Rick Hahn

[ScottyDo]

Kenny made some questionable deals that didn't pan out and he also made some excellent deals that really improved the team. The point being Kenny had the cahones to do a deal. He was never content with the roster and he was always looking for a way to make the team on the field better. Dumping AJ and adding Keppinger is a wash at best. Will Danks be ready for opening day, who knows? Will Flowers hit his weight or will he continue to be a .205 hitter? Will Dunn not strike out 200 times? Will Tank stop swinging at pitches 6 inches outside the plate? Will Beckham hit like he actually belongs in the big leagues? Will Thornton not lose 10 games again? Will the Sox actually score runners from 3rd with less then 2 outs? I say we have alot of questions to answer to be considered serious contender to the always strong and improved Tigers. If Hahn adds some more talent we will have a fun summer but he has to prove to a lot of us that he is actually serious about winning this year, so far he has not !!!

These things are true. Aggressive moves are one way to help the team. But a more prudent approach might also result in success. One approach is not necessarily superior to the other, but it's pretty meatballish to put it in terms of "cajones" instead of acknowledging that there are two different approaches that might have equal likelihood of success. You have to give Hahn more time before you declare him gutless instead of foresightful. More time than even the start of the season.

[caulfield12]

I think from a certain point of view that this is actually backwards, that KW was the conservative one and Hahn is the gamblers. KW traded away unproven prospects for proven veterans. I don't care how good the prospect is they are still suspect until they prove it at the MLB level. So KW was trading the gamble for the proven player. Hahn on the other hand seems willing to hold on to everyone and gamble that either the players will improve or that his prospects will come through. Again it's still too early to say it for sure but it appears he is patient and willing to wait for the right deal and not afraid to go into the season with his own players.

 

Thus KW is the more conservative (going more with the proven player) while Hahn is gambling on unproven players.

 

You can substitute Ozzie Guillen for KW in that paragraph as well....Ozzie loved his veteran players, and always deferred to the veteran (remember Pierre vs. Viciedo), with a few notable exceptions.

 

Jenks in 2005

Gordon Beckham, although Ozzie always maintained Gordon was "forced on him" and annointed a superstar in the making before he was ready

 

Or going with Mackowiak/Griffey Jr., over Anderson in 2006, for another example.

[bhawk99]

Doing nothing to improve the current roster does not give the impression that the Sox are serious about competing with Detroit. Unmotivated fans means less tickets sold which means no money for future moves. Give us a real reason to believe we can beat the Tigers and we will spend our money on this years team.

[Marty34]

Seriously, re-read your post. You say there are many more important things than baseball... and in the same post say you can't blame fans for not making the postseason. Do you really not get the conflict in your own two sentences there? You are saying you can't blame the fans for not going, but then blame the team for not having the money to spend? You can't in the same breath make an argument for baseball being unimportant, but also expect baseball teams to spend money they don't have. Its ridiculous.

 

Caufield's post answers this.

[Marty34]

I dont feel like spending the time digging up specific posts, but how about these comments on recent topics:

-Fans not supporting the Sox: Multiple posters found solid facts about attendance and correlations to winning/selling off players. It may be true that the Sox haven't done everything they could to put out the best team on the field, but Sox fans definitely haven't put forth their best effort to support the team. It's not a one way street on either side, both need to get better. Also, the whole moving the team comment irked me, but that was probably more just me.

 

I don't understand the point of ragging on the fans. Those that do never give an acceptable attendance for the team's performance and what the punishment should be for not making that figure. Should the team be taken away, should we not make the postseason? Just what are they getting at?

 

-Sox not spending every dime that comes in: It's a business, private at that. Meaning we don't see their books, and therefore it's extremely hard to see exactly what they are spending and/or saving. It may be much closer to the break even point than we know. It's not like the Sox aren't spending money either, they spend quite a bit actually. Could some areas, such as the draft, get more money or need more money? Sure, but that's changing with the CBA rules anyways.

 

It's odd to me that people blame the customers of the business while management gets a "they are doing all they can."

[bigruss]

I don't understand the point of ragging on the fans. Those that do never give an acceptable attendance for the team's performance and what the punishment should be for not making that figure. Should the team be taken away, should we not make the postseason? Just what are they getting at?

 

 

 

It's odd to me that people blame the customers of the business while management gets a "they are doing all they can."

It's on both sides, 1 part needs to deliver a product people want to watch and the other part needs to show they will support a winning product.

