Philosophical discussion...when a business isn't attracting custom

[Steve9347]

for its product, is it ever justifiable for that business to blame the consumers for the non-performance of whatever product or service they are selling?

 

The reason I bring this up is because I was wracking my brain for an example.

 

It has been commonly accepted by many at different Sox websites that the team is justified in not spending money at the deadline or in the off-season (if the Sox will be spending more money than they've earned or are projected to earn...of course, we've never been privy to that actual information, other than making educated guesses from Forbes, comments made by the organization, etc.)

 

Obviously, last year, the team was in first place and the moves for Youkilis, Liriano and Myers were logical and didn't cost a boatload of talent or money.

 

But this season presents a different twist, and there are even more needs to make a legitimate argument about finishing with an 87-91 win team. Not only that, but we're in a quandary about long-term development vs. competing in the short term, and we're in a precarious position trading away what prospects we do have for the 10-15-20% chance of having a playoff team this year, albeit one with quite a few flaws.

 

 

 

At any rate, I couldn't think of any business or product where the response of the market was "tepid" and the management/ownership group didn't change the people in charge of marketing that aforementioned product.

 

The only examples I could think of were non-profits/NGO's/501-c-3's (obviously different than for-profits) who were all competing for donation dollars....and many go out of business or simply disappear. However, you can't "sell" a non-profit for $1 billion dollars or take out excess revenues from the budget for the Board of Directors without incurring legal and IRS penalties.

 

So other than the White Sox, is there is any other business or product that we can name where the consumers (or fans) are blamed for the failure or shrinking revenues derived from that product?

 

And where the marketing team in place hasn't been changed...perpetuating the notion that it's the consumers' (fans) fault and not the operational model of the business itself?

What business would be smart to change the marketing message prior to fixing the product itself? You can market all you want, at the end there has to be a product worth selling.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Good post, and I agree. It's one of the reasons I've advocated for using Alexei as a trade chip. The Sox did a great job of unloading Santos when they did, it's just too bad they overvalued Molina.

Yeah that Molina deal hurt. I'm not sure what happened there. Kenny didn't seem to know much about him, the deal was done quick.... there was a lot going on then. Kenny knew he was stepping away, Hahn was about to step in, Paddy came over & Molina was Paddy's guy... somewhere along the line I think the chain broke down and people didn't do their homework.

 

Personally I believe you should always make the best of whatever resources you are fortunate enough to have. For us IMO no deal for a pitcher should EVER go down without a personal OK from Don Cooper after Coop has seen a good amount of video on the kid. If Coop believes in the arm, the mechanics, etc. and the FO thinks he's a good kid who will work hard and adjust, then I make that deal, simple as that, and if I get burned, oh well it happens. But that Molina deal didn't seem to be the product of a very thorough process.

[caulfield12]

What business would be smart to change the marketing message prior to fixing the product itself? You can market all you want, at the end there has to be a product worth selling.

 

 

But in the meantime, with all the geniuses in the marketing world (see Cuban's online uniform design contest for the Mavericks), certainly SOMEONE out there who loves or cares about the White Sox can come up with something better than "Make An Impact" or "The Will to Win."

 

C'mon.

 

It's called "rebranding."

Edited May 23, 2013 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Yeah that Molina deal hurt. I'm not sure what happened there. Kenny didn't seem to know much about him, the deal was done quick.... there was a lot going on then. Kenny knew he was stepping away, Hahn was about to step in, Paddy came over & Molina was Paddy's guy... somewhere along the line I think the chain broke down and people didn't do their homework.

 

Personally I believe you should always make the best of whatever resources you are fortunate enough to have. For us IMO no deal for a pitcher should EVER go down without a personal OK from Don Cooper after Coop has seen a good amount of video on the kid. If Coop believes in the arm, the mechanics, etc. and the FO thinks he's a good kid who will work hard and adjust, then I make that deal, simple as that, and if I get burned, oh well it happens. But that Molina deal didn't seem to be the product of a very thorough process.

