PDA

View Full Version : Preston Wilson, Cory Lidle, Darin Erstad


Brian26
11-01-2004, 12:54 PM
Don't forget how much Kenny loves to target a guy and continue to relentlessly go after him.

He did this with Contreras, Koch, both Alomars and Everett.

He's been after the above 3 guys for a long time. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict at least one of these guys is on the White Sox opening day roster.

Just a hunch I have.

kittle42
11-01-2004, 12:56 PM
:(:

jabrch
11-01-2004, 12:59 PM
If the price is right, and they are healthy - I have no problem with any of them.

munchman33
11-01-2004, 01:03 PM
I'd rather Grili be the fifth starter than Corey Lidle.

santo=dorf
11-01-2004, 01:07 PM
I'd rather Grili be the fifth starter than Corey Lidle.
Go check out his numbers against AL Central teams. They were posted when George Ofman decided to report that KW was interested in him last July. From what I've been reading, Philly is going to re-sign him anyways.

Brian26
11-01-2004, 01:11 PM
Go check out his numbers against AL Central teams. They were posted when George Ofman decided to report that KW was interested in him last July. From what I've been reading, Philly is going to re-sign him anyways.

Interestingly enough, ESPN is reporting that Phily is going to shock the world and sign Beltran, too.

santo=dorf
11-01-2004, 01:16 PM
Interestingly enough, ESPN is reporting that Phily is going to shock the world and sign Beltran, too.Good. Keep him in the NL. I would like to see how many homers he'll hit in that bandbox.

Tekijawa
11-01-2004, 01:17 PM
What is Philly's pay roll and why are they a Bigger Market team than the White Sox?

santo=dorf
11-01-2004, 01:29 PM
What is Philly's pay roll and why are they a Bigger Market team than the White Sox?
Philly had a payroll around $93 million last year, and could probably afford a payroll of the same amount this year because of the large attendance from the opening of the new ballpark last year. They have Bobby Abreu and Pat Burrell locked up until 2008, and Jim Thome locked up until 2009. They are going to be paying Billy Wagner $9 million next year, but they have Eric Milton and Kevin Millwood coming off of the payroll.
http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/2003_10_26_dugoutdollars_archive.html
Philly is a larger market than the Sox because they play in a baseball city. :rolleyes:

jabrch
11-01-2004, 01:31 PM
What is Philly's pay roll and why are they a Bigger Market team than the White Sox?

How much larger was their attendance than ours this year?

santo=dorf
11-01-2004, 01:33 PM
How much larger was their attendance than ours this year?
Their attendance is comparable with our attendance when we opened up new Comiskey back in 1991. What was Philly's attendance at the Vet prior to 2003?

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 01:38 PM
Philly is a larger market than the Sox because they play in a baseball city. :rolleyes:
Per 2000 census:
Philadelphia metro population = 6.2mil
Chicago metro population = 9.2mil

Of course, Philly doesn't share the available population with anyone, so they have full access to the 6.2mil fans. Whereas the Sox share with the Cubs, so unless you realistically think that the Sox are somehow entitled to 65%+ of the "available" population, they're actually in a smaller "available metro area".

jabrch
11-01-2004, 01:38 PM
Their attendance is comparable with our attendance when we opened up new Comiskey back in 1991. What was Philly's attendance at the Vet prior to 2003?
I'm not sure - but the question of why they can spend more money in 2005 is directly related to 2004 attendance. Our attendance in 1991 explained our 1992 payroll.

Baby Fisk
11-01-2004, 01:48 PM
The Phils are also looking to get serious in the managerial department after dumping Larry Clown Shoes. Jim Leyland (WS winner) might be edging ahead of Jim Fregosi (:rolleyes: ) and others for the job.

linky (http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/phi/news/phi_news.jsp?ymd=20041030&content_id=908357&vkey=news_phi&fext=.jsp)

jabrch
11-01-2004, 01:48 PM
Per 2000 census:
Philadelphia metro population = 6.2mil
Chicago metro population = 9.2mil

Of course, Philly doesn't share the available population with anyone, so they have full access to the 6.2mil fans. Whereas the Sox share with the Cubs, so unless you realistically think that the Sox are somehow entitled to 65%+ of the "available" population, they're actually in a smaller "available metro area".
That's interesting - even if the Sox/Cubs split in this town was 50/50, we'd have a population of 4.6, only 75% as large as Philly.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 01:51 PM
That's interesting - even if the Sox/Cubs split in this town was 50/50, we'd have a population of 4.6, only 75% as large as Philly.
Yeah, but we're in the "3d largest market, why don't we have a 130mil payroll????"

jabrch
11-01-2004, 02:07 PM
Yeah, but we're in the "3d largest market, why don't we have a 130mil payroll????"
Duh - why that's simple of course. Cuz JR is cheap, KW is stupid.

