Do We Like Reinsdorf?

by jimgstl on Nov 21, 2005 10:42 PM CST

I was thinking, "Do we still hate Reinsdorf?"

There are plenty of reasons to still dislike him. His continuing role as the svengoulie behind the owners group, his treatmet of his sister, etc.

But what about now. An actual World Championship for the White Sox! Plus, in the past few years, he's given the GM job to an African-American, and the manager's job to Manuel and Guillen, two minorities. These are some big plusses in my book. Also, everyone who has played for him in the past has lots of respect for him. This seems at odds with his reputation. Konerko gave HIM the game ball, for crying outloud! That didn't happen in Boston last year.

So, I was wondering, what are your feelings about Reinsdorf now? Does he get any love?

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I never hated him

I always have believed that his role in '94 strike was a bit overplayed in Chicago for two reasons. 1) The Sox position at the time of the strike. They had a 1-game lead on CLE at the time. Had they been a game behind, it would have been a much different story. 2) The media needed a villian. Jerry was too close to Bud, so for better or worse, he will always be portrayed as the Selig's Karl Rove.

I was fine with the '97 white flag trade. I saw it as a necessary evil, and conceded that we wouldn't contend for a couple of years. Anyone who thought the Sox were winning the division that year was just kidding themselves.

I've never believed that he was making money hand over fist. I haven't seen the figures prior to say, 2000 or 2001, but according to the numbers that Forbes puts out each year, the Sox put essentially 100% of the previous season's profits right back into the team's payroll.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Nov 22, 2005 12:09 AM CST reply actions

I have been thinking about this post

for 2 days. first i wrote a vitriolic response castigating the owners in general for their many and various historical misdeeds. the theme was: MLB owners are one of the most pampered cartels in human history, and when i own my own team, i'll like jerry reinsdorf.

i looked at my comment, decided it was juvenile and decided not to post it, altho it was pretty funny.

now, this crap with the marlins is all over the papers. once again some owner is pulling the plug on a very competitive team. i really hate what is happening in florida. the fact that it is possible speaks to the incompetence, greed and lack of foresight on the part of the mMLB owners collectively over the history of the game.

ironically, it seems like the tone was set by old comiskey himself who was such a legendary tightwad that his players sold the world series for some extra cash. looking at the tortured history of baseball's free agency, the strike, the tied all-star game, the travesty of making the obviously partisan and unqualified bud selig commissioner (shouldn't there at least be the APPEARANCE of independence?), the endemic and entrenched financial inequality in the league, the tolerance of steroids and amphetamines, etc ad nauseam, i think it's pretty obvious that MLB has suffered from some pretty deficient leadership over the years and that it has survived DESPITE this leadership because it is a fundamentally beautiful game with a vise-grip on the american psyche.

and so, since MLB is a cartel that enjoys an antitrust exemption, and since jerry reinsdorf has been one of the more vocal and influential owners in this group, i have to say, as a fan, a non-owner who is unlikely to acquire a MLB franchise unless reincarnated as a mogul, i can't say that i like jerry reinsdorf.

i am so glad the sox won a world series. it has been a long time coming.

by spengler on Nov 22, 2005 2:30 PM CST reply actions

Tortured History

I think I disagree with most of what you wrote. Yes, there have been some bad decisions by the Lords of the Realm but many of the issues you list as being obviously wrong are, to my mind, very difficult and complicated problems for which there is no easy solution, or no solution at all. I'll probably miss a few but, in brief:

