PDA

View Full Version : For Those Of You Worried About The White Sox Cutting Payroll...


Thome25
12-01-2008, 08:01 AM
I have to admit I was a little disappointed when I found out the White Sox would be cutting the payroll in 2009. But, then I came to my senses. I looked at the teams to win the world series the last 7 or 8 years and only one of them had a gargantuan payroll. That was the Boston Red Sawx.

Then I looked at the teams to lose the world series the last 7 or 8 years and only one team had a gargantuan payroll. That was the New York Yankees.

Obviously times have changed. The economy is bad. Most teams will prepare for that by adjusting their payroll accordingly. But, fiscal responsiblility has been occuring in baseball for a little while now. Look at the World Series teams since 2002. Most of them were teams with a low or middle of the road payroll. This bodes well for the White Sox and does not bode well for teams like the Yankees, Red Sawx, and Cubs.

When was the last time the team with the highest paid player in baseball won the world series? It's been a while because I can't remember the last time it happened.

Here is the payroll and their rank for the World Series winners since 2002:

2002 Angels--$62 million (rank 15th)
2003 Marlins-- $50 milllion (rank 25th)
2004 Red Sawx--$125 million (rank 2nd)
2005 White Sox--$75 million (rank 13th)
2006 St. Louis Cardinals--$89 million (rank 11th)
2007 Red Sawx--$143 million (rank 2nd)
2008 Phillies--$98 million (rank 12th)

Here is the payroll and their rank for the World Series losers since 2002:

2002 Giants--$78 million (rank 10th)
2003 Yankees--$153 million (rank 1st)
2004 Cardinals--$75 million (rank 11th)
2005 Astros--$77 milllion (rank 12th)
2006 Tigers--$82 million (rank 14th)
2007 Rockies--$54 million (rank 25th)
2008 Rays--$44 million (rank 29th)

So as you can see, teams that spend wisely and don't go out and break the bank and who also have payrolls near the middle or low end get to the World Series. This is especially true for the World Series winners as well.

So don't fret for our White Sox I'd be happy to have them cut payroll. They're more likely to get to the World Series that way.

What do you think? THANKS for posting!!

Chrisaway
12-01-2008, 08:03 AM
They could have the Joliet Jackhammers payroll for all I care as long as we win.

ChiSoxFan81
12-01-2008, 08:55 AM
Unlike the NBA, MLB isn't a "superstar" league. When you have a roster of 25 guys and play 162 games, one guy can't carry your team. Even 2 or 3 superstar-type players can't, given that they'd be eating most of your payroll, leaving the rest of your squad short on talent. You just have to find the right mix of fundamentally sound players from different sources (draft, trades, free agency). Baseball can be especially harsh because guys have career years and then command huge sums of money on the market, while they may never produce as well again. While it's always exciting to land big-name guys, that doesn't guarantee winning anything. As I recall, trading away an All-Star in Carlos Lee netted us a couple of lesser known guys that contributed greatly to a WS championship. CLee still hasn't sniffed the WS. I'd much prefer the Sox to be responsible with their payroll and choose wisely than throw money at the problem like a certain team on the north side.

cws05champ
12-01-2008, 09:03 AM
True that teams with huge payrolls aren't guarenteed success, but the payrolls of the Yankees and Red Sox have given them more latitude to make mistakes with personel. Also, they are in contention almost every year...so if a large payroll guarentees a playoff spot I'd take that every year and you take your chances in the playoffs.

Thome25
12-01-2008, 09:35 AM
Since 2002, MLB payrolls have proven that you can't buy a World Series Championship anymore. I'd rather have a team like the White Sox that spends responsibly than a team that goes out and tries to buy championships. Teams that spend wisely win the World Series more often in the 2000's than the teams like the Mets, Red Sox, Yankees, and more recently the Cubs.

whitesox901
12-01-2008, 09:55 AM
True that teams with huge payrolls aren't guarenteed success

*cough* Tigers *cough* :bandance:

DETROIT SUCKS!

areilly
12-01-2008, 10:04 AM
Since 2002, MLB payrolls have proven that you can't buy a World Series Championship anymore. I'd rather have a team like the White Sox that spends responsibly than a team that goes out and tries to buy championships. Teams that spend wisely win the World Series more often in the 2000's than the teams like the Mets, Red Sox, Yankees, and more recently the Cubs.

