PDA

View Full Version : Worst org.


RichH55
01-17-2002, 09:24 PM
Rank these 3 organizations from worst to crappy but better than the other two: Detroit, KC, Milwaukee

Daver
01-17-2002, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Rank these 3 organizations from worst to crappy but better than the other two: Detroit, KC, Milwaukee

Is there a pressing need to rate bottom feeders?

RichH55
01-17-2002, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by daver


Is there a pressing need to rate bottom feeders?


Hey its just a post...This thought came to my mind so i put it up to get opinions....if you don't want to rate them thats fine....just skip to the next thread...no biggie, no need to break my balls over something trival

Jerry_Manuel
01-17-2002, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by daver
Is there a pressing need to rate bottom feeders?

I would add the Sox, but that would start a long argument which would prove absolutely nothing.

KempersRS
01-17-2002, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by RichH55


no need to break my balls over something trival

Overreact much?

Daver
01-17-2002, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by RichH55



Hey its just a post...This thought came to my mind so i put it up to get opinions....if you don't want to rate them thats fine....just skip to the next thread...no biggie, no need to break my balls over something trival

I asked a question,no more and no less,if you have a problem with that,and need to read something more into it then you have your own problems.

fuzzy_patters
01-17-2002, 09:53 PM
Worst- Detroit
Terrible- Kansas City
Bad- Milwaukee

RichH55
01-18-2002, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Worst- Detroit
Terrible- Kansas City
Bad- Milwaukee

Was this so hard?

duke of dorwood
01-18-2002, 08:56 AM
I'd have Baltimore in there. KC seems to develop more young talent than Baltimore. And YES, we gotta be in the Team picture, being in such a large market

hold2dibber
01-18-2002, 09:29 AM
All right, I'll take the bait! As much as Reinsdorff has done to p*ss me (and vitually every other Sox fan) off, and as much as KW has frightened me with his bungling, there is no viable grounds for ranking the Sox as one of the worst organizations. They had one of the best records in the '90's (or close to second, if I recall correctly), they have drafted and developed a bunch of quality MLB players over the last decade (e.g. Thomas, McDowell, Ventura, Ordonez, Buehrle, Lee, Durham, Baldwin, Alvarez, Fernandez, Thigpen) and the organization is chock full of promising pitchers and, to a certain extent, position players. They won 2 division titles in 8 years and were in front of the pack when the strike was called in one of those years (and had a legit shot at the wild card in a few others). Now, it's true that they have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot, and with the above string of successes, they should have and could have had more division titles and some playoff success; there's no doubt that they've wasted opportunities, alienated fans and made moves that have come back to haunt them. But as compared to the rest of the MLB organizations, we're at least in the middle of the pack (certainly ahead of the Royals, Tigers, Devil Rays, Brewers, Pirates, Cubs, Angels, Orioles, Padres, Phillies, Reds, Red Sox, Twins, and Rockies, and arguably ahead of several others). Believe me, I'm far from satisfied, but, despite the frustrations, the Sox have done some good things in recent years and there is at least reason to hope for the future -- a lot of organizations can't even give their fans that.

RichH55
01-18-2002, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
All right, I'll take the bait! As much as Reinsdorff has done to p*ss me (and vitually every other Sox fan) off, and as much as KW has frightened me with his bungling, there is no viable grounds for ranking the Sox as one of the worst organizations. They had one of the best records in the '90's (or close to second, if I recall correctly), they have drafted and developed a bunch of quality MLB players over the last decade (e.g. Thomas, McDowell, Ventura, Ordonez, Buehrle, Lee, Durham, Baldwin, Alvarez, Fernandez, Thigpen) and the organization is chock full of promising pitchers and, to a certain extent, position players. They won 2 division titles in 8 years and were in front of the pack when the strike was called in one of those years (and had a legit shot at the wild card in a few others). Now, it's true that they have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot, and with the above string of successes, they should have and could have had more division titles and some playoff success; there's no doubt that they've wasted opportunities, alienated fans and made moves that have come back to haunt them. But as compared to the rest of the MLB organizations, we're at least in the middle of the pack (certainly ahead of the Royals, Tigers, Devil Rays, Brewers, Pirates, Cubs, Angels, Orioles, Padres, Phillies, Reds, Red Sox, Twins, and Rockies, and arguably ahead of several others). Believe me, I'm far from satisfied, but, despite the frustrations, the Sox have done some good things in recent years and there is at least reason to hope for the future -- a lot of organizations can't even give their fans that.



