Jump to content

Rick Hahn


ZionrulZ

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 12:29 PM)
Are you saying longterm? Current ownership is very conservative, small risk/small reward type. I believe the Sox are a sleeping giant that a new owner with fresh ideas and who builds a team that has "sustained success", would put 32-33,000 in the seats every night.

What exactly do you think ownership does other than approve financial-related decisions and choose a GM?

 

The vision of the organization is up to the GM and now the team president and I definitely wouldn't use conservative to describe KW. In fact, KW was probably the most aggressive GM in baseball during his tenure. Now we're going with a more stats-oriented GM, who should have plenty of fresh ideas.

 

So what it all comes down to is that you're pissed Reinsdorf runs his business like a business and doesn't spend more than he makes. I don't know what to tell you, but if that's your beef then maybe sports shouldn't be your hobby. You'll be waiting a long time if you expect Reinsdorf to not only sell the team, but to also sell to a Mark Cuban like owner who will run the team like an expensive little toy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 842
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 02:05 PM)
What exactly do you think ownership does other than approve financial-related decisions and choose a GM?

 

The vision of the organization is up to the GM and now the team president and I definitely wouldn't use conservative to describe KW. In fact, KW was probably the most aggressive GM in baseball during his tenure. Now we're going with a more stats-oriented GM, who should have plenty of fresh ideas.

 

So what it all comes down to is that you're pissed Reinsdorf runs his business like a business and doesn't spend more than he makes. I don't know what to tell you, but if that's your beef then maybe sports shouldn't be your hobby. You'll be waiting a long time if you expect Reinsdorf to not only sell the team, but to also sell to a Mark Cuban like owner who will run the team like an expensive little toy.

 

I know you are saying it in a comparative manner, but I'm pretty sure Reinsdorf has said that his biggest mistake as chairman of the Bulls was to allow Cuban in the league and that he would never approve it in the MLB. An auction style sale is the only way Cuban would ever acquire a team.

 

Personally, I think they should sell every team auction style rather than sale and approval, but it keeps the riff-raff out if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying longterm? Current ownership is very conservative, small risk/small reward type. I believe the Sox are a sleeping giant that a new owner with fresh ideas and who builds a team that has "sustained success", would put 32-33,000 in the seats every night.

Especially if they were smart enough to move the team to the South Loop!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even understand the point of this whole thread anymore.

 

It used to be that KW needed to be replaced. Now it's that ownership needs to be replaced. (Beats head against the wall).

 

The only owner who would satisfy Marty is another version of Illitch or Arte Moreno, apparently, or the Dodgers' group.

 

Even the St. Louis Cardinals throughout the past decade have operated on a pretty tight budget, compared to the way they operated in the 80's and most of the 90's. They didn't become huge spenders after McGwire's career went downhill, they became smarter and more efficient (see decision to let Pujols walk, which went against any type of conventional wisdom in the city that they would never let him play in another team's uniform).

 

This thread should have been about what Hahn has or hasn't done, and how his style is different and whether it will work or not (nobody knows yet).

 

And arguing about low attendance versus actual revenues is a different argument altogether, as the White Sox probably have the biggest disparity between their place in the attendance standings versus their place in the revenue/profitability standings, if there was such a thing.

 

The best complaint is that the White Sox are in a difficult situation vis a vis the Tigers' current roster, so Marty is advocating that JR "double down" and go "all in" a second time in 3 years rather than playing it right down the middle and hoping to catch lightning in a bottle like 2008, 2010 and 2012 (for parts of those two years).

The fear, and it's a legitimate one, is that the odds of spending our way into 1st place are much lower than "developing" our way into 1st. The main problem there is simply patience.

 

But if you look at how we've done recently with how the Twins have done over the last two seasons, would ANYONE go back and trade places with Twins' fans from 2001-2012. Sure, they have had more consistent success, more playoff appearances, but they never won the World Series and they're in an even worse position than the White Sox going forward despite their new stadium.

 

Maybe it's simply the frustration that the Royals' two decades long rebuilding process might actually bear fruit, whereas the White Sox, once again for obvious reasons, have failed to completely tear things down. Marty never brings up the fact that the White Sox are too loyal, but one of the reasons that the Sox have failed has been sticking with players like Contreras and now perhaps Konerko a year or two longer than they should have...but they've shown with Dye, Thome, Buehrle and now AJ that they're willing to move forward and are becoming more results-driven and analytical in their approach. Perhaps that means they do trade Alexei Ramirez instead of waiting for his value to dwindle further vis a vis his contract, or they part ways with Matt Thornton. But I think history might tell us when looking back in the future that the White Sox were both too loyal and simultaneously tinkered TOO MUCH instead of sticking with a team with chemistry and letting things play out over 2-3 seasons with the same same group. We were loyal to the core players, perhaps too loyal, but not enough to the other 15-18+ players on the roster.

