PDA

View Full Version : Reinsdorf


kruzer31
11-20-2004, 04:38 PM
Jerry is the owner of the bulls, why does he allow contracts like Jalen Rose and Eddie Robinson and not big contracts for the white sox????

Kilroy
11-20-2004, 04:47 PM
Jerry is the owner of the bulls, why does he allow contracts like Jalen Rose and Eddie Robinson and not big contracts for the white sox????
He has allowed contracts like that for the Sox.

:jaime
Remember me??

http://www.s-t.com/daily/11-98/11-14-98/belle.jpg

What about this guy??

Two pretty big contracts as I remember...

johnny_mostil
11-20-2004, 04:50 PM
Jerry is the owner of the bulls, why does he allow contracts like Jalen Rose and Eddie Robinson and not big contracts for the white sox????
He does. Mark Buerhle, Freddy Garcia, Frank Thomas, Carlos Lee, and Paul Konerko all make *&@$^@loads of money. He doesn't allow mega*&@$^@load contracts like Jason Giambi and Chan Ho Park got, which is fortunate, because a couple of Jason Giambi/Chan Ho contracts and the Sox, with their finances, would be fielding a team that looks like the Devil Rays or go to chapter 11.

Everybody forgets how much dead money the Yankees are piling on. But they have fanatical fan base that shows up, happily pays several times what Sox fans pay to go to the game, doesn't whine about the park being located in a shockingly dangerous slum, and demand that the local cable company subsidize the team with enormous rights fees. So they can afford to risk giving five year contracts to risky 32-year-olds. If it doesn't work out, they just buy themselves another Gary Sheffield.

Basketball isn't the same sport. You don't have to serve a six year apprenticeship to demand an enormous contract.

Lip Man 1
11-20-2004, 11:08 PM
Johnny:

The Yanks didn't have that 'fanatical fan base' in the 80's and most of the 90's did they? Ever see video from those days? The park was empty, George was talking about building a new stadium in New Jersey.

He took the risk and started spending huge amounts of money which won him championships, increased his TV/radio rights significantly and filled his stadium.

What a coincidence!

Lip

Brian26
11-20-2004, 11:32 PM
Where's the Juice Cruz tag when I need it? :D:

johnny_mostil
11-21-2004, 11:34 AM
Johnny:

The Yanks didn't have that 'fanatical fan base' in the 80's and most of the 90's did they? Ever see video from those days? The park was empty, George was talking about building a new stadium in New Jersey.

He took the risk and started spending huge amounts of money which won him championships, increased his TV/radio rights significantly and filled his stadium.

What a coincidence!

Lip
Th Yankee attendance in the 1980s was still better than White Sox attendance has been in the last ten years. They were usually 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. It dipped in the early 1990s, true, but the Yankees posted four straight losing seasons and two 90-loss seasons, a worse stretch than White Sox fans have had to endure in decades. Of course, New York is twice the size of Chicago, but the fact remains that the White Sox do not have the resources the big guys have and never will as long as the attendance is less than close to capacity. They'll have to win by being smarter than other teams; given that the organization stays at .500 with &*@$^*@y revenue, they probably are, just not enough. (It's also possible their money shortage is just keeping them from pulling the Chan Ho Park rocks that other teams pull.) The last really complete waste of money the Chairman pulled was Navarro. The jury will be out on Contreras, he could be the next.

The Yanks got off the treadmill not just by spending money but by developing players. "Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte and Jorge Posada" over five years will elevate any team. Nobody here things Brian Anderson, Pedro Lopez, Brandon McCarthy, Ryan Sweeney, and Casey Rogowski are going to be those caliber players, do they?

voodoochile
11-21-2004, 11:51 AM
Th Yankee attendance in the 1980s was still better than White Sox attendance has been in the last ten years. They were usually 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. It dipped in the early 1990s, true, but the Yankees posted four straight losing seasons and two 90-loss seasons, a worse stretch than White Sox fans have had to endure in decades. Of course, New York is twice the size of Chicago, but the fact remains that the White Sox do not have the resources the big guys have and never will as long as the attendance is less than close to capacity. They'll have to win by being smarter than other teams; given that the organization stays at .500 with &*@$^*@y revenue, they probably are, just not enough. (It's also possible their money shortage is just keeping them from pulling the Chan Ho Park rocks that other teams pull.) The last really complete waste of money the Chairman pulled was Navarro. The jury will be out on Contreras, he could be the next.

The Yanks got off the treadmill not just by spending money but by developing players. "Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte and Jorge Posada" over five years will elevate any team. Nobody here things Brian Anderson, Pedro Lopez, Brandon McCarthy, Ryan Sweeney, and Casey Rogowski are going to be those caliber players, do they?
Just the last 10 years?

Hmmmm...

During that stretch JR led an ownership group that canceled his own teams best chance at a Pennant and beyond in over 3 decades, watched attendance drop from the fans going on strike then when attendance started to rebound he white flagged it 3.5 games out of first at the trade deadline, talked more trash about the fans, screwed over his only surefire HOF player and allowed the flubbies to walk off with the city's fanbase.

Now, would ANY of that have to do with those numbers you are looking at?

DumpJerry
11-21-2004, 11:59 AM
I have a long list of grievances against Uncle Jerry, but I don't know if the fact he appears to hand out big contract for the Bulls over the Sox is one. First of all, we need to remind ourselves that Uncle Jer owns 5% of the Sox, he is responding to the other 95% who also own the team. He might have a completely different group of investors at the Bulls. Second, comparing the Sox and Bulls is apples and oranges. As one poster pointed out, there is a time period of player development in MLB while the NBA has one which is very short (or non-existant). How often can a LeBron James appear in MLB? There are no official farm teams in the NBA, just various professional leagues like the CBA and Europe which sometimes provide the NBA with a player.


Uncle Jerry has written big contracts for the Sox, it is a matter of writing the right big contracts or getting players to agree to one. He supposedly (it was never really confirmed) offered Maggs, before his injury, a huge contract. Some of Uncle Jerry's moves in hindsight proved right like his policy in the 90's of not giving starting pitchers contracts of over 4 years (or was it 5?). At the time we were p***ed as heck because we lost some good pitchers like Alex Fernandez who went on to sign long-term contracts which were not completed due to injury or diminished skills.