Very very well said....cheers man :gulp:

WinningUgly!
01-18-2002, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
All right, I'll take the bait! As much as Reinsdorff has done to p*ss me (and vitually every other Sox fan) off, and as much as KW has frightened me with his bungling, there is no viable grounds for ranking the Sox as one of the worst organizations. They had one of the best records in the '90's (or close to second, if I recall correctly), they have drafted and developed a bunch of quality MLB players over the last decade (e.g. Thomas, McDowell, Ventura, Ordonez, Buehrle, Lee, Durham, Baldwin, Alvarez, Fernandez, Thigpen) and the organization is chock full of promising pitchers and, to a certain extent, position players. They won 2 division titles in 8 years and were in front of the pack when the strike was called in one of those years (and had a legit shot at the wild card in a few others). Now, it's true that they have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot, and with the above string of successes, they should have and could have had more division titles and some playoff success; there's no doubt that they've wasted opportunities, alienated fans and made moves that have come back to haunt them. But as compared to the rest of the MLB organizations, we're at least in the middle of the pack (certainly ahead of the Royals, Tigers, Devil Rays, Brewers, Pirates, Cubs, Angels, Orioles, Padres, Phillies, Reds, Red Sox, Twins, and Rockies, and arguably ahead of several others). Believe me, I'm far from satisfied, but, despite the frustrations, the Sox have done some good things in recent years and there is at least reason to hope for the future -- a lot of organizations can't even give their fans that.

Amen...I agree. :gulp:

WinningUgly!
01-18-2002, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by RichH55
Rank these 3 organizations from worst to crappy but better than the other two: Detroit, KC, Milwaukee

1) KC -they're the worst because they let all of their good guys go for nothing (Dye, Damon, etc.)
2) Detroit -close to KC, but they never let anybody good get away because they never have anybody good in the 1st place.
3) Milwaukee -crappy, they could actually be decent if D'Amico was healthy & every hitter on the team didn't strike out 150+ time a season.

Jerry_Manuel
01-18-2002, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
All right, I'll take the bait! Now, it's true that they have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot, and with the above string of successes, they should have and could have had more division titles and some playoff success; there's no doubt that they've wasted opportunities, alienated fans and made moves that have come back to haunt them. But as compared to the rest of the MLB organizations, we're at least in the middle of the pack (certainly ahead of the Royals, Tigers, Devil Rays, Brewers, Pirates, Cubs, Angels, Orioles, Padres, Phillies, Reds, Red Sox, Twins, and Rockies, and arguably ahead of several others). Believe me, I'm far from satisfied, but, despite the frustrations, the Sox have done some good things in recent years and there is at least reason to hope for the future -- a lot of organizations can't even give their fans that.

I'm looking at it from a World Series stand point. 85 years with out a World Series is just plain brutal. That streak isn't going to end anytime soon either. I agree that the teams above do a horrible job operating a team. They've done good things, yes but winning the division means nothing to me.

That's all I'm going to say, nobody else is going to agree with me so this whole argument proves nothing.

hold2dibber
01-18-2002, 11:02 AM
I guess it's a matter of time frame. I'm thinking of the last decade or so under Reinsdorff's ownership. If you want to look at a longer perspective, in terms of the history of the franchise, that's a much more complicated matter; but my initial reaction is you're probably right -- 85 years without a single friggin' title says a lot (how come we're not "beloved" like the Flubs or the Red Sox -- we're just as pathetic as they are!)

