wrong. He is a businessman and has to answer back to the other minority owners. JR runs this team so that's it's in the black, wouldn’t you do the same?
No. I would spend the money no matter what to build a serious pennant contender year in and year out. Then attendance would jump - like it has for the flubbes and the money would balance. Then media attention would follow and that would lead to larger TV/Radio contracts and more demand to see the Sox on national TV and finally the team would be a big money player on a consistent basis.

:reinsy
"damned trees... where the heck is the forest?"

oneil78
11-01-2004, 11:00 AM
Example: make the latest rumored trade for Randy (Lee+Garland). Sign JD Drew & Omar Vizquel & a relatively cheap vet 5th starter to compete with Grilli. You effectively swapped Maggs for RJ & Vizquel, and Garland for a vet which I would see as a net improvement to the team.
That sounds very nice and dandy, but last I checked the Sox already signed Garcia and have to pay Contreras next year. Plus they are taking on money in that trade for Randy Johnson, and you still think they'd have enough money to sign J.D. Drew? What is it with this place that seems to think that all of a sudden J.R. will start spending 100 million a year?

Come on live in reality. It is a cool place no Cub fans live here.

FightingBillini
11-01-2004, 11:06 AM
Good lord, O'Neil. Make your font smaller. Its like your screaming at us. Thats almost as bad as the guys who always types in red.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 11:07 AM
No one that I have seen is arguing that Magglio should be resigned for the original contract offer at this point in time.

The argument centers around "If Maggs were healthy should he be resigned" and "should the Sox (knowing only what they knew then) have upped the offer to Maggs last spring" and finally "Should JR open his wallet and learn to keep his big yap shut"?
Isn't that exactly what they did? By all reports I've seen, they came back to Maggs (pre-injury) All reports I saw were that they met his 5/70 request, but that there were deferrals that he didn't like. BY CBA rules, the max impact of those is approx 6% of the value of the whole deal, or a total of about $3mil in present value. When a player makes a request on a deal and the team comes back with that type of offer, it's hard for me to say that they're "cheaping out". It sounds like they're requesting a minimal concession from the player (especially when you consider that many think that at even that level of salary they're overpaying for him).

If by "playing financial ball with the big boys" you mean "provide a signed, blank check to a player", I'll have to disagree. Outside of the Spankees, I don't know of any team that operates that way. Even Arte Moreno is cutting payroll, and I'd bet in his negotiations he's ending up at a price that's between the initial offers of each side.

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 11:09 AM
Isn't that exactly what they did? By all reports I've seen, they came back to Maggs (pre-injury) All reports I saw were that they met his 5/70 request, but that there were deferrals that he didn't like. BY CBA rules, the max impact of those is approx 6% of the value of the whole deal, or a total of about $3mil in present value. When a player makes a request on a deal and the team comes back with that type of offer, it's hard for me to say that they're "cheaping out". It sounds like they're requesting a minimal concession from the player (especially when you consider that many think that at even that level of salary they're overpaying for him).

If by "playing financial ball with the big boys" you mean "provide a signed, blank check to a player", I'll have to disagree. Outside of the Spankees, I don't know of any team that operates that way. Even Arte Moreno is cutting payroll, and I'd bet in his negotiations he's ending up at a price that's between the initial offers of each side.
I suppose that depends on what the rest of the league is offering...

oneil78
11-01-2004, 11:10 AM
No. I would spend the money no matter what to build a serious pennant contender year in and year out. Then attendance would jump - like it has for the flubbes and the money would balance. Then media attention would follow and that would lead to larger TV/Radio contracts and more demand to see the Sox on national TV and finally the team would be a big money player on a consistent basis.
Don't the Sox already have one of the biggest local TV deals? Oh yes, they do!

Sox have had two pretty good teams the last two years, won a division in 2000 and still can't draw 2 million fans any of those years, what's to think that if they won another division things would be different?

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 11:11 AM
That sounds very nice and dandy, but last I checked the Sox already signed Garcia and have to pay Contreras next year. Plus they are taking on money in that trade for Randy Johnson, and you still think they'd have enough money to sign J.D. Drew? What is it with this place that seems to think that all of a sudden J.R. will start spending 100 million a year?

Come on live in reality. It is a cool place no Cub fans live here.
The starting assumption was that you're using Maggs $14mil (which inherently means an increase in payroll). Konerko+Garland = 11-12mil, so you're adding 4-5mil with RJ. Taking that off of the $14 starting point and you have 9-10mil, which should be plenty to sign Drew.

Also, in another sense you can look at a Koney-Garland trade as a reduction in payroll because RJ has a cost of $10mil in 2005 compared to their 11-12mil. IIRC, the deferred 6mil on RJ is deferred for a while since the deal was signed under the prior CBA. Lots of ways to utilize the flexibiltiy that that provides.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 11:13 AM
I suppose that depends on what the rest of the league is offering...
Well, since no one was offering anything (tampering being an issue and all), you kind of have to work with the player's request and the team's initial offer. Sounds to me like the team came up on theirs significantly.

If yo think that Maggs was going to get offer for $15+mil/yr and that he was therefore already giving a hometown discount by requesting 5/70, then sure. But I find that hard to believe.

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 11:13 AM
Don't the Sox already have one of the biggest local TV deals? Oh yes, they do!

Sox have had two pretty good teams the last two years, won a division in 2000 and still can't draw 2 million fans any of those years, what's to think that if they won another division things would be different?
Each of the last two years they just missed 2M fans and would have easily achieved that plateau if they had managed to win the division or at least stay in the race until the last week of the season.

Even if the Sox have a good TV deal, couldn't it be better?

Teams that win consistently generate more income. It's just that simple.

oneil78
11-01-2004, 11:14 AM
The starting assumption was that you're using Maggs $14mil (which inherently means an increase in payroll). Konerko+Garland = 11-12mil, so you're adding 4-5mil with RJ. Taking that off of the $14 starting point and you have 9-10mil, which should be plenty to sign Drew.

Also, in another sense you can look at a Koney-Garland trade as a reduction in payroll because RJ has a cost of $10mil in 2005 compared to their 11-12mil. IIRC, the deferred 6mil on RJ is deferred for a while since the deal was signed under the prior CBA. Lots of ways to utilize the flexibiltiy that that provides.
The DiamondBacks have ZERO need for Konerko unless Sexson leaves, and they won't let that happen.

And wasn't the Contreras trade a huge sign that Maggs wasn't going to be back, or are we really that naive and/or stupid here?

JoseCanseco6969
11-01-2004, 11:20 AM
In his interview with Comcast Sports Net, JR told Gail Fischer that Magglio should've taken the 5 year $60 million dollar deal that they intially offered him. He said someone was in Magglio's ear telling him not to take the money, and says he doesn't think that person can pay the difference from the $60 million offered by the Sox and what he'll get on the open market this offseason.

ouch.

say it with me folks:

PACK YOUR BAGS MAGGS!!!
Nicely put Big J! I cant believe I agree with you 100%!

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 11:20 AM
Well, since no one was offering anything (tampering being an issue and all), you kind of have to work with the player's request and the team's initial offer. Sounds to me like the team came up on theirs significantly.

If yo think that Maggs was going to get offer for $15+mil/yr and that he was therefore already giving a hometown discount by requesting 5/70, then sure. But I find that hard to believe.
Well who knows? Maggs would have been the premiere FA RF available this year, an upstanding player, a perennial all-star, a stand-up guy and a huge draw for Latin-American fans.

Could I see him getting more money than Vlad (the current standard bearer in this thread)? Absolutely. I've said it before, I will say it again. There is probably at least one team that would "overpay" to fill a need position (solid defensive RF with an all-star bat and a good head on his shoulder who can bat anywhere from 2nd to 5th, but is most likely a #3 or #4 hitter).

You cannot quantify those qualities in some book or with a calculator, period. It's the teams that try to balance every last contract down to the penny of how much the player is exactly worth who fail to build winning programs, period. This is not a game for the timid, the meek or the penny-pinching numbers crunchers. The numbers are part of it, but if that is all you see, you fail to see the bigger picture.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 11:27 AM
The DiamondBacks have ZERO need for Konerko unless Sexson leaves, and they won't let that happen.

And wasn't the Contreras trade a huge sign that Maggs wasn't going to be back, or are we really that naive and/or stupid here?
I agree with the first statement 100%. But it's not guaranteed that they can keep Sexson, plus Koney might come cheaper. They also get Garland, and they do need pitching.

