White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
Congratulations on the Rookie records for HR and RBI in April, Jose!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 04-22-2013, 06:26 PM
amsteel amsteel is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 4,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
I don't think that's true at all.
If it's not true wouldn't JR be willing to lose money or not profit in order to put a winning team on the field? That would be the definition of putting winning before profitability.

It's a business, you try to maximize profits while minimizing costs. If the Sox value increases by whatever incremental amount per year, regardless of team performance I would think JR would take that over potentially losing value by investing in high risk, high value contracts.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 04-22-2013, 07:23 PM
SCCWS SCCWS is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amsteel View Post
Would an unreasonable conclusion to the ongoing marketing/attendance struggles is the fact that White Sox fans are impervious to marketing? Marketing or not all they show up for is a fun and or competitive team?

If you get a chance, pick up a copy of Francona. Besides the baseball, there is quite a bit of what the Red Sox have done to cultivate their attendance and the marketing around it. A few things:

1. Music---the Dropkick Murphys and Sweet Caroline were both marketing gimmicks that have become staples appealing to certain population segments.
2. Francona was stunned when a big buck marketing survey determined the roster was bland and needed more players with sizzle and sex appeal to improve TV ratings.
3. The Red Sox want the female audiance and gear parts of their marketing approach specifically for them. So the pink hats, Sweet Caroline, sex appeal are all geared to attract the female fan and enhance their experience.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 04-22-2013, 07:57 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amsteel View Post
If it's not true wouldn't JR be willing to lose money or not profit in order to put a winning team on the field? That would be the definition of putting winning before profitability.

It's a business, you try to maximize profits while minimizing costs. If the Sox value increases by whatever incremental amount per year, regardless of team performance I would think JR would take that over potentially losing value by investing in high risk, high value contracts.
Not trading for Jake Peavy, not trading for Edwin Jacskson, not picking up the contract of Alex Rios, not signing Adam Dunn etc. cost the Whtie Sox ownership group, which Jerry Reinsdorf heads, money in a way that contradicts your assumption.

Teams that are willing to lose money to put a winning team on the field rarely put winning teams on the field. Even more rarely do they have stockholders. The big money teams have more money to spend.

It is unreasonable and unrealistic to demand your favorite team's ownership lose money to provide you a winner. It is particularly unrealistic and unreasonable to suggest that fans should deny support for their team unless the francise loses money to provide a winner, especially when fans complain about moves that prove bad for baseball that cost the team money at the same time fans complain that management is unwilling to spend money.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 04-22-2013, 08:06 PM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 18,217
Blog Entries: 1
Default

How can we fans really get the message through to Sox ownership that we are fed up with the organization's ridiculous emphasis on loyalty over performance excellence in its drafting, scouting and player development?

The Sox aren't cheap; but they suck at drafting, scouting and developing talent. Doing those things well does not require flushing the major league club; it means drafting better, scouting better, and teaching/coaching/practicing better. If their current employees in those departments can't do that, then fire them.
__________________
The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 04-22-2013, 08:44 PM
Noneck Noneck is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nw Side
Posts: 7,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo View Post

The Sox aren't cheap; but they suck at drafting, scouting and developing talent. Doing those things well does not require flushing the major league club; it means drafting better, scouting better, and teaching/coaching/practicing better. If their current employees in those departments can't do that, then fire them.

They have cheaped out on their minor league system for years. The result of this was being dependent on overspending on marginal FA's and signings to put a somewhat competitive team on the field. Short term this seemed to work for their bottom line. Long term hasnt been determined yet but I bet ownership has things covered.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 04-22-2013, 08:54 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 28,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
They have cheaped out on their minor league system for years. The result of this was being dependent on overspending on marginal FA's and signings to put a somewhat competitive team on the field. Short term this seemed to work for their bottom line. Long term hasnt been determined yet but I bet ownership has things covered.
It just seems very penny-wise and dollar-foolish to me. Develop more young, cheap talent and you could potentially have a better team with a lower payroll.
__________________
Attendance records:
09 : 3-2.
10 : 2-3.
11: 0-1.
12: 2-1.
14: 1-2.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 04-22-2013, 08:56 PM
Noneck Noneck is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nw Side
Posts: 7,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
It just seems very penny-wise and dollar-foolish to me. Develop more young, cheap talent and you could potentially have a better team with a lower payroll.