Jerry_Manuel
01-18-2002, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I guess it's a matter of time frame. I'm thinking of the last decade or so under Reinsdorff's ownership. If you want to look at a longer perspective, in terms of the history of the franchise, that's a much more complicated matter; but my initial reaction is you're probably right -- 85 years without a single friggin' title says a lot (how come we're not "beloved" like the Flubs or the Red Sox -- we're just as pathetic as they are!)

The Red Sox have the Babe Ruth curse, and they play in Fenway.
The Cubs embrace losing and play in Wrigley.
The White Sox don't play in a historic ball park. And really don't have a curse or embrace losing.

Soxboyrob
01-18-2002, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I'm looking at it from a World Series stand point. 85 years with out a World Series is just plain brutal. That streak isn't going to end anytime soon either. I agree that the teams above do a horrible job operating a team. They've done good things, yes but winning the division means nothing to me.

That's all I'm going to say, nobody else is going to agree with me so this whole argument proves nothing.

I agree w/ you wholeheartedly, JM. I'm tired of this talk of winning the division. Big whoop. Won't it be fun to win the division and then either get blown away by the Yanks or Mariners or get shut out three games in a row by the A's staff? Yes, anything can happen in a short playoff, but that seems to be what this organization banks on having happen every year. Now that the postseason 3-tiered, the chances of lucking your way to a world series championship is next to nil. Why discuss which of Milw, Det or KC is the worst organization when all three of those clubs have either been to or won a World Series in our lifetimes. Heck, KC has been one of the best org's of the past 30 years in my eyes. The Sox and their pursuit of "somewhere slightly above mediocrity" isn't much more admirable than the Cubs' eternal pursuit of .500. The Sox have been an embarrassment in many respects.

czalgosz
01-18-2002, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob


I agree w/ you wholeheartedly, JM. I'm tired of this talk of winning the division. Big whoop. Won't it be fun to win the division and then either get blown away by the Yanks or Mariners or get shut out three games in a row by the A's staff? Yes, anything can happen in a short playoff, but that seems to be what this organization banks on having happen every year. Now that the postseason 3-tiered, the chances of lucking your way to a world series championship is next to nil. Why discuss which of Milw, Det or KC is the worst organization when all three of those clubs have either been to or won a World Series in our lifetimes. Heck, KC has been one of the best org's of the past 30 years in my eyes. The Sox and their pursuit of "somewhere slightly above mediocrity" isn't much more admirable than the Cubs' eternal pursuit of .500. The Sox have been an embarrassment in many respects.

Okay, I'll bite on this one.

Since the Old Roman died in 1931, there have been four different management groups.

First, there was Chuck Comiskey, a grandson of the original. He had no money to run the organization. There was a downward spiral of we-have-no-money-so-we-sell-off-our-good-players-so-we-lose-ballgames-so-people-don't-come-so-we-have-no-money. Despite this, Comiskey took over running the club himself and managed to develop a few prospects and make a couple shrewd trades in the late 40s and early 50s and built up a great farm system and a perennial contender in the late 50s.

Bill Veeck took all the credit for the '59 team, but the fact remains that most of those players were Comiskey's boys. Unfortunately, Veeck squandered the huge amount of talent that he had in a series of bad trades in the early '60s. He failed to take advantage of a Yankees downturn in the sixties, because all the hitting talent that would have complemented the great pitching staff of the mid-sixties was traded away. By the time Veeck sold out to Art Allyn, the team was decimated.

Allyn ran the team only briefly and had no money, either. He was left with an aging, decrepit ballpark and a terrible team. He got out as soon as he could, selling back to Veeck.

Veeck was just as impulsive as he had been, only now he was poorer. He did all sorts of publicity stunts like trading away all the talent the Sox had to build the '77 team, knowing that he couldn't afford to keep those guys, who didn't win anyway.

