Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kyyle23

Venture group led by Reinsdorf kids looking to purchase non controlling share of Sox

Recommended Posts

Presented without comment

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when everyone was saying JR's heirs wanted no part of the team when he was no longer around, and I told you it was the exact opposite?  I had a really good source.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah man all the soxtalk accountants are going to fall over eachother to start talking about some weird tax laws. Have at it you guys, it is your christmas.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the kids are like Rocky Wirtz.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is just tax/estate planning for a sale to a different owner, fine. If it's to control the team in perpetuity after Jerry's death, then it looks like I'll continue allocating White Sox ticket and merchandise money for other entertainment options.

26 U.S. Code § 666

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/666

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know any of the other non majority owners and do you approve of them? Last I read JR owns about 20% of the team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, zisk said:

I hope the kids are like Rocky Wirtz.

Good analogy.

Nothing wrong with keeping it in the family.  I think it lends stability to the franchise. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, zisk said:

I hope the kids are like Rocky Wirtz.

Things are looking much better for the Bulls since his son took over

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of this is the probability that some minority owners are ready to get out for their own estate planning.  These are all rich people by ordinary standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Texsox said:

Anyone know any of the other non majority owners and do you approve of them? Last I read JR owns about 20% of the team. 

The other owners are old and stopped caring about the team a long time ago. They make their money and basically leave everything to JR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ron883 said:

Things are looking much better for the Bulls since his son took over

It took Michael over a decade (Named President in 2010) to finally clean house with the Bulls, replacing GarPax with a competent Front Office and qualified professional coach. It will still take years for the Jerry Reinsdorf stench to clear to the point were top free agents consider the Chicago Bulls a legitimate free agent destination.

I'm hopefully fresh blood is brought in this decade, and not have to wait until the 2030s/40s for Jerry's lackeys Kenny, Hahn and La Russa to be replaced by legitimate top quality professional management, and the Sox can attract quality free agents and not overpaying for old and declining free agents with nowhere else to go. Bulls had the same issue (mid 30s Dwayne Wade their top external free agent signing since the Jordan era).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

It took Michael over a decade (Named President in 2010) to finally clean house with the Bulls, replacing GarPax with a competent Front Office and qualified professional coach. It will still take years for the Jerry Reinsdorf stench to clear to the point were top free agents consider the Chicago Bulls a legitimate free agent destination.

I'm hopefully fresh blood is brought in this decade, and not have to wait until the 2030s/40s for Jerry's lackeys Kenny, Hahn and La Russa to be replaced by legitimate top quality professional management, and the Sox can attract quality free agents and not overpaying for old and declining free agents with nowhere else to go. Bulls had the same issue (mid 30s Dwayne Wade their top external free agent signing since the Jordan era).

 

Boozer? Wallace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Boozer? Wallace?

Boozer was an Amnesty disposal, and was never a top free agent.

Are you really claiming Wallace was a top free agent?  During his nearly two-year run in Chicago, Wallace battled with various knee injuries and averaged 5.7 points, 9.7 rebounds, 1.9 assists and 2.0 blocks per game.

I guess in White Sox terms, he would be a highly successful signing, given the mostly below 0 WAR crap Hahn has signed over his eight year tenure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, South Side Hit Men said:

Boozer was an Amnesty disposal, and was never a top free agent.

Are you really claiming Wallace was a top free agent?  During his nearly two-year run in Chicago, Wallace battled with various knee injuries and averaged 5.7 points, 9.7 rebounds, 1.9 assists and 2.0 blocks per game.

I guess in White Sox terms, he would be a highly successful signing, given the mostly below 0 WAR crap Hahn has signed over his eight year tenure.

This is complete revisionist history. He definitely was. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ron883 said:

This is complete revisionist history. He definitely was. 

LOL, yes we are all impressed with the Carlos Boozer championship era with the Bulls. About as impressed as with Tony Boozer La Russa's HOF tenure with the White Sox.