I think our frustration with Uncle Jerry is his cautious (when compared to some other franchises) approach to player acquisitions. However, sometimes being overly aggressive, like the Yanks, can lead to overpaying for players which results in used up capital that could have been used for a quality player later on.

I have always felt that Uncle Jerry's skills at customer relations has been extremely poor even though Brooks seems to be at the other end of the spectrum. JR built up his wealth as a real estate investor, not providing entertainment. I'm a firm believer that if JR were replaced, but most of the current front office personnel were to remain, the Sox will draw more fans and better players.

I could list the Crimes Against Humanity JR has committed, but the WSI server hard drive would be filled beyone capacity. (In fairness, I would also list his good things like the Sox' work with kids with disabilities, allowing military personnel in uniform in Sox games for free, etc..)

johnny_mostil
11-21-2004, 12:05 PM
Just the last 10 years?

Hmmmm...

During that stretch JR led an ownership group that canceled his own teams best chance at a Pennant and beyond in over 3 decades, watched attendance drop from the fans going on strike then when attendance started to rebound he white flagged it 3.5 games out of first at the trade deadline, talked more trash about the fans, screwed over his only surefire HOF player and allowed the flubbies to walk off with the city's fanbase.

Now, would ANY of that have to do with those numbers you are looking at?
Sure. Although I personally believe Reinsdorf was right in 1994, and that the union has twisted and misused labor laws to run a collusion racket of their own, I agree absolutely. (Don't bother to argue with me, you can't convince me otherwise with your Jedi fact tricks.)

But an earlier generation of White Sox fans didn't show up in the 1960s, voodoo, when the team had won for seventeen consecutive seasons and had a pitching staff we'd kill for today. In 1967 the team finished three games out, were in the race for the World Series until the last four days, and the attendance was 900K, 7th in the league. The team's finances and attendance collapsed the next year. There was no goodwill reservoir.

In 1997 the ownership splurged on the #1 hitter FA but the season was destroyed, mostly, by Ventura's horrific injury. The fans did not show up, voodoo. They just didn't. Spending enormous amounts of money didn't get anybody to come to the park. The attendance was already bad before the White Flag. It was already flagging in 1994. It hasn't been good since 1991-1993.

Quick: How many seasons in the last forty have the White Sox been even above average in attendance in the AL? Eleven. It isn't just ownership, there have been three of them, and Bill Veeck, the poorest of all, was probably the most fan-friendly ever. It's also about the fans. Compared to most of the league's cities, White Sox Nation is bitter, stingy, and disinterested. Or at least that's what ownership thinks, and the evidence is on their side.

johnny_mostil
11-21-2004, 12:19 PM
At the time we were p***ed as heck because we lost some good pitchers like Alex Fernandez who went on to sign long-term contracts which were not completed due to injury or diminished skills.

Actually, it's not "some" of them, it's all of them.

Name a White Sox starting pitcher after 1982 who had a successful career after leaving the White Sox for any reason. LaMarr Hoyt? Rich Dotson? Floyd Bannister? Britt Burns? Melido Perez? BlackJack? Alex Fernandez? Wilson Alvarez? Jason Bere? Jim Abbott? Jaime Navarro? Mike Sirotka? James Baldwin? Todd Ritchie? No.

So you can make a modest case for Tim Belcher, Cal Eldred (but as a reliever), David Wells, and Kip Wells, three of whom didn't pitch particularly well for the Sox and none of whom would have made any real difference in the standings.

So spending money to retain the pitchers the Sox had would have been fruitless.

The work in progress is Bartolo Colon, who was awful this year and got bailed out by massive run support. Laime would have won 15 games with that support. While it looks like the LA Angels are committed to building an offensive team that can keep doing that, it hardly tells me JR should have given him fifty two million dollars to stay and pitch like Navarro.

Wealz
11-21-2004, 01:19 PM
The attendance was already bad before the White Flag. It was already flagging in 1994. It hasn't been good since 1991-1993.
This is my only quibble from an otherwise excellent post. The Sox lost 28 home dates to the strike and they had huge advance sales, something like 1.2M tickets. That would have put them around 2.9M for the season.

johnny_mostil
11-21-2004, 01:28 PM
This is my only quibble from an otherwise excellent post. The Sox lost 28 home dates to the strike and they had huge advance sales, something like 1.2M tickets. That would have put them around 2.9M for the season.
OK. Their average attendance, though, had been falling since 91 as the novelty of the new park wore off.

Lip Man 1
11-21-2004, 01:39 PM
All right....let me hear ya'.....a one, a two, a three!

So let's root, root, root for Uncle Jerry's wallet... if the Sox don't win, it's your fault! For it's one, two, three strikes your out at the old ballgame.

Hey!

Lip

Wealz
11-21-2004, 02:01 PM
All right....let me hear ya'.....a one, a two, a three!

So let's root, root, root for Uncle Jerry's wallet... if the Sox don't win, it's your fault! For it's one, two, three strikes your out at the old ballgame.

Hey!

Lip
Lip, which successful MLB franchise do you think it would be reasonable for the White Sox to emulate?

johnny_mostil
11-21-2004, 02:15 PM
Lip, which successful MLB franchise do you think it would be reasonable for the White Sox to emulate?
I dunno about Lip, but I'd suggest "Oakland".

Second team in a two-team metro area. Stadium is in a lousy part of town. Fans don't show up even for playoff teams but they fawn over an insipidly-run 'fashionable' team with one huge superstar. Owner is cheaper than Ebenezer Scrooge. But they still have playoff teams most years.

Don't give me the "they don't win" argument, they got jobbed last year by an insipid umpiring decision when Bill Mueller cheated. Had the ump done the common-sensible thing -- "Tejada scores due to the interference" -- there's no Aaron Boone homer last year because the Red Sox got beat.

fquaye149
11-21-2004, 02:20 PM
Lip, which successful MLB franchise do you think it would be reasonable for the White Sox to emulate?
let me anticipate the answer:

cubs, yankees, red sox, and of course the new favorites: the angels.

which would be nice...but they don't make a pink that deep.