Hangar18
11-01-2004, 03:09 PM
Per 2000 census:
Philadelphia metro population = 6.2mil
Chicago metro population = 9.2mil


:reinsy
" Ok first of all, I explained to everyone .......... Chicago is a Small Market.
Ignore Flight #24 everyone, he just MADE UP THOSE STATISTICS!"

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 03:16 PM
:reinsy
" Ok first of all, I explained to everyone .......... Chicago is a Small Market.
Ignore Flight #24 everyone, he just MADE UP THOSE STATISTICS!"
OK, I'll bite: the point is that sharing a large market may not be as good as monopolizing a medium sized market.

So unless you really believe that the Cubs should "own" less than 40% of the Chicagoland area (despite the Trib, WGN, etc) - then the Sox are worse off than say, the Phillies.

kittle42
11-01-2004, 03:18 PM
OK, I'll bite: the point is that sharing a large market may not be as good as monopolizing a medium sized market.

So unless you really believe that the Cubs should "own" less than 40% of the Chicagoland area (despite the Trib, WGN, etc) - then the Sox are worse off than say, the Phillies.
How big is the NY market or LA market?

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 03:38 PM
How big is the NY market or LA market?See the attached for a listing of market sizes.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml

Note that among the markets that share teams, only the SF/Oakland Bay area is smaller. If we assume that the Sox get HALF of the Chicago market, that still puts them smaller than Toronto, Detroit, Texas and Houston.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 03:38 PM
How big is the NY market or LA market?Here's the top 15 (data from http://www.wordiq.com/definition/United_States_metropolitan_area - Thank you Google!)

1. NY - 21.2
2. LA - 16.4
3. Chicago - 9.2
4. Washington-Baltimore - 7.6
5. San Fran-Oakland-San Jose - 7
6. Philly - 6.2
7. Boston - 5.8
8. Detroit - 5.5
9. Dallas-FortWorth - 5.2
10. Houston - 4.7
11. Atlanta - 4.1
12. Miami-Ft Lauderdale - 3.9
13. Seattle - 3.6
14. Phoenix - 3.3
15. Minnesota - 3

So if you use a 50-50 split of fans (which is a stretch, IMO), the Sox have access to an equivalent fan base as Houston. If you factor in that anything short of multiple WS is unlikely to make it 50-50 what with the Cubs being owned by the "Independent, Objective" Tribune company and therefore 30-40% of the city is more realistic, the Sox are a lot closer to Minnesota in fan base.

EDIT: I see Ol'No2 beat me to it, and my data obviously doesn't include Toronto.

RKMeibalane
11-01-2004, 03:40 PM
Duh - why that's simple of course. Cuz JR is cheap, KW is stupid.
That should not have been in teal.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 03:43 PM
See the attached for a listing of market sizes.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml

Note that among the markets that share teams, only the SF/Oakland Bay area is smaller. If we assume that the Sox get HALF of the Chicago market, that still puts them smaller than Toronto, Detroit, Texas and Houston.
An intersting point: Splitting dual-team markets 50-50 and ranking by size, the Sox would be 12th in MLB in market size. In salary rankings, they were 15th, but only 2mil in salary from 13th so they're about where they would be expected to be from that perspective.

FightingBillini
11-01-2004, 03:44 PM
People are forgetting that the majority of Chicagoans are very fickle when it comes to baseball. There are probably less acutal fans of the Cubs than of the White Sox. This is talked about a lot on here, but we all know that half the jokes we see wearing Cubs gear and bashing the Sox:
A.) Know little to nothing about baseball
B.) Were wearing Sox hats back in the early nineties

The majority of the city is up for grabs. If we win, we will have more "fans". Thats just the way it is. People will always root for a winner and pretend like they were always fans.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 03:47 PM
People are forgetting that the majority of Chicagoans are very fickle when it comes to baseball. There are probably less acutal fans of the Cubs than of the White Sox. This is talked about a lot on here, but we all know that half the jokes we see wearing Cubs gear and bashing the Sox:
A.) Know little to nothing about baseball
B.) Were wearing Sox hats back in the early nineties

The majority of the city is up for grabs. If we win, we will have more "fans". Thats just the way it is. People will always root for a winner and pretend like they were always fans.
I can only half agree. The majority are very fickle, but IMO, the incessant Tribune promotion of the Cubs & Wrigley as a shrine/fun place/first stop on a great night out drinking have a greater impact unless the Sox can be a consistent top team ala the Yankees. Exhibit A: Being "Loveable Losers" over the past 15-20 years has somehow become endearing and cute. Whoever thought being called a Loser would be something people want to be associated with?