 

Plus, you factor in the long-term extension being signed...then, to turn right around and trade that player, but then re-sign John Danks to a (for the White Sox) huge extension in years and dollars for a pitcher.

 

It still to this day is a puzzle wrapped in an enigma. They were just incredibly fortunate to get out from under the Santos contract that they shouldn't have given him in the first place with the way that previous season ended for him...

 

 

TESLA would be another example, from the world of business. They just repaid their $465 million dollar government loan earlier than expected.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/tes...arly/?src=twrhp

Edited May 23, 2013 by caulfield12

[kitekrazy]

American automakers/designers.

 

Essentially, that's what happened over the 70's, 80's and 90's as they finally responded to foreign competition and improved their products and went bankrupt in the process, with the exception of Ford.

 

Nokia, would be another.

 

Apple Company, when they alienated Jobs and went through a lost generation of products in the wilderness with a Wal-Martesque leader.

 

I think that people are not so forgiving when it comes to autos and sports. When you switch to Toyota or Honda after some of the crap US cars, you don't go back. The Sox lost viewing audience in the 80's with Sportsvision and that one strike season. Odd that some things get passed on to another generation. There is still hatred in Baltimore over the Colts despite the Ravens winning 2 Super Bowls.

 

Plus there is no one like Frank Thomas. He and Jordan were a franchise. The Sox don't have a guy like that anymore.

Edited May 23, 2013 by kitekrazy

[kitekrazy]

We need to make the right moves. That's what our FO people are there for. They're supposed to have oodles and oodles of information on every player out there. There are supposed to be scouts out there doing work looking for our next SS, CF, RF, 1B, etc. There is some talent on the farm to trade, but a lot of the position players have holes in their swings big enough to drive a truck through, so how about trading some MLB pieces? We should I think. We should have done that over the offseason. And we don't need sexy names, we just need results. Look for another Uribe (cost Aaron Miles), look for another buy low/fallen out of favor type like Floyd was, etc.

 

We can do all of that if our people are doing their jobs. We just need to identify the players, make the moves, and we need to get cracking on this s*** because deals take time to get done, and after the deadline you've only got 2 months worth of audition time to help you make decisions over the winter. Can't be sitting around with our thumbs up our asses wondering if we're a contender or not.

 

JMO.

 

Maybe they are horrible. It seems the busts in the system are the multi sport players. They seem to get athletes but not baseball players. Some flaws can't be fixed at the professional level. Drafting and developing may be the two biggest problems in this organization. You have to point a finger the JR since they draft the agent instead of the player. Better players will get the better agents. The same group of people are repeating the same mistakes. Things need to be gutted at the top.

 

[caulfield12]

Maybe they are horrible. It seems the busts in the system are the multi sport players. They seem to get athletes but not baseball players. Some flaws can't be fixed at the professional level. Drafting and developing may be the two biggest problems in this organization. You have to point a finger the JR since they draft the agent instead of the player. Better players will get the better agents. The same group of people are repeating the same mistakes. Things need to be gutted at the top.

 

 

Josh Fields and Joe Borchard immediately come to mind, and RHP Brian West was a football player at LSU, I can't remember if Brian Anderson was just a baseball player...he also fits the toolsy/athletic mold without a refined technical approach.

 

Mitchell over Trout (the Yankees are the only other team who were on Trout, because he grew up in their backyard)...Keenyn Walker was an All-State football player at Judge Memorial High School in Utah, another example.

 

Trayce Thompson's father and brothers, NBA family.

 

Crossing fingers on Barnum and Hawkins for the moment.

 

 

 

Then we have all those "weird" draft picks like Royce Ring and Aaron Poreda, where nearly everyone had them pegged as relievers from the get-go...like drafting a punter or kicker in the 1st three rounds of the NFL draft.

 

 

Finally, the "limited upside" college pitcher selections of Broadway (relatively high) and McCulloch.

