PDA

View Full Version : I am tired of all these columnists stating the Sox have gone cheap..


tony1972
03-07-2007, 08:32 PM
Just because the White Sox did not go crazy and throw money around on below average players..the team is being unfairly criticized as becoming a small market team again.

This has been reiterated time and time again the last few months. To hear several Chicago columnists..you would think the Sox payroll this year was going to be about 30 million.

Correct me if I'm wrong..but it should still be over 100 million. I think that puts the Sox in the top ten in payroll at least.

With the Vasquez signing and the Buerhle talks resuming again..this team is more than willing to spend money on a player they think is worthwhile. I think once again a lot of people will be surprised at which team turns out 'better' in wins. Why is that other team always headed to a World Championship every Jan, Feb and March per the Chicago Media.

I am not Cubsessed..I am just sick of a team that has won Chicago it's first World Title in 8 decades and having a winning record..ALWAYS being disrespected.

itsnotrequired
03-07-2007, 08:36 PM
Reading what about 90% of sport columnists have to say is a waste of time.

tony1972
03-07-2007, 08:37 PM
You know..you're absolutely right..and still I read them....:(: :redface:

ondafarm
03-07-2007, 09:07 PM
The modern generation of sportwriters seem to only know how to write, and even that is marginal on a lot of them. About sports they seem to know next to nothing.

JB98
03-07-2007, 09:11 PM
The modern generation of sportwriters seem to only know how to write, and even that is marginal on a lot of them. About sports they seem to know next to nothing.

It's more a change in philosophy than anything else. I work for the Sun-Times News Group, and trust me, all the suits want controversy in the paper. They want controversy and a flashy-looking product. Content be damned. Within the last year, I actually sat in a meeting where I was told, "Content doesn't matter."

Informing and educating the public are no longer the chief goals of the media industry.

veeter
03-07-2007, 09:13 PM
They have nothing else to complain about. I swear, they'd say the Sox win too many championships. It's a joke.

Lip Man 1
03-07-2007, 09:33 PM
Before I make any comments about the Sox being 'cheap,' I'm waiting to see what the average team salary is in MLB for the 2007 season.

If say the average salary is 115 million then there is some creedence to the 'Sox are cheap' comments especially with them being in a major market. If however the average salary is say, 93 million, then the Sox are to be commended for going above and beyond in trying to win, win now and win in the future.

And before anyone says anything I realize that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs drive up the team salary structure...but at the same time teams like the Marlins, Devil Rays and Pirates dramatically lower it as well.

I think for the most part things balance out, which is why again I'm waiting to see what the figures are before commenting.

Lip

jdm2662
03-07-2007, 09:39 PM
It's more a change in philosophy than anything else. I work for the Sun-Times News Group, and trust me, all the suits want controversy in the paper. They want controversy and a flashy-looking product. Content be damned. Within the last year, I actually sat in a meeting where I was told, "Content doesn't matter."

Informing and educating the public are no longer the chief goals of the media industry.

Which is why I refuse to buy either paper or watch any news. I'll just read the box score and transaction wires/injury reports. It's all I need. Most of the time, especially when the topic is football, my intelligence is insuted. Satellite radio rules!

GoSox2K3
03-07-2007, 09:40 PM
Before I make any comments about the Sox being 'cheap,' I'm waiting to see what the average team salary is in MLB for the 2007 season.

If say the average salary is 115 million then there is some creedence to the 'Sox are cheap' comments especially with them being in a major market. If however the average salary is say, 93 million, then the Sox are to be commended for going above and beyond in trying to win, win now and win in the future.

And before anyone says anything I realize that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs drive up the team salary structure...but at the same time teams like the Marlins, Devil Rays and Pirates dramatically lower it as well.

I think for the most part things balance out, which is why again I'm waiting to see what the figures are before commenting.

Lip

I would be very surprised if the average is at 115 million. Even with the spending spree this winter, I don't think many teams jacked up their payroll by that much.

kitekrazy
03-07-2007, 09:43 PM
Just because the White Sox did not go crazy and throw money around on below average players..the team is being unfairly criticized as becoming a small market team again.