 

Last year the Sox were in first for what, 117 days or something like that? More fans should have been at the park than what we had.

 

That said, a year like 2007 where we just sucked balls, I expect attendance to drop.

[Marty34]

It's on both sides, 1 part needs to deliver a product people want to watch and the other part needs to show they will support a winning product.

 

Last year the Sox were in first for what, 117 days or something like that? More fans should have been at the park than what we had.

 

That said, a year like 2007 where we just sucked balls, I expect attendance to drop.

 

How many more fans? What should the punishment be? Decades of Sox fans getting their brains beaten in by the media for the Cubs outdrawing us has us thinking we're bad fans. Don't succumb to it and continue to hold the ownership accountable to put a better product on the field.

[bigruss]

How many more fans? What should the punishment be? Decades of Sox fans getting their brains beaten in by the media for the Cubs outdrawing us has us thinking we're bad fans. Don't succumb to it and continue to hold the ownership accountable to put a better product on the field.

Ownership put a team in first place for over 100 days last season, fans didn't show up. Sox fans have as many excuses as anybody to not show up. Do the Sox need to play well to get Sox fans to buy tickets? Absolutely. But even a .500 ballclub should be around league average for attendance.

[gosox41]

Ownership put a team in first place for over 100 days last season, fans didn't show up. Sox fans have as many excuses as anybody to not show up. Do the Sox need to play well to get Sox fans to buy tickets? Absolutely. But even a .500 ballclub should be around league average for attendance.

 

 

Agreed.

 

And do I dare blame the fans for the Sox potenitaly not making the playoffs? Know one knows for sure what KW could have done in the trade market if the Sox could have taken on salary. Maybe a move could have been made after Dunn hurt his oblique and Paulie was obviously not himself when his wrist acted up. If the Sox could draw 30K per game, we'd probably be adding payroll this year.

 

But a city like Detroit draws close to 3 million yet they have less people living there and a much worse economic environment. If they can draw close to 3 million and we're gihting with them for first place all year and can't draw 2 million then it says a lot about Sox fans in geners (yes I'm generalizing and that won't go over well with diehards that actually post on this site) but the truth is the truth. The Sox lowered prices next year. Assuming this team is 80-85 wins, how much do you think attendance will increase, if at all.

 

 

I'm tired of hearing these fans whine. Shut up and go to games. A 100 loss team in the same city draws 800,000 more people then the Sox. Tetams in MLB have more expensive tickets then the Sox and still significantly outdraw us. It's all pathetic.

 

And the funny thing is people here rip Hahn for not having a pulse. Are these the same who ripped Kenny for not building anything consistent and going year by year to try to win? I've heard that a lot from Sox fans when I'm just sitting at the ballpark. Well now Rick is doing the exact opposite and people complain there are no trades or signings. Here's why:

 

1. Not much talent to trade a way in the ML roster.

2. Minor League system is bad, our prospects aren't in demand too much.

3. No money to spend due to lack of attendance built on a multitude of lame excuses.

 

 

 

Rant over....for now.

 

 

Bob

 

[peteward]

I wanted KW to have more of a poker face, to have some cunning and guile, to exercise patience. Transparency and all those leaks leading to deals (with over payments) didn't get us very far in most cases. It's far too early (not to mention unfair) to jump to any sort of conclusion about Rick Hahn.

 

This is a very thoughtful post that I entirely agree.

Among the unknowns is, does Hahn have the trust of Jerry Reinsdorf with big money deals and to what extent?

Let's say Hahn has a proposed deal to trade two players plus two prospects to Miami for Giancarlo Stanton, but to make that deal make sense Stanton would need to be signed to a mega multi-year deal. Could Hahn convince Jerry to invest that much money and would Jerry trust his judgment?

JR is a proven winner in this town with the Bulls and our Sox. My thinking is that he will continue to pay for big contracts if that can be translated into more wins and attendance numbers.

Something was wrong last year with the level of enthusiasm that fans had. What the he11 was wrong with us for not supporting the team and getting out to games as much as we had in the past? The Sox were in it until the latter part of the season.

I think the Sox have to be worried that if the 2013 team is in third or fourth place after a few moths, interest and attendance could really tank.

Lastly, is Ventura helping motivate players and has he really shown anything special to us in terms of being a winning Manager?

He sure did not capture the imagination of Sox fans with his apathetic look and passive emotional demeanor.

