Latilleon
-
Posts
39 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Latilleon
-
-
Kenny Williams reaction to the Forbes article is probably, “Hell, if I had known we made that much money, we could have gone ahead and guaranteed Machado the $300 million!”
-
On 2/28/2019 at 4:14 PM, 59th street said:
Despite ownership's unwillingness to spend at market level for the big 2 free agents; it could be unrealstic to expect better if the Reinsdorf ownership group sold the team.
The current ownership group paid approximarely $24 million for the team. The franchise is estimated to be worth close to One Billion now. Any new ownership group would likely have to finance a purchase from the Reinsdorf group. The debt load could negatively impact wild spending on free agents and payroll.
The fact that the current Reinsdorf ownership group refused to participate at Market rate levels despite having: Very Low payroll, Extremely favorable Stadium Lease terms and No Debt Service (instead they have gigantiac equity value) is not likely to be solved by a new ownership group.
A new ownership group may be more in tune with what actual Market Rate levels are for generational free agents, but the debt level they may have to take on to buy the team could suppress their available cash to spend.
This failure to take advantage of a truly unique opportunity, is the most troubling aspect of our owners decision. Especially since we were in the most advantageous financial position. It is unlikely to be available again any time soon.
We need a bunch of the prospects to become high performers, and that is clearly the chosen path. I am excited to see the development.
I am a White Sox fan for life. Go Go White Sox.
Mark Cuban wouldn't have to finance the team.
Neither would the Pritzkers.
And how many billionaires live in the Chicago area?
-
51 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:
I'm guessing you're referring to the Atlanta Braves here....
Yes.
If Naperville went half on a stadium and they gave the Sox a huge amount of acreage where the Sox can do what the Braves did in Cobb County, GA and the Cubs have been doing in Wrigleyville, how attractive would that be for a new Sox owner, even if it meant leaving the city?
-
27 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:
With the economic climate shifting to such priority areas as the environment, health care, infrastructure and education...I'd have a hard time imagining that public financing is realistically going to be part of any municipal plans in the future.
Look what happened to Amazon HQ2.
Imagine trying to get through public funding for a sports facility in today's climate, let alone a decade from now.
Is anyone familiar enough with Portland, Nashville, Charlotte, Montreal, Las Vegas or the San Antonio/Austin area to provide a gauge of how such a projected would be greeted by local voters/legislators in terms of possible MLB expansion?
Portland and Montreal have MLB efforts. Portland seems to have a stadium plan, Montreal apparently does not.
Nashville just publicly funded a MLS stadium for $300 million and a Triple-A stadium for $100 million. I don't know if they would be 100% for publicly building a $750 million MLB stadium, but they would love the feather in the cap of an MLB team, even if they probably cannot support it and all the other teams.
-
1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:
Mark Gonzales told me the former owner of the Memphis Grizzlies offered to but the team from JR. Again he said no. That person wound up passing away from an illness by the way so in the long run perhaps it was a good thing JR did not sell to him.
Michael Heisley was a cheapskate all day long who made his billions buying depressed assets and selling them when he got the value up. He was also a year younger than JR. So him buying the team would have been a business move, not a rich guy's luxury toy move. That's why its good he didn't buy.
-
8 hours ago, Peacock Wrestler said:
Good point, but I believe there are numerous cities MLB would consider even though some of them have minor league teams:
Portland
Vegas
OK City
Mexico City
Puerto Rico
Montreal
Indy
San Antonio
New Orleans
Charlotte
Sacramento
Portland... Probably the most attractive US market without MLB because it has 2.5 million people and only an NBA team. Still only the size of Pittsburgh.
Las Vegas is 2 million people and will have NHL and NFL. Already full of entertainment. TV deal will suck.
Oklahoma City has a population of 1.4 million. Not gonna happen.
Mexico City is the largest city in North America. But its a long way away from the rest of the league.
San Juan, Puerto Rico has 2.4 million people but the Commonwealth is having a really bad financial crunch. Who's going to pay for a $600 million plus stadium there?
Montreal has 4 million people and when MLB expands, if someone will build a stadium, the National League is probably coming back.
Indianapolis has 2.3 million people, the NFL, NBA, and Cincinnati 100 miles away.
San Antonio and Austin are 80 miles apart. SA has 2.4 million and Austin has 2.2 million. Austin is also a wealthier city than San Antonio. If MLB went there, it'd probably be Austin but the markets would both be exploited by a perspective team.
New Orleans has 1.3 million and has no business having the NFL and the NBA right now. Definitely can't afford the MLB.