And again you're asking a different question: "Are the Sox able to/going to spend the $14mil from letting Maggs go". The scenario I offered had that as an assumption. I do not know whether or not they will have that $$$ available, and there are conflicting reports in the media. I do know that while attendance was flat 2003-2004, there was a significant bump prior to the 2 injuries. I also know that they are supposedly getting a cash infusion via the Comcast deal. Finally, there is pending financial flexibiity with the deals for Koney, lee, Frank, Everett, & Shingo all ending in the next 1-2 years. All of these could be reasons for a short-term payroll bump to make a run.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 11:31 AM
You cannot quantify those qualities in some book or with a calculator, period. It's the teams that try to balance every last contract down to the penny of how much the player is exactly worth who fail to build winning programs, period. This is not a game for the timid, the meek or the penny-pinching numbers crunchers. The numbers are part of it, but if that is all you see, you fail to see the bigger picture.
I guess we'll just have to disagree. I think EVERY team calculates and balances these things (except the Yankees). Heck - even the Red Sox let arguably the best player in the game (ARod) walk over IIRC $20mil over the life of a contract. You don't think they could have made that back by adding that name in a large city?

I also dont' think that Maggs at 14+mil would be more attractive than say JD Drew at 8mil (or another number, but likely a lot less than 14mil). I'm sure there are other names like that that will provide slightly less production, but at a significantly lower cost.

But as I said, these are fundamental differences of opinion on how the market will operate. We'll just have to see how it plays out. But the recent decline in FA salaries seems to indicate that teams are taking a much stronger look at the value they get in these deals, which wouldn't bode well for Maggs getting Vlad+ money.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-01-2004, 11:38 AM
Show me where I 'root' for JR's wallet.


Bob
Here you go (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=20562). There are some deusies in there.
:wink:

I realize you'll object. Let's leave it to others to decide.
:cool:

jabrch
11-01-2004, 11:41 AM
This is not a game for the timid, the meek or the penny-pinching numbers crunchers. The numbers are part of it, but if that is all you see, you fail to see the bigger picture.
At the same time, those who fail to manage a budget and get themselves tied into unwieldly contracts end up getting screwed also.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-01-2004, 11:43 AM
At the same time, those who fail to manage a budget and get themselves tied into unwieldly contracts end up getting screwed also.
You're right. It's a game for teams that finish second (or worse) and their fans who believe that's all they deserve going on 88 years now.

Hey, wait a minute!

:wink:

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 11:44 AM
At the same time, those who fail to manage a budget and get themselves tied into unwieldly contracts end up getting screwed also.
I agree in theory, but when one or two big name, big-ticket players can be the difference for your team, you are crazy to not sign them, even if it makes the difference between breaking even and taking a potential loss.

Shoot for the moon and the fans will follow you anywhere...

santo=dorf
11-01-2004, 12:15 PM
IIRC, the deferred 6mil on RJ is deferred for a while since the deal was signed under the prior CBA. Lots of ways to utilize the flexibiltiy that that provides.
I recall seeing articles last July when the RJ rumors were going around saying RJ's deferred money becomes guaranteed if he is traded.

gosox41
11-01-2004, 12:17 PM
No one that I have seen is arguing that Magglio should be resigned for the original contract offer at this point in time.

The argument centers around "If Maggs were healthy should he be resigned" and "should the Sox (knowing only what they knew then) have upped the offer to Maggs last spring" and finally "Should JR open his wallet and learn to keep his big yap shut"?

IMHO, the answer to all 3 of these questions is yes.

Until the Sox start playing finacial ball with the big boys, this will be a second class organization and the fans will recognize that fact and sit on their wallets.

Maybe the recent success of the flubbies will carry over another year and they will effectively be sold out again and the Sox can count on another large upsurge in "any game is better than no game" fans early in the year, but without a pennant contending club, this team is destined to have average or bad attendance late in the season.
So how much would you have paid Magglio to stay last spring?


Bob

gosox41
11-01-2004, 12:25 PM
I suppose that depends on what the rest of the league is offering...
Seeing as how this particular player wanted to stay in Chicago because he was happy there, I would think the 5 year/$70 mill is very fair.

What was Magglio's goal here? To stay where he was happy like he says (and get paid more money then Vlad)? Or was it to break the bank. Magglio and his agent knew full well that part of negotiating with a team during the season before free agency means you may not know what other teams will be offering. If that's the case then it sounds like even if the Sox offered $15-16 mill per season it may not have satisifed Ordonez because surely a team with deep pockets would have outdone that, right? Because the Sox according to some can't play ball with the big boys.

The more and more this gets discussed here, the more it looks like Magglio was out to break the bank and use the Sox as leverage to get another deal (pre-injury) knowing he could come back here after the season. IMHO, Magglio at $12 mill per year was too much. But paying him $14 mill per year (and giving him more then what Vlad got) would have been ridiculous.

There's no doubt in my mind that Vladimir Guerrero is a better baseball player then Magglio Ordonez when both are healthy. The Sox offered him more money then Vlad and he turned it down. What are we as fans supposed to think? That he truly wanted to stay here? Or that he wanted to get a floor on the type of money he could have gotten and tested the market after the season? Unless, of course you're saying other teams were talking to Magglio or his agent saying they'd sign him for more then $14 mill. That's a very serious and unfounded charge of tampering.


Bob

Lip Man 1
11-01-2004, 12:26 PM
O'Neil says: "Sox have had two pretty good teams the last two years."

86 and 83 wins plus missing the playoffs both years is 'pretty good?' :?:

I guess averaging 83 wins for the past seven years has dumbed down Sox fans.

Lip

gosox41
11-01-2004, 12:29 PM
Here you go (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=20562). There are some deusies in there.
:wink:

I realize you'll object. Let's leave it to others to decide.
:cool:
It took me to a page that had nothing to do with me rooting for JR's wallet.

In fact, it didn't have anything to do with me at all. It was a WSI search page or something.

Thanks for the thought, though.


Bob

jabrch
11-01-2004, 12:30 PM
O'Neil says: "Sox have had two pretty good teams the last two years."

86 and 83 wins plus missing the playoffs both years is 'pretty good?' :?:

I guess averaging 83 wins for the past seven years has dumbed down Sox fans.

Lip
Lip, had we not lost our two best players for over half the season, would it have been a pretty good team? Did Williams put a pretty good team in play? Was it his fault about Frank's foot or Magg's injury?

Lip Man 1
11-01-2004, 12:49 PM
Jabrch:

And the 'excuse' in the seven years since the White Flag Trade is?

And the 'excuse' in the ten years since the 94 labor impasse is?

And the 'excuse' since the collusion era of the mid 80's is?

And the 'excuse' for why the great talent acquisitions the first three years stopped is?

And the 'excuse' for STILL not having a 'first class opearation' is?

Just the fact that this organization has had so many excuses for so many years says something don't you think?

Lip

Hangar18
11-01-2004, 12:58 PM
Jabrch:

And the 'excuse' in the seven years since the White Flag Trade is?

And the 'excuse' in the ten years since the 94 labor impasse is?

And the 'excuse' since the collusion era of the mid 80's is?

And the 'excuse' for why the great talent acquisitions the first three years stopped is?

And the 'excuse' for STILL not having a 'first class opearation' is?

Just the fact that this organization has had so many excuses for so many years says something don't you think?

Lip



:reinsy
" Well Lip, since the White Flag trade, Salaries have escalated and were broke.
Since the 94 Strike, We havnt been able to find a commissioner,
so thats why we havnt won a title.
Collusion? what the heck are you talking about?
The reason I stopped BUYING talent is Chicago Suddenly became a Small Market and we couldnt afford to sign anyone anymore.

The reason were not able to be a 1st Class Operation is you people Stopped
coming to the games after 1994.
I mean SHEEEESHHHH, what do you
expect? Come to the games more often, and I will put a better
team out there, I promise. "

santo=dorf
11-01-2004, 01:14 PM
Hey Lip, how do explain the 2003 White Sox having one of the best second half records in the MLB? :?: The Sox record after they acquired Robbie Alomar and Carl Everett : 45-34. Twins record from that date: 47-33 :(:

Kilroy
11-01-2004, 01:25 PM
Also, in another sense you can look at a Koney-Garland trade as a reduction in payroll because RJ has a cost of $10mil in 2005 compared to their 11-12mil. IIRC, the deferred 6mil on RJ is deferred for a while since the deal was signed under the prior CBA. Lots of ways to utilize the flexibiltiy that that provides.
And all this time I thoght that JR was the only cheap bastard pulling the wool over players eyes w/ deferred money...

jabrch
11-01-2004, 01:28 PM
Jabrch:

And the 'excuse' in the seven years since the White Flag Trade is?

And the 'excuse' in the ten years since the 94 labor impasse is?

