Aren't the Sox more likely to be ready in 2021 than 2020?

[ChiSoxJon]

2 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

There isn't a fanbase in all sports who care more about the owners money than the White sox.  

I don't think it's giving a damn about JR

I think it's moreso recognizing that we aren't a NYY or BOS or LAD with an unlimited bank and want to maximize it/Don't want to have any miserable Sandoval/Ellsbury/Crawford types

[bmags]

And frankly, aren't they even more likely to contend in 2022? And even then, can we even be sure it's not 2023? And if it's 2023, is it really worth all of this when we'd only have another year of Moncada/Gio? I think we should blow it up.

[The Sir]

13 hours ago, BrianAnderson said:

But even if we win the division in all reality what's the chance of us winning a WS? Kopech and Cease will be on innings limitations... our rookies aren't used to a full season... I think we'd get swept or maybe win a game. No way we'd get through the ALCS or the WS. I echo we need to have money available in 2021 to fix problems

If we go to the playoffs and win only a game, that'll be one more playoff game than the Twins have won since I was in high school. In fact, in the time since the Twins last won a postseason game, we've won 12. I love to laugh at that franchise's utter futility, but if we go in our return-to-prominence season and promptly get booted out of the playoffs because we aren't quite strong enough yet, then I'll accept that as a solid first step.

[ptatc]

15 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

There isn't a fanbase in all sports who care more about the owners money than the White sox.  

This is so far off base and ridiculous that it's impossible to even rationalize. However, some people manage it.

[mqr]

22 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

There isn't a fanbase in all sports who care more about the owners money than the White sox.  

I don't give a shit about Jerry's money, if it were up to me he would have to give most of it up. But I'm not under any delusions that billionaires are suddenly going to stop operating their businesses like a business. So I want the FO to be smart with the dumb limits they have. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by mqr

[bmags]

Just now, mqr said:

I don't give a shit about Jerry's money, if it were up to me he would have to give most of it up. But I'm not under any delusions that billionaires are suddenly going to stop operating their businesses like a business.

sports franchises aren't businesses, they are hobbies like collecting art. And sure nobody wants to lose money on them.

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

sports franchises aren't businesses, they are hobbies like collecting art. And sure nobody wants to lose money on them.

Except for teams like the Bears were it is the only family business.

[mqr]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

sports franchises aren't businesses, they are hobbies like collecting art. And sure nobody wants to lose money on them.

I don't think this has been true since like the seventies.

[bmags]

Just now, ptatc said:

Except for teams like the Bears were it is the only family business.

Yes, football is definitely more straightforward and actually seems to wash owners in operating income. The number of family ownerships seems to indicate that.

Probably the fewer games and salary cap help a lot there. But also that I'm guessing the forbes valuations of football franchises are magnitudes lower of what would happen if say, the pittsburgh steelers, ny giants, cowboys, or bears would sell at this point of the cycle.

[bmags]

2 minutes ago, mqr said:

I don't think this has been true since like the seventies.

it is actually way more true than it would have been in the seventies.

[mqr]

2 minutes ago, bmags said:

it is actually way more true than it would have been in the seventies.

How?

These teams are like 100x more valuable than they were 25 years ago, that's not some happy accident that fell on a bunch of hobbyists. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by mqr

[bmags]

2 minutes ago, mqr said:

How?

These teams are like 100x more valuable than they were 25 years ago, that's not some happy accident that fell on a bunch of hobbyists. 

Um, yes, it is a lot of money to purchase, but it doesn't require much effort to run. The valuations have gone up and up no matter the franchise. The Marlins could sell tomorrow and get more than they received the year before. Frank McCourt used the dodgers as a divorce ATM, ran a great franchise into the ground, was being forced to sell...and got 2 billion back.

They surely don't want to have to pay money out of pocket on a year to year basis, but they can do so knowing it's not actually at risk.

You want to know why JR is such an annoying owner? Because he came of age as an owner at a time where there was much greater risk that the lights could turn off. There was no influx of tv money and baseball advanced media money coming in. They literally needed to run it like a business to get people in the seats. He still legitimately worries about league health way more than any other owner who can take it for granted that they can cash out at any time.

 

[ptatc]

30 minutes ago, bmags said:

Yes, football is definitely more straightforward and actually seems to wash owners in operating income. The number of family ownerships seems to indicate that.

Probably the fewer games and salary cap help a lot there. But also that I'm guessing the forbes valuations of football franchises are magnitudes lower of what would happen if say, the pittsburgh steelers, ny giants, cowboys, or bears would sell at this point of the cycle.

A big part of it is the revenue sharing between the franchises. Each team receive a great deal more money from other teams than any of the other sports.

[centerfieldsixers]

I love how people can spend other peoples money

[he gone.]

1 hour ago, The Sir said:

If we go to the playoffs and win only a game, that'll be one more playoff game than the Twins have won since I was in high school. In fact, in the time since the Twins last won a postseason game, we've won 12. I love to laugh at that franchise's utter futility, but if we go in our return-to-prominence season and promptly get booted out of the playoffs because we aren't quite strong enough yet, then I'll accept that as a solid first step.

The question is are you willing to be too aggressive this off-season for that sentimental (while important) first step and possible first win in the playoffs against the possibility of tying up too much money now, when it could be better served in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024? To me I'd rather start spending and getting risky when we have a clearer picture internally of our talent and our internal issues. 

aka, just using the Cubs as an example since we are all familiar. They had some holes this year that they were unable to fill because the money was allocated a few years ago and trades were made a few years ago. I know you have to go all-in at some point ... otherwise what's the point? But I'm just not sure this is the time yet. We don't have the luxury to float a bad Heyward signing and based on Hahn's track record in FA I'm not sure he's going to hit at a great clip.. 