Parrothead
11-21-2004, 04:03 PM
During that stretch JR led an ownership group that canceled his own teams best chance at a Pennant and beyond in over 3 decades, watched attendance drop from the fans going on strike then when attendance started to rebound he white flagged it 3.5 games out of first at the trade deadline, talked more trash about the fans, screwed over his only surefire HOF player and allowed the flubbies to walk off with the city's fanbase.
What you are leaving out is that The Sox were 3 games under .500 at the time of the trade and not going anywhere. Plus, the trade worked out pretty good for the Sox aquiring Biddle, Foulke, Parque. The new "closer", Karchner/Foulke, did just fine and did not blow any chances. They really did not miss Darwin, Herandez or Alarvez. I guess I am one of the few out there who liked the trade at the time. I wish people would stop with talk that the Sox had a chance to win that year.

TDog
11-21-2004, 04:12 PM
What you are leaving out is that The Sox were 3 games under .500 at the time of the trade and not going anywhere. Plus, the trade worked out pretty good for the Sox aquiring Biddle, Foulke, Parque. The new "closer", Karchner/Foulke, did just fine and did not blow any chances. They really did not miss Darwin, Herandez or Alarvez. I guess I am one of the few out there who liked the trade at the time. I wish people would stop with talk that the Sox had a chance to win that year.
I agree that the Sox were going nowhere, but the Sox drafted Parque and Biddle.

Parrothead
11-21-2004, 04:21 PM
I agree that the Sox were going nowhere, but the Sox drafted Parque and Biddle.
Yes you are right I should have been more clear. I thought they got them picks as compensation too.

voodoochile
11-21-2004, 07:13 PM
Sure. Although I personally believe Reinsdorf was right in 1994, and that the union has twisted and misused labor laws to run a collusion racket of their own, I agree absolutely. (Don't bother to argue with me, you can't convince me otherwise with your Jedi fact tricks.)

But an earlier generation of White Sox fans didn't show up in the 1960s, voodoo, when the team had won for seventeen consecutive seasons and had a pitching staff we'd kill for today. In 1967 the team finished three games out, were in the race for the World Series until the last four days, and the attendance was 900K, 7th in the league. The team's finances and attendance collapsed the next year. There was no goodwill reservoir.

In 1997 the ownership splurged on the #1 hitter FA but the season was destroyed, mostly, by Ventura's horrific injury. The fans did not show up, voodoo. They just didn't. Spending enormous amounts of money didn't get anybody to come to the park. The attendance was already bad before the White Flag. It was already flagging in 1994. It hasn't been good since 1991-1993.

Quick: How many seasons in the last forty have the White Sox been even above average in attendance in the AL? Eleven. It isn't just ownership, there have been three of them, and Bill Veeck, the poorest of all, was probably the most fan-friendly ever. It's also about the fans. Compared to most of the league's cities, White Sox Nation is bitter, stingy, and disinterested. Or at least that's what ownership thinks, and the evidence is on their side.
An article for you to read (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2518)

Sorry, I disagree. I think JR is the reason attendance is as bad as it is.

voodoochile
11-21-2004, 07:21 PM
What you are leaving out is that The Sox were 3 games under .500 at the time of the trade and not going anywhere. Plus, the trade worked out pretty good for the Sox aquiring Biddle, Foulke, Parque. The new "closer", Karchner/Foulke, did just fine and did not blow any chances. They really did not miss Darwin, Herandez or Alarvez. I guess I am one of the few out there who liked the trade at the time. I wish people would stop with talk that the Sox had a chance to win that year.
Really? So with another starting pitcher and another bat added at the trade deadline, they would have stood no chance to make up 3.5 games in the last two months? :dunno:

Must be nice to be psychic...

Also, who let the team flounder all year failing to pick up a bat to replace Ventura and then quit the minute he came back?

How many championships did that trade create?

I still believe it was the single most damaging PR blunder in pro sports history. It crushed the already fragile fanbase which was just starting to recover from the 1994 fiasco and was probably the final nail in the coffin, but hey, it worked out great when the flubbies took the money and ran to the playoffs 2 times in the next 5 years with the extra money they reaped from being handed the city. Now they got so many fans they won't all fit in the park and JR gets to sell to the leftovers. It worked last year and will probably work again this year even more.

It also means they will probably be able to sell those pricey scout seats to companys desperate for any MLB tickets and a few more skyboxes will rent out this season.

:reinsy
"About damn time too. I've been trying to sell those things for 14 years. All it took was giving up enough times and now I can sell the seats and not have a good product on the field. Just call me Tribune south or Mr. Wrigley if you prefer."

ondafarm
11-21-2004, 07:26 PM
An article for you to read (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2518)

Sorry, I disagree. I think JR is the reason attendance is as bad as it is.
Great article.

Nothing like a Laffer Curve explanation !!!

johnny_mostil
11-21-2004, 07:53 PM
An article for you to read (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2518)

Sorry, I disagree. I think JR is the reason attendance is as bad as it is.
I read the article when it first came out.

Middle of the pack attendance in the 1950s was pathetic. That was a good team by any stretch, cursed only by sharing a league with the Yankee Dynasty nobody could beat. 5th in the early 1960s, another time when it was good to be a White Sox fan, was terrible as well.

I have no issue with the idea that Reinsdorf is responsible for some of the image problems the team has. But the truth is, the White Sox have been really attendance-rich only twice in their history, the teens and the early 1990s. Chicago took solid contending teams for granted in the 1950s and 1960s. There is no reason to believe that there would be any rush to buy White Sox tickets if the team changed owners and started spending money.

Lip Man 1
11-21-2004, 08:37 PM
Johnny;

In every year but ONE from 1951 through 1967 Sox attendence was higher then the Cubs.

So much for the comment 'Chicago has always been a Cubs town...' BS.

Wealz:

Considering they have made the playoffs I think four or five times in the past ten years and have a good sized payroll I'd say the Astros are a nice franchise to take after.

Lip

johnny_mostil
11-21-2004, 08:50 PM
Johnny;

In every year but ONE from 1951 through 1967 Sox attendence was higher then the Cubs.

So much for the comment 'Chicago has always been a Cubs town...' BS.

I didn't say that and I never had.

In every year from 1951 through 1967 Chicago was the second or third largest city in the country. In only one of those years (1960) did the team finish higher in attendance ranking than in the standings. Yeah, they outdrew the Cubs, but the attendance was still not commensurate with the performance of the team on the field. As soon as the team had a down year, the crowds vanished and the team almost went bankrupt. My point was that Chicago baseball fans are a pretty difficult bunch to get to the park.

My point has nothing to do with the Cubs. It has to do with the absence of any credible evidence that sharply increased payroll by the White Sox will lead to proportionate increased revenue for the team, and plenty of evidence that it won't. The business model just doesn't support the idea that the White Sox should go out and compete for premier free agents.