And the 'excuse' since the collusion era of the mid 80's is?

And the 'excuse' for why the great talent acquisitions the first three years stopped is?

And the 'excuse' for STILL not having a 'first class opearation' is?

Just the fact that this organization has had so many excuses for so many years says something don't you think?

Lip
Lip - you still have yet to tell me how a team can regularly compete without going into the tank and rebuilding (suffer through 5+ years of last place finishes) and rebuild while doing so on a fiscally responsible budget. You idea of spending money that the team doesn't have, or making the ownership pull money from their pockets is unreasonable and unrealistic. This organization has kept the team competitive year after year. You want to rebuild? you want to go through a FULL REBUILDING? I don't think you do. I imagine that you'd be one of the loudest whiniest bitcher here if we did that.

jabrch
11-01-2004, 01:30 PM
And all this time I thoght that JR was the only cheap bastard pulling the wool over players eyes w/ deferred money...
Stop with the reality Kilroy. The JR bashers won't know how to respond. Remind them that Steinbrenner also deferrs and backloads contracts. They will just ignore you.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 01:30 PM
Jabrch:

And the 'excuse' in the seven years since the White Flag Trade is?

And the 'excuse' in the ten years since the 94 labor impasse is?

And the 'excuse' since the collusion era of the mid 80's is?

And the 'excuse' for why the great talent acquisitions the first three years stopped is?

And the 'excuse' for STILL not having a 'first class opearation' is?

Just the fact that this organization has had so many excuses for so many years says something don't you think?

Lip
None of which addresses the fact that when a team loses 2 of the top hitters in all of baseball, and because of that doesn't win, it's pretty hard to blame that one on management.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 01:31 PM
Stop with the reality Kilroy. The JR bashers won't know how to respond. Remind them that Steinbrenner also deferrs and backloads contracts. They will just ignore you.
Because when JR does it, he's a cheap bastard whereas Steinbrenner is just doing smart business.....

Lip Man 1
11-01-2004, 05:58 PM
Sigh.....they have eyes yet they refuse to see. OK folks let's start at the beginning...

There are two ways to judge how well a franchise has done under its ownership. One is financially, of which I have no specific information. (But I have my hunches...) I’ll leave that to folks like gosox41 and others who say they have ‘inside’ information.

The other way to judge is by championships, the ultimate ‘bottom line.’

In 1981 when the current ownership group bought the Sox, MLB was made up of 26 clubs. The Phillies, Cardinals, Expos, Pirates, Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, Reds, Astros, Braves, Giants, Padres, Yankees, Orioles, Brewers, Tigers, Red Sox, Indians, Blue Jays, A’s, Rangers, White Sox, Angels, Royals, Mariners and Twins.

It is now the end of the 2004 season. In the ensuing 24 seasons 19 of those 26 clubs...73% have made at least one World series appearance.

The only teams who didn’t were the Expos, Pirates, Cubs, Astros, Rangers, White Sox and Mariners. Of those seven clubs, the White Sox have had the longest ownership. In other words the current owners have had a longer time period then any of the clubs in MLB to win something (although in fairness it was only by a few months over the Tribune Company / Cubs owners.)

Since 1981 MLB has expanded to 30 teams. The additions were Tampa Bay, Colorado, Arizona and Florida. Two of those teams, Arizona and Florida have appeared in the World Series and they haven’t been around as long as the White Sox!

When you cut to the chase, this ownership group has been an abject failure in the one main area that matters. The only reason why they play the games...winning.

When all is said and done that is the ‘legacy’ of Jerry Reinsdorf.

Injuries, bad breaks, slumps, ‘bad luck’ (if you believe in such things...) happen. Good organizations at least try to plan ahead for those things, to have people ready to go in case ‘it’ happens. (Even if that is simply a discussion in spring training about what they'll do if they lose an infielder to an injury, or a starting pitcher. To at least have a list of options) Good organizations have both a short term and long term plan for success. Good organizations try to hire the best people in the key organizational positions both on and off the field.

The White Sox do none of the above three things. Jerry Reinsdorf has a hand in final approval of all big trades, major signings, major contract negotiations, and hiring upper level management people. He at least has tacit approval on all the lower hirings (i.e. field manager) the fact that the Sox have never even appeared in the World Series is directly his responsibility as CEO of a multimillion dollar organization.

Example. On the day after Robin Ventura had that horrific injury. Ron Scheuler was quoted directly in all three major newspapers as saying the Sox would now go out and get a third baseman as well as a second left handed hitter to come of the bench, unless the 3rd baseman they got was a left handed hitter. He did nothing. Four months later Jerry Reinsdorf 'white flagged' it, saying the team wasn't performing. He conviently overlooked the gaping hole in the lineup, the shock it caused to the team (which began the season 9-17) and his hand picked G.M's inability to do anything about it.

Those are facts folks, not opinions. The record of this club to even get to the post season proves it.

PHG maybe you can talk some sense into these people. Again the 'dumbing down' of Sox fans hopes over the past 24 years must be the reason for this insanity. It's a shame that some folks now think 83 wins is a 'good' year. Must be the new math! :?:


One quick point on deferred, backloaded deals. When the Yanks, Angels and Braves do them the players and agents KNOW those clubs will take that money and go out and get MORE talent to try to win. Maybe there is a reason the Sox can't get anybody to agree to those kind of deals?


Hmmm...I seem to have heard this before so don't embarass yourself further by stating that no one ever answers you when this is brought up.


Lip

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 08:55 PM
Seeing as how this particular player wanted to stay in Chicago because he was happy there, I would think the 5 year/$70 mill is very fair.

What was Magglio's goal here? To stay where he was happy like he says (and get paid more money then Vlad)? Or was it to break the bank. Magglio and his agent knew full well that part of negotiating with a team during the season before free agency means you may not know what other teams will be offering. If that's the case then it sounds like even if the Sox offered $15-16 mill per season it may not have satisifed Ordonez because surely a team with deep pockets would have outdone that, right? Because the Sox according to some can't play ball with the big boys.

The more and more this gets discussed here, the more it looks like Magglio was out to break the bank and use the Sox as leverage to get another deal (pre-injury) knowing he could come back here after the season. IMHO, Magglio at $12 mill per year was too much. But paying him $14 mill per year (and giving him more then what Vlad got) would have been ridiculous.

There's no doubt in my mind that Vladimir Guerrero is a better baseball player then Magglio Ordonez when both are healthy. The Sox offered him more money then Vlad and he turned it down. What are we as fans supposed to think? That he truly wanted to stay here? Or that he wanted to get a floor on the type of money he could have gotten and tested the market after the season? Unless, of course you're saying other teams were talking to Magglio or his agent saying they'd sign him for more then $14 mill. That's a very serious and unfounded charge of tampering.


Bob
I don't know. I am not in charge. I think you have to evaluate it partially on budget and partially on need. Did the Sox have anyone ready to take that slot who could do better for less? Is there anyone coming up on FA who could do better for less?

You ask me what I would spend? I don't have an answer for you. I don't see the real books. I do think this team could spend more than it is. I do think they are hiding money or playing shell games with it - like the popcorn concessions at O'Hare - it's a cash business and this IS Chicago. People who have money know how to hide the cash when they need to, but I am probably just paranoid and reactionary. :rolleyes:

Bottom line - and I've said this many times before - I believe in spending money to make money. I think if this team expanded the player salary budget by 20-30M they would have that money back inside of 2-3 years by becoming more popular as they won more games and consistently made a run at the playoffs. I think the money generage would soon outstrip the losses generated in a couple of seasons and easily allow the ownership group to make even more money and raise payroll even further. You think the flubbies lost money these past two years? You think when they talk about raising payroll another $15M that that money will be lost forever? This is Chicago. Chicago always supports a winner. Many fans would love to jump on the anti-yuppified-bandwagon-party-bar that Wrigleyville has become, but if you play for second in a two team town, that's where you end up. If you play to win the ALC - maybe -then you risk missing the playoffs altogether and rarely give your team an honest chance at the bigger prizes out there to be had.

Personally, I'd do whatever it takes to put a winner on the field, year in and year out. Not just an ALC winner, but a pennant contender. Inner city ballpark and ballclub in the 3rd largest market in America. There are over 2M people within a 10 minute train ride of the stadium every day of the week at 5:30 PM. Not being able to draw them to the park says loads about how poorly this managment group has performed.