 

[gatnom]

I think from a certain point of view that this is actually backwards, that KW was the conservative one and Hahn is the gamblers. KW traded away unproven prospects for proven veterans. I don't care how good the prospect is they are still suspect until they prove it at the MLB level. So KW was trading the gamble for the proven player. Hahn on the other hand seems willing to hold on to everyone and gamble that either the players will improve or that his prospects will come through. Again it's still too early to say it for sure but it appears he is patient and willing to wait for the right deal and not afraid to go into the season with his own players.

 

Thus KW is the more conservative (going more with the proven player) while Hahn is gambling on unproven players.

 

I really hate this line of thinking. ALL players are gambles on some level or another. Dunn was one of the most consistent players in the majors for nearly a decade, and as soon as he comes here he falls off a cliff. Alex Rios is also a "proven" MLB player. How much faith do you have that he will be worth $12.5 million next year?

 

Veterans are less likely to outright bust (at least in the early years of their contracts), but are significantly more damaging when they do. It's also pretty unlikely that they ever significantly outperform their contracts in the way a prospect can. You need to achieve some sort of balance if you wish to have some measure of sustained success.

 

 

[caulfield12]

This is a very thoughtful post that I entirely agree.

Among the unknowns is, does Hahn have the trust of Jerry Reinsdorf with big money deals and to what extent?

Let's say Hahn has a proposed deal to trade two players plus two prospects to Miami for Giancarlo Stanton, but to make that deal make sense Stanton would need to be signed to a mega multi-year deal. Could Hahn convince Jerry to invest that much money and would Jerry trust his judgment?

JR is a proven winner in this town with the Bulls and our Sox. My thinking is that he will continue to pay for big contracts if that can be translated into more wins and attendance numbers.

Something was wrong last year with the level of enthusiasm that fans had. What the he11 was wrong with us for not supporting the team and getting out to games as much as we had in the past? The Sox were in it until the latter part of the season.

I think the Sox have to be worried that if the 2013 team is in third or fourth place after a few moths, interest and attendance could really tank.

Lastly, is Ventura helping motivate players and has he really shown anything special to us in terms of being a winning Manager?

He sure did not capture the imagination of Sox fans with his apathetic look and passive emotional demeanor.

 

 

 

There's no doubt this team played better for Ventura (almost all the same players on the roster as 2011, with a few exceptions).

 

In my mind, there's no doubt he also lost us 2-3-4-5 games that a more experienced manager PROBABLY would not have...although there's absolutely no way to prove that.

 

Part of the problem was lack of depth (injuries to the likes of DeAza, Dunn, Konerko and Youkilis hurt a lot down the stretch) on the bench, and it was clear that Ventura didn't trust them.

 

He also had a lot of issues with confidence in terms of trusting his inexperienced (but promising) bullpen.

 

In the end, I still believe a better, more experienced manager could have gotten that team over the hump coming down the stretch.

 

Could Ventura evolve into that manager over time, before he gets bored? We'll just have to wait and see. It will take some convincing.

 

And maybe that was also a reason for the skepticism on the part of the fans. The fact that DET was running out four MVP/Cy Young candidates in Verlander, Scherzer, Cabrera and Fielder, and another one on the cusp in Austin Jackson.

 

We were countering with a completely inexperienced manager, Chris Sale and Jake Peavy pitching on fumes the final two months, along with other rookie pitchers like Quintana, Jones and Reed who were pushed to the breaking point.

Edited January 16, 2013 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

Doing nothing to improve the current roster does not give the impression that the Sox are serious about competing with Detroit. Unmotivated fans means less tickets sold which means no money for future moves. Give us a real reason to believe we can beat the Tigers and we will spend our money on this years team.

I keep reading these posts and thinking about how they could have been written about the A's after they lost Giambi and Damon, or the Cardinals after they lost Pujols.

[southsider2k5]

Doing nothing to improve the current roster does not give the impression that the Sox are serious about competing with Detroit. Unmotivated fans means less tickets sold which means no money for future moves. Give us a real reason to believe we can beat the Tigers and we will spend our money on this years team.

 

This whole "doing nothing" mantra is just meatball fan silliness.

[southsider2k5]

It's on both sides, 1 part needs to deliver a product people want to watch and the other part needs to show they will support a winning product.

 

Last year the Sox were in first for what, 117 days or something like that? More fans should have been at the park than what we had.