 

And for another example of looking at what the White Sox have been quite successful at avoiding, look at the example from the Pacific Northwest. See how well that once great fanbase has taken to year after year of rebuilding, or, more closer to home, the Indians.

 

 

 

 

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:29 PM)
Are you saying longterm? Current ownership is very conservative, small risk/small reward type. I believe the Sox are a sleeping giant that a new owner with fresh ideas and who builds a team that has "sustained success", would put 32-33,000 in the seats every night.

Why do you think that? Please be specific with what steps ownership could take to wake the sleeping giant. "Winning" is not specific enough, nor is "sustained success".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 02:29 PM)
Why do you think that? Please be specific with what steps ownership could take to wake the sleeping giant. "Winning" is not specific enough, nor is "sustained success".

 

You're not going to accomplish it if you don't first build a team that has sustained success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:02 PM)
You're not going to accomplish it if you don't first build a team that has sustained success.

 

 

Other than the Braves for 15 years, and the Yankees, and the mini-runs of Red Sox, Giants and Rangers, what examples do you have that would satisfy your benchmark?

 

The Twins? The A's? The Mariners in the 90's and early 00's?

 

Let's see. We have the Braves (whose fanbase is always compared with ours in being too spoiled and not even selling out playoff games), Yankees, Cardinals, Giants, Rangers and you'll probably try to include the Angels, although they clearly failed in 2012 despite adding the best player in baseball to their roster, the best rookie (and a Top 5 player) in Trout and the best LH FA pitcher in CJ Wilson.

 

Ultimately, even the Rangers are having to tweak their roster (Hamilton and Young the first to go).

 

So we'll leave it as the Yankees (duh, and it's not like their ROI is satisfying to 90% of their fans since the mid to late 90's), Braves, Cardinals, Giants, Rangers and the Tampa Bay Rays.

 

No, we're not in the Top 20% or so.....but we're definitely not in the bottom 20-30% either. Over the last 15 years or so, the only season we became completely irrelevant was 2007, although you probably include 2009 (although the Rios and Peavy acquisitions would counter that) and 2001 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:09 PM)
Okay, let's go back a step. Why do you think the Sox fanbase is more of a sleeping giant than some average fanbase?

 

Because the Sox fan base is a subset of a metropolitan area with 8M people in it. That's a ton of people to draw from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:09 PM)
Okay, let's go back a step. Why do you think the Sox fanbase is more of a sleeping giant than some average fanbase?

 

 

1) Chicago media market

2) Unique position of the team having ownership rights of its television provider and having the future ability to take advantage of the explosion in local/regional sports network contracts

3) Cross-marketing with the Bulls

4) Weakness of AL Central for most of its history with a few recent exceptions, but lower payrolls compared to AL East and West

5) Rich and long history of the franchise in Chicago

6) Television ratings are decent despite softer attendance

7) Team still quite profitable in terms of producing overall revenues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 06:16 PM)
Because the Sox fan base is a subset of a metropolitan area with 8M people in it. That's a ton of people to draw from.

Yes, but it's a divided fanbase. Even after winning the title (which seems like a pretty good benchmark for success), the Cubs still outdrew the Sox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 06:19 PM)
1) Chicago media market

2) Unique position of the team having ownership rights of its television provider and having the future ability to take advantage of the explosion in local/regional sports network contracts

3) Cross-marketing with the Bulls

4) Weakness of AL Central for most of its history with a few recent exceptions, but lower payrolls compared to AL East and West

5) Rich and long history of the franchise in Chicago

6) Television ratings are decent despite softer attendance

7) Team still quite profitable in terms of producing overall revenues

See, now THOSE are reasons! Marty, take notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:16 PM)
Because the Sox fan base is a subset of a metropolitan area with 8M people in it. That's a ton of people to draw from.

 

But, only 1/3rd's or, at best, 40% of that same subset.

 

And we've often acknowledged that 85-90% of the regional/touristic traffic coming for games goes to Wrigley. The Sox have gone a horrible job letting much of Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin fall into the hands of the Cubs, Twins, Brewers, Cardinals and Tigers...partly due to WGN, partly due to their radio network.