TornLabrum
11-21-2004, 09:34 PM
What you are leaving out is that The Sox were 3 games under .500 at the time of the trade and not going anywhere. Plus, the trade worked out pretty good for the Sox aquiring Biddle, Foulke, Parque. The new "closer", Karchner/Foulke, did just fine and did not blow any chances. They really did not miss Darwin, Herandez or Alarvez. I guess I am one of the few out there who liked the trade at the time. I wish people would stop with talk that the Sox had a chance to win that year.
Let's see, where do we begin with this one:

They traded Baines BEFORE the White Flag trade, which was only a week or so after Ventura came back. Then they made the White Flag trade just a few days later. They'd gone over half the season without Ventura. He was back. How do you know with the middle of the lineup they had that maybe with some pitching help they might just have caught Cleveland. The standard Sox response has been, "Well, look what happened AFTER the trade," a response I have yet to figure out.

Now, of all the youg prospects we got from the White Flag just 7 years ago, how many are still in Chicago?

Lip Man 1
11-21-2004, 10:11 PM
Hal:

Once again your ability to focus directly on the truth makes arguements defending current ownership even more laughable.

Well done.

Lip

JKryl
11-21-2004, 10:56 PM
I have always felt that Uncle Jerry's skills at customer relations has been extremely poor even though Brooks seems to be at the other end of the spectrum. JR built up his wealth as a real estate investor, not providing entertainment. I'm a firm believer that if JR were replaced, but most of the current front office personnel were to remain, the Sox will draw more fans and better players.

I could list the Crimes Against Humanity JR has committed, but the WSI server hard drive would be filled beyone capacity. (In fairness, I would also list his good things like the Sox' work with kids with disabilities, allowing military personnel in uniform in Sox games for free, etc..)
Hey, no one's perfect, but before we talk about JR's customer relations, remember who he took over for? Has any one heard from or about Uncle Eddie Einhorn lately? That's not to excuse JR's seemingly obvious attempts to screw the fans with graduated ticket prices, etc., but I do understand that he has to deal with his other investors. That being said, if they all wanted to make a big buck, they should never have gotten into baseball. And, yes, I also appreciate the good things he does. It's the obvious moves he makes when he seemingly cuts off his foot to spite his face that kills me.

However, the players association deserves a large part of the blame with the inflated salary structure, almost no drug testing, and their refusal to institute a cap. :bandance: :supernana: :bandance:




White Sox baseball, every day is an adventure.

JKryl
11-21-2004, 11:03 PM
What you are leaving out is that The Sox were 3 games under .500 at the time of the trade and not going anywhere. Plus, the trade worked out pretty good for the Sox aquiring Biddle, Foulke, Parque. The new "closer", Karchner/Foulke, did just fine and did not blow any chances. They really did not miss Darwin, Herandez or Alarvez. I guess I am one of the few out there who liked the trade at the time. I wish people would stop with talk that the Sox had a chance to win that year.
I have to agree here. If people want to squawk, think about when they ended the season with a strike. The culprit there was the Players Association, but I NEVER hear anyone complain about those jerks.
:bandance: :supernana: :bandance:




White Sox baseball, every day is an adventure.

Daver
11-21-2004, 11:11 PM
I have to agree here. If people want to squawk, think about when they ended the season with a strike. The culprit there was the Players Association, but I NEVER hear anyone complain about those jerks.

Want to post some proof as to what the MLBPA demnds were for the strike?

Parrothead
11-21-2004, 11:13 PM
Let's see, where do we begin with this one:

How do you know with the middle of the lineup they had that maybe with some pitching help they might just have caught Cleveland.

Now, of all the youg prospects we got from the White Flag just 7 years ago, how many are still in Chicago?
First how many players in MLB have a seven year career? Not many.
Second, they might have caught Cleveland and they might not have either. There is no way of knowing. Get over it. Ventura hit .262 with 6 hrs and 26 rbi in 54 games, not a great year.

The pitching:
Darwin 4 - 9 4.19 era
Alvarez 9 -8 3.03 era

All other starters had an era over 5. That is not going to win many games with with the '27 Yankees hitting.

voodoochile
11-21-2004, 11:17 PM
Hey, no one's perfect, but before we talk about JR's customer relations, remember who he took over for? Has any one heard from or about Uncle Eddie Einhorn lately? That's not to excuse JR's seemingly obvious attempts to screw the fans with graduated ticket prices, etc., but I do understand that he has to deal with his other investors. That being said, if they all wanted to make a big buck, they should never have gotten into baseball. And, yes, I also appreciate the good things he does. It's the obvious moves he makes when he seemingly cuts off his foot to spite his face that kills me.

However, the players association deserves a large part of the blame with the inflated salary structure, almost no drug testing, and their refusal to institute a cap. :bandance: :supernana: :bandance:




White Sox baseball, every day is an adventure.
*****!

Every single one of these guys has made a huge profit anytime they want it just by selling. I have no idea what you are talking about. You should check out those figures from Forbes from the early 90's in that other thread. They were netting +15M a year and those are 1990's dollars for several years in a row.

Every single one of these guys has made a freaking fortune owning this team. How you can't see that is simply beyond me.

Parrothead
11-21-2004, 11:23 PM
Really? So with another starting pitcher and another bat added at the trade deadline, they would have stood no chance to make up 3.5 games in the last two months? :dunno:

Must be nice to be psychic...

Also, who let the team flounder all year failing to pick up a bat to replace Ventura and then quit the minute he came back?

How many championships did that trade create?

It also means they will probably be able to sell those pricey scout seats to companys desperate for any MLB tickets and a few more skyboxes will rent out this season.

."
It is nice to be psychic and I knew you were going to say that.

The trade created no championships nor has any trade/acquition since 1917. At they were trying build a young team with talent. That team blew (Snopek, Mouton, Martin, Karko, Valdez, Lewis, Fonville) Not excactly putting fear to opposing staffs. Not to metion the four starters with an ERA over 5 and only one reliever with an era under 5.27.

Come on, be realistic that team was going nowhere.

There has been many worse PR moves that the "trade". The Black Sox, getting rid of Harry and Piersall, the shorts, disco demolition, albert belle, holding the city hostage for a new stadium (which I like), screwing McCuddy's pick one.

