PDA

View Full Version : Sox Payroll Jumps 137% Since 2003. Winning = Fans Showing Up = Increased Payroll


WhiteSoxFan84
11-08-2008, 12:39 PM
I was looking at the past six seasons and the amount of money the White Sox have spent on payroll. Why the last six seasons you ask? Because every year for the last six years we have seen an increase in payroll for our beloved. Here are the payrolls (in millions of dollars) from 2003-2008...

| Year..|Payroll|Diff from PrevYr|Acc. Diff|% Diff from PrevYr|% Diff from 2003|
2008: 121.2,,,,,,,12.5,,,,,,,70.2,,,,,,,,,11.5%,,,,,,,,, ,137.6%
2007: 108.7,,,,,,,05.9,,,,,,,57.7,,,,,,,,,05.7%,,,,,,,,, ,113.1%
2006: 102.8,,,,,,,27.6,,,,,,,51.8,,,,,,,,,36.7%,,,,,,,,, ,101.6%
2005: 075.2,,,,,,,10.0,,,,,,,24.2,,,,,,,,,15.3%,,,,,,,,, ,047.5%
2004: 065.2,,,,,,,14.2,,,,,,,14.2,,,,,,,,,27.8%,,,,,,,,, ,027.8%
2003: 051.0,,,,,,,00.0,,,,,,,00.0,,,,,,,,,00.0%,,,,,,,,, ,000.0%


...Look at the amazing jumps from the 2005 season (I think the team won the division or something that season? Can't seem to recall...) to the 2006 season. Proves to me that what Kenny Williams and Jerry Reinsdorf had been saying all along about (if the fans show up, we'll spend more. in order for the fans to show up, we have to win) was the truth and they stood behind it. Men of their words.

I also did this so we can check back on it when the final payroll for the 2009 season is set. Like the economy, it's safe to say we'll see a drop across the board.

DoItForDanPasqua
11-08-2008, 12:42 PM
I was looking at the past six seasons and the amount of money the White Sox have spent on payroll. Why the last six seasons you ask? Because every year for the last six years we have seen an increase in payroll for our beloved. Here are the payrolls (in millions of dollars) from 2003-2008...

(Year: Payroll, Diff from PrevYr, Acc. Diff, % Diff from PrevYr, % Diff from 2003)
2008: 121.2, 12.5, 70.2, 11.5%, 137.6%
2007: 108.7, 05.9, 57.7, 05.7%, 113.1%
2006: 102.8, 27.6, 51.8, 36.7%, 101.6%
2005: 075.2, 10.0, 24.2, 15.3%, 047.5%
2004: 065.2, 14.2, 14.2, 27.8%, 027.8%
2003: 051.0, 00.0, 00.0, 00.0%, 000.0%


...Look at the amazing jumps from the 2005 season (I think the team won the division or something that season? Can't seem to recall...) to the 2006 season. Proves to me that what Kenny Williams and Jerry Reinsdorf had been saying all along about (if the fans show up, we'll spend more. in order for the fans to show up, we have to win) was the truth and they stood behind it. Men of their words.

I also did this so we can check back on it when the final payroll for the 2009 season is set. Like the economy, it's safe to say we'll see a drop across the board.

I believe since that time, baseball has had a new TV contract, gotten millions from XM radio, and MLB.com has been very profitable. All those are spread amongst the teams and have to be counted as factors.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-08-2008, 12:49 PM
I believe since that time, baseball has had a new TV contract, gotten millions from XM radio, and MLB.com has been very profitable. All those are spread amongst the teams and have to be counted as factors.

Good point. If you or anyone can somehow, someway dig up each deal's (XM radio's and MLB.com's) figures and which year they began to be distributed, that would be awesome.

btrain929
11-08-2008, 01:07 PM
I believe since that time, baseball has had a new TV contract, gotten millions from XM radio, and MLB.com has been very profitable. All those are spread amongst the teams and have to be counted as factors.

While that does play SOME part of the payroll increase, it doesn't come close to being a significant portion of the increase. There are teams out there (Pirates, Nationals, Marlins, A's) that mainly pocket that $$ they get from MLB. And it's not like our payroll has only gone up 5 million every year. Were talking about SERIOUS increases in a short period of time. So don't act like that's the only reason our payroll has gone up in that time period. JR definitely deserves a lot of credit.

