Jump to content
yesterday333

Manny: Enter the Panic Room

Recommended Posts

Good lord, the Cubs are not signing either of them and we have known this for 3 months.

And Manny Machado isn't taking a one year deal to chase hypotheticals.

Edited by mqr
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tony said:

My point is they can handle the negotiations right, do things the right way, the smart way, but if Philadelphia comes in on March 15th and spends $380 million on Machado because they want to live up to the "stupid money" tagline, the Sox will still be ridiculed, and I'll be right there with people. They would have failed to land a big fish, right or wrong. 

You seem to be portraying JR as the victim in that case though.  He still gets his large revenue sharing check from the league, payroll obligations will be minimal and he will have done it "the right way" business-wise. Profits will still come through.  His team has already been ridiculed the last few years, that's not bothersome, his franchise is one of the 5 worst of the last 10 years, that doesn't bother him either.  Or at least he's shown no reason to think it bothers him by his team's transactions.

"Stupid money" isn't so stupid when it wins you ballgames on the field.  The majority of WS winners have a "stupid" contract or two.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

That number includes at the very least Quintana's option. 

Not in sports Trac and baseball reference 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ptatc said:

This does not sound like a Theo philosophy. 

I mean, he did trade 7 years of Gleyber Torres for 3 months of a reliever 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No chance. The Sox control 47% - according to this study by the Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/23/upshot/24-upshot-baseball.html - of a major metropolitan area. According to that study, Cook County is split nearly 40/40. Cook County alone is 5.3 million people, meaning the Sox have nearly 2.2 million of that in Cook alone. St Louis has 300,000 people - the metropolitan area has 2.8 million people. Of Sox Fans in Cook alone, they nearly match the total of St Louis. Chicago is a MASSIVE market in which the Sox have a 47% share of. There are 10 million people in this area, and if you want to say the Sox just control 40% of it (It's higher, FTR) then they control a fan base north of 4 million people. That's bigger than the entire St Louis Metro Area. 

The White Sox are not a small market team; don't let them sell you otherwise. In the early 90's the Sox were a bigger draw than the Cubs. Jerry being a big part of the strike hurt a lot with the fan base, but the Sox still have a market share bigger than 90% of MLB teams.

Not sure about the methodology and validity of the study but the Sox do not have a 47% share of the Chicago market.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jose Abreu said:

I mean, he did trade 7 years of Gleyber Torres for 3 months of a reliever 

That will always be a bad trade, I don't care that they got bailed out by a rain delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No chance. The Sox control 47% - according to this study by the Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/23/upshot/24-upshot-baseball.html - of a major metropolitan area. According to that study, Cook County is split nearly 40/40. Cook County alone is 5.3 million people, meaning the Sox have nearly 2.2 million of that in Cook alone. St Louis has 300,000 people - the metropolitan area has 2.8 million people. Of Sox Fans in Cook alone, they nearly match the total of St Louis. Chicago is a MASSIVE market in which the Sox have a 47% share of. There are 10 million people in this area, and if you want to say the Sox just control 40% of it (It's higher, FTR) then they control a fan base north of 4 million people. That's bigger than the entire St Louis Metro Area. 

The White Sox are not a small market team; don't let them sell you otherwise. In the early 90's the Sox were a bigger draw than the Cubs. Jerry being a big part of the strike hurt a lot with the fan base, but the Sox still have a market share bigger than 90% of MLB teams.

Just by personal experience living in the area my entire life I'd put that number closer to 25-30% I do not buy for one minute that the Sox have a 47% share of the Chicago Metro. No way, no how. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

You seem to be portraying JR as the victim in that case though.  He still gets his large revenue sharing check from the league, payroll obligations will be minimal and he will have done it "the right way" business-wise. Profits will still come through.  His team has already been ridiculed the last few years, that's not bothersome, his franchise is one of the 5 worst of the last 10 years, that doesn't bother him either.  Or at least he's shown no reason to think it bothers him by his team's transactions.

"Stupid money" isn't so stupid when it wins you ballgames on the field.  The majority of WS winners have a "stupid" contract or two.

 

 

I would disagree that it doesn't bother him. The simple fact that he approved a plan to finally do a complete rebuild shows it bothered him enough to make a drastic change in philosophy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mqr said:

Good lord, the Cubs are not signing either of them and we have known this for 3 months.

Seriously! Even after Theo has stated numerous times that the cubs don't have the payroll flexibility to sign big free agents, people still want to believe the cubs will sign  Harper. All because Harper and Bryant are bros. :lol:

Edited by BlackSox13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mqr said:

That will always be a bad trade, I don't care that they got bailed out by a rain delay.

Yep, the narrative they don’t win it without him is crazy to me considering his choke job in game 7.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ptatc said:

Not sure about the methodology and validity of the study but the Sox do not have a 47% share of the Chicago market.

Yes they do. I grew up in the Western Suburbs and it was split pretty much evenly - Oak Park/River Forest area. The South Suburbs are Sox heavy and the North Suburbs are Cubs heavy. The Cubs have a further reaching fanbase - ie, they have central illinois with the cardinals, iowa, and northern illinois/southern wisco. Their reach goes further, but in the immediate Chicagoland area, the Sox are nearly evenly split. 47/53 is pretty accurate imo, unless you want to produce a study that refutes that point... or you can just stick to pointless first hand experience to draw erroneous conclusions if you prefer that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Not sure about the methodology and validity of the study but the Sox do not have a 47% share of the Chicago market.