Lip Man 1
11-21-2004, 11:32 PM
Parrott:

The Sox get chances to make the playoffs about as often as a Republican is elected Mayor of the city of Chicago. When those chances come around you don't flush them down the toilet and toss in a urinal cake so it doesn't smell as bad.

That is EXACTLY what the Sox did in 1997 and the effects of the sell out devastated the franchise for years...in some respects it is STILL doing it since there are fans who refused to ever go back to Sox park under any circumstances preferring to watch them on TV or listen to them on the radio.

Talk about knowing the future...how the hell do you know they 'weren't going anywhere...' Let's see a middle of the order of Thomas, Ventura, Belle and Baines, which was together for all of three games. Hmmmm...

Total BS, another member of the **** club root-root-rooting for his wallet.

Lip

Parrothead
11-21-2004, 11:40 PM
Lip.

Starting pitching with an ERA over 5. We have all seen how well that works. How many Championship teams had an era over 5?

Pitching and defense wins games. Ask the Cardinals.

NWSox
11-22-2004, 02:34 AM
Jerry is the owner of the bulls, why does he allow contracts like Jalen Rose and Eddie Robinson and not big contracts for the white sox????
I know I'm a little late to the game on this one, but I thought I would point out that the contracts for Bulls players have very little relevance for the White Sox. The CBA for the NBA has a minimum payroll requirement and set contracts for various classes of players. It doesn't mean you have to sign people like Rose and Robinson to outrageous contracts, but it does force every team to have a handful of larger contracts. Even Donald Sterling of the Clippers (aka the cheapest man in sports) has to resign some of his veterans.

Now the fact that JR would allow another franchise to suck for so long is very relevant to the White Sox.

southsider17
11-22-2004, 07:15 AM
Lip.

Starting pitching with an ERA over 5. We have all seen how well that works. How many Championship teams had an era over 5?

Pitching and defense wins games. Ask the Cardinals.
I think there was one more factor why the Cards won so many games.

Pitching and defense win playoff games but offense gets you there.

And regarding Lip's comment about Sox-playoffs-Republican mayor ....... the Sox have a chance to go to the playoffs almost every year lately. Especially in this division.

I don't think the '97 team would have gone anywhere but I would have liked to see management at least let them try. And then for JR to make a stupid statement like he did. The guy is a PR moron!

:mad:

TDog
11-22-2004, 01:18 PM
...There has been many worse PR moves that the "trade". The Black Sox, getting rid of Harry and Piersall, the shorts, disco demolition, albert belle, holding the city hostage for a new stadium (which I like), screwing McCuddy's pick one.
I can't believe people's perceptions of front office "mistakes." The shorts were trotted out for the second game of an August doubleheader in 1976 and retired. Almost no fans were in the park, and the only clip that survives shows Pat Kelly leading off. Comparing the shorts to the Black Sox scandal is extreme. When I was a kid, Cubs fans were told by their fathers that the Sox once HAD fences that they wheeled in closer to home plate when the Sox were at bat, an idea based on an off-the-cuff remark from Bill Veeck. The shorts were little more than a Bill Veeck off-the-cuff remark.

By the way, some people believed, and still do, that the Sox were better without Piesrall and Caray. People around here lament getting rid of Piersall and Caray as if the Sox had sold Babe Ruth. It's true that Piersall (who once came to blows with a coach who was popular with the players) and Caray (before signing for the big Cub money that required him to be kinder and gentler) had their following, although they were controversial and offensive enough that they kept some fans away from the ballpark. The Sox didn't draw 2 million until after they left.

Baby Fisk
11-22-2004, 01:37 PM
Total BS, another member of the **** club root-root-rooting for his wallet.

LipMy head is starting to spin from all these "Friends Of..." clubs that are sprouting here.

Is there a list of them somewhere? The "FO" acronyms are starting to blow my mind. :nuts:

eshunn2001
11-22-2004, 02:13 PM
Want to post some proof as to what the MLBPA demnds were for the strike?
Well it was a strike. Which would be the choice of the players. Although they may have felt there was no other choice. A lockout would be the owners decision. like in the NHL right now.

DumpJerry
11-22-2004, 06:12 PM
Hey, no one's perfect, but before we talk about JR's customer relations, remember who he took over for? Has any one heard from or about Uncle Eddie Einhorn lately?
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know I will be pronto), but didn't Uncle Eddie do a buy out of his interest and is no longer involved?

Also, another factor which makes comparing Bulls' and Sox' contract hard to do is the NBA has a salary cap, MLB does not. If MLB instituted a salary cap (exempting players who are free agents signing with their own team), the Sox can become more competitive with teams trying to woo a Beltran or other "hot" free agents who want to change zip codes. It could also result in players remaining in place as long as they are useful (best contract possible is with home), fostering stronger team loyalty from the fans. Today, it seems like the fans are fans of a "concept" of the team since each year (before and during the season), there is a high percentage change in the faces. Right now, Frank Thomas and Mark Buerhle are the only guys who are true White Sox players, the others are either too young (Crede, Rowand, for example) to take have root with us yet or have arrived after establishing themselves elsewhere. If we had more long-time heroes on the Sox it would be easier to draw more fans since the team will have a stronger identity with respect to the product we put on the field.

Daver
11-22-2004, 07:25 PM
Well it was a strike. Which would be the choice of the players. Although they may have felt there was no other choice. A lockout would be the owners decision. like in the NHL right now.
A small lesson in the history of baseball labor relations.

In 1987 MLB was found guilty of collusion by a federal judge for a third time, with no chance of appeal. Based on this they agreed to terms with the MLBPA on a new CBA, one that expired, IIRC, in 1992, when that CBA came and went to owners and the players agreed to play while a new CBA was being drafted. It all came to a head in 1994, when a federal arbitor declared the negotiations at an impasse, and the owners had agreed to lock the players out at the conclusion of the season. The MLBPA had two choices, strike, and use the consequences of that to hit the owners in the pocketbook, or play out the season and have their contracts made as useless as the paper they are printed on in a lockout.


This is quite the Readers Digest view of it, I would highly recomend you read up on the full details of the subject.

