Steff Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 It's pretty hard to sign a quality free agent when you're always trying to defer most of the salary until Captain Picard is flying the Starship Enterprise around. The CBA limits the time of deferred funds to TWO YEARS. :banghead And where did you hear Seattle wanted Borch again...?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 The CBA limits the time of deferred funds to TWO YEARS. :banghead And where did you hear Seattle wanted Borch again...?? I was exaggerating.......although not by much. The Borchard/Seattle thing was mentioned on the news a few times around when the deal was done and was discussed extensively around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 The Borchard/Seattle thing was mentioned on the news a few times around when the deal was done and was discussed extensively around here. Around where..? On this site or where you are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Around where..? On this site or where you are? On this site. There were several threads done about it during the week surrounding the trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 On this site. There were several threads done about it during the week surrounding the trade. I don't recall.. gonna go look. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 If Jerry Reinsdorf isn't the cheapest motherf***er among baseball owners,he's pretty damn close.I won't be going to many (if any) games in 2005.Put a WS team together in my f***ing lifetime,and i'll possibly reconsider.Between his inability to pay coaches/managers and his arrogance of appointing a GM with little to no experience,i'd say he's the worst owner in baseball now that Pud Selig sold the Brewers. I can't blame FA's who don't want to play for the White Sox. An organization as cheap as this one has been through its franchise history deserves to be mocked and laughed at.And people wonder why the f***ups on the North Side get more press.SHEEEEESH!! :puke :puke I'm pretty sure the Sox can make it without you. Good riddance! Hopefully, when you want to come back, the bandwagon will be full and there will be no room for your ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUCKREINSDORF Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I'm pretty sure the Sox can make it without you. Good riddance! Hopefully, when you want to come back, the bandwagon will be full and there will be no room for your ass. Rex, Don't you ever get tired of the "maybe next year" bulls***?? Where's the championship?? 24 years as a majority owner and Reinsdorf has yet to produce. And as far as being a "bandwagon" fan,i'm 42 years old.I've been a Sox fan since 1970.God knows i've seen enough cheap ownerships and ugly ass seasons to start asking for a return on my time invested.1 WS in 24 years shouldn't be too much to ask.I'm not a dumbass sCrUB fan who roots for my "lovable losers" year after f***in' year.I just think taking 2005 off might not be a bad idea.I can spend more time with my 3 nieces.They're far more rewarding than any Sox game. :banghead :banghead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Jerry is not a majority owner :dips*** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSFAN35 Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Boy do I feel like a dumbass, but who is the White Sox majority owner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUCKREINSDORF Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Jerry is not a majority owner :dips*** EXCUSE THE f*** OUT OF ME!! I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE A REINSDORK APOLOGIST!! :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 EXCUSE THE f*** OUT OF ME!! I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE A REINSDORK APOLOGIST!! :headshake Calm down, she was just pointing out a mistake in your unfactual rant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 EXCUSE THE f*** OUT OF ME!! I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE A REINSDORK APOLOGIST!! :headshake Aparently you don't know much of anything as I am far, far, faaaarrrrr from a Jerry backer. But I do like to work with the facts instead of trying to use bulls*** lies to back up my anger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Calm down, she was just pointing out a mistake in your unfactual rant. Actually.. it's about the 15th bulls*** rant he's made in the past week (his favorites seem to be the bulls*** that payroll hasn't increased in the past 4 years and SS has had to correct him several times) so I was being a bit on the facetious side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Rex, Don't you ever get tired of the "maybe next year" bulls***?? Where's the championship?? 