But the model they have been working with has made them fat, why change a good thing?
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 04-22-2013, 09:32 PM
Mr. Jinx Mr. Jinx is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
They have cheaped out on their minor league system for years. The result of this was being dependent on overspending on marginal FA's and signings to put a somewhat competitive team on the field. Short term this seemed to work for their bottom line. Long term hasnt been determined yet but I bet ownership has things covered.
There is no salary cap in baseball and they are making plenty. They cheaped out on the minor league system because they are cheap.
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:44 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 26,378
Default

Daver has it exactly right.

Marketing certainly helps but when you cut through everything the bottom line is that nothing is a better marketing tool than winning...and I don't mean being in first place for three months after a losing season the year before...to add to the fact that this franchise hasn't even had back to back winning seasons since 2005-2006 (I wanted to preempt the "it's all the Sox fans fault crowd...")

Spivak:

Again I go back to EE statement soon after he and JR bought the franchise (paraphrasing since I don't have the exact quote in front of me...)

'The way to win today is with free agency and trades...'

They have never believed in the minor league system / approach to building a consistent winner, they have never invested the resources like other franchises (Sox spent the least amount of money in minor league bonuses in the last five years of MLB) and just in the last decade they can't even hang on to the same minor league director for longer than three or four years. Hard to develop a consistent development approach when the folks in charge are leaving or getting fired every few years.

Then you add in the instances where JR intervened in who the Sox were going to draft and his dislike for certain agents (who usually happen to control very good talent) and you are shooting yourself in the foot.

If the Sox in fact invested heavily in free agents (the TOP guys) and made good trades I'd say the lack of a minor league system wouldn't be a big deal. But not only do they chisel the minor league system but they are falling flat in the other two areas as well.

Not a good situation.

Lip
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:50 PM
amsteel amsteel is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 4,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo View Post
How can we fans really get the message through to Sox ownership that we are fed up with the organization's ridiculous emphasis on loyalty over performance excellence in its drafting, scouting and player development?
Long time STHs don't renew and big time corporate partners back out. The people that spend the most have the loudest voices.

The Sox don't give a **** about the family of 4 that spends 60$ on one Sunday game a year.
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 04-22-2013, 10:54 PM
Noneck Noneck is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nw Side
Posts: 7,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amsteel View Post
Long time STHs don't renew and big time corporate partners back out. The people that spend the most have the loudest voices.

The Sox don't give a **** about the family of 4 that spends 60$ on one Sunday game a year.

Sponsorships and the big one will be the up coming TV contract. With their lease deal, I truly wonder how much an attendance loss will hurt them.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 04-22-2013, 11:02 PM
amsteel amsteel is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 4,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCCWS View Post
If you get a chance, pick up a copy of Francona. Besides the baseball, there is quite a bit of what the Red Sox have done to cultivate their attendance and the marketing around it. A few things:

1. Music---the Dropkick Murphys and Sweet Caroline were both marketing gimmicks that have become staples appealing to certain population segments.
2. Francona was stunned when a big buck marketing survey determined the roster was bland and needed more players with sizzle and sex appeal to improve TV ratings.
3. The Red Sox want the female audiance and gear parts of their marketing approach specifically for them. So the pink hats, Sweet Caroline, sex appeal are all geared to attract the female fan and enhance their experience.
That actually sounds fantastically interesting. I'll add it to my reading list.

Re 2: If the Sox had a young dynamic player I think it would definitely boost fan interest. AJ was the closest thing they've had to a personality in the last 10 years and that was based more on an abstract idea of AJ Pierzynski than it was based on the actual person.

Re 3: I would like to see that, if only for the hilarious backlash here.

The Red Sox are not the White Sox for a multitude of reasons, but they are the undeniable success story of the last 15 years on and off the field.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 04-22-2013, 11:03 PM
amsteel amsteel is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 4,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
Sponsorships and the big one will be the up coming TV contract.
No kidding, the TV deal will truly quantify the Sox place, both in Chicago but also MLB.
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 04-23-2013, 12:04 AM
shingo10 shingo10 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 817
Default

Here are some philosophies I wish the Sox would become consistent on:

-DH. First it was one big bat (Thome) then a bunch of little bats (Kotsay, ect.) then back to a big bat with Dunn. Thome was by far the most successful DH we've had over the past 4 years and that can make a huge difference for an offense. Having a black hole there just sucks the life out of it.

