38 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

The reports are that we over paid him out of spite, and I tend to believe that theory. If there would have been a bidding war for him I doubt we would have gotten him. In 2018, there are bidding wars getting to astronomical levels of money. 

Cool.   It's not true, but cool.

54 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

In 1987 the White Sox traded their top 3 starters for prospects. Then they traded a guy whose number they retired while he was still active for more prospects. It was a teardown.

Not a full one.

On 11/5/2018 at 10:57 AM, SonofaRoache said:

The reports are that we over paid him out of spite, and I tend to believe that theory. If there would have been a bidding war for him I doubt we would have gotten him. In 2018, there are bidding wars getting to astronomical levels of money. 

I have been doing a project for the White Sox that requires part of it to comb through the Sports Illustrated / Chicago newspaper vaults digging up history and historical situations. I found a number of direct quotes from sources, from media members and surprising JR himself that if not 100% confirm the "theory" that he signed Belle out of spite, it strongly indicates it.

JR for one example is quoted in Sports Illustrated as saying, "If baseball wasn't going to look out for the benefit of all teams, I'm going to look out for the benefit of the White Sox."

The story then went on to quote him as saying he asked Frank Thomas, "who would you rather have, Bonds or Belle?" Frank said Belle and the Sox went after him.

Someone can possibly correct me on this but I think the only owners who voted against the labor settlement in the spring of 1995 were JR and the Reds Marge Schott. (They may also have abstained from voting, I don't remember.)

And of course you had Jay Mariotti showing up (for a change) at the press conference and attempting to badger JR by shouting things out to him in a question form along the lines of, "you signed him to spite the other owners didn't you?"

The other owners certainly thought something was up because soon afterwards JR was removed from the committee that advised the Commissioner on all labor matters. 

The Sports Illustrated stories that I've found also quote other owners / G.M.'s (anonymously) as saying they couldn't believe that JR, being so strongly anti-union and wanting to have a hard salary cap would then do a 180 and sign Belle to that type of contract. Especially after he helped push baseball to the situation where the rest of the regular season and post season was cancelled.

Edited November 5, 20187 yr by Lip Man 1

On 11/5/2018 at 11:36 AM, Kyyle23 said:

Cool.   It's not true, but cool.

There appears to be a lot of circumstantial evidence that it did play a factor. 

16 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Not a full one.

Yes it was. Their best player and your top 3 starters, They kept their catcher, LF, and SS. Their 1990 team featured a draft pick at 3b, holdover at SS, holdover at C, trade at 2B, draft pick at 1B. holdover in LF, prospect trade in CF, prospect trade in RF. The rotation was Hibbard, trade for Bannister, McDowell, draft pick, Perez, trade for Bannister, King, trade for KW, and Alex Fernandez, draft pick. Even Ron Kittle was re-acquired.

 

It that isn't a full rebuild, then there is no such thing. 

Edited November 5, 20187 yr by Dick Allen

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Off of the top of my head, I wouldn't call them the same thing.  I don't remember there being a lot of trades and a formalized commitment to being bad for a period of time to start over again.

Harold Baines for Sammy Sosa, Wilson Alvarez, and Scott Fletcher

Jose DeLeon for Lance Johnson

Floyd Bannister for Melido Perez and Greg Hibbard

It was definitely a rebuild, the term just wasn't in vogue back then.  

2 hours ago, Eminor3rd said:

But I don’t think we should be afraid of the deal being inefficient with this type of a player. Because being inefficient is the only way you win the bidding. You don’t get the young superstar on free agency if you aren’t willing to be the highest and thus most inefficient bidder. 

Food metaphor! The Sox have done so well at stripping all the fat from the payroll, getting lean and healthy. This is cheat day. You get to eat cake today because you’ve remained healthy and can handle it without becoming obese.  If you want to stay lean, that’s fine, but you don’t get to eat cake then. 

You’ll never eat cake. Ever again. What kind of life is that?

Completely awesome, Eminor!  =D

20 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

There appears to be a lot of circumstantial evidence that it did play a factor. 

Who are you spiting?   Yourself for breaking the bank?  GMAB, you sign one of the best power hitters of the generation and you are spiting someone?  Jesus that's just awful

32 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Cool.   It's not true, but cool.

Evidence I've read over the years leads me to believe it is true. Even if not true, that money isn't close to the big money that will be spent this summer for those two. 

3 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Who are you spiting?   Yourself for breaking the bank?  GMAB, you sign one of the best power hitters of the generation and you are spiting someone?  Jesus that's just awful

No one is saying that they didn't want Belle. The premise is that they wanted him, then intentionally overpaid him. As in, they could have had him for cheaper but spent more for him to spite the other owners. 

