View Single Post
  #50  
Old 11-08-2013, 02:52 AM
Noneck Noneck is offline
The Blind Squirrel that finally found an acorn.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nw Side
Posts: 7,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
If it were simply about the bottom line, the Sox wouldn't have signed Dunn. They wouldn't have traded for Peavy. They wouldn't have traded for Edwin Jackson. They wouldn't have signed Abreu. They wouldn't have picked up Rios on waivers.

You will find some disagreement over whether those moves were good baseball moves for the White Sox. But none of them are moves that would be made if it were "about the bottom line."

There was a time, a story is told, when the White Sox traded Ed Herrmann to make payroll. When a coach told Bill Veeck he couldn't afford to take a cab to the ballpark every day, a story goes, Veeck said he would take care of him and gave him tokens to ride the CTA. The Sporting News reported in 1970 that a rookie who broke his batting helmet after striking out was billed for the replacement, inspiring his teammates to take up a collection.

The current ownership is probably the least "bottom line" ownership the White Sox have ever had.

There are many models to achieve the best bottom line, we are not privy to these. The Sox model may be to retain as much of a fan base as possible, having a poor boys payroll and team may not achieve this. Future Tv contracts probably come into play also. A team with a declining fan base would affect the worth a future Tv contract. Looking at signings and payroll is not the only means to see if a team is maximizing their bottom line. You mentioned the old days of making payroll, well those days are not here, all teams are making money hand over fist and have no problem with that. Teams look to maximize profits for the present and also the future. Sox ownership is going no where and have models to maximize their bottom line for both now and the future. If you believe differently, so be it but you wont convince me.
Reply With Quote