There's some truth to that but Sox are willing to trade veterans when they reached their peak value for younger players.

Free agency is getting ridiculous. Baseball has become a sport more about individuals than teams. We forgot during the Veeck era that any talented player would eventually play for another team because Bill couldn't afford to pay him. There are too many baseball teams becoming farm systems for big market teams.

They will always be small market teams because they don't keep players long enough for it's fan base to identify with them. How many years could we have watched Frank Thomas in a Sox uniform if he played during the Veeck years?

Lip Man 1
03-07-2007, 09:47 PM
Kite:

Then isn't the answer to your comment to be a shark instead of a sheep? i.e. to get an owner to whom money for all practical purposes isn't an issue?

I understand, easier said then done but with current ownership getting on in years and according to the owner himself, having his immediate family not interested in running the team after he departs the scene, this is going to be a valid question sooner rather then later.

Lip

TommyJohn
03-07-2007, 09:55 PM
It's more a change in philosophy than anything else. I work for the Sun-Times News Group, and trust me, all the suits want controversy in the paper. They want controversy and a flashy-looking product. Content be damned. Within the last year, I actually sat in a meeting where I was told, "Content doesn't matter."

Informing and educating the public are no longer the chief goals of the media industry.

So that's why they continue to employ ------------->:moron

JB98
03-07-2007, 09:58 PM
So that's why they continue to employ ------------->:moron

We recently were told we could start using Mariotti's columns in our paper (in Aurora).

I told the Editor-Publisher that if Mariotti's column appears in our sports section, my resignation letter will be on his desk the following day.

Yes, the Sun-Times folks think the Moron is doing a good job. It's unbelievable, but true.

FarWestChicago
03-07-2007, 10:02 PM
Before I make any comments about the Sox being 'cheap,' I'm waiting to see what the average team salary is in MLB for the 2007 season.

If say the average salary is 115 million then there is some creedence to the 'Sox are cheap' comments especially with them being in a major market. If however the average salary is say, 93 million, then the Sox are to be commended for going above and beyond in trying to win, win now and win in the future.

And before anyone says anything I realize that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs drive up the team salary structure...but at the same time teams like the Marlins, Devil Rays and Pirates dramatically lower it as well.

I think for the most part things balance out, which is why again I'm waiting to see what the figures are before commenting.

LipLip, if the Sox spent a half billion on annual payroll you would find a way to call them cheap. Nobody spends another man's money like you. :tsk:

ondafarm
03-07-2007, 10:10 PM
. . . How many years could we have watched Frank Thomas in a Sox uniform if he played during the Veeck years?

A couple of things: Veeck was a smart baseball guy, or at least a good scout of talent. While he looked cheap and he was, but he did seem willing to pay for really talented players if the player had very little ego. Brarry Bonds he'd never pay for, but I think Frank Thomas would have been acceptable to Veeck.

At least that's my opinion.

Lip Man 1
03-07-2007, 10:11 PM
"

WhiteSox5187
03-07-2007, 11:52 PM
A couple of things: Veeck was a smart baseball guy, or at least a good scout of talent. While he looked cheap and he was, but he did seem willing to pay for really talented players if the player had very little ego. Brarry Bonds he'd never pay for, but I think Frank Thomas would have been acceptable to Veeck.

At least that's my opinion.
Well, I think he was cheap because well, he didn't have a whole lot of money to spend. He wasn't exactly a robber baron. But if you recall in "Veeck as in Wreck" he was talking about player-salary negotations back in the 1950s (of course, radically different then) and he and Bob Feller wrote down salaries and they'd split the difference. I think that Feller wrote down sixty thousand and Veeck wrote down sixty five thousand. He was also a large advocat for free agency, but wanted every player to be a free agent at the end of the year. I don't think he was a tight wad, but he was cheap only because he HAD to be. If he had the money to spend, I think he would have spent it.

