ChiSox59 Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 11:19 AM) When the Sale happens (pun intended) attendance drops will accelerate. Fans may say that they want a rebuild, but they won't support it. I know - it was tongue in cheek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 They won't need to. We are at close to 90% of our available budget and fans didn't come out for it. Benefit of a rebuild is you can operate with way less and then spend the difference when they are closer to a watchable product. Spending money on an aimless mediocre team is no more fun than spending it on a bad, building team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatnom Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 There is no need for the "but they'll lose all the fans" fear mongering anymore. The fans are already gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 09:19 AM) When the Sale happens (pun intended) attendance drops will accelerate. Fans may say that they want a rebuild, but they won't support it. Fans are barely supporting as it is. Would there be a noticeable difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donny Lucy's Avocado Farm Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 11:19 AM) When the Sale happens (pun intended) attendance drops will accelerate. Fans may say that they want a rebuild, but they won't support it. Serious question: How exactly does a fanbase "support" a rebuild? By attending/watching games when the team is bad? The team is already bad, as-is. Whatever base of fans they'd lose to staging and publicly acknowledging a rebuild have already left. The White Sox have literally nothing to lose in a rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCsoxfan Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Here's an idea, and feel free to tell me if I'm a complete idiot. Sox trade: Sale & Eaton to the Cubs Sox receive: Heyward and a combo of young players. So, I would assume the Cubs would love to have Sale and are quite displeased with what they've got with Heyward. Eaton would be downright scary on the Cubs. He'd give them more of a LH presence which Heyward couldn't provide, AND they'd shed this huge contract. Well, why would the Sox want to trade their two best players (arguably) AND take on an albatross of a contract? Goal would be for it to land them more of the Cubs premium young position players. Could this then land them something like Schwarber, Baez, AND a handful of top prospects? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 11:40 AM) Here's an idea, and feel free to tell me if I'm a complete idiot. Sox trade: Sale & Eaton to the Cubs Sox receive: Heyward and a combo of young players. So, I would assume the Cubs would love to have Sale and are quite displeased with what they've got with Heyward. Eaton would be downright scary on the Cubs. He'd give them more of a LH presence which Heyward couldn't provide, AND they'd shed this huge contract. Well, why would the Sox want to trade their two best players (arguably) AND take on an albatross of a contract? Goal would be for it to land them more of the Cubs premium young position players. Could this then land them something like Schwarber, Baez, AND a handful of top prospects? Yah, let's trade our 2 best assets who are vastly underpaid for an extremely overpaid player..... I stopped reading after the bolded, but I guess it depends on who the "combo of young players is", but this is never going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (gatnom @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 09:34 AM) There is no need for the "but they'll lose all the fans" fear mongering anymore. The fans are already gone. Nor is that money really even needed in today's environment, where plenty of money comes from tv rights and revenue sharing. They can take the hit at the gate for a few years. The fans will come back when the team starts playing well again. It isn't like they are dismantling the '98 Bulls or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCsoxfan Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 01:46 PM) Yah, let's trade our 2 best assets who are vastly underpaid for an extremely overpaid player..... I stopped reading after the bolded, but I guess it depends on who the "combo of young players is", but this is never going to happen. The goal is not to trade for Heyward because he's good - it's the opposite. It's essentially taking on salary to allow us to get even more of their great players. Not dissimilar to when you retain salary to get more prospects. You wouldn't consider it for Baez, Schwarber, Soler, and our pick of 3-4 prospects? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 12:06 PM) The goal is not to trade for Heyward because he's good - it's the opposite. It's essentially taking on salary to allow us to get even more of their great players. Not dissimilar to when you retain salary to get more prospects. You wouldn't consider it for Baez, Schwarber, Soler, and our pick of 3-4 prospects? They wouldn't do that. They still have to field a team, and it's not like they can go out and sign a bunch of stud free agents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSoxFanMike Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 12:06 PM) The goal is not to trade for Heyward because he's good - it's the opposite. It's essentially taking on salary to allow us to get even more of their great players. Not dissimilar to when you retain salary to get more prospects. You wouldn't consider it for Baez, Schwarber, Soler, and our pick of 3-4 prospects? No .