Edited May 23, 2013 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

VS BOSTON RED SOX (HOME GAMES)

 

AUG 24-25-26, 2007 (14.5 GB)

30,581--37,639--38,874--36,745

 

2008 (Fri/Sat/Sun/Mon at end of season, tied or leading division)

38,621--39,243--39,008--32,634

 

2009 (FRI-MON, September, 7 GB)

28,839--33,239--32,134--22,511

 

2010 (Sept, 10 GB)

19,750--16,982--32,084

 

2011 (July, Fri-Sat-Sun)

27,513--33,919--28,278

 

2012 (April, Thur-Sun)

20,266--20,414--20,057--22,811

 

 

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

American automakers/designers.

 

Essentially, that's what happened over the 70's, 80's and 90's as they finally responded to foreign competition and improved their products and went bankrupt in the process, with the exception of Ford.

 

 

Nokia, would be another.

 

Apple Company, when they alienated Jobs and went through a lost generation of products in the wilderness with a Wal-Martesque leader.

 

No it wouldn't. Ford never dropped the F line of trucks during their worst years. Apple never ditched the Mac. Toyota never traded the Camary.

[caulfield12]

No it wouldn't. Ford never dropped the F line of trucks during their worst years. Apple never ditched the Mac. Toyota never traded the Camary.

 

 

Fine, then New Coke or Clear Pepsi.

 

You said they never dropped this line or that product.

 

In your analogy, does that mean we keep Paul Konerko's ghost around forever, too?

 

 

 

Adapt or die. Tropicana no longer promotes bikini contests or girls with dark/exotic looking tans lathered up with oil, instead concentrating on skin care and skin protection and marketing a product line to women in their 30's, 40's and 50's. Travel agents who don't offer value-added services have disappeared due to competition from the internet.

 

The best we've come up with this year is "The Will To Win" and the false argument we should align with those who have outdated ways of thinking about running a franchise instead of siding with the latest statistical analysis and screening programs to identify both collegiate players as well as minor leaguers from other organizations. (It doesn't matter what they're doing...it matters more what they're perceived to be doing.)

 

For a long time, White Sox marketing consisted largely of hoping they would draw big crowds for fireworks nights. They need to revamp whatever they're doing because it's no longer working. We're losing "market share" year after year since 2006.

Edited May 23, 2013 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Fine, then New Coke or Clear Pepsi.

 

You said they never dropped this line or that product.

 

In your analogy, does that mean we keep Paul Konerko's ghost around forever, too?

 

 

 

Adapt or die. Tropicana no longer promotes bikini contests or girls with dark/exotic looking tans lathered up with oil, instead concentrating on skin care and skin protection and marketing a product line to women in their 30's, 40's and 50's. Travel agents who don't offer value-added services have disappeared due to competition from the internet.

 

The best we've come up with this year is "The Will To Win" and the false argument we should align with those who have outdated ways of thinking about running a franchise instead of siding with the latest statistical analysis and screening programs to identify both collegiate players as well as minor leaguers from other organizations. (It doesn't matter what they're doing...it matters more what they're perceived to be doing.)

 

For a long time, White Sox marketing consisted largely of hoping they would draw big crowds for fireworks nights. They need to revamp whatever they're doing because it's no longer working. We're losing "market share" year after year since 2006.

 

New Coke would be the closest example, as it actually replaced the former. The only problem is that lasted about six months before they brought back the original.

 

The bottom line is that this thread is silly. No business model exists where you can dump your entire product line and still expect customers to show up before you have your next great product. Any thread that tries to tell you differently is just wrong.

[caulfield12]

New Coke would be the closest example, as it actually replaced the former. The only problem is that lasted about six months before they brought back the original.

 

The bottom line is that this thread is silly. No business model exists where you can dump your entire product line and still expect customers to show up before you have your next great product. Any thread that tries to tell you differently is just wrong.