24 years as a majority owner and Reinsdorf has yet to produce. And as far as being a "bandwagon" fan,i'm 42 years old.I've been a Sox fan since 1970.God knows i've seen enough cheap ownerships and ugly ass seasons to start asking for a return on my time invested.1 WS in 24 years shouldn't be too much to ask.I'm not a dumbass sCrUB fan who roots for my "lovable losers" year after f***in' year.I just think taking 2005 off might not be a bad idea.I can spend more time with my 3 nieces.They're far more rewarding than any Sox game. :banghead :banghead I shall repeat one of my posts from earlier in this thread. It does not apply 100% to you, but the basic premise is pretty much the same. If you want to read the whole conversation, scroll back. The "facts" you seem to want to throw out there with nothing to back them up, is "profit". You seem convinced the Sox are making money hand over fist. I do not, nor have I ever seen ANY evidence to the contrary. Sure the Sox have been mired in mediocrity for a long time, but should it really shock anyone that their payroll in comparison to other teams is pretty damned close to the same ratio as Sox attendance to the other clubs??? Get over it. The Sox more than doubled their payroll in 2001, yet did the fans show up in big numbers? NOPE The Sox payroll went up last year, KW went out and got Garcia, Contreras, etc. Did attendance rise?? NOPE The Sox payroll will never change drastically unless somehow the support happens to do so. That will not happen unless they are able to put together a team that surprises and wins without a big free agent star. Then, the bandwagon fans will jump on and maybe things will change. The bottom line is, the Chicago White Sox, like all MLB teams are investments for their owners. Just throwing money at the hottest free agents and hoping that will lead the team to victory and riches would be a very high risk proposition. Let's not act like the Yankees would be doing what they do now with the Sox revenue streams. Life is different with some teams. You CHOOSE to be a Chicago White Sox fan. Stop being naive and wake up to the fact that the circumstances behind YOUR team and others that spend more money are vastly different. You don't have to like it. But try coming up with a new argument about "making huge profits" and "lining their profits" next time. Maybe some people will listen??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 It's pretty hard to sign a quality free agent when you're always trying to defer most of the salary until Captain Picard is flying the Starship Enterprise around. On Vizquel's contract. As I understand it, Vizquel will be paid a base salary of $2.5 million next year and $2.4 million the following two years. He'll get about half of his $3.75 million bonus in 2007, and the rest will be deferred until 2008 and 2009, which lowers the overall cost of the contract.don't let the facts get in the way. :rolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshPR Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Then who's the majority owner? Why is it Reinsdorf that always talks? Why when the Sox won in 93 and 2000 Jerry got the trophey? If he's not the majority owner than who is? Don't b**** at me i'm just asking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Then who's the majority owner? Why is it Reinsdorf that always talks? Why when the Sox won in 93 and 2000 Jerry got the trophey? If he's not the majority owner than who is? Don't b**** at me i'm just asking Jerry is the Chairman. The rest of the ownership group is basically silent. I am not sure if it is public record who the rest of the owners are and what percentage they own. Steff could shed more light on this, I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Lee Stern (former owner of Chicago Sting soccer) is one guy who has a decent sized share, there are a couple of other very prominent real estate people and lawyers who also have pretty good sized stakes. Einhorn of course has a stake too, but none of them have a majority share per my understanding. There are 70+ investors, and Reinsdorf is the public face of the group. The reality is that he takes the brunt of criticism from fans and from guys like Mariotti. I have to believe Mariotti knows that Reinsdorf does not have the authority to sell, it's a group decision. I do think Mariotti just simplifies it for his readers/listeners. It is frustrating for people because they don't know who to blame so they blame Reinsdorf. Unfortunately, it's much more complex than that. I have the insurance guy's name who has a big stake but it's not coming to me right now. Either way, and not a knock at anyone here, but it's an incorrect assumption to say things like "Reinsdorf should sell, Reinsdorf is cheap" because he is certainly instrumental re: what goes on with the White Sox but he is not the sole decision maker. I'm sure he and Einhorn recommend things to the Board but they do things via a vote and/or caucus. It is more of a group decision making situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUCKREINSDORF Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Lee Stern (former owner of Chicago Sting soccer) is one guy who has a decent sized share, there are a couple of other very prominent real estate people and lawyers who also have pretty good sized stakes. Einhorn of course has a stake too, but none of them have a majority share per my understanding. There are 70+ investors, and Reinsdorf is the public face of the group. The reality is that he takes the brunt of criticism from fans and from guys like