Sox Philosophy Dilemma...

[Harry Potter]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

I don't know how anyone could understand the fans. You want green seats, bingo, green seats. You want a contender, bingo, won a WS, last year they were in first place, no one came. You want cheaper tickets and parking, bingo, cheaper tickets and parking, yet Sox fans will always move the goalposts. How often are teams expected to win the WS? If they win one once every 10 years, they would be one of the more awesome franchises in the league. To think they don't care to understand the fans is not paying any attention to what they have done the past 10 years or so. It's just an impossible task.

I'd like to see this franchise make the playoffs in consecutive years. Is that too much to ask?

[Hitmen77]

Lip,
This is an excellent thread topic. I agree with a lot of the points people have already raised here. The problem indeed is that the Sox operate their organization in such a way that this team is good enough to win about 83 games and make the playoffs about once every 5 years. That's not good enough to build up a stronger fan base in Chicago.

The biggest problem is that their philosophy doesn't seem to put much of a priority on developing a better minor league system. Who was the last position player that came through the Sox system that became a solid major league player? Aaron Rowand? He was drafted FIFTEEN years ago! Since then, the best I can think of are Chris Young and Gordon Beckham. This team doesn't have enough internal talent to either fill holes in the major league roster and in recent years has shown that it often doesn't have enough talent to trade for established major league players. Without such talent, this team is never going to win on a consistent basis by just relying on "under the radar" acquisitions and the occasional big contract acquisitions (like Dunn and Peavy).

I guess I don't understand this argument that the Sox have a bad farm system because they can't afford to rebuild. I totally agree that this franchise can ill-afford to go the "total rebuild" route, but since when is that the only way to develop more talent from within. It's not all about getting a top 10 pick in the draft (though that can help). Good teams can develop good players too.

You can't say that JR is unwilling to put money into payroll since the Sox have had a high major league payroll for several years now, but it's not just about giving big contracts to veterans like Dunn and Konerko. Perhaps the problem is that the Sox are willing to make such big expenditures only if that cost is made up somewhere else. So, they have a big MLB payroll, but only as the expense of putting little money into scouting, drafts, etc.

I'd say another philosophical problem is ownership's loyalty to a fault. Ozzie pissed on the fans and put one foot in Miami while managing the Sox and was only let go when he pretty much pushed the issue and asked to be released from his contract. KW hasn't been very successful since 2008 and yet he's still here - promoted to VP or whatever his title is.

Finally, the other line of thinking about the Sox that I think is completely wrong and total bull**** is this notion that "well, the Sox were winning last year and the fans still didn't show up. It's not the ownership's fault that fans won't even support a winner." When I hear people say that, it just makes me want to scream in frustration. Do people really think that the Sox being good for 3 months only to fall short every year is good enough to lay this on fan support? I don't know if Sox management feels this way, but this is certainly a common thinking about this team even from it's own fans. So, I'd say this is a lousy philosophical way to look at the Sox even if it's not necessarily coming from team management.

Originally Posted by blandman

The way I see it, the Sox are doing exactly what they need to in order to maximize their profits with our fanbase. Spending too much comes with the risk of losing tens of millions if the team doesn't reach expectations. Conversely, rebuilding properly to produce a true winner reduces revenue in the short term. Building a high 70 to low 80 winner consistently, affording for luck, has allowed the team to appear competitive (and produced significant revenue). I don't think that fans will go away if we rebuild is an issue so much as the lost short term revenue. Keeping our average team out there is a successful model for them, at least as long as we continue to support this system with our money.

I think you're absolutely right. The Sox have a sweetheart deal at the Cell. They've done a good job of avoiding the 90 loss range for most of Reinsdorf's tenure. I think they realize having that kind of team for any extended period would really hurt them financially. They're in a sweet spot (for them) where the team is just good enough to keep fans and the media mildly interested in them and keep the revenues coming in without having to really risk their profit margins by sinking too much into trying to build an elite team.

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by Harry Potter

I'd like to see this franchise make the playoffs in consecutive years. Is that too much to ask?

I would love it as well, but if they went to the playoffs 2 or 3 years in a row and didn't win it all, the next excuse is making the playoffs isn't good enough. Just like it was in 2008.

People are very impatient, yet seem to be fine with a total rebuild. Do you know how bad the Sox would have to be for a long time and draft really well for that to work out? And if it did, how long does it really last? 86-89 the Sox were horrible. They rebuilt, just like a lot of people want and drafted about as well as anyone could expect, and were good 1990-1994 with one playoff appearance. Of course it was a bit more difficult to make the playoffs at that time. 83-85 win seasons are not baseball hell. 60-75 win seasons during a 20 year rebuild is.

[Harry Potter]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

I would love it as well, but if they went to the playoffs 2 or 3 years in a row and didn't win it all, the next excuse is making the playoffs isn't good enough. Just like it was in 2008.

People are very impatient, yet seem to be fine with a total rebuild. Do you know how bad the Sox would have to be for a long time and draft really well for that to work out? And if it did, how long does it really last? 86-89 the Sox were horrible. They rebuilt, just like a lot of people want and drafted about as well as anyone could expect, and were good 1990-1994 with one playoff appearance. Of course it was a bit more difficult to make the playoffs at that time. 83-85 win seasons are not baseball hell. 60-75 win seasons during a 20 year rebuild is.

Very valid points Dick - I agree with you there.