Daver
11-22-2004, 07:27 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know I will be pronto), but didn't Uncle Eddie do a buy out of his interest and is no longer involved?.
Eddie Einhorn was on leave of abscence for an extended period because of health issues, which have sense been resolved. He is still on the board for the Chicago White Sox Professional Baseball Club.

johnny_mostil
11-22-2004, 07:34 PM
The MLBPA had two choices, strike, and use the consequences of that to hit the owners in the pocketbook, or play out the season and have their contracts made as useless as the paper they are printed on in a lockout.
Nobody really faults the MLBPA. I fault Congress for not amending labor law so that a cartel of multi-millionaires no longer gets protection intended for mine workers, and for not telling the owners that in exchange for taking all that public money they just forfeited the right to hide their finances. Take a sweetheart deal from a city, your finances should be a matter of public record.

StillMissOzzie
11-22-2004, 07:37 PM
A small lesson in the history of baseball labor relations.


This is quite the Readers Digest view of it, I would highly recomend you read up on the full details of the subject.
Daver, I read the hardback book Baseball that accompanied the PBS documentary, and it's a fascinating look at the management / labor issues over the long haul. Can you recommend any sources that focus on the recent issues?

SMO
:?:

Daver
11-22-2004, 07:40 PM
Nobody really faults the MLBPA. I fault Congress for not amending labor law so that a cartel of multi-millionaires no longer gets protection intended for mine workers, and for not telling the owners that in exchange for taking all that public money they just forfeited the right to hide their finances. Take a sweetheart deal from a city, your finances should be a matter of public record.
Write your congressman.

Since when does labor law change because of the dollar amounts involved?

SouthSide_HitMen
11-22-2004, 08:03 PM
Take a sweetheart deal from a city, your finances should be a matter of public record.
This is Chicago - The Daleys and their friends, families and political donators get sweetheart deals stealing millions from the city each and every day never a matter of public record (at least until each weekly scandal is exposed in the newspapers).

SouthSide_HitMen
11-22-2004, 08:16 PM
Write your congressman.

Since when does labor law change because of the dollar amounts involved?Since the Supreme Court has ruled that baseball's antitrust exemption from the same laws that govern any other business in America is legal, built on the faulty premise of MLB not being a business involved in interstate commerce (subject to anti-trust laws) but instead merely a group of organizations putting on "public exhibitions of baseball", which are "purely state affairs" and not interstate commerce.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=259&page=200

Daver
11-22-2004, 08:19 PM
Since the Supreme Court has ruled that baseball's antitrust exemption from the same laws that govern any other business in America is legal, built on the faulty premise of MLB not being a business involved in interstate commerce (subject to anti-trust laws) but instead merely a group of organizations putting on "public exhibitions of baseball", which are "purely state affairs" and not interstate commerce.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=259&page=200
Yeah the supreme court came to that decision in 1922.

What does it have to do with this discussion in particular?

Parrothead
11-22-2004, 08:20 PM
I can't believe people's perceptions of front office "mistakes." The shorts were trotted out for the second game of an August doubleheader in 1976 and retired. Almost no fans were in the park, and the only clip that survives shows Pat Kelly leading off. Comparing the shorts to the Black Sox scandal is extreme. When I was a kid, Cubs fans were told by their fathers that the Sox once HAD fences that they wheeled in closer to home plate when the Sox were at bat, an idea based on an off-the-cuff remark from Bill Veeck. The shorts were little more than a Bill Veeck off-the-cuff remark.

By the way, some people believed, and still do, that the Sox were better without Piesrall and Caray. People around here lament getting rid of Piersall and Caray as if the Sox had sold Babe Ruth. It's true that Piersall (who once came to blows with a coach who was popular with the players) and Caray (before signing for the big Cub money that required him to be kinder and gentler) had their following, although they were controversial and offensive enough that they kept some fans away from the ballpark. The Sox didn't draw 2 million until after they left.
When Harry arrived that is when the Cubs started drawing fans. The fence thing is confirmed in "Veeck as in Wreck" Bill Veeck autobiography. I forget what chapter. I personally thought getting rid of Harry and Piersall was a misktake. But that is me. I don't like the always positive spin. As for Jimmy getting into a fight with the coach. Who cares? He was doing his job as an annoucer. I really was not comparing the shorts to the Black Sox but just listing a sample of the mistakes made by the Sox.

Parrothead
11-22-2004, 08:21 PM
Parrott:


Total BS, another member of the **** club root-root-rooting for his wallet.

Lip
What is ****? I really don't know.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-22-2004, 08:23 PM
The fence thing is confirmed in "Veeck as in Wreck" Bill Veeck autobiography.
Bill Veeck actually adjusted the fenses in between series as operator of the Milwaukee minor league franchise, not as Chicago White Sox owner.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-22-2004, 08:30 PM
Yeah the supreme court came to that decision in 1922.

What does it have to do with this discussion in particular?
Well Baseball is not subject to the same labor / anti trust laws as all other businesses in America.

Players were slaves subject to the whims of their masters (owners) long after the Civil War when the Supreme Court ruled in MLBs favor until 1972 when the Supreme Court reversed a portion of MLBs exemption (ruling that baseball is in fact a business (shocking) which congress has exempted from the laws for which all other businesses (except government) are subject - but that human beings are not in fact slaves and thus have the right to work where they choose subject to their union agreement with their employers (MLB).

SouthSide_HitMen
11-22-2004, 08:33 PM
What is ****? I really don't know.
Friend of Uncle Jerry.

Being a new poster, and with the FAQ definitions bringing up an error page, I have a ?

What do posts in teal and pink indicate? I assume White Sox Company (JR's) Line or stance and statements in denial but please correct if I assumed in error. Also let me know if other colors indicate a particular tone or viewpoint (I haven't seen any other colors yet).

Daver
11-22-2004, 08:35 PM
Well Baseball is not subject to the same labor / anti trust laws as all other businesses in America.

Players were slaves subject to the whims of their masters (owners) long after the Civil War when the Supreme Court ruled in MLBs favor until 1972 when the Supreme Court reversed a portion of MLBs exemption (ruling that baseball is in fact a business (shocking) which congress has exempted from the laws for which all other businesses (except government) are subject - but that human beings are not in fact slaves and thus have the right to work where they choose subject to their union agreement with their employers (MLB).
Who are you trying to teach what to?

And if that is in fact an attempt to teach baseball labor history, give up, your doing a lousy job.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-22-2004, 08:43 PM
Who are you trying to teach what to?

And if that is in fact an attempt to teach baseball labor history, give up, your doing a lousy job.
Johnny_Mostils Point is regarding the "Cartel" status of ownership - the fact that they are multi-millionaires (the ? you brought up) is not relevent to his questioning of the anti-trust status.