History of Free Agency: The owners had a good thing for decades in that they had guaranteed low-cost labor. Was it unethical for them to underpay the players? Yes, but you could make an argument that the stability in engendered helped the game and kept it affordable for fans. I wouldn't buy such an argument but it is not silly. It's not clear to me how you think the history of free agency could have better (and better for whom?).
The Strike: Yes, it was awful, particularly since the Sox were the best team going. But, again, it was a rational business calculation that the owners thought they could swallow the short-term hit to revenue in return for long-term savings through cost control. A crappy thing to do, in my opinion, but it worked in the other major sports. The real mistake was tripping over the labor laws so that a Federal judge intervened.
The Tied All-Star Game: I've never cared about the All-Star Game so I didn't care about this either. It's an exhibition.
Selig As Commissioner: This is where you and I really differ. In answer to your question, no, there should not be an appearance of independence because independence of the commissioner is a sham. He is, and should be, an employee of the owners. He is paid by them and represents their interests. There is nothing wrong with that but to suggest that the Commissioner represents the players or the fans is naive and for Selig, or any other Commissioner, to suggest otherwise is hypocrisy.
Endemic Financial Inequality: This is another one that I see as very complicated. The problem is that most baseball revenue comes from local sources (ticket sales, concessions, local broadcast rights) rather than national sources. This is in direct contrast to the NFL where most of the money comes from national sources. So the money is always going to start out unequal. That means that, so long as money helps field a winning team, you are going to have competitive imbalance. But what do you do about that? Well, you can fix labor cost at a level everyone can afford through a salary cap, essentially requiring the players to subsidize the owners. The players have successfully resisted that and I hope they continue to do so. Alternatively, you can require that the rich teams share more of their local revenue with the less-rich teams. That might work but there are many problems with that approach. First, you'd have a hell of a lawsuit if you tried to force the Yankees and Red Sox to give up money they made and it is not at all clear the other owners have the legal right to take it away. Second, even if they could, why exactly is it fair to take money away from the loathsome Steinbrenner when he was the one who invested in a low-ebb team in the 70s and built it into the financial power-house it is today? He made an investment, he made it better, he makes the money. Why should a carpet-bagger like Jeffrey Loira get Steinbrenner's money just because he didn't make as good an investment? I'm not saying you couldn't imagine some kind of solution to all this that would be an improvement on what we've got now, but it is a hellishly difficult thing to find a way to implement it.
Drugs: I'm not sure if this isn't more about managing image than anything else. Steroids are dangerous and the perception that they make players better does create dangerous pressures on players to shoot-up if they want to compete. (I'm not at all convinced that they actually make much difference in baseball but the perception they do creates the dangerous pressure.) So, sure, I'd like it if there had been better education and better controls in place to prevent players from putting themselves at risk. But, generally, I think this story is long on rhetoric and lazy outrage and short on facts and rigorous analysis.

As to Reinsdorf, I don't know the man. He obviously loves baseball and the Sox very much so he can't be all bad. His long-time employees are very loyal to him, which speaks well of him. His business associates seem to mostly consider him an honorable guy. People who have had to deal with him on the other side of the table think he can be a jerk. He's smart. He's probably a right bastard when he thinks he's been crossed. As an owner, he's never been willing to jack up the payroll beyond the revenue and take a big loss running the team, but not many are. He's never tried to suck serious money out of the team either. On balance, recognizing that I don't really know much about him, I'm ok with him and I'm very, very happy that he finally brought the Sox home a winner.

by Landfill on Nov 22, 2005 3:29 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks for the reasoned response

Your first point is obviously correct: I referenced a series of complicated issues, but my point was not to claim that these issues weren't complicated. Primarily, I think baseball's antitrust exemption makes it different than any other major business or sport in this nation's economy. Taking a step back, considering that the US has the world's most potent economy which is generally recognized to be more laissez-faire than most, that this nation remains the world's biggest consumer market, and consumes the lion's share of the world's resources, baseball's unique, protected position in this economy warrants some serious thought.

The reason baseball has an antitrust exemption has nothing to do with the practice of economics or the otherwise rational functioning of the law. In Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Club, 1922, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: "personal effort, not related to production, is not a subject of commerce" and therefore not subject to regulation under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. How do you like that? How many times have you heard some player, manager or executive say: "I understand this is a business." Sounds right, but under the law, we still look at baseball, excluding the changes from the Flood Act of 1998, as "personal effort"! In other words the law of the United states views MLB's multibillion dollar yearly exercise as a game, a pastime, a noble pursuit something like jousting or polo or fox hunting. For a nice write-up on the history of the exemption, see http://www.slate.com/id/2068290/

So, when you refer to "forcing" large-market owners to cough up revenue to reduce financial inequality based on LOCALLY derived revenue, you have to remember that baseball's antitrust exemption allows the league to prevent franchise relocation. And so, if you own a team in a small-market city, you are stuck in a way that no other business in this country is stuck, and your ability to compete is also stuck, and there's nothing you can do about it except appeal to a small group of other owners whose own interest dictates that they keep you stuck, how the hell is that supposed to work absent some kind of voluntary equalization on the part of the cartel as a group?

You refer to the term "Lords of the Realm" so you're apparently familiar with Helyar's book. I was thumbing through it last night (got stuck of course on the fascinating Bill Veeck section) and again found tale after tale of arrogance and pig-headedness on the part of the owners. Now remember, of course the players are going to fight for every penny they can get. THEY are not the ones with favored status under the law. Indeed, they've been the ones historically screwed by this system. They were the noble jousters, expected to perform under poor conditions for the good of the game.

MLB Owners were unbelievably slow to realize how and why their business was suffering in the 50's and 60's, blind to the NFL's increasingly successful model, and almost religiously opposed to coming to grips with economic reality or to contemplate change. Why? Because of the inherent mentality that baseball is DIFFERENT, baseball is baseball, it is protected, all you have to do is play (no need to market, no need to address free agency, no need to cater to the fans). Chapter 4 of Helyar's book describes it all.

The result: selfishness and arrogance on a monumental scale.

And so, I think I've addressed most of your bullet-points in a round about way.