Losing four straight to the Heat was Boozer and the Bulls high water mark since Jerry Reinsdorf and Jerry Krause's "Organizations Win Championships" swept out Jordan, Pippen and Phil Jackson and ushered in their preferred era of Bulls Basketball - max profits, sellouts to watch literal shit, and minimal on court success for decades.

Still waiting for a game changing legitimate championship caliber free agent to arrive, perhaps this decade.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Boozer was an Amnesty disposal, and was never a top free agent.

Are you really claiming Wallace was a top free agent?  During his nearly two-year run in Chicago, Wallace battled with various knee injuries and averaged 5.7 points, 9.7 rebounds, 1.9 assists and 2.0 blocks per game.

I guess in White Sox terms, he would be a highly successful signing, given the mostly below 0 WAR crap Hahn has signed over his eight year tenure.

It was a unicorn of a free agent class.    Yes, Boozer was a top free agent.   He was a 20/10 big man.   Those are always considered top free agents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, not buying the apologists claiming Boozer, who Jerry paid over $18M to leave, was a big game changing acquisition. Good solid player, not an All Star, team didn’t get very far postseason.

 For the record, Boozer was acquired via trade not free agency. 

July 8, 2010: Traded by the Utah Jazz with a 2011 2nd round draft pick (Malcolm Lee was later selected) to the Chicago Bulls for Mario Austin.

Back to the OG topic, the transaction was discussed on the Score. They speculated on what this could mean, but one pertinent topic mentioned was the fact this transaction allows the Reinsdorf kids to buy out minority shareholders looking to sell at pennies on the dollar to cash out now, versus what they would likely net after Jerry dies and the team is up for sale to a majority controlling partner.

Worth a listen for those interested.

https://www.radio.com/670thescore/podcasts/laurence-holmes-on-670-the-score-61

 

Share this post


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

Boozer was a sign and trade, and he pretty much sucked. 

But you can still be a major free agent and suck, which is what most are arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Yeah, not buying the apologists claiming Boozer, who Jerry paid over $18M to leave, was a big game changing acquisition. Good solid player, not an All Star, team didn’t get very far postseason.

 For the record, Boozer was acquired via trade not free agency. 

July 8, 2010: Traded by the Utah Jazz with a 2011 2nd round draft pick (Malcolm Lee was later selected) to the Chicago Bulls for Mario Austin.

Back to the OG topic, the transaction was discussed on the Score. They speculated on what this could mean, but one pertinent topic mentioned was the fact this transaction allows the Reinsdorf kids to buy out minority shareholders looking to sell at pennies on the dollar to cash out now, versus what they would likely net after Jerry dies and the team is up for sale to a majority controlling partner.

Worth a listen for those interested.

https://www.radio.com/670thescore/podcasts/laurence-holmes-on-670-the-score-61

 

Sign and trade. He was essentially a FA signing. He was also a 2 time all-star when he signed. He averaged 20, 11, and 3 the season before. He was without question a top free agent. By your logic, Pujols wasn't a top free agent because he sucked throughout his contract with the angels. 

Share this post


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

But you can still be a major free agent and suck, which is what most are arguing.

Yes but it was well known he wasn’t the pick of the litter. When it comes to NBA free agency the Bulls almost always get to choice C or worse. Pau Gasol was a pretty good one. But he played cheap, and was past his prime. 
Boozer was one of the most empty 20/10 performers in league history. No D at all. But he did have that spray on hair line. I also think his teammates liked him. But he wasn’t a guy that would win you games. 

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


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

Yes but it was well known he wasn’t the pick of the litter. When it comes to NBA free agency the Bulls almost always get to choice C or worse. Pau Gasol was a pretty good one. But he played cheap, and was past his prime. 

He wasn’t the pick of the litter, but given how the NBA works he was basically paid the same as the other stars.  Boozer was a bad signing, but not because he was of the cheap variety.

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.

×