Would you accept Michael Reinsdorf as the new Chairman/Owner

[MackowiakYakYak]

I hope whichever owner realizes money wise they can make this team into the Yankees of the AL Central. Sure the rest of the division will rise and fall as they pick their windows to compete but the rest of the division is mid market teams. No other division has a clear #1 market like our division does.

The problem with the post-2005 stretch is that they kept thinking too short term and made most of their decisions with a pre-analytics mindset. To be fair most teams were making their decisions that way but the Astros, Red Sox, A’s, Rays, and Giants have shown there is a way to compete every year without going through rebuild full cycles

[southsider2k5]

6 hours ago, tray said:

Rocky Wirtz did a nice job when he took over for his father, who had taken over from his father.

A family dynasty is often worth more than money.

I'd like to see Michael Reinsdorf become co-chair with Jerry moving forward.

Then Michael can hire a new GM, like Theo.  Hahn has to go.

 

Theo has already said he wants to be involved in ownership next.

[Tannerfan]

Every time I read a discussion regarding sports team ownership, I think of the Green Bay Packers and think/wish that all pro sports teams should be set up the same way.

It's such a unique and really cool way for a team to function.

[FoxForce2]

13 minutes ago, MackowiakYakYak said:

The problem with the post-2005 stretch is that they kept thinking too short term and made most of their decisions with a pre-analytics mindset. To be fair most teams were making their decisions that way but the Astros, Red Sox, A’s, Rays, and Giants have shown there is a way to compete every year without going through rebuild full cycles

Yes but the Astros went full tank mode from 2010-2014 as they rebuilt and restructured their organization both top-down and bottom-up. They wiped the slate clean at all levels and started over. At the Big League level the Cubs followed this trend to a significant degree. Not so much in their minors. The Sox indeed tanked, but the core philosophy hasn't drastically changed to the extent that Houston's did. This might indicate that tanking is, in large part, an all-or-nothing proposition. If a team is going to re-invent the wheel they are likely better served by doing a complete job it of rather than by doing it in partials and increments.   

[Kyyle23]

18 minutes ago, Tannerfan said:

Every time I read a discussion regarding sports team ownership, I think of the Green Bay Packers and think/wish that all pro sports teams should be set up the same way.

It's such a unique and really cool way for a team to function.

I don't think any pro team ownership will go to that type of public ownership scenario again in my lifetime

[chetkincaid]

It would be nice to have a new chairman. A new face. 

[FoxForce2]

15 minutes ago, chetkincaid said:

It would be nice to have a new chairman. A new face. 

Anyone been watching the HBO series Succession?

[Chisoxfn]

11 hours ago, bmags said:

I don't really think there is much of a difference between Michael Reinsdorf and George McCaskey, I think (hope) that Reinsdorf just nailed his search and McCaskey has not. My interpretation is they both just want to hand it over to people to run, support them, and have them be successful. But they don't really know what successful is supposed to be or look like and fall in love with everyone in those positions and end up shocked when things aren't working out.

So if Reinsdorf took over, do I think anything would change? Maybe, it depends on if Hahn truly has a more progressive vision for running the front office maybe we'd see it. But reality is I think we'd see KW and Hahn just continue to run the sox and if it went into the ground we'd hope he brings in a new group that does well.

So I don't see anything particularly magical about him, wouldn't be happy or upset until he shows otherwise.

I think what helped Michael a lot was that Paxson, like him or not, is a pretty savvy guy and understood a lot. He was a good exec for a long time and thus could be a pretty trusted mentor to help Michael R get the right people in place to build a more modern front office (which quite frankly Pax had no interest doing). So Michael having that resource to lean on was huge, because it was someone who knew a lot about the game but also cared a TON about the franchise, vs. your run of the mill Ernie Acorsi/Consultant who quite frankly is tied to most all of the hires.

I also think like you McCaskey tries to get out of the way and if he ever found the right people -> we would probably see the cycle turn pretty materially because he'd get a view of how it looked and worked well and start to better understand. Let alone the right president/gum and you have a culture where you can turn over new people etc over the long run too.  

