Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jack Parkman

Rumor: Reinsdorf aims to build second place teams

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, WBWSF said:

Does anybody know how much more the TV deal is paying the White Sox? I haven't read anything as too how much the new deal is worth.

no terms announced, but the ownership stake is larger and i doubt they would have kept the same deal financially, seeing as the network is now in a dispute with dish and directv.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2019 at 12:23 PM, The Sir said:

This is totally false. Just look at the transition from 2005-2006. We won it all and then proceeded to upgrade Orlando Hernandez into Javier Vazquez and Carl Everett into Jim Thome. Our only downgrade was replacing Rowand in CF with a failed prospect. AFAIC, that counts as trying to to put them over the top. It’s not JR’s fault that our four aces from 2005 more or less sucked in 2006, or that the entire bullpen stunk in 2006 besides Thornton. From an ownership perspective, what more could you have wanted? They got the players, and the players blew it.

they got jim thome at a discount. philly wanted ryan howard as their full time 1B, and were willing to give the sox $22 million to move thome to get it done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ewokpelts said:

they were losing badly with a 125 million dollar payroll. now they are losing with a 70 million dollar payroll.  but attendanc eis actually up and tv ratings on the station they part own are up.
 

do the math.

lol...do you actually understand how rebuilds work?  Like it’s beyond amazing how many people point to the lower payroll as a sign of cheapness when slashing unnecessary spending is step 1 of any rebuild.  Every team that has gone through a rebuild, the Astros, the Cubs, etc. has done the exact same thing.

As for your other point, rebuilds don’t normally lead to attendance increases & TV ratings improvements while the losing persists.  The fact that those are up is proof the fanbase was completely disgruntled over our previous attempts at winning and are excited to watch a plethora of exciting young players.  JR did not kick off a rebuild thinking fan interest interest would be better while losing 90 games and that he could capitalize off that financially.  This shit is uber nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2019 at 4:22 PM, wegner said:

This topic got me wondering about 2nd place finishes for the White Sox and I looked back in the 1950's.

In 154 game seasons, the Sox won 94 games in 1954...91 games in 1955...85 games in 1956...90 games in 1957...82 games in 1958

They won 94 games in 1959 to make it to the World Series.  

Since I was not born until the mid 1960's, I wonder what it felt like to root for teams that were good enough to win quite a few games but always fall short of the Yankees and Indians mostly?

that was a completely different time and place. the way teams were built (and bought) and postseason alignment was radically different then.  The yankees were able to sign ANYONE of value and if they needed depth, they just went to their farm team the Kansas city athletics and poached what they wanted. If there was a two division format then, the sox would have made several ALCS type playoff rounds.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

lol...do you actually understand how rebuilds work?  Like it’s beyond amazing how many people point to the lower payroll as a sign of cheapness when slashing unnecessary spending is step 1 of any rebuild.  Every team that has gone through a rebuild, the Astros, the Cubs, etc. has done the exact same thing.

As for your other point, rebuilds don’t normally lead to attendance increases & TV ratings improvements while the losing persists.  The fact that those are up is proof the fanbase was completely disgruntled over our previous attempts at winning and are excited to watch a plethora of exciting young players.  JR did not kick off a rebuild thinking fan interest interest would be better while losing 90 games and that he could capitalize off that financially.  This shit is uber nonsense.

both those clubs had bad contracts for a while in the first phase of each rebuild. the cubs had alfonso soriano until 2014.

the sox were lucky enough to move team friendly contracts for prospects quickly, and used a dumpster find (kahnle) to move the real bad paper (robertson and fraizer).  big difference when the "dump salary mode" i less than a calendar year.

as for the attendance and ratings? they still draw less than 2013, which was a dumpster fire, but when your team is slighly better than dogshit for the first time in a few years and the sox keep offering flash sales and ballpark passes, you draw a little better. i mean, they were offering summer weekend games for $7.04! in the lower deck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

lol...do you actually understand how rebuilds work?  Like it’s beyond amazing how many people point to the lower payroll as a sign of cheapness when slashing unnecessary spending is step 1 of any rebuild.  Every team that has gone through a rebuild, the Astros, the Cubs, etc. has done the exact same thing.

