What's the Best Approach to Rebuilding

[caulfield12]

Go back and look at White Sox historical attendance. It can go a LOT lower.

 

 

But then you're getting offsets from the IFSA and taxpayers.

 

That's true, there's a scenario we lose another 25% from our attendance...and go all the way down to 1.5 million, or, as keeps getting pointed out, 1.3 million with "The Kids Can Play" days.

 

Back then, 50-60% of revenues were derived from ticket sales.

 

Now it has been cut in half, around 25-30%.

 

And a 25%, super dramatic, oblivion-esque fall in attendance would STILL be offset by the $25 million in additional revenue from the new national broadcasting deal. Rising waters float all boats, as they say. MLB.com subscriptions will continue to increase around the world as the game becomes more and more global, etc.

 

Sure, they might have to decrease payroll...but they need to do that anyway. They could be a MUCH better team if you subtracted Dunn, Danks, Floyd, Thornton/Crain and changed out Ramirez as well.

 

The problem isn't our spending AMOUNT. It's HOW we are spending that money, and misallocating it.

 

2005's payroll proved that a team could still probably get by with a $75-95 million payroll in this day and age and still win it all.

 

 

[Cali]

But you will sit through 60 win seasons and continue to buy tickets? If that is the case, you are the exception, not the rule.

 

Well that would involve me buying a plane ticket first

 

But were I living in Chicago, I would be 100x more willing to spend money on that than watch a middle of the road team finish around .500 season after season.

[Cali]

Let's be honest, the White Sox are just not a popular team. They're not going to lose so many of what their aren't a lot of to begin with.

 

I wish there was some sort of smart guy algorithm that could tell you how popular all the MLB franchises are nation or world wide. Something that takes into account attendance per game/year, TV ratings, Hat/Jersey Sales, National Coverage, Pop Culture relevance etc.

 

I would guess that the Sox would wind up around 20+ on that list.

 

Just for fun, I would guess the Top 5 would be:

 

1. Yankees

2. Red Sox

3. Dodgers

4. Cubs

5. Cardinals

 

[southsider2k5]

But then you're getting offsets from the IFSA and taxpayers.

 

That's true, there's a scenario we lose another 25% from our attendance...and go all the way down to 1.5 million, or, as keeps getting pointed out, 1.3 million with "The Kids Can Play" days.

 

Back then, 50-60% of revenues were derived from ticket sales.

 

Now it has been cut in half, around 25-30%.

 

And a 25%, super dramatic, oblivion-esque fall in attendance would STILL be offset by the $25 million in additional revenue from the new national broadcasting deal. Rising waters float all boats, as they say. MLB.com subscriptions will continue to increase around the world as the game becomes more and more global, etc.

 

Sure, they might have to decrease payroll...but they need to do that anyway. They could be a MUCH better team if you subtracted Dunn, Danks, Floyd, Thornton/Crain and changed out Ramirez as well.

 

The problem isn't our spending AMOUNT. It's HOW we are spending that money, and misallocating it.

 

2005's payroll proved that a team could still probably get by with a $75-95 million payroll in this day and age and still win it all.

 

That extra $25 million is a joke. Everyone gets that. It doesn't help the Sox at all, because everyone is getting the same amount.

 

And as has been posting a million times before, bad teams hurt revenues other places, such as advertising and TV contracts.

 

[caulfield12]

Let's be honest, the White Sox are just not a popular team. They're not going to lose so many of what their aren't a lot of to begin with.

 

I wish there was some sort of smart guy algorithm that could tell you how popular all the MLB franchises are nation or world wide. Something that takes into account attendance per game/year, TV ratings, Hat/Jersey Sales, National Coverage, Pop Culture relevance etc.

 

I would guess that the Sox would wind up around 20+ on that list.

 

Just for fun, I would guess the Top 5 would be:

 

1. Yankees

2. Red Sox

3. Dodgers

4. Cubs

5. Cardinals

 

There is a list...although with our hats, we're fairly high on the merchandising side, thanks to all the celebs/rappers, haha.