Of course, I might just be paranoid and reactionary...:rolleyes:

jabrch
11-01-2004, 09:02 PM
I think if this team expanded the player salary budget by 20-30M they would have that money back inside of 2-3 years by becoming more popular as they won more games and consistently made a run at the playoffs.
You do know that spending 20-30 million would guarantee us nothing. There are teams that regularly spend more than 20-30 million more than we do that have had significantly less success in terms of wins over the past 10 years than the Sox have had. And there are teams that have spent less and had better results.

jabrch
11-01-2004, 09:03 PM
Because when JR does it, he's a cheap bastard whereas Steinbrenner is just doing smart business.....
Of course - and since everyone knows how much money JR is making, it is easy to just say he should spend more - like Steinbrenner.

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 09:10 PM
You do know that spending 20-30 million would guarantee us nothing. There are teams that regularly spend more than 20-30 million more than we do that have had significantly less success in terms of wins over the past 10 years than the Sox have had. And there are teams that have spent less and had better results.
Sure, it's possible to fail miserably for a long period of time while spending lots and lots and lots of money.

How about we give it a try and see what happens...:o:

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 09:14 PM
Of course - and since everyone knows how much money JR is making, it is easy to just say he should spend more - like Steinbrenner.
By every estimate available, the Sox are doing no worse than breaking even after factoring in the increases based on the profit from last year - interest notwithstanding.

So, it is highly doubtful they are making LESS than that - which means if there is a different more accurate figure, odds are it higher than these "breakeven" numbers. But again, I'm probably just paranoid and reactionary...:D:

It's Chicago. It's a cash business. There are wealthy people who work, play and make money in this town who own the business. Do you honestly believe that everything is perfectly above board and honest?

Wish I could do the same thing, but some little tiny voice inside me keeps screaming in my head, "NO FREAKING WAY, MAN..."

jabrch
11-01-2004, 09:21 PM
By every estimate available, the Sox are doing no worse than breaking even after factoring in the increases based on the profit from last year - interest notwithstanding.

So, it is highly doubtful they are making LESS than that - which means if there is a different more accurate figure, odds are it higher than these "breakeven" numbers. But again, I'm probably just paranoid and reactionary...:D:

It's Chicago. It's a cash business. There are wealthy people who work, play and make money in this town who own the business. Do you honestly believe that everything is perfectly above board and honest?

Wish I could do the same thing, but some little tiny voice inside me keeps screaming in my head, "NO FREAKING WAY, MAN..."
I agree with you VC. I am sure someone is making money. But that is, after all, their right. I don't think anyone is making so much money off of the White Sox that they are changing their lives. After all these people all are wealthy men/women to begin with, names like Pritzker, Reinsdorft, etc. None own this team as their primary source of income obviously.

voodoochile
11-01-2004, 09:25 PM
I agree with you VC. I am sure someone is making money. But that is, after all, their right. I don't think anyone is making so much money off of the White Sox that they are changing their lives. After all these people all are wealthy men/women to begin with, names like Pritzker, Reinsdorft, etc. None own this team as their primary source of income obviously.
Which makes it all the more galling when JR cries poor, no?:?:

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 09:26 PM
Injuries, bad breaks, slumps, ‘bad luck’ (if you believe in such things...) happen. Good organizations at least try to plan ahead for those things, to have people ready to go in case ‘it’ happens. (Even if that is simply a discussion in spring training about what they'll do if they lose an infielder to an injury, or a starting pitcher. To at least have a list of options) Good organizations have both a short term and long term plan for success. Good organizations try to hire the best people in the key organizational positions both on and off the field.
And you know that the White Sox do not do this because.....they don't tell you what the plans are ahead of time? Like it or not, it's not easy to recover from injuries to key players because those types of guys aren't lying around waiting to be picked up, and it's not financially feasible to have a guy like that sitting on the bench.

As for hiring the best people, hindsight gives you a pretty good view, huh? I seem to remember Larry Himes being a pretty good GM (unless you just weren't that happy with Frank, Blackjack, Alex Fernandez, Robin Ventura, etc.). Ron Schueler, for all his faults, was very highly rated during his tenure. It's a bit early to judge KW, but he's built an entire pitching staff while keeping a team above .500, and if we're to believe the rankings of the farm system, he's doing some good work there as well. That they haven't accomplished the goal doesn't mean that JR was not trying to hire the best guys.

And before you come back with the old, tired "none of them had experience at their jobs" line, remember - neither did most of the playoff GMs, and neither did most of what would be considered successful GMs.

As for your favorite stat, 83 wins alone is not a good year, but to average that over an extended stretch is a pretty good accomplishment. You may have heard of a concept called being "above average", which means that you have more wins than the average of teams that you're compared with.

jabrch
11-01-2004, 09:40 PM
Which makes it all the more galling when JR cries poor, no?:?:
oh yeah...but I never hear him cry "poor". I do hear him say that the team is spending to the extent of its budget. Given the nature of the partnership, even as chairman of the board he can't dictate to the other owners that they have to pull cash from their pockets. And he can't leverage the franchise based on MLB ownership debt regulations. So what can happen?

We are waiting for Jerry to sell - and waiting - and waiting - and waiting.

sld7c
11-01-2004, 10:48 PM
I'll say a lot of bad things about Reinsdorf. He says dumb things, hides from the press when he could be talking up the Sox, and for some reason keeps Kenny Williams on. Guys not cheap though. I like Magglio but he's being dumb. You can't hand someone a blank check just because they're good and a fan favorite. Think how much talent the Cubs could get for Sosa. Yeah okay unlike Soso Ordonnez can field, actually knows how to hit rather swinging at everything and counting on steroids and growth hormone to do the rest, and can actually play as a member of a team; still when the dollar signgs get high enough you've got to think of what else you could do with that money. And Maggs health makes him a pretty chancy investment indeed. Someone might pay him what he wants and they might not be making a mistake but they will be gambling.

Kilroy
11-02-2004, 08:10 AM
Sure, it's possible to fail miserably for a long period of time while spending lots and lots and lots of money.

How about we give it a try and see what happens...:o:
There's that "we" mentality again. How much of your own money will you be contributing to this additional 20-30 mil?

gosox41
11-02-2004, 08:41 AM
Sigh.....they have eyes yet they refuse to see. OK folks let's start at the beginning...

There are two ways to judge how well a franchise has done under its ownership. One is financially, of which I have no specific information. (But I have my hunches...) I’ll leave that to folks like gosox41 and others who say they have ‘inside’ information.

The other way to judge is by championships, the ultimate ‘bottom line.’

In 1981 when the current ownership group bought the Sox, MLB was made up of 26 clubs. The Phillies, Cardinals, Expos, Pirates, Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, Reds, Astros, Braves, Giants, Padres, Yankees, Orioles, Brewers, Tigers, Red Sox, Indians, Blue Jays, A’s, Rangers, White Sox, Angels, Royals, Mariners and Twins.

It is now the end of the 2004 season. In the ensuing 24 seasons 19 of those 26 clubs...73% have made at least one World series appearance.

The only teams who didn’t were the Expos, Pirates, Cubs, Astros, Rangers, White Sox and Mariners. Of those seven clubs, the White Sox have had the longest ownership. In other words the current owners have had a longer time period then any of the clubs in MLB to win something (although in fairness it was only by a few months over the Tribune Company / Cubs owners.)

Since 1981 MLB has expanded to 30 teams. The additions were Tampa Bay, Colorado, Arizona and Florida. Two of those teams, Arizona and Florida have appeared in the World Series and they haven’t been around as long as the White Sox!

When you cut to the chase, this ownership group has been an abject failure in the one main area that matters. The only reason why they play the games...winning.

When all is said and done that is the ‘legacy’ of Jerry Reinsdorf.

Injuries, bad breaks, slumps, ‘bad luck’ (if you believe in such things...) happen. Good organizations at least try to plan ahead for those things, to have people ready to go in case ‘it’ happens. (Even if that is simply a discussion in spring training about what they'll do if they lose an infielder to an injury, or a starting pitcher. To at least have a list of options) Good organizations have both a short term and long term plan for success. Good organizations try to hire the best people in the key organizational positions both on and off the field.

The White Sox do none of the above three things. Jerry Reinsdorf has a hand in final approval of all big trades, major signings, major contract negotiations, and hiring upper level management people. He at least has tacit approval on all the lower hirings (i.e. field manager) the fact that the Sox have never even appeared in the World Series is directly his responsibility as CEO of a multimillion dollar organization.

Example. On the day after Robin Ventura had that horrific injury. Ron Scheuler was quoted directly in all three major newspapers as saying the Sox would now go out and get a third baseman as well as a second left handed hitter to come of the bench, unless the 3rd baseman they got was a left handed hitter. He did nothing. Four months later Jerry Reinsdorf 'white flagged' it, saying the team wasn't performing. He conviently overlooked the gaping hole in the lineup, the shock it caused to the team (which began the season 9-17) and his hand picked G.M's inability to do anything about it.