As for your other point, rebuilds don’t normally lead to attendance increases & TV ratings improvements while the losing persists.  The fact that those are up is proof the fanbase was completely disgruntled over our previous attempts at winning and are excited to watch a plethora of exciting young players.  JR did not kick off a rebuild thinking fan interest interest would be better while losing 90 games and that he could capitalize off that financially.  This shit is uber nonsense.

that $125 million payroll was them trying to "win" yet they lost badly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Does anybody know how much more the TV deal is paying the White Sox? I haven't read anything as too how much the new deal is worth.

I'm pretty sure they are getting like $1 million per game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Buehrle>Wood said:

David Sampson is on the Score right now. He sounds like an idiot, still.

Sounded fine to me. He has known Reinsdorf since he was a kid. He basically said it was an "anti-tanking" thing. He made it seem like Reinsdorf's plan was to finish 1st if possible but not worse than 2nd because it kept the fanbase hungry and thinking there was a chance for improvement. He said that Reinsdorf like most owners, wouldn't choose winning over making money or breaking even though. Reinsdorf has always wanted to win on his terms at his profit margins. Samson basically just confirmed that. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Sounded fine to me. He has known Reinsdorf since he was a kid. He basically said it was an "anti-tanking" thing. He made it seem like Reinsdorf's plan was to finish 1st if possible but not worse than 2nd because it kept the fanbase hungry and thinking there was a chance for improvement. He said that Reinsdorf like most owners, wouldn't choose winning over making money or breaking even though. Reinsdorf has always wanted to win on his terms at his profit margins. Samson basically just confirmed that. 

Came off like a moron trying to defend that he didnt think it wasnt a big deal with what he said. Tried giving further context but of course that context doesnt match with his pre-emptive apology to Jerry on the initial podcast. He knew what he was doing.

 

Then came the news be was getting his own show soon and it all made sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Buehrle>Wood said:

Came off like a moron trying to defend that he didnt think it wasnt a big deal with what he said. Tried giving further context but of course that context doesnt match with his pre-emptive apology to Jerry on the initial podcast. He knew what he was doing.

 

Then came the news be was getting his own show soon and it all made sense.

I gotcha. I agree with that. He knew what the reaction would be initially. Samson is a pud. Nobody has disputed that. I just don't think it's appropriate to shoot the messenger in this case. Jerry Reinsdorf hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Sounded fine to me. He has known Reinsdorf since he was a kid. He basically said it was an "anti-tanking" thing. He made it seem like Reinsdorf's plan was to finish 1st if possible but not worse than 2nd because it kept the fanbase hungry and thinking there was a chance for improvement. He said that Reinsdorf like most owners, wouldn't choose winning over making money or breaking even though. Reinsdorf has always wanted to win on his terms at his profit margins. Samson basically just confirmed that. 

Jerry said "finish in second and it's like a carrot" has turned into nooo Jerry said "finish in first or second at worst."

Yeah same thing Sampson you tool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I don't care what Jerry Reinsdorf said or didn't say. At this moment, the White Sox are nowhere near the level of Astros, Yankees, Dodgers, and Braves. The real question is will the Sox ever get there? The ball is in Reinsdorf's court. Steve Stone and the Chicago sports media can spin things all they want, but actions really matters.  Does he want a winning team or an also ran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Sounded fine to me. He has known Reinsdorf since he was a kid. He basically said it was an "anti-tanking" thing. He made it seem like Reinsdorf's plan was to finish 1st if possible but not worse than 2nd because it kept the fanbase hungry and thinking there was a chance for improvement. He said that Reinsdorf like most owners, wouldn't choose winning over making money or breaking even though. Reinsdorf has always wanted to win on his terms at his profit margins. Samson basically just confirmed that. 

So he basically repeated what I and a couple of other posters have known and been saying here over the past four days. And this whole thing is a big nothingburger, and most likely a publicity stunt.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Does anybody know how much more the TV deal is paying the White Sox? I haven't read anything as too how much the new deal is worth.

All I know is the Sox make more on games broadcasted oh NBCSports than games on WGN, so that alone will help to some extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WBWSF said:

Does anybody know how much more the TV deal is paying the White Sox? I haven't read anything as too how much the new deal is worth.