 

You're forgetting the Giants and the Rangers....they're both top ten franchises now, as well.

 

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, with all that star power, huge attendance and LA market.

 

You can't forget the Mets, simply because of the NY market, but they're definitely down now, despite the new stadium...plus all the financial issues with the Madoff/Wilpon connection.

 

In the end, you can make a credible case for the Sox as high as 14-15-16 and as low as 24-25.

 

The value of the franchise is closer to 12th....and our ticket prices, at least before this season, were averaging around 4th-6th highest in baseball.

 

Had we made the playoffs and finished last season strongly, it would be a completely different picture and feeling, IMO.

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

That extra $25 million is a joke. Everyone gets that. It doesn't help the Sox at all, because everyone is getting the same amount.

 

And as has been posting a million times before, bad teams hurt revenues other places, such as advertising and TV contracts.

 

 

How is it a joke when it would allow us to make the same amount of money even if we lost another 25% of our fanbase, and that's assuming we don't also cut payroll, which surely will be the end result of this year being similar to 2007/2009/2011. (And that's another huge assumption, that we would automatically go down to 1.5 million in any type of rebuild).

 

Besides, have you ever thought the fans might send the message to management that what they're doing RIGHT NOW isn't working and that 1.5-1.6-1.7 million in attendance in 2013 is a legitimate possibility already with the slow start?

 

You're also assuming that all of those other teams out there will put that $25 million back into operating expenses and signing free agents. That's not going to happen.

 

The bottom 4-5-6 teams will do what they always do, which is sit on those profits.

[caulfield12]

That extra $25 million is a joke. Everyone gets that. It doesn't help the Sox at all, because everyone is getting the same amount.

 

And as has been posting a million times before, bad teams hurt revenues other places, such as advertising and TV contracts.

 

Average teams that are veteran filled, underachieving, that almost nobody in the fanbase believes in 100%, with no interesting players or superstars and on the cusp of losing its last "franchise" player in Konerko...

 

That's not a recipe for just a bad team, that's a recipe or formula for a team NOBODY cares about...and apathy is the worst possible result for management.

 

If you're going to be average or below average, at least make the summer interesting SOMEHOW.

[Cali]

There is a list...although with our hats, we're fairly high on the merchandising side, thanks to all the celebs/rappers, haha.

 

You're forgetting the Giants and the Rangers....they're both top ten franchises now, as well.

 

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, with all that star power, huge attendance and LA market.

 

You can't forget the Mets, simply because of the NY market, but they're definitely down now, despite the new stadium...plus all the financial issues with the Madoff/Wilpon connection.

 

In the end, you can make a credible case for the Sox as high as 14-15-16 and as low as 24-25.

 

The value of the franchise is closer to 12th....and our ticket prices, at least before this season, were averaging around 4th-6th highest in baseball.

 

Had we made the playoffs and finished last season strongly, it would be a completely different picture and feeling, IMO.

 

 

Yeah that would be their highest point, but a lot of it comes from non-fans, which would also be the case for the Yankees. More style than substance.

 

Jersey sales would be more accurate, since it's a lot easier to just toss on a hat of a team you're not a fan of than spend $90 + on a jersey.

[Marty34]

That extra $25 million is a joke. Everyone gets that. It doesn't help the Sox at all, because everyone is getting the same amount.

 

And as has been posting a million times before, bad teams hurt revenues other places, such as advertising and TV contracts.

 

If not rebuild, what course of action do you recommend?

[caulfield12]

Yeah that would be their highest point, but a lot of it comes from non-fans, which would also be the case for the Yankees. More style than substance.

 

Jersey sales would be more accurate, since it's a lot easier to just toss on a hat of a team you're not a fan of than spend $90 + on a jersey.

 

Yep.

 

Just watched Oblivion...Tom Cruise sporting a classic, 20's/30's style Yankee cap in that one while on another planet. (Well, to be more accurate, one of the moons of Saturn).

Edited April 22, 2013 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

Average teams that are veteran filled, underachieving, that almost nobody in the fanbase believes in 100%, with no interesting players or superstars and on the cusp of losing its last "franchise" player in Konerko...