Since Reinsdorf took over the team in the early '80s, the Sox have had 3 postseason appearances, in '83, '93, and '00, and two near misses in '90 and '94. That's more than Allyn, Veeck, and Chuck Comiskey combined.

I know a lot of Sox fans love Bill Veeck, but I'm convinced that his poor management of the club kept the Sox out of at least one World Series ('67) and probably more.

So, Jerry, I agree, that if you look at the whole history of the franchise, yes, the White Sox have been poorly run. But the White Sox right now have a ton of talent. Last year's White Sox won 83 games with what amounted to their AAA team.

Now, Ken Williams seems bound and determined to dismantle everything that has been built up to this point, but it's early yet, and the core is still in place. To compare the Sox with Kansas City and Detroit is kind of silly, IMO.

Soxboyrob
01-18-2002, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz

Now, Ken Williams seems bound and determined to dismantle everything that has been built up to this point, but it's early yet, and the core is still in place. To compare the Sox with Kansas City and Detroit is kind of silly, IMO.

It's silly to compare w/ them at this precise moment, however KC and Detroit actually won titles in the last 20 years. The way the current Sox regime operates is quite laughable, hiring unprovens to act as GM and field manager(ala Bevington, Manuel), letting Gallas market this team into the ground and allowing KW to continually embarrass the organization w/ his press conferences. Does Reinsdorf forget that we're a major market and shouldn't have to rely on guys like KW and Manuel to run our team? Nothing against Manuel and KW. They were offered the jobs and are doing their best, but these guys should be getting their feet wet w/ these so-called second rate teams like Detroit, Milwaukee or KC before coming to run our beloved team. Maybe the way the Sox organization has presented the team in a second rate way to public might be why so many in our great city view the Sox and their fans as second rate also.

The fact that we've watched our team go the the postseason 3 times in the last 20 years is ok, considering how many times we went from 1960-1982, but 3 visits in 18 years is still BARELY acceptable. In fact, it's unacceptable for a market our size going against cities like Aneheim, Detroit, KC, Texas(Rangers), St. Paul/Minneapolis over the last 20 years.

At heart, I'm a Sox fan to the death. My insides ache after every single loss. But I've just about had enough w/ watching this club become a bigger black sheep in Chicago with every passing day. It's time for Reiny to either sell or make a REAL commitment to being a top flight organization. Nothing less. Until that day comes, I hold Reiny in contempt of Sox fans.

czalgosz
01-18-2002, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob



At heart, I'm a Sox fan to the death. My insides ache after every single loss. But I've just about had enough w/ watching this club become a bigger black sheep in Chicago with every passing day. It's time for Reiny to either sell or make a REAL commitment to being a top flight organization. Nothing less. Until that day comes, I hold Reiny in contempt of Sox fans.

I keep hearing this, but what does Reinsdorf have to do? Spending money doesn't automatically produce a world champion; if it did, the Dodgers would be trying to win their 9th straight championship.

Look, I don't like the fact that the Sox haven't been to the World Series in my lifetime, either. But I don't blame Reinsdorf for that. All any management group can do is put together a playoff contender. It's up to the players to do something once they get there. The 2000 White Sox were as good as any of the playoff teams that year. They choked, plain and simple.

And, at least on paper, the 2001 Sox were better. If half the team didn't get hurt, then things probably would have been different.

And as for the Sox being in a big market, this is true, but remember, we're conceding at least half the market (in a good year) to the Cubs. Check out attendance figures over the past 20 years. Check out TV ratings for Sox games. True, part of this is because of a decision made in the '80s to venture into cable before it was ready, but this is life. We have to live with bad decisions sometimes.

There isn't exactly a line of billionaires hanging around 35th and Sheilds that are all eager to bump up the payroll and run the team at a loss until attendance improves. Don't hold your breath waiting for a guy like George Steinbrenner to take over operations. In the real world, the White Sox have been more successfull in terms of winning baseball under Reinsdorf than they have since the Black Sox scandal.