Mariotti. I have to believe Mariotti knows that Reinsdorf does not have the authority to sell, it's a group decision. I do think Mariotti just simplifies it for his readers/listeners. It is frustrating for people because they don't know who to blame so they blame Reinsdorf. Unfortunately, it's much more complex than that. I have the insurance guy's name who has a big stake but it's not coming to me right now. Either way, and not a knock at anyone here, but it's an incorrect assumption to say things like "Reinsdorf should sell, Reinsdorf is cheap" because he is certainly instrumental re: what goes on with the White Sox but he is not the sole decision maker. I'm sure he and Einhorn recommend things to the Board but they do things via a vote and/or caucus. It is more of a group decision making situation. Fine.Ownership as a whole is cheap,whoever they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quickman Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Lee Stern (former owner of Chicago Sting soccer) is one guy who has a decent sized share, there are a couple of other very prominent real estate people and lawyers who also have pretty good sized stakes. Einhorn of course has a stake too, but none of them have a majority share per my understanding. There are 70+ investors, and Reinsdorf is the public face of the group. The reality is that he takes the brunt of criticism from fans and from guys like Mariotti. I have to believe Mariotti knows that Reinsdorf does not have the authority to sell, it's a group decision. I do think Mariotti just simplifies it for his readers/listeners. It is frustrating for people because they don't know who to blame so they blame Reinsdorf. Unfortunately, it's much more complex than that. I have the insurance guy's name who has a big stake but it's not coming to me right now. Either way, and not a knock at anyone here, but it's an incorrect assumption to say things like "Reinsdorf should sell, Reinsdorf is cheap" because he is certainly instrumental re: what goes on with the White Sox but he is not the sole decision maker. I'm sure he and Einhorn recommend things to the Board but they do things via a vote and/or caucus. It is more of a group decision making situation. Jim, While I agree with much of what you say, I don't beleive JR goes to the board on what players to keep and not keep. I also believe that JR is in charge of the team. The rest are silent investors who may get a quarterly update on financials and announcements. They entrust there investment to JR and Einhorn. It is up to them to run the team as they see fit and report back like management reports back to a Board of directors. Now that stated, anytime JR wants out, he can simply go to the board and recommend that he be replaced or recommend that they sell the team. This is where I might take exception with REX. You see I don't think any of these guys want to sell, because they don't lose money on this investment. They run the team not to lose money. Why as an investor would I sell if I am not losing money and some years I make money. Eddie einhorn stated on the radio last year (spring training I beleive) that the sox were one of 7 teams who made money in 2003. These guys have a good investment and that is why they are in this. I am certain they do not need to be fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUCKREINSDORF Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Actually.. it's about the 15th bulls*** rant he's made in the past week (his favorites seem to be the bulls*** that payroll hasn't increased in the past 4 years and SS has had to correct him several times) so I was being a bit on the facetious side. Why is it anyone who disagrees with you is an asshole?? Haven't we all made mistakes,including me?? Let's stop this nonsense.You believe what you want to believe, i'll believe what you want to believe.I guess frustration isn't allowed on this board.Maybe we should tailgate sometime next year and clear this up. I'm not that much of an asshole.Honest. :banghead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Jim, While I agree with much of what you say, I don't beleive JR goes to the board on what players to keep and not keep. I also believe that JR is in charge of the team. The rest are silent investors who may get a quarterly update on financials and announcements. They entrust there investment to JR and Einhorn. It is up to them to run the team as they see fit and report back like management reports back to a Board of directors. Now that stated, anytime JR wants out, he can simply go to the board and recommend that he be replaced or recommend that they sell the team. This is where I might take exception with REX. You see I don't think any of these guys want to sell, because they don't lose money on this investment. They run the team not to lose money. Why as an investor would I sell if I am not losing money and some years I make money. Eddie einhorn stated on the radio last year (spring training I beleive) that the sox were one of 7 teams who made money in 2003. These guys have a good investment and that is why they are in this. I am certain they do not need to be fans. I would agree