 

That's not a recipe for just a bad team, that's a recipe or formula for a team NOBODY cares about...and apathy is the worst possible result for management.

 

If you're going to be average or below average, at least make the summer interesting SOMEHOW.

The last time the White Sox totally rebuilt was after a woeful 1986 season. Please expand on how interesting baseball-wise the summers of 1987,1988 and 1989 were for Sox fans. They did finish the attendance race in the AL those years in 12th, 13th and 14th place out of 14 teams. It's also the last time members of the ownership group were issued cash calls.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

How is it a joke when it would allow us to make the same amount of money even if we lost another 25% of our fanbase, and that's assuming we don't also cut payroll, which surely will be the end result of this year being similar to 2007/2009/2011. (And that's another huge assumption, that we would automatically go down to 1.5 million in any type of rebuild).

 

Besides, have you ever thought the fans might send the message to management that what they're doing RIGHT NOW isn't working and that 1.5-1.6-1.7 million in attendance in 2013 is a legitimate possibility already with the slow start?

 

You're also assuming that all of those other teams out there will put that $25 million back into operating expenses and signing free agents. That's not going to happen.

 

The bottom 4-5-6 teams will do what they always do, which is sit on those profits.

 

Because we are still losing money. Every team gets that $25 million, so it doesn't make up for another $25 million.

 

Also, google the White Sox attendance history, and tell me what happens to attendance when the White Sox selloff.

[Marty34]

The last time the White Sox totally rebuilt was after a woeful 1986 season. Please expand on how interesting baseball-wise the summers of 1987,1988 and 1989 were for Sox fans. They did finish the attendance race in the AL those years in 12th, 13th and 14th place out of 14 teams. It's also the last time members of the ownership group were issued cash calls.

 

So after the rebuild they were extremely profitable. What course of action do you recommend the Sox currently take?

[Balta1701]

So after the rebuild they were extremely profitable. What course of action do you recommend the Sox currently take?

Do what they did to ensure profitability right after that rebuild.

 

Get the state of Illinois to buy them a brand new ballpark.

[Dick Allen]

So after the rebuild they were extremely profitable. What course of action do you recommend the Sox currently take?

The approach they are taking now. They need to draft better obviously, and make better decisions signing Latin players. Paulie is off the books next year, then Dunn the next. They can sign some hitters. I see no reason to blow everything up and start at square one. Of course, I'm not a guy looking to complain about everything, so I may have a different view than others. I'd rather be sick of winning 85 games a year than be sick of winning 70.

 

There is no way anyone can convince me the current White Sox crew is the crew you want directing you in a total rebuild anyway, and the current crew isn't going anywhere for a while. I don't understand how people complain about the Sox lack of talent in the lower levels, yet want the Sox to rebuild through the minor leagues. They haven't produced minor leaguers that could win 75 games in almost 20 years. Why would that suddenly change?

 

If the Sox had done one thing differently, drafted Mike Trout instead of Mitchell, would the rebuilders still be crying about a rebuild?

Edited April 22, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Marty34]

Do what they did to ensure profitability right after that rebuild.

 

Get the state of Illinois to buy them a brand new ballpark.

 

I recall they fielded a legit World Series contender too.

[southsider2k5]

The approach they are taking now. They need to draft better obviously, and make better decisions signing Latin players. Paulie is off the books next year, then Dunn the next. They can sign some hitters. I see no reason to blow everything up and start at square one. Of course, I'm not a guy looking to complain about everything, so I may have a different view than others. I'd rather be sick of winning 85 games a year than be sick of winning 70.

 

There is no way anyone can convince me the current White Sox crew is the crew you want directing you in a total rebuild anyway, and the current crew isn't going anywhere for a while. I don't understand how people complain about the Sox lack of talent in the lower levels, yet want the Sox to rebuild through the minor leagues. They haven't produced minor leaguers that could win 75 games in almost 20 years. Why would that suddenly change?

 

If the Sox had done one thing differently, drafted Mike Trout instead of Mitchell, would the rebuilders still be crying about a rebuild?

