Marty34

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:43 PM) They have 6 playoff appearances in their last 20+ years and 0 world series appearances, let alone wins, during that era. You'd be making the same case if you were a dodger fan. And it's also worked great for turning the Cubs into a winner. I take it you are happy with ownership.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:41 PM) Any actual proof of that? What type of proof do you need?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 03:13 PM) Jerry doesn't own even a majority share of the team. I don't know if that's true anymore. I've heard he's been aggressively buying up shares the last couple of years.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) The Sox have pretty well eliminated the big valley's that lots of franchises suffer through. That is a pretty important consideration when you look at the lack of tolerance from the fan base. That's all well and good, but it's not enough. It's weird how Sox fans seem conditioned to accept the current state of the franchise. After 30 years, have to wonder when Chairman Reinsdorf sells. Maybe when the Comcast deal ends (is it 2019?). Hopefully sooner.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:22 PM) And, oh yeah...the Rangers also were in bankruptcy 5 years ago. Do white sox fans deserve a franchise in bankruptcy? Dodgers were bankrupt too, maybe that's the way to go.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 02:14 PM) Comparing the White Sox ownership to what is being done with other teams, including baseball and other sports, I don't have a substantial complaint with Sox ownership. I just think they're ok with what they are, very little new ideas ever get introduced because they hire so much from within. 30 years is enough given the mostly miss track record.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:59 PM) You have eliminated about 70-80% of franchises in baseball as worthy by your standards. While not the best, the Sox aren't nearly as bad as you want them to be. Are you happy with ownership?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:49 PM) Rangers and Giants haven't had 30 years of sustained success. They have had as much success over the last 30 years as the White Sox. Giants have never had back to back post seasons. Rangers have never won a World Series, plus they didn't make a post season until 1996. What about the Cardinals though? Point is, 30 years of Chairman Reinsdorf's ownership is enough. Fresh ideas are sorely needed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:42 PM) As have pretty much any other organization in baseball, except for a very few. Pretty much you are down to something like the Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Phillies, Twins, Oakland, (though the Twins are terrible now, so they would have be disqualified) and Angels. Even out of that group, the Yankees and Braves are the only ones who really had true "sustained" success over those magic 30 years. The funny part is that the Braves and A's have horrible time drawing fans. The Twins did have issues until the new ballpark. You can throw the cardinals, Giants, and Rangers in their as well. That's the kind of organization Sox fans deserve.

QUOTE (whitesox901 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:31 PM) Sox are usually competitive every year. Yeah, the Sox don't go to the playoffs every year, but under Jerry and Eddie the Sox have been competitive most years, or at least projected to compete, especially over the last 10-12 years. I think most of us wish they would make the playoffs more, but going into most springs you know the Sox are going to be in the race until September, its not the Yankees, but its better than being the Royals, Pirates, Cubs, etc. EDIT: Leaves me a question, what does Einhorn do? Is he still a majority owner like JR, or? The bar needs to be higher than that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:29 PM) So, again, there are about 10 teams in baseball that should have fans based on this movement of the goalposts, though less if there is a relatively quick expiration date on this titles. There's nothing wrong with the Sox fan base that fielding a sustained winner would not cure. Over 30 years, this ownership has proven to be incapable of that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:18 PM) *with no definition as to what "better" actually is. Ownership that is willing to do whatever it takes to build an organization that has sustained success. Sustained success, to begin with, is multiple postseasons in a row.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 01:15 PM) They spent money on payroll in 2011, it didn't work. They were in first place for 117 days in 2012, it didn't work. Sox fans deserve better ownership.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:48 PM) If 117 days in first place isn't enough for fans to go to games, what is? How many years of winning are enough? Also how is what happened in 1982 relevant to what is going on in 2013? Your definition of winning is an odd one.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:33 PM) So the strategy is to wait until the have actually already won a division title? The season is over at that point. Ownership has not produced the results over their 30-year tenure to produce a rabid fan base.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) the one before that was "winning". First place for 117 days wasn't enough to change that. What did they win?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 10, 2013 -> 06:34 AM) Bolded is true - but the other way around is somewhat true. And yet, despite being 9th in attendence in the AL, they had the 5th highest team salary, and that was after actually SHEDDING some from 2011. The argument that this White Sox regime, under KW/Hahn and JerryCo (since, say, 2000-ish), is cheap or unwilling to invest in the team, is 100% complete nonsense. This organization puts more into player payroll with less revenue than most teams in baseball. Not arguing that Chairman Reinsdorf is cheap, just that the results during his tenure of ownership doesn't deserve a more rabid fanbase.