[Lip Man 1]

Hitmen:

You hit upon a point that I brought out in my "Sox and the Media" series here at WSI ... I was making some points regarding media coverage but there are also things that apply to the notion of fans showing up. You touched on some of it exactly in my opinion:

Let's my repost a part of it:

"The new century started with some of the same old problems dogging the Sox via the media, namely, attendance. A young White Sox team surprised everybody by winning 95 games on their way to a divisional title yet many were fixated on the fact the Sox weren’t drawing the way a top team should. Mark Giangreco, the sports anchor at WLS-TV became the target of a lot of Sox fans who ripped him for showing practically every time he had home highlights, a shot of empty blue seats.

It’s strange that every five years or so the Chicago media needed to be reminded of certain truths about Sox fans. Namely they won’t support mediocrity, they don’t think losing is cute and they reserve judgment on a team until it has proven themselves to them. How do these truths apply to the 2000 White Sox and attendance?

The Sox had four losing seasons out of the previous five years. The 2000 club was a shock and many fans were sure ultimately they wouldn’t succeed (and they were right.) The infamous ‘White Flag Trade’ was three seasons removed and the labor impasse of which Jerry Reinsdorf played such a large part was only six years removed.

White Sox fans have long memories.

One other factor often overlooked by the media when they discuss attendance, that badly hurts the Sox is this. Of all the original 16 pre expansion major league clubs, the White Sox are the only one to have never made the postseason in consecutive seasons.

Many times they come literally out of nowhere to have a good season and when they are expected to win in the future, in order to build trust with the fan base and keep the momentum going, they fail.

Many times badly.

Think of 1968, 1973, 1984, 1995, 2001 and 2006. Of those six years for example, only twice did they even have a winning season. Many Sox fans to this day can’t figure out (and neither can the media) how the White Sox with their market-size, payroll advantages, higher valued radio / TV / internet deals and advertising opportunities have never been able to dominate the division much like the Yankees and Red Sox do in the A.L. East. Cleveland did it in the 1990’s in the Central, Minnesota did it in the 2000’s in the Central but that goal has eluded management’s best efforts.

Sox fans are a skeptical bunch and only making the postseason every so often isn’t helping matters to say nothing of only two World Series appearances since 1919."

Lip

[sox1970]

A ton of good points in this.

Ultimately, they're going to have to face a world without Konerko, Rios, and Dunn slugging in the middle of the lineup in a couple years.

Until then, we're stuck in purgatory.

[Lip Man 1]

Sox 1970:

I suspect a lot of fans would tell you that this purgatory has been going on a lot longer then the past few years (or when Dunn, Rios came on-board). Personally I'd say based on the record of the club, since basically 2001.

Lip

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

Sox 1970:

I suspect a lot of fans would tell you that this purgatory has been going on a lot longer then the past few years (or when Dunn, Rios came on-board). Personally I'd say based on the record of the club, since basically 2001.

Lip

Um, what



Not sure if you're aware or not but that happened in 2005.

[sox1970]

I'd say living off the success of 2005 is part of the problem now.

Love that it happened, but it's sickening how many people with the Sox still talk about it as if it just happened, or it's relevant anymore.

[Lip Man 1]

Double:

Since 2001 the Sox have averaged 84.5 wins a season (that includes of course 2005 and 2006). It lends creedence to your comment in another thread about the Sox being in that "twilight zone" / "purgatory" of averaging around 85 wins a year. That's all I meant.

Lip

[Lip Man 1]

Dick:

Regarding your comment about if the Sox made the playoffs two or three years in a row and didn't win anything fans would be upset.

Let's see them get to the playoffs two or three (or more?) years in a row and test that propostiion out first before saying what could or might take place.

Lip

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

Sox 1970:

I suspect a lot of fans would tell you that this purgatory has been going on a lot longer then the past few years (or when Dunn, Rios came on-board). Personally I'd say based on the record of the club, since basically 2001.

Lip

If purgatory means a WS trophy, I'm all for purgatory.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

Double:

Since 2001 the Sox have averaged 84.5 wins a season (that includes of course 2005 and 2006). It lends creedence to your comment in another thread about the Sox being in that "twilight zone" / "purgatory" of averaging around 85 wins a year. That's all I meant.

Lip

I got that but I think it's disingenious to claim that the Sox have been in some kind of Gray Zone that covers the franchise's one and only World Series title in the last average human lifetime. For the three seasons from 2004-2006, the Sox were probably one of the best teams in the league.

I would say the current era of Tire Spinning began in 2007 and the Sox have been unable to successfully move on. I think that's a pretty clear point where the team could have used a drastic overhaul, but instead they have gone with a much slower and more painful rebuild.

[RKMeibalane]

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

Dick:

Regarding your comment about if the Sox made the playoffs two or three years in a row and didn't win anything fans would be upset.

Let's see them get to the playoffs two or three (or more?) years in a row and test that proposition out first before saying what could or might take place.

Lip

Well said, though I think what upsets fans the most is the possibility that they may spend their entire lives waiting for such a scenario to unfold. No one likes the idea of supporting a franchise that seems content win something once.

[doublem23]

I would just say, from my own humble vantage point, the Sox "periods" of my lifetime are as follows:

1990-1994 - Torborg/Lamont/Big Hurt/Good Guys Wear Black Boom Years
1995-1997 - Terry Bevington Clown Years/Dismantling of the Dynasty that Never Was
1998-2003 - Jerry Manuel Kids Can Play Years
2004-2006 - Ozzieball Glory Years
2007-2013 - Whatever the **** This Is