 

 

The problem is NOBODY is advocating dumping an entire product line.New Coke would be the closest example, as it actually replaced the former. The only problem is that lasted about six months before they brought back the original. This isn't letting Robin Ventura go in the prime of his career, or the White Flag trade. Do you honestly think if Paul Konerko played out the season as a .220 hitter with 15 homers and 55 RBI's that ANY fans would not renew their season tickets next year because he wasn't coming back again?

 

Nobody is clamoring for a return of Mark Buehrle or AJ Pierzynski. They just want a clear direction and plan they can believe in and get behind.

 

In the end, the core product is Chris Sale...he has to be successful for the franchise to win anything in the next five years.

 

Around that, you trim away the products that aren't getting a successful ROI (think Hostess going bankrupt and selling off individual brands)...and keep the best remaining ones (Viciedo, Quintana, Santiago) to build around. You leverage other assets (Ramirez/Peavy/Crain) to clear payroll space and bring young blood in to revitalize and re-energize.

 

It's not like the White Sox would be closing their stadium for 3-5 years and disappearing from the face of the earth. The final member of the last product line (Konerko, following AJ and Buehrle) is becoming obsolete and needs to be replaced.

Edited May 23, 2013 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

New Coke would be the closest example, as it actually replaced the former. The only problem is that lasted about six months before they brought back the original.

 

The bottom line is that this thread is silly. No business model exists where you can dump your entire product line and still expect customers to show up before you have your next great product. Any thread that tries to tell you differently is just wrong.

 

 

The problem is NOBODY is advocating dumping an entire product line.

 

The core product is Chris Sale...he has to be successful for the franchise to win anything in the next five years.

 

Around that, you trim away the products that aren't getting a successful ROI (think Hostess going bankrupt and selling off individual brands)...and keep the best remaining ones (Viciedo, Quintana, Santiago) to build around. You leverage other assets (Ramirez/Peavy/Crain) to clear payroll space and bring young blood in to revitalize and re-energize.

 

It's not like the White Sox would be closing their stadium for 3-5 years and disappearing from the face of the earth. The final member of the last product line (Konerko, following AJ and Buehrle) is becoming obsolete and needs to be replaced.

 

 

 

 

[Dick Allen]

The problem is NOBODY is advocating dumping an entire product line.New Coke would be the closest example, as it actually replaced the former. The only problem is that lasted about six months before they brought back the original. This isn't letting Robin Ventura go in the prime of his career, or the White Flag trade. Do you honestly think if Paul Konerko played out the season as a .220 hitter with 15 homers and 55 RBI's that ANY fans would not renew their season tickets next year because he wasn't coming back again?

 

Nobody is clamoring for a return of Mark Buehrle or AJ Pierzynski. They just want a clear direction and plan they can believe in and get behind.

 

In the end, the core product is Chris Sale...he has to be successful for the franchise to win anything in the next five years.

 

Around that, you trim away the products that aren't getting a successful ROI (think Hostess going bankrupt and selling off individual brands)...and keep the best remaining ones (Viciedo, Quintana, Santiago) to build around. You leverage other assets (Ramirez/Peavy/Crain) to clear payroll space and bring young blood in to revitalize and re-energize.

 

It's not like the White Sox would be closing their stadium for 3-5 years and disappearing from the face of the earth. The final member of the last product line (Konerko, following AJ and Buehrle) is becoming obsolete and needs to be replaced.

While on this subject, despite his .215 average, at USCF, the guy who gets the biggest ovations and it's not even close, is Konerko.

[caulfield12]

While on this subject, despite his .215 average, at USCF, the guy who gets the biggest ovations and it's not even close, is Konerko.

 

 

And what does that tell you?

 

That Alex Rios, while the best player on the team after Sale, doesn't have a huge following because of lingering doubts and anger dating back to the 2009 and 2011 seasons.

 

That Gordon Beckham never became the franchise cornerstone he was touted to be when he was drafted.

 

That Jake Peavy, while he has his fans and a big name and salary, was injured so often and has never been the Cy Young winning pitcher we remember from SD, so there's always a lingering sense of disappointment, even though he's worked his butt off to get back to where he is...

 

Dunn...we know that story.

