Thad Bosley

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 12:00 PM) Christopher Kamka ‏@ckamka 46m46 minutes ago This day in #WhiteSox history 1981: AL owners approve sale of team to group headed by Jerry Reinsdorf & Eddie Einhorn And 34 years later, how has this "group" done? Only five playoff appearances - 5, out of 34 years! - and of those, only one meaningful. The other four? Quite forgettable, unfortunately - only four wins across those four appearances. (And people wonder why the Sox have attendance issues!) And yet, Dan Hayes of Comcast Sportsnet Chicago has the absolute nerve last week to pen a full page article trumpeting the so-called "aggressiveness" and "competitiveness" of Mr. Reinsdorf throughout these past 34 years. Oh really? There is no doubt there were many years when that assertion could be called into question. I mean, GMAFB, already. The record speaks for itself, sadly. Sorry, but very much looking forward to the next "AL owners approve sale of team" message.

Good stuff! Really enjoyed both interviews. Makes it very easy to get excited about our young talent and the long term prospects for the ball club.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 19, 2015 -> 09:55 AM) Sox won a world series, and not much changed. And that was with cub teams that were horrible in 05-06 Lol - "not much changed"? Your what hurts? A whole lot changed! We had a waiting list for season tickets in 2006 and set a franchise record for attendance that season by drawing just short of three million fans. Turns out our oft-maligned fan base found exciting post season play interesting. Who knew! But since then the team has returned to the typical achievement level experienced during the other 33 years of the current ownership's regime. That's the part that needs to change, and here's to hoping that happens this season, and continues on for the foreseeable future!