Finally, I don't agree with the sentiment that the Sox are cheap. Now, back in January when they traded Freddy and appeared to be on the verge of trading Garland and Kenny was saying "I don't intend to keep my pitching staff once their contracts expire," I was thinking that the Sox were going to GO cheap. But I think that Javy's contract and the negotiations (and God willing re-signing of) Buerhle are putting an end to that idea.

ilsox7
03-08-2007, 12:05 AM
Yes, the Sun-Times folks think the Moron is doing a good job. It's unbelievable, but true.

Sadly, for the purpose the Sun Times employs him, he is doing a good job. They want him to create controversy and be the talk of not only Chicago, but the country. That is exactly what he does. Look at how often he is quoted here and bitched about at not only at WSI, but on his TV show. That is why he gets paid. When people here cite his column or bitch about his thoughts, they are only helping him keep his job. That is why the only way to combat his presence is to completely ignore him. However, I do not think that people are smart enough to do that.

PushinWeight
03-08-2007, 02:37 AM
Sadly, for the purpose the Sun Times employs him, he is doing a good job. They want him to create controversy and be the talk of not only Chicago, but the country. That is exactly what he does. Look at how often he is quoted here and bitched about at not only at WSI, but on his TV show. That is why he gets paid. When people here cite his column or bitch about his thoughts, they are only helping him keep his job. That is why the only way to combat his presence is to completely ignore him. However, I do not think that people are smart enough to do that.

Exactly. Finally someone who gets it. Mariotti's sole purpose of writing is to bash Chicago teams and make us angry. Why does he do this? So that we get angry at him and talk about it. He is maybe the most well known sports columnist in Chicago because of his "style" of writing and there is no way that he's going to change it. I mean what he is doing works. So when I read his columns I do so for the entertainment purpose only, not for any real incite on sports.

Thome25
03-08-2007, 07:22 AM
The only thing I have to say is: Since when is having a payroll of over 100 million being a small market team?

What KW did this offseason was some smart, extremely intelligent baseball moves. Unlike the team on the wrong side of town that threw money around unwisely just to save face with the media and fans.

The White Sox promised us that when the stadium was full the payroll would go up. and they delivered.

I have to be honest, when I first found out what KW was doing this past offseason I was infuriated. I thought "UH OH here we go again with this small market mentality".

But, then I sat back took a deep breath and thought about it with a clear, level head. KW doesn't want to overpay for mediocrity. He doesn't want to handcuff the Sox with some bad contracts.

With the way the offseason went, there's definitely going to be some bad contracts in that bunch ala Chan Ho Park, Mike Hampton, Denny Neagle, Darren Driefort, and even Pat Burrell from years past.

KW made some wise baseball moves. He's trying to set us up for a run of success ala the Atlanta Braves.

For that he should be applauded.

TomBradley72
03-08-2007, 08:08 AM
They are not cheap at all...but their philosophy of no deals for pitchers longer than three years puts them at a competitive disadvantage vs. the other MLB teams...and will probably lead to Buehrle and Garland following Garcia out of Chicago. I sure wish JR/KW would rethink their "policy"...longer term stability in our rotation would give us a better chance to win.

Hitmen77
03-08-2007, 08:18 AM
I agree with what others have already posted here that the Sox are not going cheap.

It seems to me that the Sox have kept their promise to raise payroll in accordance with increased revenues. When attendance shot up close to 3 million, the Sox had the ability to raise their payroll to somewhere in the $95-100 million range, which IIRC was among the top 5 in the league last year.

The challenge the Sox face is that they have so many good players, they can't possibly pay them all 10-15 million a year without letting payroll skyrocket well beyond $100mill and well beyond their revenues.

Hokiesox
03-08-2007, 08:28 AM
It's their commitment to a 3-5 year plan that is to be commended. No other team seems to have long term goals, everyone trying to win this season, forget next season. I like what the Sox are doing. They're going to be real competitive this season, and probably equally so the next few seasons. Kenny is being very smart.

