Eminor3rd Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 09:55 PM) Not true. The reaction to the Dunn signing was decidedly pro around here. That's because no one thought it was a stupid move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 09:57 PM) That's because no one thought it was a stupid move. And popular opinion was wrong. (Fangraphs too.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 09:02 PM) You act like the Sox are a small market team. We've been over this, but there are no laws limiting revenue. Revenue? Do you mean payroll? If so, are you honestly still b****ing about Reinsdorf not spending more than he takes in? I'm sorry, but it's not like we're dealing with a Loria type owner here. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the Sox make a profit most years, but I seriously doubt it's anything of significance. I'm guessing most sports ownership groups operate in a similar fashion, so I'm not exactly sure what your beef is. You basically sound like a whiny little entitled brat by going on about this relentlessly. Can you please just give it a f***ing rest and stop derailing every thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 10:02 PM) Revenue? Do you mean payroll? If so, are you honestly still b****ing about Reinsdorf not spending more than he takes in? I'm sorry, but it's not like we're dealing with a Loria type owner here. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the Sox make a profit most years, but I seriously doubt it's anything of significance. I'm guessing most sports ownership groups operate in a similar fashion, so I'm not exactly sure what your beef is. You basically sound like a whiny little entitled brat by going on about this relentlessly. Can you please just give it a f***ing rest and stop derailing every thread? I mean revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 09:02 PM) And popular opinion was wrong. (Fangraphs too.) Ok, so you're against spending money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harfman77 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 09:02 PM) You act like the Sox are a small market team. We've been over this, but there are no laws limiting revenue. The Sox are not a small market team, but they do not have the revenue of a big market team like the LA teams, the Yankees, Red Sox, or even the Cubs. As a non-Chicagoan, I can not comment as to what the draw the team on the north side of the city has compared to the Sox but to deny there is a difference in the revenue created through licensing, TV deals, and tickets is ignoring reality. Really the best way for the club to increase revenue is to move from the south side of Chicago to a market that they could own, short of that I feel they are doing everything possible to create revenue. If the Sox are making more than they are shelling out, that is a good thing. They have future obligations, like deferred payments to PK, that can be funded now and not have an effect on payroll in the future when the Sox are in their next window of contention. Spending money just cause its there without a real plan is what the Cubs did for the last 30 years, that is not a model for success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 05:56 PM) Because the value of an established #2 starter, should one become available, is going to be prohibitive and if you take Quintana off the table, we likely wouldn't have enough. Clayton Richard, Aaron Poreda, Adam Russell, and Dexter Carter still does not seem prohibitive to me. Nor does Miguel Olivo, Jeremy Reed, and Michael Morse. Nor does Esteban Loaiza. Nor does Antonio Osuna, Jeff Liefer, and Rocky Biddle. These packages acquired Jake Peavy, Freddy Garcia, Jose Contreras, and Bartolo Colon. Given the improving state of the minor league system, the idea that trading for a #2 pitcher is prohibitive is absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 09:25 PM) Everyone looks like a Reinsdorf apologist when arguing with irrational, inconsistent, and made up Reinsdorf rants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 09:45 PM) No one is against spending money. EVERYONE is against making stupid moves in free agency. And everyone else gets the reality that you can't spend money you don't have. As I outlined the other day, a few of Marty's recommendations would have the team over $200 million in payroll this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 25, 2014 -> 10:02 PM) And popular opinion was wrong. (Fangraphs too.) We have seen your list of suggestions. Trust me when I say, they are worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) And everyone else gets the reality that you can't spend money you don't have. As I outlined the other day, a few of Marty's recommendations would have the team over $200 million in payroll this year. Chairman Reinsdorf should sell the team if he can't figure out a way to grow revenues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Chairman Reinsdorf should sell the team if he can't figure out a way to grow revenues. That is something that only a troll or a very selfish person would say, and I'd hate to be thought of as either one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 09:47 AM) Chairman Reinsdorf should sell the team if he can't figure out a way to grow revenues. Very convenient position indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 08:36 AM) Clayton Richard, Aaron Poreda, Adam Russell, and Dexter Carter still does not seem prohibitive to me. Nor does Miguel Olivo, Jeremy Reed, and Michael Morse. Nor does Esteban Loaiza. Nor does Antonio Osuna, Jeff Liefer, and Rocky Biddle. These packages acquired Jake Peavy, Freddy Garcia, Jose Contreras, and Bartolo Colon. Given the improving state of the minor league system, the idea that trading for a #2 pitcher is prohibitive is absurd. So, as pointed out, there are numerous ways. 1) Taking on contracts that become cost-prohibitive to smaller market teams...like SD or the Marlins or the Expos. 2) Peddling prospects that are highly rated but have a high bust rate (Morse was the 3rd most important part of the trade and the one who actually had the best career) 3) Taking on contracts of guys like Contreras who are disappointments to big-market teams but can't, for whatever reason, seem to handle the pressure 4) The draft 5) Cuban, Japanese and Korean pitchers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 08:54 AM) Very convenient position indeed. He might want to rethink the effectiveness of the marketing department, but 90% of marketing the White Sox has always been about winning. It's not like hiring Mike Veeck or the guys who run promotions for the Rays are going to have more than a 5-10% effect, and that would just be a temporarily blip. For the longest time, the only really effective promotional technique was fireworks nights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 09:47 AM) Chairman Reinsdorf should sell the team if he can't figure out a way to grow revenues. But you're against spending money on risky free agent signings now, because Adam Dunn. What do they need more revenue for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 10:02 AM) But you're against spending money on risky free agent signings now, because Adam Dunn. What do they need more revenue for? But not for Grienke, Hamilton, Tanaka, McCann, Santana, Jimenez... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 10:02 AM) But you're against spending money on risky free agent signings now, because Adam Dunn. What do they need more revenue for? When did I say that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 10:05 AM) When did I say that? I felt it was safe to assume when you didn't respond to post #408 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 10:06 AM) I felt it was safe to assume when you didn't respond to post #408 To the contrary, that "All In" was executed poorly, another half-measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 10:26 AM) That's Brooks Boyer not JR. Actually, I think it was KW or JR who initially said they were "all in" when Dunn signed and PK and AJP came back. The marketing department ran with it. Edited March 26, 2014 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 09:34 AM) Are you implying when KW or JR said it they were saying it with hopes that Boyer and the marketing team would pick it up? It's the market department's decision. I am sure JR has insight or the last word, but it's the marketing team's responsibility to pick the slogan. Let's not nitpick. Just like "The Will to Win," which was jumped on by the marketing department before it became more or less a joke around baseball. Maybe the marketing department needs to stop piggybacking off others' ideas or saying and think outside the box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 10:14 AM) To the contrary, that "All In" was executed poorly, another half-measure. From the guy advocating spending all possible resources on free agents this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 09:47 AM) Chairman Reinsdorf should sell the team if he can't figure out a way to grow revenues. Why? He's running a profitable business. He doesn't owe you anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) Why? He's running a profitable business. He doesn't owe you anything. You're absolutely right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.