 

The thing is, the Sox would have produced an elite pitching staff.

 

Chris Sale, Gio Gonzalez, Brandon McCarthy, Mark Buehrle, Dan Hudson, is a starting five that most of MLB would kill for.

 

Lucas Harrell, Clayton Richards, Hector Santiago, Dylan Axelrod and others are still left over. That isn't even getting into relievers. Its the position players they have struggled at.

[Wedge]

The thing is, the Sox would have produced an elite pitching staff.

 

Chris Sale, Gio Gonzalez, Brandon McCarthy, Mark Buehrle, Dan Hudson, is a starting five that most of MLB would kill for.

 

Lucas Harrell, Clayton Richards, Hector Santiago, Dylan Axelrod and others are still left over. That isn't even getting into relievers. Its the position players they have struggled at.

 

 

More than anything, awful contracts to position players have killed the Sox over the years. Picking up Rios's contract, signing Dunn. Williams was solid at finding guys in other organizations that could contribute as everyday players, but drafting and splashy FA signings were real killers, especially for a franchise that just couldn't afford a lot of bad money.

[Balta1701]

More than anything, awful contracts to position players have killed the Sox over the years. Picking up Rios's contract, signing Dunn. Williams was solid at finding guys in other organizations that could contribute as everyday players, but drafting and splashy FA signings were real killers, especially for a franchise that just couldn't afford a lot of bad money.

Don't underestimate here how important 2011 was to this franchise.

 

You don't go out and sign guys on the FA market for what they're going to do in 3 years. That's a terrible strategy given where the dollar amounts are. If you're signing a guy on the FA market for good money, you sign a guy to win that year. Anything you get at the end of a deal is a bonus, you're signing the deal to improve your team that year.

 

We spent that money in 2011 and guaranteed it a couple years down the road, at which point, the 2011 team completely imploded.

[Cali]

The approach they are taking now. They need to draft better obviously, and make better decisions signing Latin players. Paulie is off the books next year, then Dunn the next. They can sign some hitters. I see no reason to blow everything up and start at square one. Of course, I'm not a guy looking to complain about everything, so I may have a different view than others. I'd rather be sick of winning 85 games a year than be sick of winning 70.

 

There is no way anyone can convince me the current White Sox crew is the crew you want directing you in a total rebuild anyway, and the current crew isn't going anywhere for a while. I don't understand how people complain about the Sox lack of talent in the lower levels, yet want the Sox to rebuild through the minor leagues. They haven't produced minor leaguers that could win 75 games in almost 20 years. Why would that suddenly change?

 

If the Sox had done one thing differently, drafted Mike Trout instead of Mitchell, would the rebuilders still be crying about a rebuild?

 

This is a completely different subject for a completely different time, but I think the Sox have a major issue at developing talent. No matter what talents the player has. If Trout were in the Sox system there's a good chance he'd be having the same kind of development issues that a Trayce Thompson might be having. (And Vice Versa... i.e. some other teams might have turned Mitchell into a superstar by now, who knows?)

[Steve9347]

The best approach to rebuilding is moving your aging assets in years where you're clearly not going to contend.

 

Paul Konerko

Alex Rios

Gavin Floyd

Jake Peavy

 

Parts from one of baseball's best bullpens.

 

Good God, sadly, that's it. That's how bad this team is. There's NOTHING to build around, though, but are we that much worse an MLB team without the players above? If the Sox are going to suck (and they are) with or without these players, they might as well be gone and moved to bring in some good prospects. There are teams ready to compete out there willing to move young players - it happens every year. The White Sox have to stop acting like they're trying to win when they're not trying to win. This offense is abysmal and there's just no chance this team is going to win 80 games, let alone to sneak into the playoffs and get swept in the first round.

[Jerksticks]

The best approach to rebuilding is moving your aging assets in years where you're clearly not going to contend.

 

Paul Konerko

Alex Rios

Gavin Floyd

Jake Peavy

 

Parts from one of baseball's best bullpens.