Lundind1
11-08-2008, 01:42 PM
I will give JR a deal of credit with the increasing payroll of the team in an effort to field a winner. I do think another factor in the increase is one of the problems some fans have been moaning about. That factor is age. As these players have gotten further into their prime, we have paid more of a price to keep them. I years past I did notice that it was much easier to let the FA's go rather than paying them more. I hope that we don't overspend and see lack luster results. Thanks JR and KW for helping to build winners. I am glad to see someone who has some great evidence to back up that promise that they made to the fans. Awesome post folks.

Dan Mega
11-08-2008, 02:22 PM
JR always said if more people show up, he'll increase payroll. People showed, up, and he increased payroll.

CashMan
11-08-2008, 02:33 PM
JR always said if more people show up, he'll increase payroll. People showed, up, and he increased payroll.

I think you have to look at it, if the Sox did not win the WS, but people were still showing up, would the payroll increase as it has?

white sox bill
11-08-2008, 03:39 PM
And isn't the $121 Mil payroll inflated because of Jr?

Noneck
11-08-2008, 03:48 PM
And isn't the $121 Mil payroll inflated because of Jr?

Yes, Lip has stated many times that he has been told this years payroll was about 108m, I believe.

turners56
11-08-2008, 04:12 PM
And isn't the $121 Mil payroll inflated because of Jr?

I thought it was Thome? Because we're getting money from Philly for a portion of his contract, but that doesn't show up in the payroll.

Lundind1
11-08-2008, 04:52 PM
I thought it was Thome? Because we're getting money from Philly for a portion of his contract, but that doesn't show up in the payroll.

I believe that it was the portion of his contract till last season. I think that we are totally on the hook for this option year of 2009. Who else would we still be on the hook for salary wise after trades? I know that we got a boatload of cash through the Cabrera deal with the Angels. But who is reflected in that payroll number? There are some that are obvious but would we still be paying for Sweeney or someone included in a trade?

Lip Man 1
11-08-2008, 09:35 PM
Fan 84:

What is the source of your figures?

I can only tell you what I was told by Mark Gonzales when I asked him. He said the 121 million figure reported by the AP early in the season was wrong... that it was based on averaging player deals instead of taking into account that some deals are front loaded and some are backloaded.

He said he knew of four instances with the White Sox where the AP figure for an individual player was incorrect.

He felt the total was closer to 109 million then 121 million. Also remember the Phillies were paying part of Thome's deal last year and the Angels paid one million of Cabrera's deal.

I do not know if the 109 million figure that Mark said was with or without the other teams picking up about eight million on those two deals.

Just FYI.

That being said, the Sox have increased payroll over the years as well they should have. Bud Selig was quoted in S.I. this week as saying that baseball was now a six and a half billion dollar a year business (up a half billion from what he stated last year)

My only real disagreement with the Sox in this issue over the years has been the attitude that "if the fans show up, we'll spend..."

To me that's bass ackwards. No other business demands customer support first before a quality product is put on the field (or served in a restaurant's case, or driven in an automobile's case to use two examples...)

It is their responsibility to produce a quality product first... then the fans have a real reason to support it. A sports franchise is part of the public trust...it is not like a hardware store or a local grocery.

Just my opinion.

Lip

Daver
11-08-2008, 09:49 PM
Good point. If you or anyone can somehow, someway dig up each deal's (XM radio's and MLB.com's) figures and which year they began to be distributed, that would be awesome.

Good luck with that.


Shared revenue and luxury tax funds are distributed at the sole discretion of the commisioner of MLB.

Noneck
11-08-2008, 09:51 PM
Fan 84:

What is the source of your figures?

I can only tell you what I was told by Mark Gonzales when I asked him. He said the 121 million figure reported by the AP early in the season was wrong... that it was based on averaging player deals instead of taking into account that some deals are front loaded and some are backloaded.

He said he knew of four instances with the White Sox where the AP figure for an individual player was incorrect.

He felt the total was closer to 109 million then 121 million. Also remember the Phillies were paying part of Thome's deal last year and the Angels paid one million of Cabrera's deal.

I do not know if the 109 million figure that Mark said was with or without the other teams picking up about eight million on those two deals.