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 6, 2015 -> 11:29 AM) You are endorsing a policy where Reinsdorf and the board spend $150 million a year on payroll. Regardless of the feasibility of that idea (according to these numbers, which are approximations, only 5 teams spent $150 million in payroll last year and the White Sox and Cubs COMBINED did not spend $150 million), what would you have spent that money on? It seems absurd that you are indicting Reinsdorf on not spending money and then not offering an alternative plan as to what would be done with that money. Are you implying that he should spend money just to spend money? Or are you using revisionist history and saying "they should have won more"? If you are going to say that they didn't win more in the last 10-15 years because Reinsdorf didn't spend money, then I will wholeheartedly and unabashedly disagree with you, because a sufficient amount of money was spent. If anything, that falls on the players on the field, the managers and coaches on the bench, and the people in the front office. I do agree that they can spend more if the acquisition makes sense. At this juncture, how would you justify another expenditure like that? Bring in a guy like Scherzer, even though historical data shows us that pitchers who are worthwhile for 7 years are exceedingly rare? Bring in a guy like Shields who is already 33 and has shown some of the telltale signs of slowing down? Really, neither of those make sense and it takes an injury to either one of them to cripple the Sox and limit their flexibility in finding replacements. Frankly, the only sorts of moves that make sense are moves to shore up the depth of the club in the event that an injury strikes, and I think Hahn has shown just in the past years that he's constantly trying to do that. Considering they are also trying to allocate some money to sign Samardzija long-term while also accounting for raises to Abreu, Eaton, Sale, and Quintana, I think it makes sense to look at the current team through a long-term lens rather than a "spend everything, damn the margins, and try and win it this year!" This is a team that probably has a 40% chance of a playoff birth but they should be competitive and should win a lot more than they did last season. After the previous two meager seasons, I'd ultimately be happy with an 85 win team, even if there would be immediate disappointment if/when they were eliminated from playoff contention. This is not an overnight process. Hopefully in 3 years, given what Hahn and the front office are doing to ensure long-term viability of the club while also doing their best to make the current club competitive, the Sox will be spending $150 million a year. There's no guarantee that this works. Thus, spending some and going out on a limb to try and put together a competitive team will either further justify spending or will allow them to trade a lot of these pieces off. If they signed Scherzer/Shields at this point, and it was inherently obvious within a year and a half that the team wasn't going to be competitive, you are likely stuck with that contract because the surplus value from either contract is not enough to justify another team trading for them. The current philosophy makes sense. Very thoughtful response, and thank you for that. I do appreciate it. A few reactions to your reply: A.) Am I endorsing a policy where the current ownership group allocates $150 million to payroll? Yes, I certainly am. And that is solely because the reigning division champs - the team that has won the division four years in a row now - have a payroll in that vicinity, will continue to do so, and are still widely expected to repeat as division champs. To your point that there is no guarantee having such a high payroll works, you are absolutely correct about that, but it sure as heck greatly increases the team's chances of winning. B.) Re: Max Scherzer. Case in point - if the Sox brought him in right now, even at the amount he's commanding, he would bring that team payroll up in the vicinity of $150 million, more or less. More importantly, though, is the impact he would have in this very interesting 3-5 year window the Sox are heading into as someone who I really think could put the team over the top and make them a true powerhouse. Forget about years 6 & 7 in that contract and how he might fall off at that time. That drop off would be well worth it if he could be the major catalyst who, if healthy, would be a primary contributor in taking the team to levels we have not seen in our lifetimes during this window. Despite the great moves Hahn has already made this winter, the complexion of our roster looks entirely different, and the teams chances are far more enhanced, with Scherzer on this team vs. not. So under the rule "Sometimes you have to spend money to make money", for the life of me I don't understand how the Sox don't strike at this moment and try to sign this guy and finish off this offseason with a bang. I know the Sox historically have not given out those kind of contracts, but that's part of my beef. How have these operating philosophies worked out for us in the past? I'm calling into question many aspects of the Sox' approach to matters only because they have simply not yielded desirable results. We hardly ever win!! So if it's changing course and taking on a little more risk than we have in the past, then so be it. Let's do it! Let us win the division four years in a row for a change and at least get into the stinkin' playoffs and then take our chances then. But the team in the division currently doing all the winning is spending substantially more than us, so all I'm saying is we need to start doing the same, and for me, a good starting point would be signing Mr. Scherzer. C.) "If they signed Scherzer/Shields at this point, and it was inherently obvious within a year and a half that the team wasn't going to be competitive, you are likely stuck with that contract..." And what if they signed either of them and within a year and a half the team became a league powerhouse and went to the World Series one, two, three times, a la the San Francisco Giants, for example. What if! Again, it's a question of taking on a little risk, but the payoff could well be worth it. The team typically doesn't take on that type of risk, and how has that worked out for us.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 11:47 PM) Just like to point out that Detroit does not have another team across town to compete for the attention of the fan base while the Sox do. MMKAY... And just who have we been competing with the last 100+ years? Ah, yes - the Cubs, the biggest losers in the history of the sport. Sorry, but not really the best excuse, nor one we should hide behind.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 11:25 PM) No. The Sox might have a third of it. Might. And the bottom line is if Sox fans were turning the turnstyles like Detroit fans are, we'd have their payroll. Just out of curiosity, how do you know that?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 11:25 PM) No. The Sox might have a third of it. Might. And the bottom line is if Sox fans were turning the turnstyles like Detroit fans are, we'd have their payroll. Yessssss, and why is that? Because the organization has failed to wrestle more of that market share by earning it through winning. It's been there for the taking, given the Cubs's perennial losing ways. The Tigers were drawing as much as the Sox are today less than ten years ago, right around the time when we were winning it all. How did they manage to turn it around such that they can now float a payroll 50% greater than that of the Sox? Answer - sustained winning, supported by bigger spending than the Sox.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 02:10 PM) The Tigers also drew 1.3 (or around 80% higher attendance) million more through the turnstyles last year, and have the entire Detroit metro market to themselves. The Tigers have the #11th largest metro area all to themselves, while the Sox have almost half of the 3rd largest metro area all to themselves, so numbers wise, it's almost a wash. So there's that. Detroit has also been drawing more recently because they've been winning more recently, due in no small part because they've been spending more recently. Spending more than us, winning more than us, and therefore, drawing more than us. What to make of that! If you choose not to be insulted by hearing or reading stories of Jerry Reinsdorf's asserted benevolence because he approved that last additional "expenditure" for Cabrera's contract, which pushed the team payroll just over the $100 million mark, you go right ahead. That's just barely getting the team to the MLB team average for payroll, and therefore I refuse to fall prey to the team's propaganda and talking points that they're somehow going out on a limb on all of this recent spending. Meanwhile, the reigning division champs continue to spend almost 50% more than the Sox. I find that disparity unacceptable, that's all I'm saying.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 02:11 PM) They have a single owner in a single market. The Sox have a board of directors to which JR is responsible and they have the lesser share of a market with 2 teams. Illitch can do whatever he wants with the team. It's his. JR does not have this luxury. JR has said repeatedly that he will not spend the Sox into the red. His ownership groups for the Bulls and Sox are different. He cannot steal money from his Bulls group and give it to the Sox group. While he owns more of the a great deal more of the Bulls than the Sox, they are still different groups. Sounds, then, like the Sox are operating at quite a competitive disadvantage, which really shouldn't be the case for a team playing in a large market.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 01:16 PM) If a $150 million payroll were realistic, the White Sox would have a $150 million payroll. I think they could probably get away with a $110 million payroll this year, but that leaves very little wiggle room and I don't see the need to spend money just to spend money. I also want nothing to do with either Scherzer or Shields 3 years from now, let alone 5 or 7. If the Detroit Tigers who play in a much smaller market can feature a $163 million payroll, then there is no way I can accept the fact that a $150 million payroll is not "realistic" for the "Chicago" White Sox. No way!

QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Jan 3, 2015 -> 03:18 PM) I am all for Ozzie's number being retired, as that typically singals the player/coach never being active for the team again. Harold Baines sez "Hi!".

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 1, 2015 -> 10:20 PM) Why would the Cubs sell their 20% though? Unless there is a provision in the contract that they must keep some games on CSN. There are all kinds of reports out there that the Cubs will leave CSN after 2019. Some reports mention them potentially teaming up with FOX Sports to create their own regional network. There was even talk of them punting the WGN portion of their schedule over to the local FOX affiliate, WFLD-TV, in advance of that plan. That didn't happen, as the Cubs recently gave a big portion of the WGN schedule to Channel 7. But one way or another, it would appear as of today they will no longer be broadcasting on CSN after 2019. My assumption then, and I could be wrong, but no games = no 20% ownership, meaning if they walk away from CSN they'd probably sell their 20% back.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2015 -> 10:14 PM) Really tough to predict since still so far out. 2019 to now is like now to pre 2009-season. The media environment has completely changed since then, who knows what these contracts will look like in 5 more seasons. No one in 2009 predicted the kind of TV Money the Dodgers and others would start getting. True, but I still wonder what the long term thinking of the ball club might be on the matter. Going back to the Cubs for a moment, they've been pretty clear of their intentions post-2019. They've already kicked WGN to the curb, more or less, and there have been many reports about their goal of creating their own regional sports network, a la the Yankees, Dodgers, etc., once the CSN contract is up. A lot will change between now and five years from now that will impact what the Cubs are trying to achieve, but at least there's some sense of the direction in which they're going. And so that's my only question, just wondering what the Sox' long term TV intentions might be or could be, given what we know today.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 1, 2015 -> 07:36 AM) No. The sox own 20 pct. the bulls own the other 20. Jerry may control the partnership, but he does not have thatch equity in the enterprise. Big difference Very interesting discussion. So any guesses as to what happens after 2019, after the Cubs terminate their involvement with CSN and move to their own regional sports network? Do the Sox continue on with CSN, and do they benefit by potentially increasing their % ownership due to the Cubs departure?

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) I'm actually a bit scared. I'll take my chances!