 

Good God, sadly, that's it. That's how bad this team is. There's NOTHING to build around, though, but are we that much worse an MLB team without the players above? If the Sox are going to suck (and they are) with or without these players, they might as well be gone and moved to bring in some good prospects. There are teams ready to compete out there willing to move young players - it happens every year. The White Sox have to stop acting like they're trying to win when they're not trying to win. This offense is abysmal and there's just no chance this team is going to win 80 games, let alone to sneak into the playoffs and get swept in the first round.

 

Does anyone else think the Sox would have made the WS last year if we had held on? Detroit had a cakewalk through the al playoffs.

 

I still think this team can win.

 

[Chicago White Sox]

I still think a rotation of Sale, Peavy, Danks, Quintana, & Santiago/Johnson can be amongst the best in baseball next year, which is why I'm completely against a firesale. Building a strong rotation is always the hardest part of putting together a playoff caliber team and we already have that part down.

 

However, revamping the offense is going to be a serious challenge for Hahn. He's going to have to use his limited resources very wisely. We desperately need an impact bat or two and generally need better all-around hitters (more AVG/OBP). I'm not sure what's going to be available in free agency, but we should have some money to work with. Hahn is going to have to get really creative with his moves though. I don't envy the position Hahn is in right now, but I do think he can put together a good enough offense by next season with the right moves.

[Balta1701]

I still think a rotation of Sale, Peavy, Danks, Quintana, & Santiago/Johnson can be amongst the best in baseball next year, which is why I'm completely against a firesale. Building a strong rotation is always the hardest part of putting together a playoff caliber team and we already have that part down.

 

However, revamping the offense is going to be a serious challenge for Hahn. He's going to have to use his limited resources very wisely. We desperately need an impact bat or two and generally need better all-around hitters (more AVG/OBP). I'm not sure what's going to be available in free agency, but we should have some money to work with. Hahn is going to have to get really creative with his moves though. I don't envy the position Hahn is in right now, but I do think he can put together a good enough offense by next season with the right moves.

There are some pretty solid potential bats available around the infield. Robinson Cano is obviously the prize, but some other names like Jhonny Peralta, Brian McCann are on the list as guys who regularly produce. Then there's a good number of guys who might be able to give you moderate production or short deals: Utley, Morneau, Morales, Adam Lind, Mike Morse, Stephen Drew if he stays healthy this year. 3b is pretty weak, and outside of Granderson and Ellsbury the OF doesn't impress me, but there are some other DH types in there as well.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/02/2014...ree-agents.html

[Jake]

There is an underlying assumption here that being bad gains you something. It doesn't. There is no reason to give up good players for the sake of doing it. If, in July, we're out of contention, you deal the people that certainly won't be a part of your squad when you expect to be peaking. Paulie, sayonara if that is the case. If Dunn plays well enough to become movable, he'd be gone. Gavin, goodbye.

 

Peavy is signed affordably for the next 2-3 years. You want to be in the playoffs again before that contract ends. Same with Rios.

 

We have money coming off the books with PK and Gavin leaving, a good core of pitching under contract for a while, and a 5-tool OF under contract to build around. Viciedo looks like he should be part of future clubs for years. Alexei is here to stay and appears to be in the midst of a bounceback year. Flowers is probably the C of the next few years and has a decently high ceiling. ADA should be a mainstay, it seems. We have some OF prospects that may come into the fold in the next couple years.

 

Like I said earlier in this thread, it only takes some clever moves to turn you into a contender. We were rebuilding on the fly in '05. We made some savvy moves and won a World Series. A full rebuild that year, which would not have seemed entirely unwarranted, would have made those value pickups moot. IMO, you don't give up good players just for s***s and giggles. "oooo, we could have a top 10 draft pick!" Keep your team as good as you can get it. The key differences are where you big expenditures of money are. You won't sign a Dunn if you don't think you're on the verge of competing; you won't let PK play out this contract if you're not on the verge of competing. However, Rios should be one that stays in the fold regardless. That is, unless you are absolutely blown away in young MLB talent in trade. Then, of course, anyone is fair game.