 

 

Compared to NY, SF/OAK and SoCal and those population bases, we're not nearly in the same position as the Mets or Angels. If the A's can ever get out of Oakland and that horrible stadium, they'll be able to compete more consistently as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:22 PM)
See, now THOSE are reasons! Marty, take notes.

 

Fun to do Marty's job for him, haha.

 

I'll add a few more.

 

A) The fact that the White Sox haven't fully recovered from the Wilder/Dominican Republic scandal

B) The fact that we've yet to see the full results of the more level playing field in hs/collegiate drafting (Hawkins, Beck and Barnum are super encouraging)

C) The Cuban Connection

D) See Item B in terms of signing international free agents

E) We've managed to accomplish all of these things on the backs of "blue collar" players like Buehrle, AJ, Thome, Rowand, Crede, Jenks, Dye and Konerko who are more or less "anti-superstar" players...in other words, if we get our own version of Cespedes (likely it has to be Viciedo, Thompson or Hawkins), watch out!

F) Presence of Don Cooper

G) Loyalty of ownership group

H) The fact that our new stadium was once considered the worst new MLB facility in the last 2 decades but we succeeded in the face of that obstacle

I) Hardcore rappers, knightni, and many of the fans of the Step UP! franchise enjoy Sox merchandise

J) For an added bonus, when you walk around Asian countries sporting a New Era Sox cap, girls think your cap actually says "SEX" and not SOX and it provides you the opportunity to explicate about White Sox baseball, haha

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 09:30 PM)
J) For an added bonus, when you walk around Asian countries sporting a New Era Sox cap, girls think your cap actually says "SEX" and not SOX and it provides you the opportunity to explicate about White Sox baseball, haha[/b]

A true martyr for the cause... turning a chance to get your rocks off into a Sox indoctrination session!

 

I salute you, Sir. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 12:35 PM)
There is a problem that the plan the Sox have to "win a championship" is too expensive for them to execute. They either need to change the plan or improve the revenues. Instead of doing either, they stay in the middle.

You are confusing ownership with management. The ownership routinely spends enough to be in the top ten in salary in MLB. The funds are there. How it is spent is another category. That is how the GM allocates it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 04:30 PM)
J) For an added bonus, when you walk around Asian countries sporting a New Era Sox cap, girls think your cap actually says "SEX" and not SOX and it provides you the opportunity to explicate about White Sox baseball, haha

 

Yeah, I'd skip the White Sox talk at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 02:10 PM)
I know you are saying it in a comparative manner, but I'm pretty sure Reinsdorf has said that his biggest mistake as chairman of the Bulls was to allow Cuban in the league and that he would never approve it in the MLB. An auction style sale is the only way Cuban would ever acquire a team.

 

Personally, I think they should sell every team auction style rather than sale and approval, but it keeps the riff-raff out if nothing else.

 

What beef do you have with Cuban?

Edited by pettie4sox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 03:30 PM)

J) For an added bonus, when you walk around Asian countries sporting a New Era Sox cap, girls think your cap actually says "SEX" and not SOX and it provides you the opportunity to explicate about White Sox baseball, haha

Well played Caulfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 12:30 PM)
Thanks for the update. Next time we'll ask.

 

As crappy as your arguments and waffling has been in this thread, I have kept my opinions to myself because you seem to think the mods/admins are picking on you for some reason other than your irrational, knee-jerk responses. But you sir, have reached a new low as this retort is one of the most condescending, rude remarks that I have seen on Soxtalk in recent memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year, teams with the top 15 payrolls in baseball averaged 81.4 wins while the bottom 15 had 80.6 wins. In other words, money does not necessarily buy wins, or even guarantee a spot in the World Series. In the past 14 years that the Yankees have topped the major leagues in spending, more than a third of World Series finalists were in the middle or bottom third in total team payroll. Further, even if the Yankees shed enough salaries to get beneath $189 million, they will likely remain among the top five teams in that category. Currently, the Yankees are slated to be second in payroll to the Los Angeles Dodgers next year.

 

"How many World Series winning teams the last 10 years had a payroll over 189 (million)? One," Steinbrenner reminded reporters as he left Major League Baseball's quarterly owners' meeting this week.

 

 

The one team? The 2009 Yankees.

 

www.yahoo.com/sports/mlb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another day and again no moves to improve this team by Rick Hahn. I guess he will just be happy to just finish ahead of the Indians, Twins and maybe the Royals. Some of Kenny's moves were questionable but at least he tried to make this team more competitive with the Tigers. Hey Rick, grow a set and do something just to let us know you are still alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...