Just FYI.

That being said, the Sox have increased payroll over the years as well they should have. Bud Selig was quoted in S.I. this week as saying that baseball was now a six and a half billion dollar a year business (up a half billion from what he stated last year)

My only real disagreement with the Sox in this issue over the years has been the attitude that "if the fans show up, we'll spend..."

To me that's bass ackwards. No other business demands customer support first before a quality product is put on the field (or served in a restaurant's case, or driven in an automobile's case to use two examples...)

It is their responsibility to produce a quality product first... then the fans have a real reason to support it. A sports franchise is part of the public trust...it is not like a hardware store or a local grocery.

Just my opinion.

Lip

In agreement 100%. Very well said.

Steelrod
11-08-2008, 09:53 PM
Fan 84:

What is the source of your figures?

I can only tell you what I was told by Mark Gonzales when I asked him. He said the 121 million figure reported by the AP early in the season was wrong... that it was based on averaging player deals instead of taking into account that some deals are front loaded and some are backloaded.

He said he knew of four instances with the White Sox where the AP figure for an individual player was incorrect.

He felt the total was closer to 109 million then 121 million. Also remember the Phillies were paying part of Thome's deal last year and the Angels paid one million of Cabrera's deal.

I do not know if the 109 million figure that Mark said was with or without the other teams picking up about eight million on those two deals.

Just FYI.

That being said, the Sox have increased payroll over the years as well they should have. Bud Selig was quoted in S.I. this week as saying that baseball was now a six and a half billion dollar a year business (up a half billion from what he stated last year)

My only real disagreement with the Sox in this issue over the years has been the attitude that "if the fans show up, we'll spend..."

To me that's bass ackwards. No other business demands customer support first before a quality product is put on the field (or served in a restaurant's case, or driven in an automobile's case to use two examples...)

It is their responsibility to produce a quality product first... then the fans have a real reason to support it. A sports franchise is part of the public trust...it is not like a hardware store or a local grocery.

Just my opinion.

Lip
Attendance in 2008 was down, interesting considering that they were in first place a majority of the year!

Daver
11-08-2008, 10:19 PM
Attendance in 2008 was down, interesting considering that they were in first place a majority of the year!

Entertainment always suffers when the economy is in a downturn.

voodoochile
11-08-2008, 11:16 PM
Attendance in 2008 was down, interesting considering that they were in first place a majority of the year!

Entertainment always suffers when the economy is in a downturn.

Yes and they lost 90 games the year before so the season ticket base was probably slightly lower (just a guess) and for the first time in everyone's lifetime both Chicago teams made the playoffs, so the competition for the casual fan dollar was higher than normal.

LoveYourSuit
11-09-2008, 11:59 AM
Yes and they lost 90 games the year before so the season ticket base was probably slightly lower (just a guess) and for the first time in everyone's lifetime both Chicago teams made the playoffs, so the competition for the casual fan dollar was higher than normal.


Alos add the fact that many fans were on the fence with this team, and I don't blame them. Played very medicore baseball in what resluted to be a very down year for the division. Winning the division at the end was exciting but let's not forget about all the heartburn and a bullpen implosion for the entire 1st half. And the corpseball offense in April and May was very depressing.

Attendance was down for good reasons.

It should rebound this year unless our economy hits a depression.

Lip Man 1
11-09-2008, 12:53 PM
Daver is exactly correct, entertainment is always an issue in a poor or mediocre economy.

However it must also be noted that Sox attendance has dropped by roughly 500,000 since the end of the 2006 season. That's a pretty decent drop.

It will be interesting to see if the division title impacts off season ticket sales and how that translates into total attendance for the 2009 season.

Lip

Lundind1
11-09-2008, 02:42 PM
Entertainment always suffers when the economy is in a downturn.

Even though they were in first a majority of the year both my girlfriend and I noticed a difference in attendance as the year progressed. In years past, the attendance improves historically the longer a team possess 1st place. This year, there were some differences. The one series that we noticed a difference was the mid-week Toronto series. Being in the financial field, I knew that the crunch was now being felt in this type of entertainment. Any other time recently, that place would have been filled for a series like that. I did notice (one of my guilty pleasures) that Broadway shows here in Chicago were also not very well attended even though there have been some hits here this year and movies (even though there have not been many humongo hits lately) have been having problems at the gate.