Parrothead
11-22-2004, 08:44 PM
Bill Veeck actually adjusted the fenses in between series as operator of the Milwaukee minor league franchise, not as Chicago White Sox owner.
I was saying that it happened and it was in the book. To me it was inferred that is was only a rumor.

Page 60 Veeck as in Wreck "From there, it was only a short hop to the ultimate refinerment. In the best of all possible parks, the fence would be up for the opposition and down for us. We could do this without any trouble at all-and we did do it-by reeling the fence in and out between innings. That is, we did it once. They passed a rule against it the next day."

Parrothead
11-22-2004, 08:46 PM
Friend of Uncle Jerry.

Being a new poster, and with the FAQ definitions bringing up an error page, I have a ?

What do posts in teal and pink indicate? I assume White Sox Company (JR's) Line or stance and statements in denial but please correct if I assumed in error. Also let me know if other colors indicate a particular tone or viewpoint (I haven't seen any other colors yet).
I am not sure what pink is but teal is sarcastic comments or things that Jerry would say.

Daver
11-22-2004, 08:48 PM
Johnny_Mostils Point is regarding the "Cartel" status of ownership - the fact that they are multi-millionaires (the ? you brought up) is not relevent to his questioning of the anti-trust status.
He was reffering to the players, not the owners.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-22-2004, 08:52 PM
I am not sure what pink is but teal is sarcastic comments or things that Jerry would say.
Thanks for the clarification. The Chicago White Sox provide only First Class Entertainment in the Finest Ballpark in America named for, (who is our sponsor again) oh yeah that company that blasts a ringing cell phone for the "call to the bullpen".

With my management team, we will bring several championships just as we did with the Chicago Bulls. Remember, players do not win championships, organizations win championships!!

Is there a color for both JR's sarcastic comments and denial, as most times both are one in the same?

Lip Man 1
11-22-2004, 08:58 PM
Ozzie:

I highly recommend the 'Lords Of The Realm,' by Wall Street Journal sports/business reporter John Helyar.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
11-22-2004, 09:51 PM
Teal is for sarcasm. Deep Pink is for pipedream ideas.

With Willie Harris leading off 162 games next season, the Sox are pennant-bound!

Joe Crede still has his best years ahead of him.

Pretty effective, eh?
:cool:

SouthSide_HitMen
11-22-2004, 10:04 PM
Teal is for sarcasm. Deep Pink is for pipedream ideas.

With Willie Harris leading off 162 games next season, the Sox are pennant-bound!

Joe Crede still has his best years ahead of him.

Pretty effective, eh?
:cool:This site / the boards are great.


I love the site's image for ass:) .

:ass



I also love being able to link the Greatest Owner In Professional Sports:



:veeck


In his rightful place above Mr. Potter

:reinsy "Happy 2005 To You, In Jail!"

TDog
11-22-2004, 11:24 PM
When Harry arrived that is when the Cubs started drawing fans. The fence thing is confirmed in "Veeck as in Wreck" Bill Veeck autobiography. I forget what chapter. I personally thought getting rid of Harry and Piersall was a misktake. But that is me. I don't like the always positive spin. As for Jimmy getting into a fight with the coach. Who cares? He was doing his job as an annoucer. I really was not comparing the shorts to the Black Sox but just listing a sample of the mistakes made by the Sox.

Do you conclude that increased attendance at Cubs games was due to Harry Caray being their announcer? The Sox also drew better after Harry Caray went to the Cuibs. In 1982, the first season Harry Caray was with the Cubs, the Sox drew better than they did they did in any year with Harry Caray as their announcer, with the exception of 1977. Harry Caray called Sox games from 1971 through 1981. In 1983 and 1984 -- winning seasons for sure --they drew more than 2 million. But as awesome a season a 1977 was, with Harry Carry as the Sox announcer, the Sox only drew 1.6 million.

Maybe if Harry Caray had stayed the Sox announcer, neither team would have ever drawn 2 million.

I'm sure the reason the Sox failed to draw 1 million fans in 1976 was the big mistake Bill Veeck made by having the players wear shorts in the poorly attended second game of an August doubleheader.

Parrothead
11-23-2004, 12:42 AM
Do you conclude that increased attendance at Cubs games was due to Harry Caray being their announcer? The Sox also drew better after Harry Caray went to the Cuibs. In 1982, the first season Harry Caray was with the Cubs, the Sox drew better than they did they did in any year with Harry Caray as their announcer, with the exception of 1977. Harry Caray called Sox games from 1971 through 1981. In 1983 and 1984 -- winning seasons for sure --they drew more than 2 million. But as awesome a season a 1977 was, with Harry Carry as the Sox announcer, the Sox only drew 1.6 million.

Maybe if Harry Caray had stayed the Sox announcer, neither team would have ever drawn 2 million.

I'm sure the reason the Sox failed to draw 1 million fans in 1976 was the big mistake Bill Veeck made by having the players wear shorts in the poorly attended second game of an August doubleheader.
I conclude Harry going there along with Bill Veeck after JR bought the team contributed to the attendance increase. Sox outdrew the Cubs 1959 through 1967, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1991, 1992 and 1994. The Cubs outdrew the Sox the rest of the years since 1959. When Harry arrived they began to sell the party / babes at the ballpark. Arnie Harris was showing the rooftop guys (before there were big setups on there), people in the apartments, ect.....They began selling the area as cool. JR wanted to get rid of the party atomsphere at Comiskey, he wanted families so he began cleaning up Comiskey. Remember at one time Comiskey was the "Worlds' largest beer garden". Besides the shorts, the Sox were 67 and 94 that may have contributed to the Sox failing to draw a million.

TDog
11-23-2004, 11:33 AM
I conclude Harry going there along with Bill Veeck after JR bought the team contributed to the attendance increase. Sox outdrew the Cubs 1959 through 1967, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1991, 1992 and 1994. The Cubs outdrew the Sox the rest of the years since 1959. When Harry arrived they began to sell the party / babes at the ballpark. Arnie Harris was showing the rooftop guys (before there were big setups on there), people in the apartments, ect.....They began selling the area as cool. JR wanted to get rid of the party atomsphere at Comiskey, he wanted families so he began cleaning up Comiskey. Remember at one time Comiskey was the "Worlds' largest beer garden". Besides the shorts, the Sox were 67 and 94 that may have contributed to the Sox failing to draw a million.
You missed the point. When Harry Caray left, when JR got rid of the party atmosphere at Comiskey, White Sox attendance increased.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-23-2004, 12:33 PM
You missed the point. When Harry Caray left, when JR got rid of the party atmosphere at Comiskey, White Sox attendance increased.
Sorry, Sox attendance bounced back when the Sox were able to sign good players (starting with Carlton Fisk) and they started to win for the next few years. Attendance had little, if anything, to do with Harry Caray at either ballpark.