Angelo was as close as it got to be honest.  With the Sox - I think you have a similar situation with Paxson and at some point could probably leverage Kenny is a similar way (who is a well respected and very talented baseball guy) who probably has more modern views of how to do things, but again, has to build within an existing confines -> who could clearly probably parlay and help drive a broader change (if more money / other items were to be spent).  

[shago]

Reinsdorf family has wealth because of their excellent investments in the Bulls and White Sox (aka paper billionaires) -- not coming to the table with huge fortunes of liquid wealth to be spent on a team as a tax write-off ... Unless the franchise is sold to someone in the Ricketts/Cohen mold, will always be run as a business, not a vanity title-seeking project.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

On 10/25/2021 at 12:53 PM, Quin said:

Would you be cool with it or would you be pretty pissed and post about wanting a new owner

Obviously Sox fans don't get to ratify a choice, but for years we've clamored for someone like Cuban or Cohen. I think both of those have lost significant luster for various reasons.

The only thing that could have possibly caused me to lose interest in White Sox baseball would have been if Steve Cohen bought the team. Not many more evil or scummy people in the history of the financial industry which is really really saying something. Amazing he's not in jail honestly.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, shago said:

Reinsdorf family has wealth because of their excellent investments in the Bulls and White Sox (aka paper billionaires) -- not coming to the table with huge fortunes of liquid wealth to be spent on a team as a tax write-off ... Unless the franchise is sold to someone in the Ricketts/Cohen mold, will always be run as a business, not a vanity title-seeking project.

The Ricketts are a complete disaster of an ownership group and if they owned the Sox their payroll would be at like 120 million. The Ricketts don't have anywhere near the liquidity that you're implying here, and winning ranks very far down on the goals of their ownership. 

[shago]

13 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The Ricketts don't have anywhere near the liquidity that you're implying here

Challenge ... The Ricketts family net worth is >$5B, whether they are Comiskey-esque miserly or not, is a a different question.

The point I was making, is that the Reinsdorfs didn't make a fortune and bring it to ownership, they are wealthy on paper because of smart investments in the teams in the early 80s. If the team stays in the family, nothing will change.

[Thad Bosley]

5 hours ago, shago said:

Challenge ... The Ricketts family net worth is >$5B, whether they are Comiskey-esque miserly or not, is a a different question.

The point I was making, is that the Reinsdorfs didn't make a fortune and bring it to ownership, they are wealthy on paper because of smart investments in the teams in the early 80s. If the team stays in the family, nothing will change.

Hard pass on Reinsdorf Version 2.0.   ? 

[Kyyle23]

6 hours ago, shago said:

Challenge ... The Ricketts family net worth is >$5B, whether they are Comiskey-esque miserly or not, is a a different question.

The point I was making, is that the Reinsdorfs didn't make a fortune and bring it to ownership, they are wealthy on paper because of smart investments in the teams in the early 80s. If the team stays in the family, nothing will change.

Apparently Daddy big bucks wants his money back and to be done with it.  Which puts the rest of them in a bind because he is the big hitter 

[Big Hurtin]

Accept?  Like we're the senate voting to approve nominations? ?

I don't think we would have a choice.

[GreenSox]

On 10/26/2021 at 10:19 AM, FoxForce2 said:

Yes but the Astros went full tank mode from 2010-2014 as they rebuilt and restructured their organization both top-down and bottom-up. They wiped the slate clean at all levels and started over. At the Big League level the Cubs followed this trend to a significant degree. Not so much in their minors. The Sox indeed tanked, but the core philosophy hasn't drastically changed to the extent that Houston's did. This might indicate that tanking is, in large part, an all-or-nothing proposition. If a team is going to re-invent the wheel they are likely better served by doing a complete job it of rather than by doing it in partials and increments.   

