iamshack Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 23, 2012 -> 10:34 PM) Greg, remember this game from 2010? Just realize that Jenks only got the loss in that game. (what's totally awesome is that there are going to be several people who know, without clicking the link, the exact game I'm talking about, because it was by far the worst baseball experience of my entire life) Thanks for ruining my day, Wite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ May 24, 2012 -> 05:25 PM) Thanks for ruining my day, Wite. Wite is good for that. Almost as good as Greg stating that a ring trumps every argument ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 24, 2012 -> 04:48 PM) Kenny acquired them. We know that. He's been demonized for it. No, he's acquired none of those players you mentioned. He didn't acquire De Aza either, who he could have played over Rios last year. He didn't acquire Viciedo, who he could have played over Dunn. And look at how many of those guys have bounced back since they got away from Ozzie. Nick Swisher... Jim Thome... Adam Dunn... Alex Rios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 24, 2012 -> 04:49 PM) And look at how many of those guys have bounced back since they got away from Ozzie. Nick Swisher... Jim Thome... Adam Dunn... Alex Rios. I don't know if it's completely fair to say Thome bounced back, since he was always pretty darned good with the Sox. His last year was a bit disappointing by Thome standards, but hardly "bad." But yeah, his 2010 season with the Twins was pretty impressive, while he was healthy and somewhat limited in his plate appearances and exposure to LHP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 24, 2012 -> 08:57 PM) But yeah, his 2010 season with the Twins was pretty impressive, while he was used properly like some of us wanted Ozzie to do 3 years beforehand. Fixed that for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Hey, if you don't ignore the obvious Greg Ozzie baiting, it will go away. Some of you are more obsessed with Ozzie than he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 24, 2012 -> 08:52 PM) Hey, if you don't ignore the obvious Greg Ozzie baiting, it will go away. Some of you are more obsessed with Ozzie than he is. Can we just censor "Ozzie" on the board? That'd be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_...pic_id=28242600 I think Stanton hit this one farther than the one he hit two days ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Is Miami's stadium indoor? Retractible roof? Please tell me most games are played with the roof open? I hate domes. Ozzie does too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ May 24, 2012 -> 05:25 PM) Thanks for ruining my day, Wite. Atleast you weren't there with your girlfriend decked out in White Sox gear trying to show her how awesome baseball could be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ May 25, 2012 -> 12:13 AM) Is Miami's stadium indoor? Retractible roof? Please tell me most games are played with the roof open? I hate domes. Ozzie does too. Retractable roof. They have some wall windows they can open as well. Supposedly for games, roof closed, windows open is the setting they prefer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ May 24, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) 100 percent yes and you know that. Tex for whatever reason refuses to acknowledge that and instead tries to make witty comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the point all of us are making. I would rather the team lose money and win than make money and lose. I "lose" money every month on my mortagage but I am building equity. The value of the franchise continues to rise. It isn't like the investors will lose money on their investment long term. If people are really that interested in the team's finances, send them a check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ May 25, 2012 -> 09:51 AM) I would rather the team lose money and win than make money and lose. I "lose" money every month on my mortagage but I am building equity. The value of the franchise continues to rise. It isn't like the investors will lose money on their investment long term. If people are really that interested in the team's finances, send them a check. I'm sure every single fan agrees with this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 For 2010, according to Forbes, the team showed a $26million profit. In 2011 they again showed a profit according to Forbes. In fact only three teams showed loses in 2011. Tigers (won division), Mets (sucked), and Red Sox (90 wins). I'd rather be the Tiger's fan winning a division than losing the division but knowing the owners made a few million bucks profit. So what's that done for our Sox? Flexibility to land an aging out of position fill-in 3rd baseman while MB is pitching in Florida? That's something the fans will come out to see. I understand looking for something to feel good about this season. If it's performance to the balance sheet that gets you excited, cool. But I'm just not that excited about returns in someone else's portfolio. I haven't seen years of profits directly leading to years of winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ May 25, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) For 2010, according to Forbes, the team showed a $26million profit. In 2011 they again showed a profit according to Forbes. In fact only three teams showed loses in 2011. Tigers (won division), Mets (sucked), and Red Sox (90 wins). I'd rather be the Tiger's fan winning a division than losing the division but knowing the owners made a few million bucks profit. So what's that done for our Sox? Flexibility to land an aging out of position fill-in 3rd baseman while MB is pitching in Florida? That's something the fans will come out to see. I understand looking for something to