The White Sox have done well marketing and putting money back into the team in the form of improvements to the park as well as the talent on the field. There is still no comparison to some other teams in the league in terms of spending but I'd rather spend with a purpose and not just spending to spend.

Lundind1
11-09-2008, 02:45 PM
Daver is exactly correct, entertainment is always an issue in a poor or mediocre economy.

However it must also be noted that Sox attendance has dropped by roughly 500,000 since the end of the 2006 season. That's a pretty decent drop.

It will be interesting to see if the division title impacts off season ticket sales and how that translates into total attendance for the 2009 season.

Lip


It might help push more sales or it will make up for the loss of new business in the economy. We might see the same numbers next season as we did last.

chisoxmike
11-09-2008, 02:49 PM
Daver is exactly correct, entertainment is always an issue in a poor or mediocre economy.

However it must also be noted that Sox attendance has dropped by roughly 500,000 since the end of the 2006 season. That's a pretty decent drop.




I think a lot of that has to do with the 2007 season and low expectations for the start of the 2008 season. I thought the park was pretty full in August and September. But June-July I thought for a first place team, it wasn't as filled as it should have been.

champagne030
11-09-2008, 03:09 PM
How much has revenue gone up during that time period? MLB has stated that overall it's approaching $6B/year. Payroll may or may not be increasing at the same rate as revenue......

MISoxfan
11-09-2008, 05:37 PM
We currently rank 5th in payroll. In 2003 were 17th. If we're only increasing our payroll to match overall MLB revenue most of the other teams are not.

champagne030
11-09-2008, 06:33 PM
We currently rank 5th in payroll. In 2003 were 17th. If we're only increasing our payroll to match overall MLB revenue most of the other teams are not.

We're not currently, "cash out the door", 5th in payroll.

And maybe we're not taking as much of a profit as Minnesota. Or maybe the Sox are operating at the same profit margin as they were in 2003. I'm just raising the question of who getting more rich? The players or the owners?........

Lip Man 1
11-09-2008, 06:56 PM
Champagne 30:

Read my earlier post. Bud said it's now up to 6.5 BILLION A YEAR IN REVENUE. That's NFL-like.

Lip

WhiteSoxFan84
11-09-2008, 08:03 PM
Champagne 30:

Read my earlier post. Bud said it's now up to 6.5 BILLION A YEAR IN REVENUE. That's NFL-like.

Lip


Lip,

Here is where I get my #s from: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-white-sox.html

Love that website. Has a breakdown of year by year salaries, options, etc.

Lip Man 1
11-09-2008, 08:45 PM
No offense, but I trust Mark Gonzales more. That's just me...a guy who is around the team every day for eight months and he said 121 million was off.

Lip

WhiteSoxFan84
11-09-2008, 08:55 PM
No offense, but I trust Mark Gonzales more. That's just me...a guy who is around the team every day for eight months and he said 121 million was off.

Lip

Oh I would too. I'm not saying my source is 100% dead on but it is very helpful for the avg fan. But the $12MM difference is huge. I did this research for fun so I'm not really going to go back and check the actual payrolls for each of the last 6 seasons. Ask Mark for those numbers lol

MISoxfan
11-09-2008, 10:28 PM
We're not currently, "cash out the door", 5th in payroll.

And maybe we're not taking as much of a profit as Minnesota. Or maybe the Sox are operating at the same profit margin as they were in 2003. I'm just raising the question of who getting more rich? The players or the owners?........

I am aware of that, but whether we're 5th, 6th, or 7th, we're still a far cry from 17. I don't really care who is seeing more of MLB's profits, we put more money into our team than most of the competition and those with higher payrolls all have better attendance.

Lundind1
11-09-2008, 11:45 PM
I'd rather pay a bit more for tickets and have hope going into every season than to dwell at the bottom and get thrown a bone once every 15 years or more. I know the Sox were sort of that team before but that was also when only 1 team went to the WS after winning the pennant with the best record or only 2 teams from the same league playing the CS right away. I am actually happy so far with the results of the 2000's becoming a more competitive franchise, here's to more years of being in the hunt every season.

voodoochile
11-10-2008, 12:09 AM
No offense, but I trust Mark Gonzales more. That's just me...a guy who is around the team every day for eight months and he said 121 million was off.