They were getting about 500k per game on cable, and roughly 125k on  Wgn. 

Since figures weren’t released, we don’t know. But if the per game rates hits 1 million per game, then they would have roughly $150 million just in local tv money in 2020. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Sounded fine to me. He has known Reinsdorf since he was a kid. He basically said it was an "anti-tanking" thing. He made it seem like Reinsdorf's plan was to finish 1st if possible but not worse than 2nd because it kept the fanbase hungry and thinking there was a chance for improvement. He said that Reinsdorf like most owners, wouldn't choose winning over making money or breaking even though. Reinsdorf has always wanted to win on his terms at his profit margins. Samson basically just confirmed that. 

Thanks for sharing.  And all of that lines up with reality.  The fact that anyone thought he actually preferred coming in second to first is absolute insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Thanks for sharing.  And all of that lines up with reality.  The fact that anyone thought he actually preferred coming in second to first is absolute insanity.

I don't know.  The Sox are clearly not a win at all costs franchise.  That means their objective is not solely winning, which means that other objectives come into play, and could very well be more important. 

If the Sox had a mission statement, I don't think it would include "being the best team"  Or "winning championships".  It would be more like, "We hope to every now and then field a nice team that makes a run, but we must observe the tenants of running our organization as a business first, and as a winner next.  We prize loyalty above all else."

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

I don't know.  The Sox are clearly not a win at all costs franchise.  That means their objective is not solely winning, which means that other objectives come into play, and could very well be more important. 

If the Sox had a mission statement, I don't think it would include "being the best team"  Or "winning championships".  It would be more like, "We hope to every now and then field a nice team that makes a run, but we must observe the tenants of running our organization as a business first, and as a winner next.  We prize loyalty above all else."

I think the Sox have actively tried to compete, they just haven't been good at it. They're kind of in a weird spot. They're not an attractive team for free agents, they're kind of middle market, and they're usually not bad enough to draft in the top 10 (over the last 20 years.) It's basically the MLB version of 'NBA hell.' It seems like they've tried to balance that by being creative, but the moves haven't panned out. Obviously they would have been better served to invest more into development than trying to catch lightning in a bottle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

I think the Sox have actively tried to compete, they just haven't been good at it. They're kind of in a weird spot. They're not an attractive team for free agents, they're kind of middle market, and they're usually not bad enough to draft in the top 10 (over the last 20 years.) It's basically the MLB version of 'NBA hell.' It seems like they've tried to balance that by being creative, but the moves haven't panned out. Obviously they would have been better served to invest more into development than trying to catch lightning in a bottle. 

Five Top Ten picks from 2008-2018.

How did they sign Jose Abreu and Luis Robert if they were an unattractive team for free agents?  

They’re not an unattractive destination, it’s just that they don’t usually make the highest bid on anyone, certainly not in the top tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Black_Jack29 said:

Sorry to hear about your divorce, but nobody should be that addicted to a sports team. If you can’t walk away from something if it negatively impacts your life (a bad relationship, alcohol, gambling, etc.), you have a problem.

The “I don’t have a choice” line that I’m reading here is bullshit. Some of you need to man up and take control of your lives.

What a ridiculously over the top comment.  To compare a lifelong loyalty towards a baseball team to a drug or alcohol addiction is beyond belief. The Sox ARE a part of my life, but a small part compared to other more important things. 

If you want to associate something to an addiction, how about some on this board who waste countless hours speculating on topics like proposed trades, free agent signings, and other meaningless threads.

Edited by bubba phillips
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just cannot being myself to care what some sleazebag attention whore has to say about a sleazebag billionaire. 

He’s probably telling the truth but honestly what does it matter. We’ve all known this to be case. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Five Top Ten picks from 2008-2018.

How did they sign Jose Abreu and Luis Robert if they were an unattractive team for free agents?  

They’re not an unattractive destination, it’s just that they don’t usually make the highest bid on anyone, certainly not in the top tier.

Jose Abreu and Robert had never been to America before. Signing intl free agents and signing MLB free agents is a totally different thing. 

Share this post


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

Jose Abreu and Robert had never been to America before. Signing intl free agents and signing MLB free agents is a totally different thing. 

They're the same in that the only thing that matters is money in the bank. 

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×