The Cubs didn't draw until 1984 and thereafter. At that point, the neighborhood was already changed from the dump fireman Jim Murphy was able to buy his bar (Murphy's Bleachers) and several three flats for a song to the highly developed / sought after destination for the hundreds of thousands of college grad transplants from the midwest (through Lincoln Park). Between 1984 & the new "trendy" place, this assured that the once empty (they didn't even open the upper deck for many games in the 1970s) ballpark became full again.

southsider17
11-23-2004, 01:21 PM
Sorry, Sox attendance bounced back when the Sox were able to sign good players (starting with Carlton Fisk) and they started to win for the next few years. Attendance had little, if anything, to do with Harry Caray at either ballpark.

The Cubs didn't draw until 1984 and thereafter. At that point, the neighborhood was already changed from the dump fireman Jim Murphy was able to buy his bar (Murphy's Bleachers) and several three flats for a song to the highly developed / sought after destination for the hundreds of thousands of college grad transplants from the midwest (through Lincoln Park). Between 1984 & the new "trendy" place, this assured that the once empty (they didn't even open the upper deck for many games in the 1970s) ballpark became full again.Exactly, which is why I think the resurgance of the near south side neighborhoods will have more to do with WSox attendance than anything JR and KW do or don't do ..... at least when we're talking year-after-year attendance (which is what owners will look more to when deciding long term spending plans).

Maximo
11-23-2004, 01:25 PM
*****!

Every single one of these guys has made a huge profit anytime they want it just by selling. I have no idea what you are talking about. You should check out those figures from Forbes from the early 90's in that other thread. They were netting +15M a year and those are 1990's dollars for several years in a row.

Every single one of these guys has made a freaking fortune owning this team. How you can't see that is simply beyond me.Have to agree here.

I can only think of three reasons why anyone would want to be a part owner of a professional sports franchise.

1....You like to compete and want to win championships. ( IIRC..last one was 1959 and that was only a pennant)

2....You need something to brag about to others that makes you feel powerful and important. ( IMO...being part owner of the Sox will not increase your chances of becoming a "chick magnet")

3. You like making a lot of money. (Bingo!!)

eshunn2001
11-23-2004, 01:25 PM
A small lesson in the history of baseball labor relations.

In 1987 MLB was found guilty of collusion by a federal judge for a third time, with no chance of appeal. Based on this they agreed to terms with the MLBPA on a new CBA, one that expired, IIRC, in 1992, when that CBA came and went to owners and the players agreed to play while a new CBA was being drafted. It all came to a head in 1994, when a federal arbitor declared the negotiations at an impasse, and the owners had agreed to lock the players out at the conclusion of the season. The MLBPA had two choices, strike, and use the consequences of that to hit the owners in the pocketbook, or play out the season and have their contracts made as useless as the paper they are printed on in a lockout.


This is quite the Readers Digest view of it, I would highly recomend you
read up on the full details of the subject.
Hey i said in my post, "that the May have had no other choice". Maybe you should read a bit closer.

Brian26
11-23-2004, 05:46 PM
Exactly, which is why I think the resurgance of the near south side neighborhoods will have more to do with WSox attendance than anything JR and KW do or don't do ..... at least when we're talking year-after-year attendance (which is what owners will look more to when deciding long term spending plans).

Bridgeport will never be Lincoln Park. Geographically, it's not possible to emulate the Wrigley experience down there. We need to accept that and move on.

Parrothead
11-23-2004, 07:49 PM
You missed the point. When Harry Caray left, when JR got rid of the party atmosphere at Comiskey, White Sox attendance increased.That was short term....look what happened in the long term. The Sox have had a much better product but continously get outdrawn with a better stadium. they have priced the family out of the game. And even start with the 1/2 priced nights ect.....that is only 1 day a week. Unfortunately there are 7 days. In addition, there are not the bars / restaraunts right outside the ballpark to hang out in. It does not matter how much the neighborhood is changing.

Mohoney
11-23-2004, 08:06 PM
Nobody here things Brian Anderson, Pedro Lopez, Brandon McCarthy, Ryan Sweeney, and Casey Rogowski are going to be those caliber players, do they?
McCarthy and Sweeney, I certainly do.

The other three? At least have proven to be worth a more extensive look.

Rogowski and Anderson have both been hurt at one point or another. The jury is far from out on either one of these guys.

What we need to do is continue to add to these guys. Our AAA team in Charlotte will look pretty good in two or three years.

southsider17
11-23-2004, 09:52 PM
Bridgeport will never be Lincoln Park. Geographically, it's not possible to emulate the Wrigley experience down there. We need to accept that and move on.
Why do you think it should be like Lincoln Park? :?:

TheBull19
11-24-2004, 04:44 PM
Actually, it's not "some" of them, it's all of them.

Name a White Sox starting pitcher after 1982 who had a successful career after leaving the White Sox for any reason. LaMarr Hoyt? Rich Dotson? Floyd Bannister? Britt Burns? Melido Perez? BlackJack? Alex Fernandez? Wilson Alvarez? Jason Bere? Jim Abbott? Jaime Navarro? Mike Sirotka? James Baldwin? Todd Ritchie? No.

So spending money to retain the pitchers the Sox had would have been fruitless.


Yeah, but that doesn't mean we weren't pissed at the time.

TheBull19
11-24-2004, 04:47 PM
Sorry, Sox attendance bounced back when the Sox were able to sign good players (starting with Carlton Fisk) and they started to win for the next few years. Attendance had little, if anything, to do with Harry Caray at either ballpark.


The number one factor for the attendance problem, in my opinion, goes back to the pay cable channel scheme from the early 80's- killed the fanbase. '94 didn't help after the sox revival of the early 90's.

Lip Man 1
11-24-2004, 09:18 PM
Bull:

Dead on the money.

Lip