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 03:50 PM
People are forgetting that the majority of Chicagoans are very fickle when it comes to baseball. There are probably less acutal fans of the Cubs than of the White Sox. This is talked about a lot on here, but we all know that half the jokes we see wearing Cubs gear and bashing the Sox:
A.) Know little to nothing about baseball
B.) Were wearing Sox hats back in the early nineties

The majority of the city is up for grabs. If we win, we will have more "fans". Thats just the way it is. People will always root for a winner and pretend like they were always fans.Until the last couple of years the Cubs haven't won squat, but they've outdrawn the Sox by a big margin since the early 90's. It has a lot more to do with the Tribune/Cubs marketing cabal than with winning. You have to give them credit. They put lipstick on that pig and sold them as the "lovable losers".

Ol' No. 2
11-01-2004, 03:55 PM
An intersting point: Splitting dual-team markets 50-50 and ranking by size, the Sox would be 12th in MLB in market size. In salary rankings, they were 15th, but only 2mil in salary from 13th so they're about where they would be expected to be from that perspective.:reinsy Isn't that what I've been trying to tell you???? Nobody believes me!!!

SOXSINCE'70
11-01-2004, 04:10 PM
Philly had a payroll around $93 million last year, and could probably afford a payroll of the same amount this year because of the large attendance from the opening of the new ballpark last year. They have Bobby Abreu and Pat Burrell locked up until 2008, and Jim Thome locked up until 2009. They are going to be paying Billy Wagner $9 million next year, but they have Eric Milton and Kevin Millwood coming off of the payroll.
http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/2003_10_26_dugoutdollars_archive.html
Philly is a larger market than the Sox because they play in a baseball city. :rolleyes: There's a ton of pressure on Philly to produce in '05.
If they don't,GM Ed Wade is toast.My dad lives 30 mins.away
from the Phillies' stadium. He says there is also a ton of pressure on
the team's principle owner,Bill Giles,to sell.The Philly Phaithful
are questioning Giles' will to win a championship.

SOUND FAMILIAR????:angry: :angry: :angry:

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 04:10 PM
Until the last couple of years the Cubs haven't won squat, but they've outdrawn the Sox by a big margin since the early 90's. It has a lot more to do with the Tribune/Cubs marketing cabal than with winning. You have to give them credit. They put lipstick on that pig and sold them as the "lovable losers".
IIRC, Trib bought the Chubs in 1981. Since 1984, they've outdrawn the Sox with the exception of the '91 & '92 seasons. That's 2 years in 20. Even in 1993, when the Sox were in the playoffs behind a young, very strong team, they almost broke even against a team that went 84-78.

What truly boggles the mind, however is that in 1994, while the 49-64 Cubs drew 1.85mil before the strike, the 67-46 Sox drew 1.7mil. Yup - a team that was fairly dominant, coming off of a playoff run and continuing to look great, a team that had developed it's own young talent and been steadily improving for 2-3 years consistently and looked like a WS contender was losing to the "lovable losers".

That right there should tell you that "owning" anything more than 50% of the market is highly unlikely.

Lip Man 1
11-01-2004, 05:44 PM
Flight:

And who was responsible for 'handing' the Chicago market to the Cubs with SportsVision, the exile of Harry and Jimmy and leaving WGN-TV two years before superstations exploded on to the U.S. television scene?

Great planning and foresight eh?

Lip

LAWSfan
11-01-2004, 08:23 PM
Flight:

And who was responsible for 'handing' the Chicago market to the Cubs with SportsVision, the exile of Harry and Jimmy and leaving WGN-TV two years before superstations exploded on to the U.S. television scene?

Great planning and foresight eh?

Lip
Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to sit back and look at all the decisions made and say that was bad and that was good. I'm not a big Harry fan. I'll take Hawk over anytime. I remember MLB tried to do something about WGN and TBS back in the 80's. But that was after the fact the Cubs won the 84 NL East and became the lovable losers.