Those are facts folks, not opinions. The record of this club to even get to the post season proves it.

PHG maybe you can talk some sense into these people. Again the 'dumbing down' of Sox fans hopes over the past 24 years must be the reason for this insanity. It's a shame that some folks now think 83 wins is a 'good' year. Must be the new math! :?:


One quick point on deferred, backloaded deals. When the Yanks, Angels and Braves do them the players and agents KNOW those clubs will take that money and go out and get MORE talent to try to win. Maybe there is a reason the Sox can't get anybody to agree to those kind of deals?


Hmmm...I seem to have heard this before so don't embarass yourself further by stating that no one ever answers you when this is brought up.


Lip
Lip,

A couple of points:

1. In regards to Ventura's injury, you don't know that Schu didn't try to get a replacement. After Ventura's injury the asking price for a contending team in need of a third baseman just went up. It would have been nice but accusing him of not getting anyone versus not trying are 2 different things.

2. I'm certainly not satisified with 82 wins, but you'd be a ball of fire if Sox had a string of losing seasons. And some of the teams you mentioned above have gone through long streaks of losing seasons. Not saying we should be satisified but the team is trying to put a compeititve product out their every year. If it weren't for injuries this year, there's a good chance the Sox would have made the playoffs.

3. I'd like to see Sox management have better back up plans in case of injury. A lot of that is due to a poor farm system and KW gets the blame there.


4. It's hard to claim that when the Sox defer money and don't put the money back in the team. KW is given a budget to spend X dollars. He spends it all. You don't can't say with certainty that the Sox take deferred money and pocket it.



Bob

gosox41
11-02-2004, 08:43 AM
Sure, it's possible to fail miserably for a long period of time while spending lots and lots and lots of money.

How about we give it a try and see what happens...:o:
If you're footing the bill. :D:




Bob

gosox41
11-02-2004, 08:48 AM
Which makes it all the more galling when JR cries poor, no?:?:
No. JR never cries poor. He says the White Sox don't have the money. The White Sox are a partnership. Outside of JR's original investment, there's no reason that he should have to put in anymore of his own personal money.

Granted, it would be nice if he would but there are people here that judge him and don't ante up and go to games. That's their right. It's also JR's right.

As for the cash business. It is to an extent. My guess is most people don't pay for their tickets in cash. And for issues like food service, there are contracts signed for all that. I don't knwo the details, but the Sox get a % of whatever is sold in the ballpark. The vendors get a %. And Sportsservice takes their cut. SportService is not related at all to the Sox other then serving food products. There is no cross ownership.


Bob

jabrch
11-02-2004, 09:08 AM
No. JR never cries poor. He says the White Sox don't have the money. The White Sox are a partnership. Outside of JR's original investment, there's no reason that he should have to put in anymore of his own personal money.

Granted, it would be nice if he would but there are people here that judge him and don't ante up and go to games. That's their right. It's also JR's right.

As for the cash business. It is to an extent. My guess is most people don't pay for their tickets in cash. And for issues like food service, there are contracts signed for all that. I don't knwo the details, but the Sox get a % of whatever is sold in the ballpark. The vendors get a %. And Sportsservice takes their cut. SportService is not related at all to the Sox other then serving food products. There is no cross ownership.


Bob
I don't imagine JR is skimming cash from the gate/concessions. However, the parking lots are, in possibly, a source of incremental and unreported income. In either case, it really doesn't matter. Jerry Reinsdorf is wealthy beyond need for any extra money. They thought that he'd be skimming five-spots out of a cash register makes me laugh. That said, he and his partners are not pouring extra cash into their operations other than what cash flow is generrated by operations, less whatever profits they are taking out. (by all accounts this is assumed to be a small amount, not some amount large enough to impact payroll significantly)

Lip Man 1
11-02-2004, 11:50 AM
Flight says: "You may have heard of a concept called being "above average".

Averaging 83 wins is 'above average?' Maybe in your world...that's two games above absolute mediocrity!

In school they don't give you a 'B' (which IS above average) for being two points over a 'C' (which IS average) do they?

Must be the new math.

The 'dumbing down' of Sox fans continue...

and I'm curious for Uncle Jerry's friends to explain how the owerwhelming majority of teams in MLB including two expansion teams, have made it to the World Series in the past 24 years but the Sox haven't? (This should be good...)

Lip

Lip Man 1
11-02-2004, 11:54 AM
Bob:

As a matter of fact when the Sox were garbage from 86-89 and from 97-99, I paid them token interest so the abject losing didn't bother me that much. I along with many other Sox fans simply lost interest. Everyone knew they were garbage and didn't care.

I followed them but not to the same degree. Let's put it this way...during that time period the number of broken doors in the Liptak household went down dramatically because it didn't really matter if they blew a game in the 9th inning or not.

What bothers me most is when they have an opportunity to win and don't a la the White Flag Trade.

Lip

Flight #24
11-02-2004, 12:07 PM
Flight says: "You may have heard of a concept called being "above average".

Averaging 83 wins is 'above average?' Maybe in your world...that's two games above absolute mediocrity!

In school they don't give you a 'B' (which IS above average) for being two points over a 'C' (which IS average) do they?



Lip
Not sure what schools you're referring to, but, in most universities & graduate schools they grade on a curve, so they WILL give you a B if for example you score 52% on an exam if the average is well below that.

The point being that when you compete directly with a group, then how you performed relative to your competition is all that matters. Absolute #s mean nothing.

Is that really so difficult to understand? Or is it just that that might inhibit some of the potshots, which is really all that matters.....I know the answer to that question already.

Lip Man 1
11-02-2004, 12:15 PM
Flight obviously you never went to a Catholic school.

Two games above absolute mediocrity is under no rational thought process 'above average.' If the rest of the class is stupid we'll give better grades to those who are only less stupid! OK...LOL

That's like saying if 70 is a C, then 72 is a B.

Sorry it doesn't work that way. Must be the new math!


By the way in case you missed it, on another thread is the link confirming the Sox payroll will be between 63-65 million according to Williams for 2005. Time to start your re-evaluation eh?

Lip

santo=dorf
11-02-2004, 12:15 PM
3. I'd like to see Sox management have better back up plans in case of injury. A lot of that is due to a poor farm system and KW gets the blame there.
How is that KW's fault? The only guys who have seen extensive time in the Major leauges that were traded by KW are Frankie Francisco (who KW traded for,) Josh Fogg, and Kip Wells.

Schueler left crap for KW to work with, and how many players drafted since 2001 have made a great impact in the majors?

Lip Man 1
11-02-2004, 12:18 PM
Just FYI, even when Schueler was G.M. Williams was in charge of the scouting and drafting departments.Lip

santo=dorf
11-02-2004, 12:20 PM
Which years? So does that mean KW gets credit for the farm system being ranked #1 back in 2000? :?:

gosox41
11-02-2004, 12:20 PM
Which years? So does that mean KW gets credit for the farm system being ranked #1 back in 2000? :?:
Sure. It didn't help much but give him and Schu credit for it.


Bob

Iwritecode
11-02-2004, 12:22 PM
Flight obviously you never went to a Catholic school.

Two games above absolute mediocrity is under no rational thought process 'above average.' If the rest of the class is stupid we'll give better grades to those who are only less stupid! OK...LOL

That's like saying if 70 is a C, then 72 is a B.

Sorry it doesn't work that way. Must be the new math!


By the way in case you missed it, on another thread is the link confirming the Sox payroll will be between 63-65 million according to Williams for 2005. Time to start your re-evaluation eh?

Lip

You can't compare grades to baseball records. The Sox usually win at least 50% of their games. If I ever got 50% of the questions on a test wrong, guess what? I failed!

Considering a lot of teams usually don't win 50% of their games, winning more than that is usually considered pretty good...

oneil78
11-02-2004, 12:24 PM
86 and 83 wins plus missing the playoffs both years is 'pretty good?' :?:

I guess averaging 83 wins for the past seven years has dumbed down Sox fans.

Lip
Good point, I more meant that they were in the race for the division at the trading deadline each of the last two years.

oneil78
11-02-2004, 12:26 PM
Which makes it all the more galling when JR cries poor, no?:?:
When does he cry poor PizzaBoy?

Flight #24
11-02-2004, 12:28 PM
Flight obviously you never went to a Catholic school.

Two games above absolute mediocrity is under no rational thought process 'above average.' If the rest of the class is stupid we'll give better grades to those who are only less stupid! OK...LOL

That's like saying if 70 is a C, then 72 is a B.