World Championships are really nice, and they're what people remember, but they are a terrible measure of an organization. All they measure is how good your pitchers are in the postseason, and how lucky you are. The white Sox sure aren't lucky, I'll grant you that.

Soxboyrob
01-18-2002, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz

I keep hearing this, but what does Reinsdorf have to do? Spending money doesn't automatically produce a world champion; if it did, the Dodgers would be trying to win their 9th straight championship.


I don't feel it really comes down to just the amount of money we're spending. It's the overall lack of treatment of the Sox like a first rate organization....ie, the hiring of untested experiments like KW and Jer Manuel. They're both nice guys but they both seem in over their heads. Spending money won't guarantee wins, just as you've stated. But Jerry Reins seems to think that we owe it to the organization to spend our money and come to the park and if we provide him w/ enough profits, he'll get some better players. How many truly successful businesses have reached any kind of level of success via this formula? Haven't most successful businesses taken major risks in putting out a quality product, hoping that the business would come as a result of the quality in the product? Jerry has occasionally overspent for a season or part of a season, but then thrown in the towel before giving it a fair chance to pan out, citing that "if the fans aren't gonna support the talent on the field, payroll must be cut."

No, Reinsdorf isn't anywhere near the only reason for the malaise that seems to follow this club around. But he's a decent sized part of the equation. Don't get me wrong....I'm not saying our Sox are a "trash" organization. I'm just disappointed in seeing us currently have such a nice nucleus of players and not seeing the owners go that final mile to make us a true contender even if it means subjecting the partners to some risk of financial loss. It's that kind of action that would make me buy season tickets instead of scrounging around for freebies or buying half price from scalpers.

Soxheads
01-18-2002, 04:47 PM
Worst-Milwaukee
Terrible-Detroit
Bad- KC

oldcomiskey
01-18-2002, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I guess it's a matter of time frame. I'm thinking of the last decade or so under Reinsdorff's ownership. If you want to look at a longer perspective, in terms of the history of the franchise, that's a much more complicated matter; but my initial reaction is you're probably right -- 85 years without a single friggin' title says a lot (how come we're not "beloved" like the Flubs or the Red Sox -- we're just as pathetic as they are!)

Is simple to Me---The SAWX play in New England meaning they are written about to death and they have bben to the brink so many times

AsInWreck
01-19-2002, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz




And as for the Sox being in a big market, this is true, but remember, we're conceding at least half the market (in a good year) to the Cubs. Check out attendance figures over the past 20 years. Check out TV ratings for Sox games. True, part of this is because of a decision made in the '80s to venture into cable before it was ready, but this is life. We have to live with bad decisions sometimes.


I don't think this is a valid statement as a disqualifier of the sox as a major market team/los
angeles and new york are the only larger markets and they both have two teams as well/the bay area has two teams as well where a trip between stadiums is a ten minute ride on the BART/other fairly large market teams are in close proximity on the east coast-boston, baltimore and philly w/ the new york teams-the rangers have there own market but its probably about half the market of chicagoland, plus the sox have normally 1 game a week on national tv/sharing chicago is no excuse--look at cleveland-- there's one of the smallest markets in baseball and they've been playing ball w/ the big boys for years

Paulwny
01-19-2002, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by AsInWreck

plus the sox have normally 1 game a week on national tv

I'm lucky if 1 game a month is telecast in my area.

AsInWreck
01-19-2002, 02:45 PM
Don't you get WGN?

Paulwny
01-19-2002, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by AsInWreck
Don't you get WGN?

WGN was eliminated from local cable over 20yrs. ago. This is yankmee country. Also eliminated was WSBK, red sox and the mets.
Wh1tesos00 and Kempers, do you get WGN?

pearso66
01-20-2002, 04:55 PM
if this was back during the championship era of the bulls, i would say that reinsdorf was more interested in putting money into the bulls, than into the sox thats a part problem with owning 2 different sports teams. but it still seems as if he is living off the profits he's still getting from the bulls, they dont have a huge payroll, but they get good enough attendance where he is making a profit, the whitesox are 2nd in his mind. He might say he wants to win, but you dont see him putting any money into the organization, didnt he say this year that KW cant pick up any free agents. well tahts all and fine, but we need somebody, it would be nice to think we could win the WS with players brought up through our farm system, but thats unlikely, you look at the yankees, sure they have many players from their farm system, but they also have big name players who didnt come through their system. ala roger clemens, jason giambi.