Flight #24
11-01-2004, 09:35 PM
Flight:

And who was responsible for 'handing' the Chicago market to the Cubs with SportsVision, the exile of Harry and Jimmy and leaving WGN-TV two years before superstations exploded on to the U.S. television scene?

Great planning and foresight eh?

LipI'll take things that are incorrect for $400, Alex. Since 1968, the Sox have outdrawn the Cubs a total of 8 times. That's 8 times in 36 years. And in the decade prior to curent ownership, the Sox outdrew the Cubs twice. So yeah, the Sox were in complete control of the market and JR simply handed it over to the Cubs.

Not only is it incorrect, it's actually irrelevant, unless you want to say that absent JR's actions the Sox were going to "own" >60% of the Chicago market despite the incessant marketing by the Tribune. Otherwise, they're still able to access a market the size of Houston/Toronto.

By the way - JR's to blame for not predicting that superstations were going to emerge?:?: Can you let me know tomorrow's lottery results, Lip? Apparently you have abilities that the majority of humanity do not.

jabrch
11-01-2004, 09:37 PM
I'll take things that are incorrect for $400, Alex. Since 1968, the Sox have outdrawn the Cubs a total of 8 times. That's 8 times in 36 years. And in the decade prior to curent ownership, the Sox outdrew the Cubs twice. So yeah, the Sox were in complete control of the market and JR simply handed it over to the Cubs.

Not only is it incorrect, it's actually irrelevant, unless you want to say that absent JR's actions the Sox were going to "own" >60% of the Chicago market despite the incessant marketing by the Tribune. Otherwise, they're still able to access a market the size of Houston/Toronto.

By the way - JR's to blame for not predicting that superstations were going to emerge?:?: Can you let me know tomorrow's lottery results, Lip? Apparently you have abilities that the majority of humanity do not.
Stop getting facts in the way of know-it-all1s posts. He's the best kind of fan - one who does nothing but criticize anything and anyone out there. He's right Flight - you should know that by now.

Tragg
11-02-2004, 12:13 AM
Don't forget how much Kenny loves to target a guy and continue to relentlessly go after him.

He did this with Contreras, Koch, both Alomars and Everett.

He's been after the above 3 guys for a long time. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict at least one of these guys is on the White Sox opening day roster.

Just a hunch I have.And as a result he consistently overpays when he targets a player (Ritchie, Koch, Alomar, Everett (both twice), even Garcia). The other team can set its price. Same when he's hell bent on dumping a player - Durham virtually given away, as was Baldwin.
I agree with you, but I don't think it's a particularly examplary trait of our GM

Tragg
11-02-2004, 12:17 AM
By the way - JR's to blame for not predicting that superstations were going to emerge?superstations - TBS - emerged in the early 1970s. He purchased the club in, what 1979 or 1980? He fired/let-walk Caray and Piersall for the precise reasons the Trib fired stone.

batmanZoSo
11-02-2004, 12:54 AM
See the attached for a listing of market sizes.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml

Note that among the markets that share teams, only the SF/Oakland Bay area is smaller. If we assume that the Sox get HALF of the Chicago market, that still puts them smaller than Toronto, Detroit, Texas and Houston.

So if you take away half our citizens and give them over to the cubs, we're down to 4.5 or so million possible fans and that makes us actually below the average MLB market size of 5.5 or so. Hence, we can't fill up the park that well, we get less revenue and we spend less on talent.

Mohoney
11-02-2004, 02:36 AM
If this C Lee and Garland for Randy Johnson trade materializes, I would sign Cory Lidle.

Johnson, Garcia, Buehrle, Lidle, Contreras sounds pretty solid to me.