Sorry it doesn't work that way. Must be the new math!


By the way in case you missed it, on another thread is the link confirming the Sox payroll will be between 63-65 million according to Williams for 2005. Time to start your re-evaluation eh?

Lip

(Sigh) How hard is this to understand?

How about this, the Sox made a large offer to Alex Rodriguez. "under no rational thought process " was their offer anything but extremely large. But Texas made a larger one, so you've deemed the Sox to be cheap because in a RELATIVE comparison, they were less. The absolute dollars don't matter, only the size RELATIVE to alternatives.

Similarly, the Sox record is above average in a RELATIVE comparison to their competitors. That's what matters because all that counts is how you finish compared to your competitors (i.e. if you lose by a game, it doesn't matter if that's 82 wins to 81 or 101 wins to 100).

By your logic, the vast majority of MLB teams are just bad during the period in question, including the Twins and their average record of (IIRC) 81 wins.

And as for the payroll comment, given that at the same time last year we were hearing 55-60mil and it came in higher, and the fact that there are rumors flying around on high salaried guys they're interested in, I'll wait and see how it plays out before commenting.

Flight #24
11-02-2004, 12:30 PM
Just FYI, even when Schueler was G.M. Williams was in charge of the scouting and drafting departments.Lip
Ah, so you want to have it both ways and discount the fact that the system was highly ranked then (using hindsight - your specialty), but count the fact that the rankings are lower now. No surprises there....

Flight #24
11-02-2004, 12:32 PM
Just FYI, even when Schueler was G.M. Williams was in charge of the scouting and drafting departments.Lip
By the way Lip - in case you missed it, historical attendance shows that in the decade prior to JR & co buying the team, the Cubs outdrew the Sox 8 of the 10 years. Guess it's time to re-evaluate that "JR handed Chicago to the Cubs" thinking, huh?

Lip Man 1
11-02-2004, 12:44 PM
Flight:

I am not anti-Williams. I am not pro-Williams. The Sox problems go much higher then another flunky. I was simply making a point about the scouting department. Your issue is with gosox41, not me in this case.

and with respect stop changing the issue, you stated if the payroll didn't go up significantly (you thought it would be 75 million which frankly is laughable...) you stated that you would have to re-evaluate your comments is regard to ownership. Need I bring up the eact quote for you?

Now two reports have come out saying the payroll will remain around the same.

Now you are hedging because of the possibility that your misguided 'faith' in Uncle Jerry is wrong. Just like 83 wins is 'above average...'

Tell you what, give me a specific date when if payroll isn't raised to the level you thought it would be 75 million, that you'll eat your words about Uncle Jerry? I'll abide by the date you feel is fair.

Lip

Lip Man 1
11-02-2004, 12:45 PM
Flight:

Care to see how big of a blip on the radar the Cubs were in the 50's and through most of the 60's? Chicago WAS NOT 'always a Cubs town...'

And I guess the video that I have from September 1983 (WLS-TV) with comments about the Cubs closing the upper deck for lack of attendence is a mirage.

Lip

santo=dorf
11-02-2004, 12:46 PM
81 wins = league average
83>81, 86>81

That is by definition above average.

Lip Man 1
11-02-2004, 12:48 PM
Santo:

81 wins is not the LEAGUE average. That's the average of 162 games. The league win average varies from year to year based on the number of winning teams and losing teams. Baseball doesn't have the same number of winning teams every season, some years it may be 15 clubs, some years 18 and so on.

Lip

Iwritecode
11-02-2004, 12:51 PM
Santo:

81 wins is not the LEAGUE average. That's the average of 162 games. The league win average varies from year to year based on the number of winning teams and losing teams. Baseball doesn't have the same number of winning teams every season, some years it may be 15 clubs, some years 18 and so on.

Lip

2004 leauge average = 80.9

Considering not every team can win over 80 games I'm pretty sure it stays right around there every year...

Flight #24
11-02-2004, 12:55 PM
Flight:

Care to see how big of a blip on the radar the Cubs were in the 50's and through most of the 60's? Chicago WAS NOT 'always a Cubs town...'

And I guess the video that I have from September 1983 (WLS-TV) with comments about the Cubs closing the upper deck for lack of attendence is a mirage.

Lip
Ah yes, Lip has a video so it must be true!!! Damn those inaccurate "facts" like attendance totals!!!

The attendance from the 50s and 60s has little to no bearing on the situation when JR & co took over. Much like the attendance in the 20s doesn't. The fact remains, that in the decade prior to current ownership, the Cubs were the more popular team. Directly contradicting your continued assertion that JR "gave Chicago to the Cubs". Not that facts really matter to you or anything.

dickallen15
11-02-2004, 12:59 PM
It is true it was common practice for the Cubs to close the upper deck at Wrigley Field in the 70's and early 80's. The White Sox also closed portions of the upper deck at Old Comiskey. I remember as a youth getting a Reggie Jackson home run ball by begging the Andy Frain to let me fetch it in the right field upper deck which was closed at the time, on a beautiful Saturday afternoon against the World Champion New York Yankees.

Iwritecode
11-02-2004, 01:07 PM
2004 leauge average = 80.9

Considering not every team can win over 80 games I'm pretty sure it stays right around there every year...

I just checked...

2003 = 80.9
2002 = 80.8
2001 = 80.9

I'm willing to bet that every single year the average number of wins is 81. For each win, there is a loss to offset it. Even in years when there are 18 teams with winning records, there are 5 or 6 teams with win totals barely above 60 to drag that average back down.

There I go using facts again...

Flight #24
11-02-2004, 01:08 PM
Flight:

I am not anti-Williams. I am not pro-Williams. The Sox problems go much higher then another flunky. I was simply making a point about the scouting department. Your issue is with gosox41, not me in this case.

and with respect stop changing the issue, you stated if the payroll didn't go up significantly (you thought it would be 75 million which frankly is laughable...) you stated that you would have to re-evaluate your comments is regard to ownership. Need I bring up the eact quote for you?

Now two reports have come out saying the payroll will remain around the same.

Now you are hedging because of the possibility that your misguided 'faith' in Uncle Jerry is wrong. Just like 83 wins is 'above average...'

Tell you what, give me a specific date when if payroll isn't raised to the level you thought it would be 75 million, that you'll eat your words about Uncle Jerry? I'll abide by the date you feel is fair.

Lip
Let's see - the discussion has been about the meaning of average record and how the Sox have done.....yeah, I'm changing the subject by addressing that. As logical as most of your other comments.

In terms of payroll, I believe I said, and continue to say, that I think there is an opportunity for the Sox, and an argument to be made that there are ways to increase payroll while minimizing the risk. Basically, any red ink could be "contained" to 2005, and drastic payroll cuts (and the associated likely drop in wins) would be made starting in 2006. If ownership passes on that opportunity, I will think them overly risk-averse and somewhat short-sighted, but given the established behaviour of Sox fans I would understand why they did it.

The only time at which you can tell is opening day, 2005, and compare the payroll then to the 65mil payroll on opening day 2004.

santo=dorf
11-02-2004, 01:29 PM
Don't forget about the 2000 World Series winning Yankees, who had a record of 86-76. Were they "average?"

mantis1212
11-02-2004, 02:21 PM
Santo:

81 wins is not the LEAGUE average. That's the average of 162 games. The league win average varies from year to year based on the number of winning teams and losing teams. Baseball doesn't have the same number of winning teams every season, some years it may be 15 clubs, some years 18 and so on.

Lip
This discussion is cracking me up as I'm reading it. The only way the mean average number of wins would NOT be 81 is when a couple of games are rained out and not played (as the case this year with 80.9) or if there are tie games. It's a mathmatical fact.

voodoochile
11-02-2004, 10:36 PM
2004 leauge average = 80.9

Considering not every team can win over 80 games I'm pretty sure it stays right around there every year...
By definition, the league average has to be 81 wins. Every game has one winner and one loser. The only discrepancy would be caused by missed rainouts that were never made up due to them being unnecessary.

If every game is played, the league average number of wins is 81, period.

voodoochile
11-02-2004, 10:49 PM
And JR is cheap, and KW is stupid...Because the armchair owners and GMs here could do just so much better. They'd spend millions and millions out of their own pockets, bring in the best talent, steal all the fans away from all the other teams in baseball, and we'd have more world series rings than we know what to do with. IF JR wasn't cheap and KW wasn't dumb, this would be so much easier.
You know, it actually can happen that way, but first you have to try. If winning the ALC once every 5 years or so is enough, then I guess the Sox are doing just fine, but if you want to see a bigger prize occasionally, then the Sox are failing miserably.