I dont think attendance at the park will guarantee riensdorf to bring anyone in, i think he's in it looking soley on profit, and if the team can get fans in the stands, he'll come up with other excuses for not bringing anyone in

guillen4life13
01-20-2002, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by pearso66
if this was back during the championship era of the bulls, i would say that reinsdorf was more interested in putting money into the bulls, than into the sox thats a part problem with owning 2 different sports teams. but it still seems as if he is living off the profits he's still getting from the bulls, they dont have a huge payroll, but they get good enough attendance where he is making a profit, the whitesox are 2nd in his mind. He might say he wants to win, but you dont see him putting any money into the organization, didnt he say this year that KW cant pick up any free agents. well tahts all and fine, but we need somebody, it would be nice to think we could win the WS with players brought up through our farm system, but thats unlikely, you look at the yankees, sure they have many players from their farm system, but they also have big name players who didnt come through their system. ala roger clemens, jason giambi.

I dont think attendance at the park will guarantee riensdorf to bring anyone in, i think he's in it looking soley on profit, and if the team can get fans in the stands, he'll come up with other excuses for not bringing anyone in


Well said! I think that Reinsdorf would be doing the white sox AND bulls a favor by selling the bulls.

The bulls benefit because: Someone will have enough sense to fire Jerry Krause, as I have already pretty much assumed that Krause is blackmailing reinsdorf. The bulls would not be too hard to sell because of their history, and they've already got a really nice, relatively new stadium.

The Sox benefit because: More focus on the organization. I don't know if there are any rules, but are you allowed to take profits from one organization you own, and put those into another one? Maybe he was doing that at the expense of the White Sox at one point, and at the expense of the bulls at another point in history. I think he needs to focus himself on one team only.

Daver
01-20-2002, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13


I don't know if there are any rules, but are you allowed to take profits from one organization you own, and put those into another one? Maybe he was doing that at the expense of the White Sox at one point, and at the expense of the bulls at another point in history

You stepping into the area of creative bookkeeping that the owners do not really want to reveal,which is why there is a legal battle being waged in Fla.over the books of the Tamba Bay Devil Rays.
Basically the owners do not wish to reveal what they pay themselves and partners for running the organization.
As far as your theory goes I don't think that would happen because Reinsdorf has a bunch of minor partners in the Bulls ownership group,he is CEO because he is the largest shareholder,but he still has to answer to his partners.

pearso66
01-21-2002, 11:12 AM
in that case, it would then seem that there is no money coming from the bulls organization into the sox organization. but there could still have been money coming out of the sox to pay those shareholders, and himself. the only big name pick up they have had in the past years, would be albert belle, and at the time he was making the tops in the league. but a couple years later, he traded alverez and hernandez for minor leaguers, so he cut a lot of salary there, and then he let ventura and belle go. so in the long run, he ended up cutting probably more than he was paying belle himself, so he couldnt have lost too much money in that deal. but the trading of funds from the sox to the bulls, would explain why there hasnt been a lot of big name pick ups for the sox. they dont have the money like reinsdorf said, but thats his fault, not the teams

Cheryl
01-21-2002, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by daver


As far as your theory goes I don't think that would happen because Reinsdorf has a bunch of minor partners in the Bulls ownership group,he is CEO because he is the largest shareholder,but he still has to answer to his partners.

Same deal with the Sox. He's the chairman of /spokesman for the owners, not the sole owner. Which is why I doubt he's been able to borrow from one team to pay for the other--I don't think the other owners of either team would tolerate that.