Hitmen77
03-08-2007, 08:53 AM
They are not cheap at all...but their philosophy of no deals for pitchers longer than three years puts them at a competitive disadvantage vs. the other MLB teams...and will probably lead to Buehrle and Garland following Garcia out of Chicago. I sure wish JR/KW would rethink their "policy"...longer term stability in our rotation would give us a better chance to win.

But, how exactly is this putting the Sox at a competitive disadvantage? Can you name one FA pitcher that the Sox let go that went on to pitch well for more than one season? Which pitcher did the Sox fail to sign due to this "3 year" policy?

I caught the tail end of an interview with JR on Comcast's Sportsnite last night. He talked about their policy of not signing pitchers to more than 3 years and JR (correctly, IMO) said that history shows that long term deals for pitchers often to don't work out for the team because pitchers are so likely to have injury or a decline in performance.

Interestingly, JR did indicated that the Sox would be willing to waive this "3 years only" policy for the right pitcher (one who has proven to be durable and consistently good like Johan Santana).

russ99
03-08-2007, 09:03 AM
Exactly. Finally someone who gets it. Mariotti's sole purpose of writing is to bash Chicago teams and make us angry. Why does he do this? So that we get angry at him and talk about it. He is maybe the most well known sports columnist in Chicago because of his "style" of writing and there is no way that he's going to change it. I mean what he is doing works. So when I read his columns I do so for the entertainment purpose only, not for any real incite on sports.

Agreed, that's why I completely ignore his column whenever the Sox are mentioned. He's also pushing his way to my ignore list when the Bears are mentioned too.

Actually if you compare the coverage, the Sox/Bears columns are starting to look quite the same, all Jay needs to do is change the names of the teams and staff. Owner cheap, players leaving when they shoudn't, GM is clueless, coach on an ego trip, etc...

"incite", hmm... Freudian slip? :tongue:

RowanDye
03-08-2007, 09:17 AM
I sure wish JR/KW would rethink their "policy"...longer term stability in our rotation would give us a better chance to win.


I think JR/KW would agree with you. They just don't think that long term contracts are the best way to achieve long term stability.

If we had someone like Johan Santana or Roy Oswalt the decision would be easy, but when most of your guys underperform like they did last year it proves the point that long term contracts can come back to bite you very quickly.

For example, Mark Buehrle is a very likable guy and will probably bounce back to have some good years ahead. But it's hard to throw a long term contract with Zito-money at a probably. Take into account that Mark thinks he will at least regress to the mean of his career stats in this his contract year, and you have a little gap in his current market value and what he thinks he is worth. It seems like they already tried to "buy low" on Buehrle during the year last year and he wasn't biting. The only time overpaying for pitchers make sense is when they have the potential to be your staff ace for a long time. Unfortunately that criteria is questionable for Buehrle. As much as it hurts me as a fan to say this, any long term, big dollar extension to Buehrle right now would be a substantial risk IMHO.

I personally like what I see from the management. We needed to get younger pitching in now to be successful long term. The Sox seem to have added some much needed diversification to their portfolio, so to speak, with the influx of young arms. They have some solid mid-level stocks with a chance for growth (signing of Vazquez). Finally, they have been conservative and choosy about investing in any big stocks, long term (Konerko is the only one that comes to mind). Unfortunately a lot of the prime homegrown candidates have had question marks recently (Crede's back, Mark's underperformance, etc.) Being careful how you spend your money is just sound business practice; financially and for trying to field successful teams with long term stability. Go ask the Cubs.