Just now, SonofaRoache said:

No one is saying that they didn't want Belle. The premise is that they wanted him, then intentionally overpaid him. As in, they could have had him for cheaper but spent more for him to spite the other owners. 

Where in the world did you get that from? 

Lmao "IMMA SPEND ALL THIS MONEY AND STEINBRENNER WILL BE SO MAD"

2 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Lmao "IMMA SPEND ALL THIS MONEY AND STEINBRENNER WILL BE SO MAD"

It wasn't exactly that, but it absolutely was a response to the new labor agreement and JR being frustrated. 

28 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Where in the world did you get that from? 

Here is an article giving some details. JR said another team was for sure gonna bid high, but most don't believe him. 

 

https://www.si.com/vault/1996/12/02/8109578/double-play-when-he-signed-albert-belle-jerry-reinsdorf-broke-the-bankand-maybe-the-labor-impasse

49 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

Harold Baines for Sammy Sosa, Wilson Alvarez, and Scott Fletcher

Jose DeLeon for Lance Johnson

Floyd Bannister for Melido Perez and Greg Hibbard

It was definitely a rebuild, the term just wasn't in vogue back then.  

They had the lowest payroll in baseball in 1988,1989,and 1990, and had the third lowest in 1987. Defiinitely a full rebuild.

12 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

Here is an article giving some details. JR said another team was for sure gonna bid high, but most don't believe him. 

 

https://www.si.com/vault/1996/12/02/8109578/double-play-when-he-signed-albert-belle-jerry-reinsdorf-broke-the-bankand-maybe-the-labor-impasse

That was Jerry making sure he won, not intentionally bidding too much to spite people.  No where in that does it say what you want it to say.

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

That was Jerry making sure he won, not intentionally bidding too much to spite people.  No where in that does it say what you want it to say.

Underspend, cheap.  Overspend, spiteful.

19 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

Here is an article giving some details. JR said another team was for sure gonna bid high, but most don't believe him. 

 

https://www.si.com/vault/1996/12/02/8109578/double-play-when-he-signed-albert-belle-jerry-reinsdorf-broke-the-bankand-maybe-the-labor-impasse

Wow. What a different time. That entire article essentially just acknowledges ownership collusion around the league lol

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

That was Jerry making sure he won, not intentionally bidding too much to spite people.  No where in that does it say what you want it to say.

That was a quick article from his point of view. I'm not pulling up other articles as anyone can do that as they see fit. He says he outbid another team, other teams and speculators said he didn't. The purpose of me posting the article was to show that there was controversy about the signing, and if JR had to explain why he signed Belle to that contract, then the point I'm making is valid. 

2 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Underspend, cheap.  Overspend, spiteful.

I don't understand your end game on this one. No one said he shouldn't have signed Belle. I don't give a rat's ass either way. I'm just saying using a controversial signing with Belle, and re-signing Michael Jordan aren't the best arguments for him spending 350 million on Machado. I think he will spend big, but I also see why other people are skeptical about that type of deal. 

Edited November 5, 20187 yr by SonofaRoache

1 minute ago, SonofaRoache said:

I don't understand your end game on this one. No one said he shouldn't have signed Belle. I don't give a rat's ass either way. I'm just saying using a controversial signing with Belle, and re-signing Michael Jordan aren't the best arguments for him spending 350 million on Machado. I think he will spend big, but I also see why other people are skeptical about that type of deal. 

What he is saying is that when this ownership group has decided to spend, they WILL spend.  That is what all three of those cases show.

4 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

I don't understand your end game on this one. No one said he shouldn't have signed Belle. I don't give a rat's ass either way. I'm just saying using a controversial signing with Belle, and re-signing Michael Jordan aren't the best arguments for him spending 350 million on Machado. I think he will spend big, but I also see why other people are skeptical about that type of deal. 

I dont really understand yours either.   Belle had an incredibly productive couple years with the White Sox and them not winning a title had nothing to do with his production, and Michael Jordan happened to win him 6 titles.

Re-signing Michael Jordan probably wasn't the most difficult decision he's ever made...

Michael Jordan's contract as precedent for a baseball contract is one of the more bizarre arguments I've seen on this site. Like, what? We're comparing resigning the best basketball player to ever live to signing a FA in a totally different sport. 

I'd also guess there was a much more substantial ROI for a signing/resigning a basketball player in the 80's or 90's than signing a baseball player in 2018. Jordan was a bonafide star with cult like celebrity status. Nobody outside of baseball fans knows who Manny Machado is. So even aside from his play, you were going to make big money by signing Michael Jordan.