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Dec 29, 2014 -> 10:36 PM) In 2029, when the lease ends, I will be shocked if they are not at the exact same corner. There really is no where to go. Unless the state wants to dish out 3 billion for land, stadium, and infrastructure costs. Unless the state wants to dish out another sweetheart lease deal whereby we, the taxpayers, continue to subsidize ownership due to a continuation of attendance problems at this lousy location. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think the Sox or the state will make that same mistake again. A new and more desirable location may not be obvious now, but when the time comes, this franchise will pull up stakes at 35th and Shields and move the show to a far more advantageous part of the city. Of that, I have no doubts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 24, 2014 -> 11:20 AM) Do you honestly think the White Sox have something like $50ish million dollars laying around? Because that is the kind of commitment we are talking about. Did you think at the time the Sox were chasing Tanaka that they had the kind of money lying around that was rumored to have been offered him?

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Dec 22, 2014 -> 12:36 PM) Most of the comments in this thread seem to be made under the influence of crack. Sox are going NOWHERE UNTIL 2029 and will likely build on the old comiskey site. It is the best spot when you factor in rail service, traffic patterns, and parking. The only "crack" going on here is you cracking me up by continuing to suggest the location at 35th and Shields is the "best spot" for this franchise. I don't know why you keep saying this. It. Is. Not. The decades of poor attendance records proves that beyond a doubt. Not to mention, but the current location wasn't even in the current ownership's top three choices back in the 80s when they were looking for a place to build the new park. As has been mentioned ad nauseum, the area lacks the surrounding nightlife options that so many other ballparks have, and there remains a carryover stigma from many years ago that the area around the ballpark isn't the safest. You combine those two considerable factors, and you can have the best rail service, the most amazing traffic patterns, and all the parking in the world, and it won't matter. As long as the destination itself remains as it is today - uninspiring with no attractions - no one is going to go there unless there is a bona fide winner on the field. That hardly defines the current location as the "best spot" for the Sox.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 18, 2014 -> 08:24 PM) Hoyt complete game from May, 1983. The sound gets better after a few minutes. Quick game. Kittle homers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV4fzRwPIdk Thanks! A great trip down memory lane, particularly getting, once again, to hear #53, Don Drsydale, calling the play-by-play, alongside his color analyst at the time, the One, the Only, Ken "Hawk" Harrelson. Double D and Hawk were a terrific broadcasting duo together, and would have been far more popular in Chicago had they not been the pair to replace Harry Caray and Jimmy Piersall. And, of course, had they not been buried on Sportsvision, the Reinsdorf/Einhorn brainchild that...well, a story for another day.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 18, 2014 -> 12:23 PM) Jerry's recommendation is for his sons and the current ownership group to sell the team upon his death. +1

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 11:57 AM) the next sox stadium will be on the site of the last sox stadium. Wrong. The next ownership group will put their indelible mark on this franchise and once and for all, move the team out of that location which, for several decades now, has proven beyond a doubt to be less than desirable - and that's putting it mildly.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 14, 2014 -> 10:46 PM) Haha open your heart man, you'll feel better. That man IS White Sox Baseball. Calling White Sox games gives that man no greater pleasure, and since he gave so much to us throughout his better decades, let's just support our godfather and return the kindness in his later years. Plus he's wayyyy better when we are good! +++++ 1

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 14, 2014 -> 09:58 PM) Hopefully one of those moves is to fire Hawk and replace him with a competent announcer. That would really make the 2015 team watchable. - 1

So this is pretty much a done deal - we're getting Shark for Semien + one of our better prospects (prolly Danish). Great news, as that gives the Sox a very formidable 1-2-3 in the starting rotation. And hopefully an extension forthcoming for Shark, which would give the Sox quite a pitching advantage over the next several seasons. Where my mind has now gone and is reeling are these "surprise" moves that Bucket hinted are also likely coming, perhaps even this week. What could those possibly be!!

What a big media day it'll be in Chicago if the Sox trade for Shark and the Cubs sign Lester, essentially on the same day.