 

Danks...same thing. Nobody wants to see him end up like a noose around the neck of the Sox payroll, but ALMOST everyone is concerned whether he can return to being the same pitcher he was before the surgery.

 

And that AJ/Buerhle are gone and nobody has emerged to replace them as fan favorites.

 

For now, the only position player with the POTENTIAL to do that and be around five years from now is Viciedo.

 

 

 

As we keep saying, this team is lacking both an identity and a younger superstar. Sale is close, but you need a position player to build a franchise around because White Sox fans are so used to offensive fireworks at their home stadium...Carlos Quentin was the closest, but he was not the kind of player who was easy to love, either. You respected and feared him if you were the opponent...but he was always a bit too remote or distant for fans to embrace 100% except for 2008 when he was so good you couldn't help but marvel for 5 months.

Edited May 23, 2013 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

And what does that tell you?

 

That Alex Rios, while the best player on the team after Sale, doesn't have a huge following because of lingering doubts and anger dating back to the 2009 and 2011 seasons.

 

That Gordon Beckham never became the franchise cornerstone he was touted to be when he was drafted.

 

That Jake Peavy, while he has his fans and a big name and salary, was injured so often and has never been the Cy Young winning pitcher we remember from SD, so there's always a lingering sense of disappointment, even though he's worked his butt off to get back to where he is...

 

Dunn...we know that story.

 

Danks...same thing. Nobody wants to see him end up like a noose around the neck of the Sox payroll, but ALMOST everyone is concerned whether he can return to being the same pitcher he was before the surgery.

 

And that AJ/Buerhle are gone and nobody has emerged to replace them as fan favorites.

 

For now, the only position player with the POTENTIAL to do that and be around five years from now is Viciedo.

 

 

 

As we keep saying, this team is lacking both an identity and a younger superstar. Sale is close, but you need a position player to build a franchise around because White Sox fans are so used to offensive fireworks at their home stadium...Carlos Quentin was the closest, but he was not the kind of player who was easy to love, either. You respected and feared him if you were the opponent...but he was always a bit too remote or distant for fans to embrace 100% except for 2008 when he was so good you couldn't help but marvel for 5 months.

IMO, the problem is this team needs a new fanbase. White Sox fans are probably the biggest whiners in baseball. They just took 2 out of 3 against Boston who had 3 starters who were 15-1 on the season, and the White Soxhad to scratch their ace in the finale. Yet, people are complaining.

 

There are many people on this board who whine when the Sox lose, but in their minds the solution is to lose games. So they aren't happy losing, but want to lose even more. This is not the NBA. One or 2 drafts don't change you overnight.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Josh Fields and Joe Borchard immediately come to mind, and RHP Brian West was a football player at LSU, I can't remember if Brian Anderson was just a baseball player...he also fits the toolsy/athletic mold without a refined technical approach.

 

Mitchell over Trout (the Yankees are the only other team who were on Trout, because he grew up in their backyard)...Keenyn Walker was an All-State football player at Judge Memorial High School in Utah, another example.

 

Trayce Thompson's father and brothers, NBA family.

 

Crossing fingers on Barnum and Hawkins for the moment.

 

 

 

Then we have all those "weird" draft picks like Royce Ring and Aaron Poreda, where nearly everyone had them pegged as relievers from the get-go...like drafting a punter or kicker in the 1st three rounds of the NFL draft.

 

 

Finally, the "limited upside" college pitcher selections of Broadway (relatively high) and McCulloch.

