Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jack Parkman

Rumor: Reinsdorf aims to build second place teams

Recommended Posts

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
25 minutes ago, mqr said:

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. 

Not sure the board can withstand another 4 months at this pace.  Hopefully the Sox actually fucking sign somebody good at the Winter Meetings and nip it in the bud.

Share this post


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

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

That's not the only thing that matters though. Obviously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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."

Samson claimed Reinsdorf purposely wanted to in second place specifically to have that “carrot” to dangle, which is straight up ridiculous.  You are arguing against a completely different point.

Share this post


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

That's not the only thing that matters though. Obviously. 

Maybe if a guy is signing a one or two year deal it matters how good the team is. 

The Sox don't miss out on free agents because they're irrelevant, they play in one of the premier cities in the entire world, let alone country, they miss out because they NEVER offer the most money to the top guys. 

Share this post


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

Maybe if a guy is signing a one or two year deal it matters how good the team is. 

The Sox don't miss out on free agents because they're irrelevant, they play in one of the premier cities in the entire world, let alone country, they miss out because they NEVER offer the most money to the top guys. 

The Sox have come in second place a number of times over the years. When players are looking to brand, they have to consider the team they play for. Playing for the second team, in the second city, could potentially cost players millions of dollars in endorsements. 

Share this post


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

The Sox have come in second place a number of times over the years. When players are looking to brand, they have to consider the team they play for. Playing for the second team, in the second city, could potentially cost players millions of dollars in endorsements. 

Plenty of star players have signed with teams in far less attractive markets, we have lost out on free agents primarily due to us not being the high bidder.

Share this post


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

Plenty of star players have signed with teams in far less attractive markets, we have lost out on free agents primarily due to us not being the high bidder.

There are exceptions to everything. I just wouldn't speak in absolutes about money being the only motivation for all free agents. That's nonsense. There are a lot of secondary things to consider, and the Sox strike out in just about every one of them. Bad ratings. Bad attendance. Generally small fan base. Playing in the shadow of another major team in the same city. Boring neighborhood. Boring stadium etc. 

Share this post


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

Samson claimed Reinsdorf purposely wanted to in second place specifically to have that “carrot” to dangle, which is straight up ridiculous.  You are arguing against a completely different point.

I take it as once the team wins a title, fans will lose interest. If you keep coming up short, fans will continue to crave that chip. If you finish in last, there will be no one craving anything. The whole rebuild works even though we suck because we are hopeful to have a contender. It's pretty odd that the Sox are essentially a second place caliber team since the mid 90s. I assume Jerry's rebuild intends to get to the postseason, but come up short before finally winning the big one, then he can leave a happy man and the team to his kids. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Samson claimed Reinsdorf purposely wanted to in second place specifically to have that “carrot” to dangle, which is straight up ridiculous.  You are arguing against a completely different point.

I wasn't really aware I was arguing anything.

Share this post


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

I take it as once the team wins a title, fans will lose interest. If you keep coming up short, fans will continue to crave that chip. If you finish in last, there will be no one craving anything.

That seems completely opposite to me. They had the highest attendance in team history in 2006 because people were finally interested. Then they kept not winning in the years after and interest started to taper off. People aren't going to lose interest in a team that wins all the time. That's just insane.

2 hours ago, SonofaRoache said:

I assume Jerry's rebuild intends to get to the postseason, but come up short before finally winning the big one, then he can leave a happy man and the team to his kids.

I keep hearing people say this but AFAIK, his kids have no interest in taking over his role once he is gone. Also, I don't know that anyone knows for sure what will happen with the team since the last I knew, he's still a minority owner.

Share this post


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

Not sure the board can withstand another 4 months at this pace.  Hopefully the Sox actually fucking sign somebody good at the Winter Meetings and nip it in the bud.

Unfortunately, I have a hard time seeing many major signings (by any team) that early. I think JDM, Cole, etc. will be signing in February 

Share this post


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

There are exceptions to everything. I just wouldn't speak in absolutes about money being the only motivation for all free agents. That's nonsense. There are a lot of secondary things to consider, and the Sox strike out in just about every one of them. Bad ratings. Bad attendance. Generally small fan base. Playing in the shadow of another major team in the same city. Boring neighborhood. Boring stadium etc. 

What free agents turned down extra compensation offered by the Chicago White Sox in favor of “better ratings, “better attendance,” “more exciting neighborhood” or “more exciting stadium” offered by another team?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Iwritecode said:

That seems completely opposite to me. They had the highest attendance in team history in 2006 because people were finally interested. Then they kept not winning in the years after and interest started to taper off. People aren't going to lose interest in a team that wins all the time. That's just insane.