that Reinsdorf is probably the most intimately involved on the player personnel side. After all, KW reports directly to JR. I also do not think that he (Reinsdorf) runs to the investor group to ask their permission on much, if anything. However, if there is a payroll situation, i.e. if the Sox want to go over budget temporarily, I'd bet my bottom dollar they need to go to the Board. In that sense it is very much like a typical corporation. I also agree there is a definite trusting relationship between Reinsdorf and Einhorn and the rest of the group, which is mostly silent. Note I said mostly. I believe there are some influential vocal investors, some big players so to speak, who make their wishes very well known. You have some huge real estate people on that group with big egos, who are involved in other business dealings with JR and EE. Their opinions, IMO, are weighted heavily and offered often. That said, I think JR does a lot of "recommending" on how things should be done from a monetary standpoint, which of course player personnel is a big part. There's a layer of management there much like any corporation. I completely agree that some of that investment group sees no reason to change operating procedure, and why should they? At the very least they're not losing money, and if they've been in for the long haul their investment has grown very, very significantly. We discussed yesterday how this ownership group isn't willing to go into the hole for let's say 2 years to really "go for it". They are by and large conservative businessmen who are the furthest things from mavericks or big risk takers. Everything is fiscally responsible on a year-to-year basis. They think they're doing the right thing in the long haul by being fiscally prudent year to year, while we tend to feel they can really improve the franchise value by getting it front and center, i.e. win something big or at least pull out all the stops trying. A difference in philosophy, and one we cannot change. Why the ownership group doesn't recognize this is beyond me. Red Door/Brickhouse/Club 29 tonite, I'm serious, unbelievable, you know what I'm sayin', I'm tellin' ya, please, are you nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quickman Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 I would agree that Reinsdorf is probably the most intimately involved on the player personnel side. After all, KW reports directly to JR. I also do not think that he (Reinsdorf) runs to the investor group to ask their permission on much, if anything. However, if there is a payroll situation, i.e. if the Sox want to go over budget temporarily, I'd bet my bottom dollar they need to go to the Board. In that sense it is very much like a typical corporation. I also agree there is a definite trusting relationship between Reinsdorf and Einhorn and the rest of the group, which is mostly silent. Note I said mostly. I believe there are some influential vocal investors, some big players so to speak, who make their wishes very well known. You have some huge real estate people on that group with big egos, who are involved in other business dealings with JR and EE. Their opinions, IMO, are weighted heavily and offered often. That said, I think JR does a lot of "recommending" on how things should be done from a monetary standpoint, which of course player personnel is a big part. There's a layer of management there much like any corporation. I completely agree that some of that investment group sees no reason to change operating procedure, and why should they? At the very least they're not losing money, and if they've been in for the long haul their investment has grown very, very significantly. We discussed yesterday how this ownership group isn't willing to go into the hole for let's say 2 years to really "go for it". They are by and large conservative businessmen who are the furthest things from mavericks or big risk takers. Everything is fiscally responsible on a year-to-year basis. They think they're doing the right thing in the long haul by being fiscally prudent year to year, while we tend to feel they can really improve the franchise value by getting it front and center, i.e. win something big or at least pull out all the stops trying. A difference in philosophy, and one we cannot change. Why the ownership group doesn't recognize this is beyond me. Red Door/Brickhouse/Club 29 tonite, I'm serious, unbelievable, you know what I'm sayin', I'm tellin' ya, please, are you nuts. I will be at the Red door at 6;13 with the family Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 I will be at the Red door at 6;13 with the family Can you say Frequent Diner Program? They should have a designated table for you, I'm serious. What, do they serve Steak Parm there, is that it, I'm tellin ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quickman Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Can you say Frequent Diner Program? They should have a designated table for you, I'm serious. What, do they serve Steak Parm there, is that it, I'm tellin ya. its unreal, you know what I am saying? I'm tellin ya, I am nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.