It's so easy to pull mediocre, low-ceiling types out of other organizations that I always always always am comfortable going with raw tools and ceiling. That should always be the focus IMO. Yes we've picked some very raw types who have busted, and the list goes beyond yours, you caulfield are actually being pretty kind to the Sox here. I think the biggest problem may be the organizational philosophy of developing players - the thought process that leads the way before any action is taken on the field - especially the completely ludicrous & idiotic idea that a player should have to "fail" before he changes anything. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You can talk all you want about wanting to be like the Braves and Twins, but at the end of the day, when you need a player to make a change then you ask him to make a change. If he's not receptive then you trade him. If there's an attitude issue then you trade him. If you get the idea that said player isn't mentally strong enough to make it through the process, or that he's not going to put in the extra work, then you trade him. And you do it early while he still has some value, that way you don't end up shipping him off to Boston for your future slap-hitting grinder DH. It's not so difficult, and I'm not sure why we can't seem to do that. Other teams can turn raw, talented kids into good baseball playing men, but with us they seem to need to be either pretty close to a finished product when we get them or else a pitcher.

Edited May 23, 2013 by The Ultimate Champion

[The Ultimate Champion]

Maybe they are horrible. It seems the busts in the system are the multi sport players. They seem to get athletes but not baseball players. Some flaws can't be fixed at the professional level. Drafting and developing may be the two biggest problems in this organization. You have to point a finger the JR since they draft the agent instead of the player. Better players will get the better agents. The same group of people are repeating the same mistakes. Things need to be gutted at the top.

One of the biggest reasons I hate seeing KW hate is way too much of the farm system issues are put on the GM position (irrespective of who is sitting in the chair) and not so much on ownership. We, as an organization, stuck to our guns re: bonuses to unproven draftpicks/international signees under the last CBA and the fallout from that is ENORMOUS. Just think, if we go overslot for a player in 2003 that we took a bust over, and he turns out, then even though he's probably gone from the 2013 squad, we've likely traded him for pieces that have helped us or at least got a draft pick out of it - or if neither, having said player allowed us to fill a hole without trading further pieces from the farm and/or kept us from spending in free agency on an unnecessary player.

 

The fallout from the old CBA, and the change over to our new system, is going to take several years. The Wilder event - same thing - that's still not over, we're still reeling from that s***, because prospects take several years to pan out usually and when they do they often create their own individual acquisition trees, where player X is traded for Y & Z, Z is released but Y goes as part of a deal for A & B, etc. We've taken some steps definitely but the biggest positive is seeing us spend like a Major League organization, which is something we haven't done in the past and really never did much of under the old CBA.

 

Also there is the anti-Buddy Bell sentiment developing here. It's hard to know how much input he really has as far as the direction an organization takes with a player but, while I am not advocating running this thing backwards like the Pirates organization, we need to be more disciplined I think in the way we offer instruction and we also need to demand core peripheral results sooner out of our minor league players. We also shouldn't be hesitant to look at more trades involving our prospects for other teams' prospects. Every now and then we get the rare Aaron Cunningham-for-Danny Richar deals where 2 teams swap unproven players who have some upside, but I don't think we make enough of those types of deals.

 

I think we need to hire as many good people as we can, and have as many people on the ground as we can, and we need a couple relatively useless bean-counters in here to compile all that information objectively and pass it on without adding a bunch of "Have mercy dadgummit this kid can play!" subjective interference that prevents a good move from happening or worse, turns a good move or a non-move into a bad move.

[Dick Allen]

One of the biggest reasons I hate seeing KW hate is way too much of the farm system issues are put on the GM position (irrespective of who is sitting in the chair) and not so much on ownership. We, as an organization, stuck to our guns re: bonuses to unproven draftpicks/international signees under the last CBA and the fallout from that is ENORMOUS. Just think, if we go overslot for a player in 2003 that we took a bust over, and he turns out, then even though he's probably gone from the 2013 squad, we've likely traded him for pieces that have helped us or at least got a draft pick out of it - or if neither, having said player allowed us to fill a hole without trading further pieces from the farm and/or kept us from spending in free agency on an unnecessary player.

 

The fallout from the old CBA, and the change over to our new system, is going to take several years. The Wilder event - same thing - that's still not over, we're still reeling from that s***, because prospects take several years to pan out usually and when they do they often create their own individual acquisition trees, where player X is traded for Y & Z, Z is released but Y goes as part of a deal for A & B, etc. We've taken some steps definitely but the biggest positive is seeing us spend like a Major League organization, which is something we haven't done in the past and really never did much of under the old CBA.