What was that stat Lip threw out earlier in this thread? The Sox are one of 6 teams around since 1981 who have never made the Series and the company they are in is pretty pathetic.

Call it what you want, that doesn't make me confident that this management group is doing whatever it takes to bring home the championship they claimed to want so desperately back when they bought the team.

If it's all about the money, then take the unrealized profit by selling and get out of the way of someone who will try something different.

If it's really about winning, then do something different, because the current system if failing miserably at achieving the stated goal.

Yeah, I want to see more money invested in talent, because that seems to be one thing the Sox have failed to try and I still believe they would make it back down the road and more.

Question for all of you JR defenders...

If this team is only breaking even and the investors are not making that much money off of it, why are they sitting on the team? Why are they continuing to allow JR to go nowhere slowly?

Comes a moment in time, you have to think something else is going on, IMO. Either they are making more money than they are letting on, or they just don't give a damn and are waiting for something to happen to make selling extra worthwhile. In the meantime, the team has taken every opportunity to squeeze maximum dollars out of everyone they could at every turn (PPV, new stadium, naming rights, low payrolls, higher ticket prices, etc.)

Something smells like Chicago beaches in June to me.

Still, the bottom line is this team has failed to meet the single objective JR set out to achieve when he bought the team - bring home a championship for the fans. You want to defend that record be my guest. To me, it is clearly a lie, or at best poor management, and after 23 years of failure, it is time for a management change.

But there I go using facts again...

jabrch
11-03-2004, 08:31 AM
If it's all about the money, then take the unrealized profit by selling and get out of the way of someone who will try something different.

If it's really about winning, then do something different, because the current system if failing miserably at achieving the stated goal.

Yeah, I want to see more money invested in talent, because that seems to be one thing the Sox have failed to try and I still believe they would make it back down the road and more.

Question for all of you JR defenders...

If this team is only breaking even and the investors are not making that much money off of it, why are they sitting on the team? Why are they continuing to allow JR to go nowhere slowly?

Comes a moment in time, you have to think something else is going on, IMO. Either they are making more money than they are letting on, or they just don't give a damn and are waiting for something to happen to make selling extra worthwhile. In the meantime, the team has taken every opportunity to squeeze maximum dollars out of everyone they could at every turn (PPV, new stadium, naming rights, low payrolls, higher ticket prices, etc.)

Something smells like Chicago beaches in June to me.

Still, the bottom line is this team has failed to meet the single objective JR set out to achieve when he bought the team - bring home a championship for the fans. You want to defend that record be my guest. To me, it is clearly a lie, or at best poor management, and after 23 years of failure, it is time for a management change.

But there I go using facts again...
I wish they would sell - but this ownership group seems to not have any interest in selling the team. The limited partnership has no exposure to any of them as individuals, they have returned 10X the value of their investment in appreciation of the franchise, and they own a piece of a major league baseball team. I wouldn't sell either.

But to say it is either a lie, or poor management excludes a host of other options VC. Isn't it possible that it all comes down to the economic viabiliities of the game for an ownership with our revenue model? Or that it comes down to some injuries that we have had? What about the fact that as much as we like to consider ourselves smart, selective and willing to follow a winner, we don't really do that. There are large numbers of times when we were winning, were in first or second, and were not drawing crowds against division rivals. Or the fact that our spring attendance is notoriously poor. Or that it comes down to the fact that we have never rebuilt the team, only retooled it?

I still think that management ought to someday "honor" the fans requests and be more like some of those other teams - just to show us. Lets be more like Oakland, Minnesota, Cleveland, Detroit...etc. Lets finish dead last for 5 years in a row. I guarantee that a lot of the fans of this team don't have the stomach for that. VC, you know how morbid this place gets after a 3 game losing streak - can you imagine a last place finish? It would take riot police to calm it down. Can you imagine how many Fire KW, Fire OG, Fire JR, Fire XXX threads we'd see?

There is plenty of blame to go around. JR should shoulder some. KW should shoulder some. The players should shoulder some. Injuries should shoulder some. The fans should shoulder some. The economic reality of the game should shoulder some. There is plenty to spread around.

voodoochile
11-03-2004, 08:53 AM
I wish they would sell - but this ownership group seems to not have any interest in selling the team. The limited partnership has no exposure to any of them as individuals, they have returned 10X the value of their investment in appreciation of the franchise, and they own a piece of a major league baseball team. I wouldn't sell either.

But to say it is either a lie, or poor management excludes a host of other options VC. Isn't it possible that it all comes down to the economic viabiliities of the game for an ownership with our revenue model? Or that it comes down to some injuries that we have had? What about the fact that as much as we like to consider ourselves smart, selective and willing to follow a winner, we don't really do that. There are large numbers of times when we were winning, were in first or second, and were not drawing crowds against division rivals. Or the fact that our spring attendance is notoriously poor. Or that it comes down to the fact that we have never rebuilt the team, only retooled it?

I still think that management ought to someday "honor" the fans requests and be more like some of those other teams - just to show us. Lets be more like Oakland, Minnesota, Cleveland, Detroit...etc. Lets finish dead last for 5 years in a row. I guarantee that a lot of the fans of this team don't have the stomach for that. VC, you know how morbid this place gets after a 3 game losing streak - can you imagine a last place finish? It would take riot police to calm it down. Can you imagine how many Fire KW, Fire OG, Fire JR, Fire XXX threads we'd see?

There is plenty of blame to go around. JR should shoulder some. KW should shoulder some. The players should shoulder some. Injuries should shoulder some. The fans should shoulder some. The economic reality of the game should shoulder some. There is plenty to spread around.The only thing I want to respond to is your assertion about attendance being low.

You can blame that on the fans until the end of time. I disagree. The way to offset those problems is to sell more season ticket packages. The way to do that is to add talent in the off season - lots of it. The way to do that is to spend more money on payroll.

But, I've said that before and we've been around this merry-go-round too. The horses still look the same and the players haven't changed.

:tomatoaward (just because it's true)

:selljerry (just because it needs doing)

gosox41
11-03-2004, 09:14 AM
Santo:

81 wins is not the LEAGUE average. That's the average of 162 games. The league win average varies from year to year based on the number of winning teams and losing teams. Baseball doesn't have the same number of winning teams every season, some years it may be 15 clubs, some years 18 and so on.

Lip
Without sitting down and doing the math, wouldn't the average wins each year be 81. Assuming every team places a full 162 game schedule (no rainouts) because in every game there is a winner and a loser.


Bob

jabrch
11-03-2004, 09:27 AM
You can blame that on the fans until the end of time. I disagree. The way to offset those problems is to sell more season ticket packages. The way to do that is to add talent in the off season - lots of it. The way to do that is to spend more money on payroll.

But, I've said that before and we've been around this merry-go-round too. The horses still look the same and the players haven't changed.
To a certain extent - I agree. But at the same time, it isn't as if JR has never spent money on talent. It isn't as if this team hasn't been in first place in JUNE vs Cleveland with great weather and still not drawing (a few times I recall this in the recent past). The blame doesn't all go to any one place. You may not be the culprit. I may not be the culplrit. But there has to be someone who is not going to the games - otherwise there would be more than 22,000 fans average per game (or whatever the number is).

Would you be for a REAL rebuilding VC? I mean - one that would really rebuild our talent base? I'm talking a BAD BAD BAD 5 year stretch of baseball...

jabrch
11-03-2004, 09:30 AM
Without sitting down and doing the math, wouldn't the average wins each year be 81. Assuming every team places a full 162 game schedule (no rainouts) because in every game there is a winner and a loser.


Bob
lets see....(81 + 81) * X / (X * 2) ....2...carry the 1....subtract the remainder...

Yup - seems that way to me.

Lip Man 1
11-03-2004, 12:29 PM
Does that also include seasons where the number of 'winning' teams changes in proportion to the number of 'losing' teams?

For example in 1981 there were 16 of 26 teams who ended the season with a 'winning' record. In 1982 it was 14, in 1990 it was only 11.

Does that skew the average record of winning teams? Does that skew the average record of losing teams?

Obviously the average record of winning teams changes from year to year based on the number of teams that have a winning season doesn't it?

The White Sox getting say 83 wins in a season may be a 'winning' record but can still be BELOW AVERAGE for the record of all 'winning' teams that year right?

Therefore to say that 83 wins is 'above average' can be a falicy right? In fact 83 wins may be closer to SLIGHTLY ABOVE AVERAGE where comparing to other 'winning' teams in a particular year.