-Roster Makeup. Obviously a team will never be either all veterans or all youngsters but if the Sox want to change then they might have to "rebuild." Meaning it makes no sense to have Floyd pitching for us when it could be Hector Santiago. Just spinning our wheels. And if we are going to try to build winners by getting established talent then shouldn't we get established talent? Our bench is a joke.

Looking specifically at this offseason I have zero clue what we were doing...it seems like it was a giant mess and it is turning out that way on the field as well.

I'm concerned that the front office might actually be surprised by how this season is playing out when it was clear that offense and depth were lacking from the get go.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 04-23-2013, 09:47 AM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
The thing about this that I have never understood is that it seems very penny-wise and dollar foolish. The more young talent you develop which would cost pennies means the less big dollars you have to pay out to the likes of Peavy, Rios, Dunn, Danks, et al. They're running out a very mediocre roster with a $122 million payroll. I would think that, ideally, the better you are developing young, cheap talent, the lower your payroll would be.
Excellent point. The team has certainly been willing hand out big contracts that drive up their payroll. Perhaps, as Lip said, it's more that Sox ownership is philosophically opposed to investing in the farm system.

Maybe it's that coupled with the ownership being slow to demand better results from the management/scouting team they hired. We have a decade or so of failing to turn out sufficient quality players from within. You might argue that it's been 15 years since they last had a position player come through their system to become an above average MLB player. But the only "shake up" I have heard of is when they brought in Buddy Bell 5 years ago....and we haven't seen much improvement yet since then either.

It also looks like the Wilder scandal really crippled the Sox international drafting efforts. But it's been years since that happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo View Post
How can we fans really get the message through to Sox ownership that we are fed up with the organization's ridiculous emphasis on loyalty over performance excellence in its drafting, scouting and player development?

The Sox aren't cheap; but they suck at drafting, scouting and developing talent. Doing those things well does not require flushing the major league club; it means drafting better, scouting better, and teaching/coaching/practicing better. If their current employees in those departments can't do that, then fire them.
I think Sox ownership is well aware that fans are unhappy with the current state of this team.....not just their poor play over the last couple of weeks, but just the overall lack of talent and lack of direction.

I just hope they realize that you can't have a team have a series of disappointing seasons in a row and then wonder why fans didn't instantly appear when they were hot for 3 months.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
Daver has it exactly right.

Marketing certainly helps but when you cut through everything the bottom line is that nothing is a better marketing tool than winning...and I don't mean being in first place for three months after a losing season the year before...to add to the fact that this franchise hasn't even had back to back winning seasons since 2005-2006 (I wanted to preempt the "it's all the Sox fans fault crowd...")


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
Spivak:

Again I go back to EE statement soon after he and JR bought the franchise (paraphrasing since I don't have the exact quote in front of me...)

'The way to win today is with free agency and trades...'

They have never believed in the minor league system / approach to building a consistent winner, they have never invested the resources like other franchises (Sox spent the least amount of money in minor league bonuses in the last five years of MLB) and just in the last decade they can't even hang on to the same minor league director for longer than three or four years. Hard to develop a consistent development approach when the folks in charge are leaving or getting fired every few years.

Then you add in the instances where JR intervened in who the Sox were going to draft and his dislike for certain agents (who usually happen to control very good talent) and you are shooting yourself in the foot.

If the Sox in fact invested heavily in free agents (the TOP guys) and made good trades I'd say the lack of a minor league system wouldn't be a big deal. But not only do they chisel the minor league system but they are falling flat in the other two areas as well.

Not a good situation.

Lip
Very few teams can get away with relying solely on FAs to make them a contender. Most contenders have a solid core of organization players and then use FA to put them over the top.

Also, I think we've seen the good trades dry up because the Sox have almost nothing in their farm system to use for trades.

You can't just hover near dead last in talent level year after year and expect to put together a competitive team even if you bring in a few players like Peavy and Rios.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.