Jerome
03-08-2007, 11:39 AM
Exactly. Finally someone who gets it. Mariotti's sole purpose of writing is to bash Chicago teams and make us angry. Why does he do this? So that we get angry at him and talk about it. He is maybe the most well known sports columnist in Chicago because of his "style" of writing and there is no way that he's going to change it. I mean what he is doing works. So when I read his columns I do so for the entertainment purpose only, not for any real incite on sports.

yeah whenever the subject of the sun times comes up in any discussion with friends or family i always make a point of mentioning that I ignore Mariotti

GoSox2K3
03-08-2007, 11:43 AM
I certainly don't think the Sox are being cheap and I like that KW is looking to keep the Sox competitive over the long haul. However, I'm a bit confused. Yesterday we hear this:

"If anybody else wants to sit down and talk, it's spring training," Williams said. "Why not before you close the door April 1 and start focusing on the season?"http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070306soxvazquez,1,3063348.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

...and yet today in the Daily Herald, Jermaine Dye says:


“I thought they (Sox) weren’t going to be doing anything until the season was over,’’ Dye said. “But it’s really not something I want to talk about.’’
Dye, eligible for free agency after the season, talked to the White Sox about a contract extension before reporting to spring training on Feb. 19. Through his agent, Bob Bry, the 33-year-old Dye was told nothing would be discussed with any Sox player until the end of the season.http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/whitesox.asp

So, which one is it? Does Kenny have an open door waiting to hear from offers from players? Or is he telling players they won't be discussing contracts with them until the end of the season. These are quotes from KW and JD, so I don't detect any media "spin" here. What gives? It sort of sounds like the Sox are being disingenuous about their intentions.

Jerome
03-08-2007, 11:49 AM
Being careful how you spend your money is just sound business practice; financially and for trying to field successful teams with long term stability. Go ask the Cubs.

Agreed, I would be very suprised if the Cubs are still owned by the Trib by the time the Soriano deal is over.

SoxFan64
03-08-2007, 01:04 PM
There are too many baseball teams becoming farm systems for big market teams.

Is that a surprise? Pre-Free Agency the KC A's of the 1950's WERE the NY Yankees farm team. That's where Maris came from.

It has to do with the financial structure of MLB. Unless and until MLB goes to complete revenue sharing of their local media (or the audience listens to games via the internet / satetille radio), you will have the "haves" and the "have nots".

Football's success can be attributed to both having a good product, good marketing, and sharing of all local revenue.

WhiteSox5187
03-08-2007, 01:15 PM
I think JR/KW would agree with you. They just don't think that long term contracts are the best way to achieve long term stability.

If we had someone like Johan Santana or Roy Oswalt the decision would be easy, but when most of your guys underperform like they did last year it proves the point that long term contracts can come back to bite you very quickly.

For example, Mark Buehrle is a very likable guy and will probably bounce back to have some good years ahead. But it's hard to throw a long term contract with Zito-money at a probably. Take into account that Mark thinks he will at least regress to the mean of his career stats in this his contract year, and you have a little gap in his current market value and what he thinks he is worth. It seems like they already tried to "buy low" on Buehrle during the year last year and he wasn't biting. The only time overpaying for pitchers make sense is when they have the potential to be your staff ace for a long time. Unfortunately that criteria is questionable for Buehrle. As much as it hurts me as a fan to say this, any long term, big dollar extension to Buehrle right now would be a substantial risk IMHO.

I personally like what I see from the management. We needed to get younger pitching in now to be successful long term. The Sox seem to have added some much needed diversification to their portfolio, so to speak, with the influx of young arms. They have some solid mid-level stocks with a chance for growth (signing of Vazquez). Finally, they have been conservative and choosy about investing in any big stocks, long term (Konerko is the only one that comes to mind). Unfortunately a lot of the prime homegrown candidates have had question marks recently (Crede's back, Mark's underperformance, etc.) Being careful how you spend your money is just sound business practice; financially and for trying to field successful teams with long term stability. Go ask the Cubs.
My question to you then is this: what if Buerhle comes out this year and puts together an incredible year? He wins anywhere from 18-21 games with an ERA in the twos. Does that then deserve a longer than three year contract? Buerhle has really only had one bad half a season in 2006 and a rough stretch in 2003. And even then (in 2003) he still won 14 games with a 4.14 ERA. If Buerhle has a good year this year, then I think he is a guy with the merit to break the "three year" rule. I'm not saying go crazy and give him a seven year contract, but a four year deal (with an option for a fifth) might work.