I'm just in the camp that let's be patient for ONE more year. Hell, a half year if the first half is a surprise. But I'd like to see a year under the belt of Madrigal and Robert and Kopech and Cease + other pieces to see what we really have. 

[TomPickle]

1 hour ago, centerfieldsixers said:

I love how people can spend other peoples money

Agreed! I wonder how I got here. I was sure I was at http://prudentfinancialbaseballdiscussion.biz/white-sox/

[greg775]

2 hours ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

There isn't a fanbase in all sports who care more about the owners money than the White sox.  

I don't know about the entire fanbase but Jerry would certainly love to meet most members of this board who seem to be kind concerning how much they expect him to spend. It seems to me a popular take was to spend little to money during the tank years so he could spend more when we get good. That doesn't figure to happen. Personally I'd like to see him spend a lot of money on a proven manager. We've got some players to work with right now. A great manager might help us put something together. I'd think a lot of proven managers would want to work with some of the talented young players we have and try to mold them into a dynasty. Rick R is not exactly a superstar manager.

[centerfieldsixers]

the only "proven" manager Jerry ever had was Fregosi. LaRussa wasnt LaRussa yet.  jerry has never paid for a manager

 

[The Sir]

1 hour ago, BrianAnderson said:

The question is are you willing to be too aggressive this off-season for that sentimental (while important) first step and possible first win in the playoffs against the possibility of tying up too much money now, when it could be better served in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024? To me I'd rather start spending and getting risky when we have a clearer picture internally of our talent and our internal issues. 

aka, just using the Cubs as an example since we are all familiar. They had some holes this year that they were unable to fill because the money was allocated a few years ago and trades were made a few years ago. I know you have to go all-in at some point ... otherwise what's the point? But I'm just not sure this is the time yet. We don't have the luxury to float a bad Heyward signing and based on Hahn's track record in FA I'm not sure he's going to hit at a great clip.. 

I'm just in the camp that let's be patient for ONE more year. Hell, a half year if the first half is a surprise. But I'd like to see a year under the belt of Madrigal and Robert and Kopech and Cease + other pieces to see what we really have. 

I see what you're saying, but it depends. Are we waiting to sign someone better as an SP next year? Looking at this list, I'd rather have both Keuchel or Ryu than pretty much any of next year's SPs (if we sign Keuchel this year and go for Paxton next year, I'd be OK with that). So in that aspect, go for it this year.

But sure, don't sell the house for Mookie Betts. Maybe we could get him by putting Vaughn and Dunning in a package, and have a totally amazing offense in 2020 and destroy the "Bomba Squad" but we'd lose him to FA and plummet right back down in 2021. So avoid that sort of aggression. I might even be cool with skipping Castellanos/Ozuna now, marching Leury out to RF for a year, and then going after Springer or some other shiny thing next offseason.

Long story short, the right sort of aggression, absolutely.

[Balta1701]

2 hours ago, BrianAnderson said:

The question is are you willing to be too aggressive this off-season for that sentimental (while important) first step and possible first win in the playoffs against the possibility of tying up too much money now, when it could be better served in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024? To me I'd rather start spending and getting risky when we have a clearer picture internally of our talent and our internal issues. 

aka, just using the Cubs as an example since we are all familiar. They had some holes this year that they were unable to fill because the money was allocated a few years ago and trades were made a few years ago. I know you have to go all-in at some point ... otherwise what's the point? But I'm just not sure this is the time yet. We don't have the luxury to float a bad Heyward signing and based on Hahn's track record in FA I'm not sure he's going to hit at a great clip.. 

I'm just in the camp that let's be patient for ONE more year. Hell, a half year if the first half is a surprise. But I'd like to see a year under the belt of Madrigal and Robert and Kopech and Cease + other pieces to see what we really have. 

Remember that the Cubs did not start spending money in 2016, they jumped on Lester in 2015, made a huge jump that was earlier than most people thought, won 96 games, knocked out Pittsburgh in the Wild Card with a surprise Cy Young winner on the mound, and were perhaps an insane stretch by Daniel Murphy away from a World Series appearance.

imagine if the rest of that stuff had happened but they hadn’t signed Lester. They miss the playoffs. They had a legit shot at winning a title and won the next one.

you only get a couple chances before guys get hurt or hit free agency and that’s where the Cubs are now, so when your chances come you can’t squander them.

Have a plan for 2021, leave yourself money to spend, but have a roster that can make a run if things go right. Maybe you get a short playoff run, that translates into a season ticket and ad sale boom, and now you have an extra $15 million to spend on payroll next year to get that final reliever.

[ptatc]

2 hours ago, centerfieldsixers said:

the only "proven" manager Jerry ever had was Fregosi. LaRussa wasnt LaRussa yet.  jerry has never paid for a manager

 

Torborg had previously been a manger. 

[mqr]

2 hours ago, centerfieldsixers said:

the only "proven" manager Jerry ever had was Fregosi. LaRussa wasnt LaRussa yet.  jerry has never paid for a manager

 

Fine w me

[Hatchetman]

6 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Torborg had previously been a manger. 

That's probably why Himes got fired. Violating company policy.

[centerfieldsixers]

18 minutes ago, Hatchetman said:

That's probably why Himes got fired. Violating company policy.

torborg was a manager but he wasnt proven.  he had a .439 win percentage.  hardly proven

[WBWSF]

1 hour ago, Hatchetman said:

That's probably why Himes got fired. Violating company policy.

Himes got fired because he didn't get along with JR.