This is interesting.  I think tanking for its own sake will be a thing of the past.  The Astros tanked because they had very little major league talent in their prime (hunter pence and a couple of okay pitchers)- as a tanker,  they scored in the draft with Correa and Bregman.
The Cubs big draft score, however was luck - the Astros passed on Bryant. 
The  Sox tanked because Hahn could figure out how to build around a quality core, and he squandered all of the young talent trying. In the end, the Sox didn't get anyone who was a major contributor out of the draft.  Rodon was technically a FA, and as a draft pick, he was pre-tank.  They got players out of their dispersal; but really, the best haul (3 pitchers for Eaton) was a trade that a savvy GM could have made with a non-tanking team. 
What changed with the Cubs and Astros, was how they evaluate and develop young talent. 
The same things that the Sox continue to struggle with as per Farm #30.
I don't think you have to tank to change the philosophy.  Look at the Giants.  As don't tank.  Rays were bad for a few years, but have been good for a while. 

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, GreenSox said:

This is interesting.  I think tanking for its own sake will be a thing of the past.  The Astros tanked because they had very little major league talent in their prime (hunter pence and a couple of okay pitchers)- as a tanker,  they scored in the draft with Correa and Bregman.
The Cubs big draft score, however was luck - the Astros passed on Bryant. 
The  Sox tanked because Hahn could figure out how to build around a quality core, and he squandered all of the young talent trying. In the end, the Sox didn't get anyone who was a major contributor out of the draft.  Rodon was technically a FA, and as a draft pick, he was pre-tank.  They got players out of their dispersal; but really, the best haul (3 pitchers for Eaton) was a trade that a savvy GM could have made with a non-tanking team. 
What changed with the Cubs and Astros, was how they evaluate and develop young talent. 
The same things that the Sox continue to struggle with as per Farm #30.
I don't think you have to tank to change the philosophy.  Look at the Giants.  As don't tank.  Rays were bad for a few years, but have been good for a while. 

Giants more recently under Faidi. A's will probably tear down now.  Brewers, Braves, Cardinals, Indians some other examples of teams that make the best out of non Top Ten payrolls....although ATL is really close to 10 now.

[FoxForce2]

6 hours ago, GreenSox said:

I don't think you have to tank to change the philosophy.  Look at the Giants.  As don't tank.  Rays were bad for a few years, but have been good for a while. 

You're right. But if a team is going to tank they probably need to go pretty deep with it:. Scouting, training, technology, both MLB and MiLB coaching and  FO - everything being on the table and fair game for change and revision. IOW in the Renisdorf era - not gonna happen.

[Texsox]

As proven over and over here, this is one of the worst franchises in baseball. Advocating for keeping anything is tough. They should get a fresh start with new owners in a new city. Clear out everything and start over. 

[FoxForce2]

6 hours ago, Texsox said:

As proven over and over here, this is one of the worst franchises in baseball. Advocating for keeping anything is tough. They should get a fresh start with new owners in a new city. Clear out everything and start over. 

Obviously, you're pushing for Cuban buying Reinsdorf out and moving the franchise to San Antonio.
Cuban buying the team with the strongest Cuban connection ------ get it?
Nudge Nudge
Wink Wink
Har Har

[The Kids Can Play]

On 10/25/2021 at 12:35 PM, southsider2k5 said:

Not that we have a lot of choice in who is next, and whether we accept it or not doesn't really matter, but I would be interested to see what happens. 

Like I said earlier with the rumor of a new minority owner, I think we seeing the groundwork for the sale of the team in the not too distant future, or at least with the passing of JR when it eventually happens.

I wish it were more than rumors. The sale of the White Sox and getting JR removed from anymore stupid decisions with the White Sox cannot happen soon enough! 

[The Kids Can Play]

On 10/28/2021 at 8:01 AM, shago said:

Challenge ... The Ricketts family net worth is >$5B, whether they are Comiskey-esque miserly or not, is a a different question.

The point I was making, is that the Reinsdorfs didn't make a fortune and bring it to ownership, they are wealthy on paper because of smart investments in the teams in the early 80s. If the team stays in the family, nothing will change.

Agreed!. That's why ideally it should be a ridiculous billionaire owner like Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk who would spend the money. The Reisdorf family needs to move on.