I sense that the garbage teams pull down the average record for every MLB season, the fact is the average record may be 81-81 every year. I conceed that point. Now try comparing the 14 years the Sox had a winning record under Uncle Jerry in relation to other 'winning' teams.

I wonder how that compares?

I'll try to run those numbers in the next day or so for the years of 81,82,83,85,90,91,92,93,94,96,00,01,03,04.

Lip

Flight #24
11-03-2004, 12:45 PM
Does that also include seasons where the number of 'winning' teams changes in proportion to the number of 'losing' teams?

For example in 1981 there were 16 of 26 teams who ended the season with a 'winning' record. In 1982 it was 14, in 1990 it was only 11.

Does that skew the average record of winning teams? Does that skew the average record of losing teams?

Obviously the average record of winning teams changes from year to year based on the number of teams that have a winning season doesn't it?

The White Sox getting say 83 wins in a season may be a 'winning' record but can still be BELOW AVERAGE for the record of all 'winning' teams that year right?

Therefore to say that 83 wins is 'above average' can be a falicy right? In fact 83 wins may be closer to SLIGHTLY ABOVE AVERAGE where comparing to other 'winning' teams in a particular year.

I sense that the garbage teams pull down the average record for every MLB season, the fact is the average record may be 81-81 every year. I conceed that point. Now try comparing the 14 years the Sox had a winning record under Uncle Jerry in relation to other 'winning' teams.

I wonder how that compares?

I'll try to run those numbers in the next day or so for the years of 81,82,83,85,90,91,92,93,94,96,00,01,03,04.

Lip
That's an interesting point, but what your analysis would miss is that the teams that finish with a winning record may change dramatically from year to year. In other words, the Sox may be the the team that shows up most consistently in that group.

I believe that's the main point - that the Sox I'll guess are NOT among the better "winning" teams each year, but they almost always are a winning team (10 times since 1990 per your listing above). In fact, I'd guess that the Sox are in the top 3-5 teams in MLB in terms of # of winning seasons in the past 15 years. Plus, when they lose, they rarely lose big. They're kind of like an income stock in that sense - little upside, but little to no downside as compared to higher risk/higher reward growth stocks.

gosox41
11-03-2004, 02:16 PM
Does that also include seasons where the number of 'winning' teams changes in proportion to the number of 'losing' teams?

For example in 1981 there were 16 of 26 teams who ended the season with a 'winning' record. In 1982 it was 14, in 1990 it was only 11.

Does that skew the average record of winning teams? Does that skew the average record of losing teams?

Obviously the average record of winning teams changes from year to year based on the number of teams that have a winning season doesn't it?

The White Sox getting say 83 wins in a season may be a 'winning' record but can still be BELOW AVERAGE for the record of all 'winning' teams that year right?

Therefore to say that 83 wins is 'above average' can be a falicy right? In fact 83 wins may be closer to SLIGHTLY ABOVE AVERAGE where comparing to other 'winning' teams in a particular year.

I sense that the garbage teams pull down the average record for every MLB season, the fact is the average record may be 81-81 every year. I conceed that point. Now try comparing the 14 years the Sox had a winning record under Uncle Jerry in relation to other 'winning' teams.

I wonder how that compares?

I'll try to run those numbers in the next day or so for the years of 81,82,83,85,90,91,92,93,94,96,00,01,03,04.

Lip
Sounds like you're comapring the Sox to other winning teams and others are comapring the Sox to the rest of MLB.

But I'll tell you what you'll find if you comapre winning teams only vs. the Sox. You'll find that they average more then 81 wins a season. And in years there are only 11 winning teams vs. 14 other years, you're probably going to find that those 11 teams had an average higher number of wins vs years in which more teams were above .500

And if you run the numbers of all the teams with losing records from those years you'll find that they averaged less then 81 wins per season.

And if you combine them into all of MLB (assuming each team plays a full 162 game schedule) you'll find they average 81 wins.

I'm curious to see where this is going.


Bob

jabrch
11-03-2004, 02:26 PM
Sounds like you're comapring the Sox to other winning teams and others are comapring the Sox to the rest of MLB.

But I'll tell you what you'll find if you comapre winning teams only vs. the Sox. You'll find that they average more then 81 wins a season. And in years there are only 11 winning teams vs. 14 other years, you're probably going to find that those 11 teams had an average higher number of wins vs years in which more teams were above .500

And if you run the numbers of all the teams with losing records from those years you'll find that they averaged less then 81 wins per season.

And if you combine them into all of MLB (assuming each team plays a full 162 game schedule) you'll find they average 81 wins.

I'm curious to see where this is going.


Bob
lets see....(81 + 81) * X / (X * 2) ....2...carry the 1....subtract the remainder...

Yup - It still seems that way to me. :)

Hangar18
11-03-2004, 03:55 PM
Heres a Stat that I found interesting since were on this subject.

Q: In the 1990's, What team had the WINNINGEST RECORD?
A: Atlanta Braves

Which then begged the question ........

Q: In the 1990's, What team had the 2nd Best WINNINGEST RECORD?
A: Chicago White Sox

The Braves went to the playoffs something like 9 out of 10 years,
Including the World Series a number of times.

The White Sox? Went to the playoffs in 1993. No World Series.
Talk about bad luck.

Flight #24
11-03-2004, 04:32 PM
Heres a Stat that I found interesting since were on this subject.

Q: In the 1990's, What team had the WINNINGEST RECORD?
A: Atlanta Braves

Which then begged the question ........

Q: In the 1990's, What team had the 2nd Best WINNINGEST RECORD?
A: Chicago White Sox

The Braves went to the playoffs something like 9 out of 10 years,
Including the World Series a number of times.

The White Sox? Went to the playoffs in 1993. No World Series.
Talk about bad luck.
And yet some would disagree with the statement "The White Sox were a Successful Team in the 1990s", preferring to characterize them a mediocre at best, and depending on who's making the characterizataion, worse than that.

Lip Man 1
11-03-2004, 07:28 PM
Hangar:

Incorrect...the Sox trailed the Braves and Yankees and one other team for the 'best record' of the decade. I remember reading it in a White Sox media guide but I can't find who that other team was.

Remember the Sox had losing records in 95,97,98 and 99 which dropped them down the list.

Lip

Flight #24
11-03-2004, 08:22 PM
Hangar:

Incorrect...the Sox trailed the Braves and Yankees and one other team for the 'best record' of the decade. I remember reading it in a White Sox media guide but I can't find who that other team was.

Remember the Sox had losing records in 95,97,98 and 99 which dropped them down the list.

Lip
Even at that, being the team with the 4th best record in all of baseball over a decade is a pretty good accomplishment. I'd say coming in 4th out of 30 teams warrants the title "above average" or "pretty good".

TornLabrum
11-03-2004, 08:55 PM
Even at that, being the team with the 4th best record in all of baseball over a decade is a pretty good accomplishment. I'd say coming in 4th out of 30 teams warrants the title "above average" or "pretty good".
I think the truly great thing about having the fourth best record in the 90s is all of those AL pennants we won.

TornLabrum
11-03-2004, 08:56 PM
Even at that, being the team with the 4th best record in all of baseball over a decade is a pretty good accomplishment. I'd say coming in 4th out of 30 teams warrants the title "above average" or "pretty good".
I think the very best thing about having the fourth best record of the 90s is all of those AL pennants we won!

voodoochile
11-03-2004, 09:12 PM
I think the truly great thing about having the fourth best record in the 90s is all of those AL pennants we won.Exactly... the minute they start handing out regular season lifetime achievement awards, somebody will start caring...:?:

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 12:13 PM
Hal:

Now THAT'S funny! LOL and it's not above average....it's EXCELLENT!

Lip

TornLabrum
11-04-2004, 12:17 PM
Hal:

Now THAT'S funny! LOL and it's not above average....it's EXCELLENT!

Lip
Thanks, Lip. Sometimes I think that a lot of people forget just what the exact purpose of playing the games is. Maybe that's because it's been so long since we've actually accomplished that purpose.

voodoochile
11-04-2004, 01:40 PM
Thanks, Lip. Sometimes I think that a lot of people forget just what the exact purpose of playing the games is. Maybe that's because it's been so long since we've actually accomplished that purpose.We might as well be flubbie fans chanting "Two winning seasons in a row! Two winning seasons in a row!" Come on... Everybody...

"4 winning season in a row! 4 winning seasons in a row!"

Maybe they prefer...

"3 playoff slots since '83! (clap clap clapclapclap) 3 playoff slots since '83!(clap clap clapclapclap) "

Or

"playoff wins are over rated! (clap clap clapclapclap) playoff wins are over rated! (clap clap clapclapclap)"

:(: