Any actual proof of that?

 

What type of proof do you need?

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.

I take it you are happy with ownership.

I just did some quick math.

 

Since Jerry Reinsdorf took over the franchise, an average franchise would have had 6 playoff appearances, based on the number of playoff spots available and the number of teams in the league. The White Sox have had 5 (and would have had 6 had JR not been a key player in the strike).

 

That's assuming playoff appearances are randomly distributed. If you include the Yankees soaking up 20 of them by outspending every other team in the world, the Sox ownership would actually be ahead of the game.

 

Basically, they've taken a franchise that had 2 playoff appearances in 60+ years and made them into an average franchise. Given their position and the fact that they have a 2nd team to compete with, making them a middle-market franchise...they've done a solid job.

 

THe negatives you can count against them are...sabotaging 1994, the ballpark construction, and the sacrificing of fan development by going onto Cable in the 1980's (in addition to perhaps Hawk's time as GM). But the results on the field say that they've significantly improved the team's performance and taken them up to being an average franchise from a moribund state.

16 of the last 23 seasons they've been over .500.

 

Of the seven under .500, 4 of them have been within 2 games of .500.

 

 

Picky, picky.

I take it you are happy with ownership.

Marty, I hope this isn't construed as a personal attack, just a critique of your argument style, but you tend to do this quite frequently:

 

You'll set up camp on an extreme side of an argument, present extremely contestable arguments, then when people disagree with your assessment, presume that they must be supporting the extreme opposite of your position.

 

There is plenty of room to be somewhat unhappy with ownership and disagree with your position that Reinsdorf must go. Your argument style is very offputting sometimes.

I just did some quick math.

 

Since Jerry Reinsdorf took over the franchise, an average franchise would have had 6 playoff appearances, based on the number of playoff spots available and the number of teams in the league. The White Sox have had 5 (and would have had 6 had JR not been a key player in the strike).

 

That's assuming playoff appearances are randomly distributed. If you include the Yankees soaking up 20 of them by outspending every other team in the world, the Sox ownership would actually be ahead of the game.

 

Basically, they've taken a franchise that had 2 playoff appearances in 60+ years and made them into an average franchise. Given their position and the fact that they have a 2nd team to compete with, making them a middle-market franchise...they've done a solid job.

 

THe negatives you can count against them are...sabotaging 1994, the ballpark construction, and the sacrificing of fan development by going onto Cable in the 1980's (in addition to perhaps Hawk's time as GM). But the results on the field say that they've significantly improved the team's performance and taken them up to being an average franchise from a moribund state.

 

That's a great way to sum up Chairman Reinsdorf's tenure. He has been a Point A to Point B owner and has been richly rewarded for it. Buying the team for $20M, it's worth $600M conservatively. After 30 years, a change would be best for the franchise, imo.

That's a great way to sum up Chairman Reinsdorf's tenure. He has been a Point A to Point B owner and has been richly rewarded for it. Buying the team for $20M, it's worth $600M conservatively. After 30 years, a change would be best for the franchise, imo.

Watch, I can do the exact same thing.

 

Change would not be best for the franchise.

 

See, there, I made an argument as detailed and convincing as yours.

Marty, I hope this isn't construed as a personal attack, just a critique of your argument style, but you tend to do this quite frequently:

 

You'll set up camp on an extreme side of an argument, present extremely contestable arguments, then when people disagree with your assessment, presume that they must be supporting the extreme opposite of your position.

 

There is plenty of room to be somewhat unhappy with ownership and disagree with your position that Reinsdorf must go. Your argument style is very offputting sometimes.

 

I think the extreme side of the argument, Dodgers and Rangers going bankrupt, was introduced by Balta and not me. The charge that the fans are fickle without looking at the lack of success during the 30 year tenure of Chairman Reinsdorf I don't think is fair.

I think the extreme side of the argument, Dodgers and Rangers going bankrupt, was introduced by Balta and not me. The charge that the fans are fickle without looking at the lack of success during the 30 year tenure of Chairman Reinsdorf I don't think is fair.

That is simply not an accurate characterization of what you said.

 

A) You said you think Reinsdorf needs to go because of lack of historical performance.

B) Balta said other teams are in similar or worse historical situations that might still be considered decent.

C) Your response was that Balta must therefore be happy with Reinsdorf.

 

Point C is the logical leap that is nonsensical and disingenuous. There are plenty of other positions Balta could take, but you have painted him into the one that most extremely opposes your position. This is an example of the type of argumentation that irritates people, and part of why much of the board argues with you so vehemently.

 

EDIT: Sorry to hijack the thread, I just thought that needed to be stated.

Edited January 10, 201313 yr by ScottyDo

What type of proof do you need?

 

Anything other than just words and rumor.

That is simply not an accurate characterization of what you said.

 

A) You said you think Reinsdorf needs to go because of lack of historical performance.

B) Balta said other teams are in similar or worse historical situations that might still be considered decent.

C) Your response was that Balta must therefore be happy with Reinsdorf.

 

Point C is the logical leap that is nonsensical and disingenuous. There are plenty of other positions Balta could take, but you have painted him into the one that most extremely opposes your position. This is an example of the type of argumentation that irritates people, and part of why much of the board argues with you so vehemently.

 

EDIT: Sorry to hijack the thread, I just thought that needed to be stated.

 

He brought up the Rangers bankruptcy, I guess as a defense of current ownership. If that's where he is setting the bar he has to be ok with ownership.

Anything other than just words and rumor.

 

I was told by a member of the organization.

Are you happy with ownership?

 

 

How many fans are happy with their team's ownership?

 

Almost none.

 

I do find it ironic that Anheuser-Busch sold the Cardinals in 2005 and they've won their two recent World Series titles since then, although not so many St. Louisians were complaining about the success of that franchise for most of the 80's, 90's or 00's.

He brought up the Rangers bankruptcy, I guess as a defense of current ownership. If that's where he is setting the bar he has to be ok with ownership.

 

How about the fifteen years without any kind of post season appearance. That disqualifies them in your book.

How about the fifteen years without any kind of post season appearance. That disqualifies them in your book.

 

What are you talking about? They were sold a few times during that period.

They went from Wetteland as closer and getting spanked a couple of times by the Yankees in the post-season for a LONG stretch without post-season play, mostly because of the M's and Angels.

 

The fact of the matter is that the Rangers were in the exact right place at the right time with the bankruptcy and emerging out of that as one of the first teams to benefit as the revolutionary regional sports network tv contracts were coming up for renewal/s.

 

Same thing with the Dodgers, although it remains to be seen a decade from now how foolish all that spending will have been and what the ROI will ultimately be.

He brought up the Rangers bankruptcy, I guess as a defense of current ownership. If that's where he is setting the bar he has to be ok with ownership.

 

 

I don't think he was saying that the White Sox management was great, just that your citing the Rangers as a model franchise isn't logical if you take their bankruptcy situation into account (how many Sox fans would be happy if the owners were forced to sell and the team was relocated...well, maybe a FEW, but not many) and the fact that almost all of their success has been recent, since the 2nd or 3rd year of the Daniels GM period.

 

Like the A's example with Beane and the "three aces" (Mulder, Zito, Hudson), you can really look at their extreme luck with the Tex overpay trade AND the Josh Hamilton/Volquez move. But those types of talent infusions (at one time) only happen once every generation, if your team is lucky.

Edited January 11, 201313 yr by caulfield12

What are you talking about? They were sold a few times during that period.

 

I'm using your goalposts of 30 years.

I can understand people blaming the GM, the manager, and/or the players for our failures in recent years, but the owner? Really??

 

I'll admit Reinsdorf shouldn't have let the Guillen-KW fued last as long as it did and obviously his inability to go over-slot in the draft hurt us (which is no longer an issue), but other than those two things he's been perfectly fine as an owner. It's not like we're talking about Loria or Angelos here.

Sox fans are so spoiled. They don't support competitive teams. There are many fan bases that would be thrilled for the winning records that the team has put up in the last 30 years.

 

FYI - Winning percentage in A.L. history:

 

Yankees #1

Red Sox

Indians

Tigers

White Sox #5

Sox fans are so spoiled. They don't support competitive teams. There are many fan bases that would be thrilled for the winning records that the team has put up in the last 30 years.

 

FYI - Winning percentage in A.L. history:

 

Yankees #1

Red Sox

Indians

Tigers

White Sox #5

The fans are spoiled, but there's also the fact that there's another team in Chicago; a team that has as much of a cult following as an actual fanbase. If this White Sox team (as it has been over the past 20 years) was in a city without another team, their attendance would be better, maybe much better.

 

Another issue has been the cost of going to a game. It's just too damn expensive to go to more than a couple games a year.

Sox fans are so spoiled. They don't support competitive teams. There are many fan bases that would be thrilled for the winning records that the team has put up in the last 30 years.

 

FYI - Winning percentage in A.L. history:

 

Yankees #1

Red Sox

Indians

Tigers

White Sox #5

 

Sox fans are not spoiled, you're listening too much to the media in this town. They have not been given a reason to better support their team over the last 30 years. Ownership is getting the fan support their record deserves.

Sox fans are not spoiled, you're listening too much to the media in this town. They have not been given a reason to better support their team over the last 30 years. Ownership is getting the fan support their record deserves.

 

Links?

Links?

 

As soon as I see proof that Sox fans are spoiled.

As soon as I see proof that Sox fans are spoiled.

 

Look at the Sox ranks in MLB in wins and in attendance over the last 15-20 years. That's pretty much proof right there.