Lip

Right but his math is only 4M less than the 121 minus the ($8M) kick-ins for Thome and Cabrera.

When it comes down to it, that's the price of a relief pitcher or utility IF in today's market. I don't see it being that big of a deal.

Lip Man 1
11-10-2008, 12:16 AM
Voodoo:

To be fair I don't know if the 109 figure is with or without those salary additions from other teams.

It could be 109 without those deals to Thome and Cabrera as you mentioned or it could be 109 WITH them included. If that was the case then the actual Sox outlet would be around 101 million.

I just don't know that one.

Lip

voodoochile
11-10-2008, 12:28 AM
Voodoo:

To be fair I don't know if the 109 figure is with or without those salary additions from other teams.

It could be 109 without those deals to Thome and Cabrera as you mentioned or it could be 109 WITH them included. If that was the case then the actual Sox outlet would be around 101 million.

I just don't know that one.

Lip

And if you had to guess?

My guess is the 121 is the gross value of the contracts the Sox have signed and that you then back out the $8M. Perhaps the $121 also includes everyone on the 40 man roster which would add a few million because some minor leaguers make more than league minimum. It might also include some prorated signing bonuses for guys like Beckham (though obviously not last year). Still I would bet there are other guys in the minors who were working on above minimum contracts or who have signing bonuses to their names.

And again, even if it's 101, it's hardly chicken feed...

WhiteSoxFan84
11-10-2008, 01:58 AM
Lip,

All 3 of us (you, me, and Mark) maybe wrong in our payroll guestimate. In this fresh new article by MLB.com's Scott Merkin (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081107&content_id=3669931&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws), he states..
the 2009 payroll is not expected to go much above last year's $114 million level.


Another interesting quote from the article...
13 players already are under contract for 2009 at a combined total of $99.125 million.

And I don't even know if that # takes the buy-outs into consideration.

Lip Man 1
11-10-2008, 12:09 PM
Sox 84:

I saw that and was going to post it. 114 is closer to Mark's estimate that's for sure.

Voodoo:

Certainly even 101 isn't chicken feed but I'm curious what the average team MLB salary was for 2008 and how that compares to it.

You have to remember with MLB awash in cash and new revenue sources 100 million might be the average payroll, nothing to write home about.

I know this possibility has been discussed on Chicago Tribune Live! for example. Those folks felt the time was rapidly coming when 100 million is exactly that, average. That to really have a good shot at winning a World Series more was needed.

Lip

voodoochile
11-10-2008, 12:40 PM
Sox 84:

I saw that and was going to post it. 114 is closer to Mark's estimate that's for sure.

Voodoo:

Certainly even 101 isn't chicken feed but I'm curious what the average team MLB salary was for 2008 and how that compares to it.

You have to remember with MLB awash in cash and new revenue sources 100 million might be the average payroll, nothing to write home about.

I know this possibility has been discussed on Chicago Tribune Live! for example. Those folks felt the time was rapidly coming when 100 million is exactly that, average. That to really have a good shot at winning a World Series more was needed.

Lip

Like I said, I think it's closer to the 109 number or even higher, but here's a list that shows the Sox at 121 and how it compares. Obviously if the Sox are at 113 or 109, they rank lower on the list, but the question remains, what other teams are getting or giving payments that make actual cash flow higher or lower.

For example, if we deduct the Thome $8M from the Sox it goes on the Phillies who jump to 106M. Beyond that, I don't have any info.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008

WhiteSoxFan84
11-10-2008, 07:56 PM
Like I said, I think it's closer to the 109 number or even higher, but here's a list that shows the Sox at 121 and how it compares. Obviously if the Sox are at 113 or 109, they rank lower on the list, but the question remains, what other teams are getting or giving payments that make actual cash flow higher or lower.

For example, if we deduct the Thome $8M from the Sox it goes on the Phillies who jump to 106M. Beyond that, I don't have any info.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008

One amazing stat about that list (which is identical to the one I used), more teams from the BOTTOM 3 (1 - Tampa) made the playoffs than from the TOP 3 (Yanks, Mets, and Tigers)