I would definitely take Cory Lidle over Jason Grilli.

jabrch
11-02-2004, 07:22 AM
And as a result he consistently overpays when he targets a player (Ritchie, Koch, Alomar, Everett (both twice), even Garcia). The other team can set its price. Same when he's hell bent on dumping a player - Durham virtually given away, as was Baldwin.
I agree with you, but I don't think it's a particularly examplary trait of our GM
When all the facts point the other way, you keep on singing this same broken old tune.

dickallen15
11-02-2004, 08:09 AM
superstations - TBS - emerged in the early 1970s. He purchased the club in, what 1979 or 1980? He fired/let-walk Caray and Piersall for the precise reasons the Trib fired stone.
Piersall was let go for a litany of classless remarks and irratic behavior. Caray walked on his own. He wanted to be on WGN nationally, not pay per view ON TV. No team would ever touch Piersall again as a broadcaster. Harry went for more exposure, more fame and more money. You can't argue with him for that. FWIW, if you ever encountered Harry away from the ballpark or away from his restaurant, where he was generally well behaved, he was one of the biggest horse's behinds you ever would meet. The Trib didn't fire Stone, he left on his own.

gosox41
11-02-2004, 08:53 AM
I'll take things that are incorrect for $400, Alex. Since 1968, the Sox have outdrawn the Cubs a total of 8 times. That's 8 times in 36 years. And in the decade prior to curent ownership, the Sox outdrew the Cubs twice. So yeah, the Sox were in complete control of the market and JR simply handed it over to the Cubs.

Not only is it incorrect, it's actually irrelevant, unless you want to say that absent JR's actions the Sox were going to "own" >60% of the Chicago market despite the incessant marketing by the Tribune. Otherwise, they're still able to access a market the size of Houston/Toronto.

By the way - JR's to blame for not predicting that superstations were going to emerge?:?: Can you let me know tomorrow's lottery results, Lip? Apparently you have abilities that the majority of humanity do not.

JR's rich. He has to have inside access to all this information to which he is greatly profiting from.


Bob

Brian26
11-02-2004, 09:43 AM
And as a result he consistently overpays when he targets a player (Ritchie, Koch, Alomar, Everett (both twice), even Garcia). The other team can set its price. Same when he's hell bent on dumping a player - Durham virtually given away, as was Baldwin.
I agree with you, but I don't think it's a particularly examplary trait of our GM

I didn't say it was good or bad, but, rather, just seems to be a consistent reoccurring theme with him.

Lip Man 1
11-02-2004, 11:38 AM
Bob:

How's the web site coming along?

and here's some 'facts' that Uncle Jerry's friends conviently forgot. The Sox were on SUPERSTATION WGN in 1981. I watched them in Lexington, Kentucky when Harry and (shudder) Lou Brock were doing the games.

Superstations were already starting to make an impact yet this ownership group dumped them for SportsVision that according to Bob Logan in his book Miracle On 35th Street never had more then 30,000 subscribers.

Ownership traded off potential national interest, and potential national advertising in the future if they team became good for short term profit. Why are we surprised at this?

Lip

TDog
11-02-2004, 11:42 AM
Piersall was let go for a litany of classless remarks and irratic behavior. Caray walked on his own. He wanted to be on WGN nationally, not pay per view ON TV. No team would ever touch Piersall again as a broadcaster. Harry went for more exposure, more fame and more money. You can't argue with him for that. FWIW, if you ever encountered Harry away from the ballpark or away from his restaurant, where he was generally well behaved, he was one of the biggest horse's behinds you ever would meet. The Trib didn't fire Stone, he left on his own.
Of course, but so many prefer the legend to the truth.

TDog
11-02-2004, 11:51 AM
...
and here's some 'facts' that Uncle Jerry's friends conviently forgot. The Sox were on SUPERSTATION WGN in 1981. I watched them in Lexington, Kentucky when Harry and (shudder) Lou Brock were doing the games....
During a game I was watching in Las Vegas, Harry Caray was complaining about the way WGN was treating the White Sox and lamented, "At least we won't have to deal with that next year." There was still a year remaining on the WGN contract, but everyone knew it would be the last for the Sox (for many years at least).

Tragg
11-03-2004, 12:52 AM
When all the facts point the other way, you keep on singing this same broken old tune.
Okay - he underpaid for Ritchie (the Ritchie he thought he'd get); he underpaid for Garcia; who else could have gotten as much as a minor leaguer for Durham when he was hell bent on dumping him; what a bargain to get the great Carl Everett? Just outstanding negotiation. Happy now?

FWIW, I am not a gratuituous KW basher; He has strengths and he has weaknesses; I am willing to identify both as I see them. One weakness is his eyeballing a player and overpaying for him (or vice-versa when dumping)- perhaps you can identify the facts that say he doesn't overpay for such players. A strength is that he does stuff- he doesn't let his minor leaguers rot away, in contrast to his predecessor

batmanZoSo
11-03-2004, 12:56 AM
Of course, but so many prefer the legend to the truth.

Legend is mo' fun.
:redneck