 

Also there is the anti-Buddy Bell sentiment developing here. It's hard to know how much input he really has as far as the direction an organization takes with a player but, while I am not advocating running this thing backwards like the Pirates organization, we need to be more disciplined I think in the way we offer instruction and we also need to demand core peripheral results sooner out of our minor league players. We also shouldn't be hesitant to look at more trades involving our prospects for other teams' prospects. Every now and then we get the rare Aaron Cunningham-for-Danny Richar deals where 2 teams swap unproven players who have some upside, but I don't think we make enough of those types of deals.

 

I think we need to hire as many good people as we can, and have as many people on the ground as we can, and we need a couple relatively useless bean-counters in here to compile all that information objectively and pass it on without adding a bunch of "Have mercy dadgummit this kid can play!" subjective interference that prevents a good move from happening or worse, turns a good move or a non-move into a bad move.

Dave Wilder was fired 5 years ago. If the White Sox are still reeling from that, how is it people think they can totally rebuild their team in 2 or 3 years?

[The Ultimate Champion]

Dave Wilder was fired 5 years ago. If the White Sox are still reeling from that, how is it people think they can totally rebuild their team in 2 or 3 years?

Given our payroll situation (we can run out a $110M payroll pretty easily) and all the turn-over you see around the league, you can more or less rebuild a Major League team's 25-man roster in 2-3 years. Even great teams with excellent cores turn their rosters over quite a bit year-to-year.

 

OTOH, believing you can totally rebuild an organization in that span is ridiculous, can't happen. That's playstation thinking, and if the organizational philosophy is still problematic, and I think it probably is, then you're still running in sand, maybe just with a better pair of tennis shoes.

[caulfield12]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...54.story?page=1

[Marty34]

IMO, the problem is this team needs a new fanbase. White Sox fans are probably the biggest whiners in baseball. They just took 2 out of 3 against Boston who had 3 starters who were 15-1 on the season, and the White Soxhad to scratch their ace in the finale. Yet, people are complaining.

 

There are many people on this board who whine when the Sox lose, but in their minds the solution is to lose games. So they aren't happy losing, but want to lose even more. This is not the NBA. One or 2 drafts don't change you overnight.

 

How does a team go about getting a new fan base? This is right up there with you being for changes that improve the team.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Marty34

[Dick Allen]

How does a team go about getting a new fan base? This is right up there with you being for changes that improve the team.

You can't, which is why Boyer has an impossible job.

 

The current fanbase whines about everything. It used to be everyone wanted to be the Rays around here. The manager is a genius, they have young talent out of their farm system. Of course winning never entered the equation. Now everyone wants to be like the Cardinals. Could you imagine how you would have minimalized a WS trophy if the Sox had won one winning 83 games?

 

I am always up for changes that improve the Sox chances to win. Your ideas do nothing of the sort. They only improve your opportunity to complain, which is great for you, but not so great for people who would rather be happy the Sox one than have them lose so they can say get rid of so and so he won't be on the next White Sox team that makes the playoffs anyway.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Marty34]

You can't, which is why Boyer has an impossible job.

 

The current fanbase whines about everything. It used to be everyone wanted to be the Rays around here. The manager is a genius, they have young talent out of their farm system. Of course winning never entered the equation. Now everyone wants to be like the Cardinals. Could you imagine how you would have minimalized a WS trophy if the Sox had won one winning 83 games?

 

I am always up for changes that improve the Sox chances to win. Your ideas do nothing of the sort. They only improve your opportunity to complain, which is great for you, but not so great for people who would rather be happy the Sox one than have them lose so they can say get rid of so and so he won't be on the next White Sox team that makes the playoffs anyway.

 

Sox fans are whiners so what. How does that prevent the Sox from winning?

[cabiness42]

Philosophical discussion: How hard is it to understand that a sports franchise isn't like a retail business? My 5 year old gets it.