I keep hearing people say this but AFAIK, his kids have no interest in taking over his role once he is gone. Also, I don't know that anyone knows for sure what will happen with the team since the last I knew, he's still a minority owner.

Samson actually said this in his interview this morning. I don't agree with it, but remember the Sox had great attendance in 2007 as well. So had they continued to finish in second with a solid record, I think the attendance may have held up. But it didn't work that way and they bottomed out in 2007. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

What free agents turned down extra compensation offered by the Chicago White Sox in favor of “better ratings, “better attendance,” “more exciting neighborhood” or “more exciting stadium” offered by another team?  

We won't know until this offseason as we haven't been on any FA's worth mentioning. Manny may count but the dollar amount and security was so significant he had to take the Padres offer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

What free agents turned down extra compensation offered by the Chicago White Sox in favor of “better ratings, “better attendance,” “more exciting neighborhood” or “more exciting stadium” offered by another team?  

Money and winning are what attracts. The Sox usually come up short with both. It would be very unusual for a major free agent to take significantly less money to come to a team with the White Sox recent history. 

MLB players love Chicago. They couldn't care less about Bridgeport. They just drive there 81 times a year. They don't live there. I'm pretty sure most Sox players live in those buildings built on that old par 3 golf course by Randolph and Wacker and Columbus. 

I'm sure they would prefer to play in a full stadium, but the amount of their paycheck trumps that.  And there is no problem with Guaranteed Rate Field. The playing surface is supreme, the clubhouse new, and other amenities, modern. Unless it's a flyball pitcher, something the Sox probably wouldn't bother to pursue, the stadium is not an issue. 

And endorsement money with MLB players pales in comparision to those in other sports. Yet, in Chicago, even with the Sox, you probably have a chance to make more money off the field than many other places. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

We won't know until this offseason as we haven't been on any FA's worth mentioning. Manny may count but the dollar amount and security was so significant he had to take the Padres offer. 

I mean historically.  The answer is there are none, because despite persistent myths to the contrary major free agents make the economically rational decision and prioritize real money over factors like which stadium is less "boring."  The White Sox have lost out on free agents - Machado, Harper, Tanaka, etc. - because they have offered less money than the teams that won the bidding war.  Machado is a good example.  The White Sox were in the lead with 250 million until they were outbid by a (perennial-losing, middle-market) team that offered 300.  He liked 300 million in guaranteed money more than 250 in guaranteed money because he and his agent are human people.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

I mean historically.  The answer is there are none, because despite persistent myths to the contrary major free agents make the economically rational decision and prioritize real money over factors like which stadium is less "boring."  The White Sox have lost out on free agents - Machado, Harper, Tanaka, etc. - because they have offered less money than the teams that won the bidding war.  Machado is a good example.  The White Sox were in the lead with 250 million until they were outbid by a (perennial-losing, middle-market) team that offered 300.  He liked 300 million in guaranteed money more than 250 in guaranteed money because he and his agent are human people.

I think the separation comes when the money is close. If you are 30 million off, the player will take the money. If both offers are close enough, the player will take the better situation for themselves. Rick Hahn even said a few weeks ago that our team is more attractive to free agents now than it was last year because of player development. Things like that matter when looking at similar contracts. If you overpay by a wide margin, you are paying a premium for not being attractive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

Samson actually said this in his interview this morning. I don't agree with it, but remember the Sox had great attendance in 2007 as well. So had they continued to finish in second with a solid record, I think the attendance may have held up. But it didn't work that way and they bottomed out in 2007. 

The attendance was only up in 2007 because it started so high in 2006. It consistently went down every single year between 2006 to 2014 despite winning a division title and finishing 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd in the few years following.

Not surprisingly, it closed matched the attendance totals in the late 90's when they finished 2nd 4 years in a row. Meanwhile the Indians set historic attendance records in that same time frame by winning the division 5 times in a row.

Finishing second doesn't excite anyone. Finishing in first and/or making the playoffs does. It's just too bad this team doesn't do either of those things often enough.

Edited by Iwritecode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

I think the separation comes when the money is close. If you are 30 million off, the player will take the money. If both offers are close enough, the player will take the better situation for themselves. Rick Hahn even said a few weeks ago that our team is more attractive to free agents now than it was last year because of player development. Things like that matter when looking at similar contracts. If you overpay by a wide margin, you are paying a premium for not being attractive. 

Beating out the Cardinals for Robert seemed pretty significant at the time, fwiw.   Almost nobody expected that, and there were rumors their losing proposal was actually worth a bit more, but who knows in the end.

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.

×