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 11:38 AM) Serious question: How exactly does a fanbase "support" a rebuild? By attending/watching games when the team is bad? The team is already bad, as-is. Whatever base of fans they'd lose to staging and publicly acknowledging a rebuild have already left. The White Sox have literally nothing to lose in a rebuild. The only risk IMO is the potential loss of season ticket holders. A lot of them may jump ship if a lengthy rebuild is on the agenda and you may never get some of them back. But that's a risk we need to take, because the half-ass going for it plans haven't done anything to keep these fans either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Eaton > Heyward... easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 12:22 PM) Eaton > Heyward... easily. Who is arguing otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 10:20 AM) The only risk IMO is the potential loss of season ticket holders. A lot of them may jump ship if a lengthy rebuild is on the agenda and you may never get some of them back. But that's a risk we need to take, because the half-ass going for it plans haven't done anything to keep these fans either. If the rebuild works, they will come back. And I tend to think the season ticket holders we currently have are loyal enough to stick around through a rebuild if they've been loyal to this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 01:23 PM) Who is arguing otherwise? Whoever suggested Sale and Eaton for Heyward and two prospects doesn't seem to understand the value of Eaton... or Sale.... or both. Both in a package would warrant an absolute monstrous return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 09:46 AM) Yah, let's trade our 2 best assets who are vastly underpaid for an extremely overpaid player..... I stopped reading after the bolded, but I guess it depends on who the "combo of young players is", but this is never going to happen. It's a trade that would guarantee the Cubs winning at least 2 more championships in the next 3 years. I'm sure Jerry would approve that in a heartbeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 12:23 PM) If the rebuild works, they will come back. And I tend to think the season ticket holders we currently have are loyal enough to stick around through a rebuild if they've been loyal to this point. I'm sure most will, but you never know. Regardless, with ticket sales accounting for less and less of the overall revenue picture, I'm not sure it's that much of a risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 12:24 PM) Whoever suggested Sale and Eaton for Heyward and two prospects doesn't seem to understand the value of Eaton... or Sale.... or both. Both in a package would warrant an absolute monstrous return. He was arguing that taking on Heyward's contract would improve the return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 01:23 PM) If the rebuild works, they will come back. And I tend to think the season ticket holders we currently have are loyal enough to stick around through a rebuild if they've been loyal to this point. I'm sure most season ticket holders would appreciate an actual direction, which could be a rebuild. Then again, attendance doesn't really matter anymore when it comes to team revenue. It's really just a tired Cubs fan defensive narrative. It's pointless. Edited November 7, 2016 by Jose Abreu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Abreu Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 01:31 PM) He was arguing that taking on Heyward's contract would improve the return. Then that doesn't make sense, because Sale and Eaton together would already need Schwarber, Baez, Soler, Almora, Edwards, etc. No need to add Heyward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 12:06 PM) The goal is not to trade for Heyward because he's good - it's the opposite. It's essentially taking on salary to allow us to get even more of their great players. Not dissimilar to when you retain salary to get more prospects. You wouldn't consider it for Baez, Schwarber, Soler, and our pick of 3-4 prospects? Teams like the Braves have done that but for contracts that expired a year or two later. We would potentially have Heyward for 7. F that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 10:32 AM) I'm sure most season ticket holders would appreciate an actual direction, which could be a rebuild. Then again, attendance doesn't really matter anymore when it comes to team revenue. It's really just a tired Cubs fan defensive narrative. It's pointless. Well, this isn't to say it doesn't matter...they aren't dumping money into older ballparks because they aren't a revenue source...it's just that there are enough other revenue streams to sustain an organization through a rebuild if indeed there isn't much coming from the gate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 11:37 AM) Fans are barely supporting as it is. Would there be a noticeable difference? Yes there will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 7, 2016 -> 11:46 AM) Nor is that money really even needed in today's environment, where plenty of money comes from tv rights and revenue sharing. They can take the hit at the gate for a few years. The fans will come back when the team starts playing well again. It isn't like they are dismantling the '98 Bulls or something. Except we could well be a 95 loss team when we are negotiating those rights. 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.