Finally, I'll say this again, I don't think the Sox are cheap. I think they spend their money wisely which makes absolute sense and I think that the three year deal is a pretty good rule of thumb. But there are guys that a worth breaking that rule and if Buerhle has a good year I think he is one of the guys worth breaking that rule for. I also should say, that I disagree with what APPEARS to be the White Sox policy of building the rotation around Conteras and Vasquez. I'd build around Garland and Buerhle. But there's no reason that they won't do that.

RowanDye
03-08-2007, 03:09 PM
My question to you then is this: what if Buerhle comes out this year and puts together an incredible year? He wins anywhere from 18-21 games with an ERA in the twos. Does that then deserve a longer than three year contract? Buerhle has really only had one bad half a season in 2006 and a rough stretch in 2003. And even then (in 2003) he still won 14 games with a 4.14 ERA. If Buerhle has a good year this year, then I think he is a guy with the merit to break the "three year" rule. I'm not saying go crazy and give him a seven year contract, but a four year deal (with an option for a fifth) might work.


I would love to see Mark "win 18-21 games with an ERA in the twos", but realistically it's not going to happen.

It's much more likely that he'll win about 16 games with an ERA in the high threes, and it's also possible that he repeats the mediocrity he displayed last year.

The problem is that we don't know what Mark and his agent are asking for. I can only guess that they see last year as a fluke and would like everything else he has done to be weighted more.

I would rather see Mark perform this year to prove that '06 really was a fluke, and then we can be comfortable locking him up for 4-5 years.

Of course this strategy fails mightily when someone like the Giants comes along and offers him a lifetime contract at a billion dollars a year.

rwcescato
03-08-2007, 03:55 PM
Just because the White Sox did not go crazy and throw money around on below average players..the team is being unfairly criticized as becoming a small market team again.

This has been reiterated time and time again the last few months. To hear several Chicago columnists..you would think the Sox payroll this year was going to be about 30 million.

Correct me if I'm wrong..but it should still be over 100 million. I think that puts the Sox in the top ten in payroll at least.

With the Vasquez signing and the Buerhle talks resuming again..this team is more than willing to spend money on a player they think is worthwhile. I think once again a lot of people will be surprised at which team turns out 'better' in wins. Why is that other team always headed to a World Championship every Jan, Feb and March per the Chicago Media.

I am not Cubsessed..I am just sick of a team that has won Chicago it's first World Title in 8 decades and having a winning record..ALWAYS being disrespected.

I agree. Phil Rogers has totally lost it. Every article is about how cheap and bad the Sox will be this year. I hope every young Sox pitcher becomes great and the spending spree the flubs have done becomes a 100 loss season.

jdm2662
03-08-2007, 04:12 PM
The most successful businesses are the ones that plan for both short term and long term. Many examples of this was written in the book "Good to Great" by Jim Collins. Any business major should read it. It's a great book. I don't see the Sox being any different. They are built to win this year and have a plan to continue to be built to win. Breaking the bank is great in the short term, but it doesn't guarentee long term success. Which is what every such business that does this eventually experiencs. I like what the Sox have done. The FA market has gone insane, some players are eventually going to decline/get old, and they can't re-sign everyone. Is there any guarentee the young players they have will pan out? The answer is no. But, it's better than having no future plan.

23Ventura
03-08-2007, 04:16 PM
The one thing that's really been bothering me, and I've seen it several times, is when somebody writes a column saying that the Sox traded away 2/5 of their starting rotation. This is false. They had 5 regular starters last year; they traded one of them. This is 1/5. I don't see what is so hard to understand. If they insist on including McCarthey, it would still have to be 1/3. Get it right.

maurice
03-08-2007, 04:52 PM
Maybe they're including Garland in the 2/5. After all, they told us with absolute certainty that Garland would be traded back in December, because the Sox were trading all their high-paid starters and relying on low-paid guys like McCarthy. Oops!