I'd like to see the plan be to use everything other than Sale, Danks, Quintana, and Santiago to retool the offense pointing to 2014. Figure Dunn, Ramirez, Keppinger, and Flowers as the holdovers. Peavy, Rios, DeAza, Viciedo, Floyd, and Reed would be the best trade bait.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 07:20 PM) Sox fans didn't even show up after being in first place for pretty much the entire season. The organization needs to put out a better product if it wants more people in the seats. It's not the fans fault.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 06:35 PM) What I think is funny about these arguments that the Sox are somehow nickel and diming (despite having a relatively high payroll and relatively low attendance, thus rendering such an argument bulls***), is this screaming and yelling about how the team isn't good enough... and yet, no one is able to point out any possible path to get better. What trades or signings could the Sox even make at this point that make sense? A HUGE part of the equation here is what is even AVAILABLE at any given time in the market. There are only so many players, and only a small % are available, and you have to me up with some sort of plausible scenario for those. So let's hear it. Otherwise, the b****ing is just beating your head against a brick wall. The Sox had the 7th best record in the league and were 9th in attendance. Sox attendance isn't driven by payroll. The reason why the Sox are in a position where there are no easy answers to get better goes back to decisions that were made 5-6 years ago.

I think that's a reasonable look at what the plan going forward may be. The key is having Sale, Danks, Quintana, and Santiago show they can make 4/5th's of a reliable rotation. After that use Peavy, Rios, Floyd, and Crain in trade to fortify the rest of the team.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:35 PM) The only legitimate addition they could have made to this team was Josh Hamilton, and that is a gorilla sized risk you are taking on by adding him. Beyond that, any other addition is a marginal improvement, if that. They made a better offer to Eric Chavez but he took money out west instead. They improved 3B. The only other way they can add payroll is to trade or make irrational and impatient free agent signings, and given the state of the organization, neither of those are optimal at this point. I think Hahn is still testing the waters, but he will go into Spring Training with this team if that is what is necessary. I'd eat crow then, but I think that's a situation we're faced with. Cutting payroll in 2013 to set up for 2014 beyond is incredibly short-sighted. If you WERE to cut payroll in 2013, it would be for 2016 and beyond because you have to assume atleast 3 years of rebuilding if you slash and tear. They are putting the best product that they can on the field. I don't think it's likely this team contends in 2013. Maybe the idea is to deal guys like Peavy, Konerko, and Rios at the trade deadline. Hahn and the Sox are in a tough spot over the next couple of years.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:31 PM) I wouldn't have even bothered if the pattern hadn't been to blame someone else every time you are involved in a conversation that ends up like this. Now I am making sure you understand how these conversations actually end up this way. You seem to be involved in quite a few of these conversations too.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) It has everything to do with the type of team gets fielded. Because the bandwagon empties for even a .500 team, it is impossible to have a full sell off. Understanding your customer is a part of being a smart company in any field. A team like the Cubs can do a full sell off because they know their fans will still show up. So it is more important to sell tickets than giving your team the best chance to win a World Series?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2013 -> 03:27 PM) For a guy who gets pissy about how his words get taken, you again have taken something and turned it into something that was never said. You seem to get just as pissy. Please tell me what you meant.