Completely agreed. The largest estimate I'd buy is 35% and that is really generous. I think the reality resides somewhere between 25-30%. That is a smaller market than both the Indians and Twins btw. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

Just by personal experience living in the area my entire life I'd put that number closer to 25-30% I do not buy for one minute that the Sox have a 47% share of the Chicago Metro. No way, no how. 

I would disagree; having been someone who grew up in the Western and Southern suburbs, I can say that I saw more Sox fans than Cub fans. Being someone who lived on the north side of the city, I can understand how anyone living their could view it differently than me, but 45ish seems about right to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aeichhor said:

They also have about 40+ million in options on top of that 90 ish million and arbs. Also will be losing 3 pitchers in the next couple years and will have to replace them on top of players in the next couple years 

Slightly off topic on the cubs:

I feel like the cubs have not done a good job of replacing the strength of t of prospects that they once had. Since their cycle of contention has started, i feel its inevitable that the core will become too expensive to maintain. Without assuming big trades or free agent signings, i dont feel like their prospect depth is strong enough sustain their current success without starting from scratch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mqr said:

That will always be a bad trade, I don't care that they got bailed out by a rain delay.

My opinion on it has always been that they did not need Chapman to win that championship (he wasn't even particularly good in the playoffs). Their bullpen was already solid and a lesser reliever acquisition would've yielded the same result. I know I'm in the minority though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Yes they do. I grew up in the Western Suburbs and it was split pretty much evenly - Oak Park/River Forest area. The South Suburbs are Sox heavy and the North Suburbs are Cubs heavy. The Cubs have a further reaching fanbase - ie, they have central illinois with the cardinals, iowa, and northern illinois/southern wisco. Their reach goes further, but in the immediate Chicagoland area, the Sox are nearly evenly split. 47/53 is pretty accurate imo, unless you want to produce a study that refutes that point... or you can just stick to pointless first hand experience to draw erroneous conclusions if you prefer that.

I'd buy Chicago proper, but absolutely no shot on the suburbs. Even still, they have more fans than most. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Just by personal experience living in the area my entire life I'd put that number closer to 25-30% I do not buy for one minute that the Sox have a 47% share of the Chicago Metro. No way, no how. 

I'd figure that someone as data driven as yourself would know that your personal experience on this scale is anecdotal evidence and is statistically irrelevant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mqr said:

That will always be a bad trade, I don't care that they got bailed out by a rain delay.

They won the world series because of it. That trade changed the entire outlook and future of the franchise. It was worth the price.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jack Parkman said:

Completely agreed. The largest estimate I'd buy is 35% and that is really generous. I think the reality resides somewhere between 25-30%. That is a smaller market than both the Indians and Twins btw. 

The White Sox are not a smaller market than the Twins and Indians. That is complete nonsense. As I said, produce actually numbers and studies refuting the number - don't just throw out some random number. 

If you think the Twins and Indians have a larger market you might want to talk to the TV networks because the local contracts for the Sox blow the Indians and Twins out of the water, and I'm using the Sox last contract not the current extension. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Yes they do. I grew up in the Western Suburbs and it was split pretty much evenly - Oak Park/River Forest area. The South Suburbs are Sox heavy and the North Suburbs are Cubs heavy. The Cubs have a further reaching fanbase - ie, they have central illinois with the cardinals, iowa, and northern illinois/southern wisco. Their reach goes further, but in the immediate Chicagoland area, the Sox are nearly evenly split. 47/53 is pretty accurate imo, unless you want to produce a study that refutes that point... or you can just stick to pointless first hand experience to draw erroneous conclusions if you prefer that.

False. Kane, DuPage, McHenry and Lake are all heavy Cub areas. The only Sox heavy area outside of Cook County is Will County. There are always stray Sox fans in each area, but out here in Kane County, Cub fans outnumber Sox fans 10-1

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ptatc said:

They won the world series because of it. 

Agree to disagree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ptatc said:

They won the world series because of it. That trade changed the entire outlook and future of the franchise. It was worth the price.

This is very debatable. There's even a case to be made that he hurt them more than he helped them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The White Sox are not a smaller market than the Twins and Indians. That is complete nonsense. As I said, produce actually numbers and studies refuting the number - don't just throw out some random number. 

If you think the Twins and Indians have a larger market you might want to talk to the TV networks because the local contracts for the Sox blow the Indians and Twins out of the water, and I'm using the Sox last contract not the current extension. 

The Sox were 29th in baseball in TV viewership over the last 5 years. I don't know what you're talking about. 

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

 

Helped by the charm of their field and by WGN’s national broadcast reach, the Cubs have always been the better-loved of Chicago’s two teams. But the White Sox — unlike the Mets or the A’s — do have a patch of their own territory, on the city’s South Side and into the southern suburbs. Interstate 290 (the Dwight D. Eisenhower Expressway) is a rough guide to the border: Know whether you're north or south of it before you put on your hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×