Then, they told us that Uribe would not be able to participate in Spring Training, because of the rock-solid attempt murder case against him in the D.R. Oops!

Then, they told us there was no chance that Vazquez would receive an extension. Oops!

Now, they continue to tell us that there is no chance that Buehrle will receive an extension (without acknowledging that they were wrong about everything else), because they claim to have inside knowledge of KW & JR's "disgraceful" plan to dismantle the veteran staff. Meanwhile, KW and Buehrle tell us that they're going to try to work out a deal, and none of the other veteran starting pitchers are free agents at the end of the year.
:rolleyes:

Sorry, Phil Rogers, Mark Gonzalez, and co. Buehrle might be a goner, but not for the discredited "reasons" you've given us. You've shredded your credibility.

ondafarm
03-08-2007, 04:59 PM
I would love to see Mark "win 18-21 games with an ERA in the twos", but realistically it's not going to happen.

It's much more likely that he'll win about 16 games with an ERA in the high threes, and it's also possible that he repeats the mediocrity he displayed last year.

The problem is that we don't know what Mark and his agent are asking for. I can only guess that they see last year as a fluke and would like everything else he has done to be weighted more.

I would rather see Mark perform this year to prove that '06 really was a fluke, and then we can be comfortable locking him up for 4-5 years.

Of course this strategy fails mightily when someone like the Giants comes along and offers him a lifetime contract at a billion dollars a year.

I hope you don't make your living as a forecaster.

Ziggy S
03-08-2007, 08:10 PM
A couple of things: Veeck was a smart baseball guy, or at least a good scout of talent. While he looked cheap and he was, but he did seem willing to pay for really talented players if the player had very little ego. Brarry Bonds he'd never pay for, but I think Frank Thomas would have been acceptable to Veeck.

At least that's my opinion.
I'd have to disagree with the opinion of Veeck being a sound baseball mind. Who traded away Earl Battey for Roy Sievers? Who signed Ron Blomberg to a contract that was big at the time? One could probably say if all the trades after the '59 World Series were not made, we would have won a couple more pennants in the Sixties if not a World Series or two. Veeck was a terrific promoter, but not exactly a genuis when it came to talent evaluation, though he did hire Roland Hemond, who might be one of the best in Major League history at doing just that.

Lip Man 1
03-08-2007, 09:06 PM
Ziggy:

Roland Hemond was hired by the White Sox in September 1970 long before Bill Veeck came back on the scene. He was ultimately hired and approved by then Sox owner John Allyn.

Now Bill did have the good sense to retain Roland when he took over in December 1975.

Lip

Ziggy S
03-08-2007, 10:07 PM
Lip:Crikey, you're right; I forgot about that one. I have the Total White Sox book too, shame on me. Yep, John Allyn the man that saved the Sox from Butthead Selig, thank God (I didn't forget that one, now).

WhiteSox5187
03-09-2007, 01:11 AM
I'd have to disagree with the opinion of Veeck being a sound baseball mind. Who traded away Earl Battey for Roy Sievers? Who signed Ron Blomberg to a contract that was big at the time? One could probably say if all the trades after the '59 World Series were not made, we would have won a couple more pennants in the Sixties if not a World Series or two. Veeck was a terrific promoter, but not exactly a genuis when it came to talent evaluation, though he did hire Roland Hemond, who might be one of the best in Major League history at doing just that.
Well, Veeck's desire to repeat in 1960 certainly led to some poor trades, but the fact of the matter is, Veeck never really had a "long term" outlook on anything. I mean, what was the longest he owned a team? Five years? The fact still remains that he won everywhere he went (except of course St. Louis, but NOBODY won there). I mean, he took a White Sox team that was on the verge of death in 1975 and made it the hottest thing in town two years later (and it quickly fell apart, I know, I know, but that had more to do with economic problems than Veeck's trades) and he also got us Lamar Hoyt!

Lip Man 1
03-09-2007, 12:13 PM
White Sox:

Veeck also got the Sox Harold Baines, Britt Burns and Richard Dotson.

Lip