Charlotte is 2.5 million and a front runner with Portland and Montreal. But Charlotte already has the NFL and NBA taking a great amount of the money out of the market for a potential MLB team. Raleigh is slightly smaller than Charlotte but only has the NHL. It also has three major ACC programs in the metro area.
Sacramento has 2.4 million, only an NBA franchise, but two MLB teams 80 miles away. It's almost like the Milwaukee Brewers. Milwaukee would never get an MLB team today being so small (2 million) and close to Chicago.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Nashville. That's the hot city on the tip of everyone's tongue. Nashville has 2 million and the same issue as Charlotte, Las Vegas, and incredibly, New Orleans; two big league sports franchises already sucking the oxygen out of a potential MLB franchise's atmosphere.
Chicago is an attractive market for both a National League and American League franchise and can afford to sellout both stadiums all 162 games. That's why the question of whether the Sox would leave Chicago is a non-starter. If a younger owner came in and bought the Sox, they could easily find one of the suburbs to allow them to Cobb County a new stadium and let them develop the real estate around the new park. We know the city and the state won't pay for a new park, but Chicago is attractive enough as a market that Reinsdorf taking the fanbase for granted can be overcome with actual hope and not optimism tempered by mistrust.
-
On 1/20/2019 at 10:49 AM, soxfan18 said:
Writer spun this bad. The partner Crane likely was talking about is Sinclair, not a team partner. And the multiple others is the TV providers who are involved in negotiations.
This is what I was thinking, but is that a mystery?
-
6 hours ago, SonofaRoache said:
Yeah but Miller is a Milwaukee business, so it makes sense. And is a cool name, like Coors Field and Busch Stadium.
Even better because it definitely connects with the team's nickname.
Though I guess indirectly but based on the marketing, Coors does the same with the Rockies.
-
16 minutes ago, Big Hurtin said:
I don't get it. They are already on NBC Sports Chicago. I get that the agreement will be new, but doesn't the channel stay the same?
Maybe because the Cubs are a current owner, they have to create a new entity.
-
Frank
Baines
Ozzie
Ventura
Paulie
-
18 hours ago, caulfield12 said:
A couple of years ago, you would have thought a place like Mexico City would have had a shot, but that's no longer in the cards with the political situation, or even a Caribbean country.
Buffalo, Louisville, Charlotte, Nashville and Indy were other names you would hear historically, but as much recently.
MLB really seems to be considering the possibility (at least) of going back to MON, but two West Coast teams, that's the most logical play in terms of scheduling and demographics/population growth.
Buffalo and Louisville are too small.
Indianapolis, Nashville, and Charlotte (the biggest of the three) all have two major league franchises and no MLB ready stadium. So not only do they have convince the (what would be for MLB small) markets to spend a billion on a stadium, you have to compete with existing franchises for the big money for suites and sponsorships.
They don’t need two west teams. They’ll have four divisions of four in each league like the NFL.
AL West
Seattle
PORTLAND
Oakland
LA
NL West
SF
LA
San Diego
Arizona
(Move Colorado to the Central)
-
22 hours ago, Balta1701 said:
If they weren't locked into a contract for the next 10 years on that stadium, we might actually be talking about this. The Rays seem an obvious candidate, maybe Oakland as well, those are the 2 main stadium issues right now.
Chicago is too big of a market. Portland is 1/4 as big as Chicago so it makes no sense to leave Chicago for a market with many fewer people and money (specifically companies to buy sponsorships).
It’s akin to leaving Chicago to move to Cincinnati.
-
22 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:
Montreal?
If they are willing to build a stadium, this is the choice.
-
-
QUOTE (daggins @ Jan 29, 2018 -> 02:36 PM)Pretty backwards to say this is because a few people were offended. It happened because the logo is a horrifically racist characature based on social mores from 100 years ago.
Thank you.
It’s almost as if people think because they aren’t offended because they are used to seeing it that it’s not an offensive excuse of a logo made when Americans were racist towards Native Americans.
-
Sox went most of their existence changing logos and uniforms every couple of years.
It's nice finally having a classic look that is known, respected, and appreciated worldwide.
Why change from one of the most popular logos/styles in sports?
-
QUOTE (New Era on South Side @ Jan 19, 2018 -> 08:14 AM)The Bulls don’t have a profitable deal either and Cumulus is just broke. What kind of TV deal are people talking about around here lately?
One that increases like the ones other markets have been getting. And if the Cubs go off on their own, the package should be more valuable to NBC Sports/WGN.
-
QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 02:00 PM)Despite liking vox.com, eater, and theVerge, there are just so many stories about SB Nation being a pretty crappy employer. Good for them.
SB Nation was the beginning, but do their other websites have the same content creation structure? Basically they take advantage of fans and make money off their hard work, but all their other sites have actually employees writing the content, right?