Addtionally:

The all-star game is no longer a pure exhibition. The Sox benefited from home-field advantage in the WS because the AL won the damn thing. The reason we have this ridiculous set-up: the tied game and Bud Selig's vacuous attempts to ameliorate a PR nightmare. Failed leadership.

Strong commissioner: In 1944 the owners decided to appoint someone they could control after the reign of Kennesaw Mountain Landis, who had to be named to restore integrity to the game (after the Black Sox scandal) and who demanded absolute power to act in the best interests of the game as a condition of his employment. It hasn't been the same since. Because of the inherent selfishness of the individual owners, who are ironically protected by the exemption Landis so favored, the absence of a strong (and obviously the owners have to voluntarily give someone this power) commissioner leads to deficient leadership dominated by factions of squabbling owners in a protected cartel. It seems that the '94 strike provided a good opportunity to try the strong commissioner model again. I guess not.

Reinsdorf personally: I'm with you. I don't know him. I'm sure he has his positive qualities. Look, I'm all for Reinsdorf bringing us a championship.

However, from a historical perspective, baseball's ownership group has a conflict: the law views them as the stewards of this hallowed national treasure and they haven't treated it as such; instead they've treated it as their own private, privileged hunting ground, and this has led to obvious and continuing problems.
Why else would they be called "Lords of the Realm?"

It is interesting, incidentally, how prominently the White Sox have figured into the history of the game: Black Sox, Landis, Veeck, Reinsdorf, 1994 strike, etc.

But the contradictions and paradoxes described above, and the beauty of a game that COULD on any day result in a Supreme Court creating an antitrust exemption, are part of what makes baseball baseball. And I love baseball.

Go Sox.

by spengler on Nov 24, 2005 1:20 PM CST up reply actions

update

this ran at hardball times: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/battered-fish/

the marlins thing is what set me off to begin with. the story of the marlins, who took 6 yrs to win as many WS as the Sox did in 88, has been pretty sordid.

by spengler on Nov 25, 2005 12:04 PM CST up reply actions

I'm telling i t like it is - as best I can

It was 24 years ago or so that Reinsdorf and Einhorn (yeah they were a pair back then) bought the Sox from Bill Veek. They dissed the fans as drunken louts. Would not let Andy the Clown roam the park any more. Kicked out the drummer boy ( and his dental floss shirt), got rid of Harry and Jimmy. But what he did do was build us winning teams. He held us hostage by threatening to move to Florida. Build the last awful park - remember? Kansas City's Kauffman stadium was the model of park excelance. Great sitelines! The new park drew 3 million (ok a smidge short). It drew raves. Until the retro parks. Then it sucked. We were ashamed of it - admit it. That's why we stayed away. But you know what? It was never as bad as its reputation. Without Wrigley and the retro parks no one would have said anything. That's another reason why I think we hate the Cubs so much. But I digress.

For a long time it seemed Reinsdorf could do no right. The strike. Albert Bell. Sammy Sosa. Letting Pudge go in the middle of the season. Getting rid of Harold and thinking he could buy us off by retiring his number. The white flag trade. Bringing Jordan to the 93 playoffs so we be completely distracted. Hawk as GM.

I stayed away from baseball for 6 years I was so
mad. I grew up with baseball but I'd had it! All becasue of Reinsdorf.
But I'm older now and so is he. I look back and see things differently now. I think he's done a
great job fixing what he broke.

Wrigley is a junk heap compared to the Cell. Who's the world champs?

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Nov 22, 2005 9:29 PM CST reply actions

Clean Slate

Not only has JR given us a championship, he's given us 16 winning seasons in 25 years of ownership. Only 8 other teams can claim that since '81 (Yankees, A's, Red Sox, Braves, Giants, Dodgers, Astros, Cardinals), and none of them has had the deck as stacked against them as the White Sox have. When you consider all the dynamics within which Jerry competed, it's incredible what he's produced. All the debatable moves he made along the way were toward long term success. The more you peel back the onion on his tenure, the more you want to wipe his slate clean.

Turning the Chicago Baseball Tide - One Championship at a Time

by WestSideSoxFan on Nov 28, 2005 8:15 PM CST reply actions

Franky I'm surprised

I haven't seen more posts on this one. Comon guys this is a good thread to vent your spleens on. Me and the Sox go way back. I was at a game that Mantle homered in 68. It was standing room only. I saw Veek sittng in the outfield stands. I was this close to him. In those days you could count the crowd. I remember rent a player. The South Side Hit men are not folk lore to me. How many roof shots did you see? Either forgive and forget or give him what for. I vented and I forgave.

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Nov 28, 2005 11:46 PM CST reply actions

i don't have any specific animus

against reinsdorf. never did. my point was a beef with owners in general over the history of baseball. in fact, as of this moment, i'm pretty happy with mr. reinsdorf. i too remember 83, 93 etc, and i have to say winning a world series changes one's perspective.

AIM: ozspengler

by spengler on Nov 29, 2005 5:34 PM CST up reply actions