feel good about this season. If it's performance to the balance sheet that gets you excited, cool. But I'm just not that excited about returns in someone else's portfolio. I haven't seen years of profits directly leading to years of winning. Not a single person has said that, but I see it makes you feel better to keep making that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (fathom @ May 24, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) Wasn't one of the main reasons KW could sign a lot of free agents (Dye, Hermanson, Iguchi, AJ) due to not being handcuffed by Carlos Lee's contract anymore? But they signed someone. They spent the money. They weren't holding it looking to make a profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ May 25, 2012 -> 09:51 AM) I would rather the team lose money and win than make money and lose. I "lose" money every month on my mortagage but I am building equity. The value of the franchise continues to rise. It isn't like the investors will lose money on their investment long term. If people are really that interested in the team's finances, send them a check. You also can't buy a Gold Coast penthouse on your salary, which is the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 25, 2012 -> 10:22 AM) You also can't buy a Gold Coast penthouse on your salary, which is the point. No I can't. Or a guest house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 25, 2012 -> 10:20 AM) Not a single person has said that, but I see it makes you feel better to keep making that point. Really, no one here believes strongly that the team should not have signed MB because they need to turn a profit this season to be contenders? Then I apologize. I thought that was exactly what some people were saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ May 25, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) Really, no one here believes strongly that the team should not have signed MB because they need to turn a profit this season to be contenders? Then I apologize. I thought that was exactly what some people were saying. If the team is going to avoid losing money and be in contention, then it should not sign players to bad contracts they are unlikely to live up to. Having players signed to bad contracts is why we're rebuilding this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 25, 2012 -> 10:29 AM) If the team is going to avoid losing money and be in contention, then it should not sign players to bad contracts they are unlikely to live up to. Having players signed to bad contracts is why we're rebuilding this year. There are not too many guarantees that players will live up to their contracts. What qualities would you look for in someone that would? Injury history? Consistency of seasons? Age? Conditioning? Attitude? History with a team / town / organization? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (Tex @ May 25, 2012 -> 10:34 AM) There are not too many guarantees that players will live up to their contracts. What qualities would you look for in someone that would? Injury history? Consistency of seasons? Age? Conditioning? Attitude? History with a team / town / organization? Most of those qualities would be taken into consideration among many others. Except for a history with a team, that really means little in predicting a player's future performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 25, 2012 -> 11:03 AM) Most of those qualities would be taken into consideration among many others. Except for a history with a team, that really means little in predicting a player's future performance. If the player has had frequent run-ins with the manager, key players, or others within the organization, I think that would be a good reason to not sign them. Likewise, if they are happy in the city, have represented the organization well, that could factor in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 25, 2012 -> 10:29 AM) If the team is going to avoid losing money and be in contention, then it should not sign players to bad contracts they are unlikely to live up to. Having players signed to bad contracts is why we're rebuilding this year. Part 1. Teams have lost money and been in contention. So we wouldn't be rebuilding if those guys were signed to league minimum contracts? We're rebuilding because a couple players are playing poorly who were counted on for mayor contributions. It doesn't matter if they are making league minimum or heavier. They need to be replaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Tex @ May 25, 2012 -> 03:11 PM) For 2010, according to Forbes, the team showed a $26million profit. In 2011 they again showed a profit according to Forbes. In fact only three teams showed loses in 2011. Tigers (won division), Mets (sucked), and Red Sox (90 wins). I'd rather be the Tiger's fan winning a division than losing the division but knowing the owners made a few million bucks profit. So what's that done for our Sox? Flexibility to land an aging out of position fill-in 3rd baseman while MB is pitching in Florida? That's something the fans will come out to see. I understand looking for something to feel good about this season. If it's performance to the balance sheet that gets you excited, cool. But I'm just not that excited about returns in someone else's portfolio. I haven't seen years of profits directly leading to years of winning. Hopefully the Sox learned a lesson with the Buehrle fiasco. Think of how many fans just gave up on their season tix last winter (LOTS) when the team didn't sign Mark. Lots of ill will there. Remember how bad a season Dunn and Rios had? Fans were asked to buy tickets for a franchise that would pay those 2 and not pay Mark. Fans on the southside can't be fooled. Letting Mark walk was a BAD business decision. Edited May 25, 2012 by greg775 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.