-
QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 14, 2017 -> 05:40 PM)Many seem to have not read the article as Nightengale said there's no chance the Sox would actually give Manny a huge contract
This makes no sense to trade him thinking the Sox will flip him versus thinking he would be in long term plans and they don’t want him going to a team they sign him to a long term extension. No one expects the Sox to make any noise this year, franchise 3rd baseman or not.
And if the Orioles are so worried about him going to the Yankees, why don’t they hold onto him until the trade deadline?
-
QUOTE (35thstreetswarm @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 10:31 AM)There also aren't all that many super-experienced "high profile managers" hopping from big market team to big market team in baseball, and hiring managers from within - or managers with little to no experience - is pretty common among teams of all types. Joe Girardi wasn't that high profile or experienced when the Yankees hired him, and it wasn't for lack of organizational status. See also the Dodgers' hire of Dave Roberts, and many other examples. Judging the attractiveness of a team as a destination by its "success" or "failure" in hiring Dusty Baker types doesn't really make sense.
Girardi won the National League coach of the year when Jeffrey Loris foolishly fired him. He might not have been very experienced, but he wasn’t a novice either. Girardi was an “internal” candidate for the Yankees, but he pursued the Cubs job and was offered the Orioles job before he became the Yankees manager.
But he’s high profile now and would take a good investment to get him. He’s probably going to get a TV job for next season and if Jerry wants him, Jerry can probably get him.
-
QUOTE (FloydBannister1983 @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 07:45 AM)I don't think salary is all that goes into it. They factor in casual fan interest (non-existent) and opportunity to grow the fan base (won't happen to a significant degree due to the monopoly the organization on the north side has on the casual fan). A top tier manager doesn't want to go to a place where he will be ignored by sports networks and the fan base doesn't watch them on television.
I hope for the sake of White Sox fans I'm wrong but I'm afraid the White Sox are stuck perpetually with the Renteria's and Bevington's and Ventura's and Manuel's of the world. I don't see the Leyland's or LaRussa's or Girardi's of the world ever changing course and discovering that this is a good landing spot.
Let’s say Renteria has a running in place season where young guys develop but his managing doesn’t seem to have a bright future blossoming into a truly competitive team. But Moncada, Anderson, and Rodon look like they will be All-Stars for a long time; Kopech and Jimenez are looking like stars, and Jerry is willing to pay whatever it takes to get a tier 1 free agent like Machado. The Sox hire a name manager.
If the Sox have a run like they did from 1990-2008, you think the fan base can’t grow because of the Cubs? If the Sox got a quarter of the local market, that’s a piece bigger than Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Cincinnati.
-
QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Oct 30, 2017 -> 04:04 PM)The Sox continually have some of the lowest rated regional telecasts in baseball, which will impair them from getting the type of deal that other people are pointing out here. The Sox will likely see a modest bump to their current $50M/season to around $60M.
A low rated telecast in the third biggest market is can still be a larger audience than a high rated telecast in St. Louis, the 21st.
And how have existing ratings lead to much bigger bumps for other teams?
-
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 31, 2017 -> 08:57 PM)Ozzie is now begging for the Cubs bench coach job. Remember all of the s*** he used to talk about the Cubs? What a clown.
The Marlins buy-out cash has probably dried up.
Ozzie shouldn’t burn bridges.
-
QUOTE (FloydBannister1983 @ Oct 31, 2017 -> 07:12 PM)Chicago itself is not an entry level job but managing the White Sox is. Why? ESPN can't remember they exist. They routinely have one of the lowest television ratings in the league. Every manager they've hired in the last 40 years has had no managing experience, except for the current guy who had a cup of coffee with the organization on the north side until a top tier manager became available. They are a small market team in the third largest market in the country. This is why managing the White Sox is an entry level position, for starters.
But if you want to ignore all of history then I concede that Joe Girardi or Dusty Baker or Tony LaRussa or Joe Torre or Bob Brenley or any other top tier manager could end up here. I hope for your sake you get your wish.
As far as 2, 3, 4 titles goes ... They've been to the postseason 5 times in the last 50 years and have advanced one single season. I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm but I'd wait for the crown jewel of your rebuild to average his weight before you have them winning four titles.
It isn’t that the job is entry level; it’s that ownership has been cheap with managers; just like how we won’t pay big long-term contracts to players (not since Albert Belle), we haven’t broke the bank to hire a name manager.
If the Sox are willing to pay, they can get whatever manager they wanted.
April 10 Gamethread 1:10pm first pitch
in 2019 Season in Review
Posted
Dylan Crews sounds like he’s the player for Rick.