 

That said, a year like 2007 where we just sucked balls, I expect attendance to drop.

 

And besides, I showed pretty clearly that even a period of "sustained success" doesn't really get "rewarded" by Sox fans.

[harfman77]

The free agent market this year has materialized much slower than most anticipated. Lohse, Bourn, and perhaps Napoli are all still out there. There are a several dominoes that need to fall into place before teams finalize their rosters headed to the spring. There was a report that the Sox checked in on Justin Upton, so maybe they are still trying to work that. The season is still a ways off and there is no harm in doing due diligence before making any moves. Other than Toronto, there are not many clubs that are being that active this offseason.

[ptatc]

I really hate this line of thinking. ALL players are gambles on some level or another. Dunn was one of the most consistent players in the majors for nearly a decade, and as soon as he comes here he falls off a cliff. Alex Rios is also a "proven" MLB player. How much faith do you have that he will be worth $12.5 million next year?

 

Veterans are less likely to outright bust (at least in the early years of their contracts), but are significantly more damaging when they do. It's also pretty unlikely that they ever significantly outperform their contracts in the way a prospect can. You need to achieve some sort of balance if you wish to have some measure of sustained success.

You may not like it but it is the way many people think . Of course all players can be a bust especially for one season. However, odds are that proven MLB veterans have a better chance to perform than unknown prospects. However, on the other side they may not have the superstar potential either. It's usually a good idea to try some of both. The hard part is picking the right ones.

 

Personally I never considered Alex Rios a proven player. He has always been very inconsistent. He is a veteran but I wouldn't have put him in the proven player category. When KW acquired him it wasn't at the expense of unproven prospects though, just money.

[Marty34]

Ownership put a team in first place for over 100 days last season, fans didn't show up. Sox fans have as many excuses as anybody to not show up. Do the Sox need to play well to get Sox fans to buy tickets? Absolutely. But even a .500 ballclub should be around league average for attendance.

 

What should the fans punishment be for "not showing up"?

[witesoxfan]

What should the fans punishment be for "not showing up"?

 

Ownership spending $100 million instead of $125 million

[hogan873]

What should the fans punishment be for "not showing up"?

I'm assuming this is a bit of a sarcastic question. Fans shouldn't be "punished" for not showing up to the games. We've discussed before that it's not just attendance that fuels a team's income. It's a big part of it, though. I think this might be one area where we agree (I think based on some of your previous posts). Many people, especially those with families, have better places to spend their money than at a baseball game. It's just so damn expensive anymore (as is attending a Bulls, Hawks, or Bears game). The Sox did drop prices, and that will help.

 

I suppose eventually if the fans continue to "not show up", they will be "punished" by their team not being able to go out and get those impact players that would make the team better.

[Marty34]

Ownership spending $100 million instead of $125 million

 

That's one answer.

[witesoxfan]

That's one answer.

 

Well it's a ridiculous question to ask. The burden for getting fans to the park is on the team, and the best way to do that is is to put a winning product out there. The Sox faded down the stretch last year, but they put together a pretty damn good team. All we can hope is that the fans respect that and show up, even without a sexy move.

 

I was reading a Baseball Prospectus book from before the 2006 season started, and they detailed the biggest growths in attendance from one year to the next. In 2000, the Sox had the 3rd biggest up to that point - a 31% increase - that did not involve moving into a new stadium (the Tigers had an increase of like 104% when they moved into Comerica, which is absurd to think about). If they could have maintained that, it likely would have continued to increase, but it did not, so it fell off.

 

(BTW, that 2000 team drew about 20K fewer fans than the 2012 team with far cheaper ticket prices and a team that won 10 more games. Both finished 9th in attendance)

 

However, the idea of a full-on rebuild doesn't work either, as proven by the 1997 and 1998 season - attendance went from 1.86 million down to 1.37 million, and then they lost another 40K fans in 1999. That 97 to 98 drop indicates a 26.8% decrease in attendance. The Sox couldn't afford to lose a quarter of their fans right now.

 

So, yes, bottom line, if the fans don't show up, the Sox won't spend money.

[ZionrulZ]

I think it's the height of arrogance to blame fans not attending games for a team not being able to make the post season. There are many more important things to spend your money on than a baseball game.

Bingo!!!

[witesoxfan]

Bingo!!!

 

You are an interjection machine

[ZionrulZ]

You are an interjection machine

Thank "Grammar Rock".