"No one ever starved to death from being too rich."

I think you're confusing "wisely" and "responsibly" with "not as much," because plenty of small- and mid-market teams maintain a low overall payroll while still throwing idiotic amounts of money at certain players.

A more cynical and negative person (possibly myself, but also maybe Munchman or Homefish) could take the argument further and say the Sox are in a position to become exactly that type a team, paying Javier Vazquez $11MM next year when they know full well he can't win when they need him to, or paying Jose Contreras $13MM to stay home, or giving Paul Konerko $12MM for another year on the wrong side of his peak.

Again, I realize KW has some steals on the payroll, but the Sox' check-writing is not without its flaws.

Moses_Scurry
12-01-2008, 10:14 AM
"No one ever starved to death from being too rich."

I think you're confusing "wisely" and "responsibly" with "not as much," because plenty of small- and mid-market teams maintain a low overall payroll while still throwing idiotic amounts of money at certain players.

A more cynical and negative person (possibly myself, but also maybe Munchman or Homefish) could take the argument further and say the Sox are in a position to become exactly that type a team, paying Javier Vazquez $11MM next year when they know full well he can't win when they need him to, or paying Jose Contreras $13MM to stay home, or giving Paul Konerko $12MM for another year on the wrong side of his peak.

Again, I realize KW has some steals on the payroll, but the Sox' check-writing is not without its flaws.

It's stupid to criticize the payouts to Contreras and Konerko in my opinion. Both of those deals were made following the world series. Letting Konerko go at that point would have lead to a major uprising. Plus, he was coming off some good years and had huge success in the post season that year. Contreras was arguably the best SP in the majors for the 2nd half of 2005 and the first half of 2006.

Unless you are mistress Cleo and could see the state of the Sox in 2008/2009, you are using the 20/20 hindsight.

areilly
12-01-2008, 10:17 AM
It's stupid to criticize the payouts to Contreras and Konerko in my opinion. Both of those deals were made following the world series. Letting Konerko go at that point would have lead to a major uprising. Plus, he was coming off some good years and had huge success in the post season that year. Contreras was arguably the best SP in the majors for the 2nd half of 2005 and the first half of 2006.

Unless you are mistress Cleo and could see the state of the Sox in 2008/2009, you are using the 20/20 hindsight.

I agree, but isn't the central point of this thread based in the same thing? Did the Yankees really foresee so much going wrong since 2000? Did the Red Sox really count on the Rays being so good? Did anyone expect the Cubs to get run over by the Dodgers?

It's true nothing's guaranteed in baseball, but a team ready, willing and able to throw around money is at least in a better starting position.

CashMan
12-01-2008, 10:35 AM
I agree, but isn't the central point of this thread based in the same thing? Did the Yankees really foresee so much going wrong since 2000? Did the Red Sox really count on the Rays being so good? Did anyone expect the Cubs to get run over by the Dodgers?

It's true nothing's guaranteed in baseball, but a team ready, willing and able to throw around money is at least in a better starting position.


Are we talking, a team like the Yankees trying to buy a WS every year throwing around money, or the Red Sawks developing a minor league system and giving extensions out throwing around money?

Thome25
12-01-2008, 10:44 AM
"No one ever starved to death from being too rich."

I think you're confusing "wisely" and "responsibly" with "not as much," because plenty of small- and mid-market teams maintain a low overall payroll while still throwing idiotic amounts of money at certain players.

A more cynical and negative person (possibly myself, but also maybe Munchman or Homefish) could take the argument further and say the Sox are in a position to become exactly that type a team, paying Javier Vazquez $11MM next year when they know full well he can't win when they need him to, or paying Jose Contreras $13MM to stay home, or giving Paul Konerko $12MM for another year on the wrong side of his peak.

Again, I realize KW has some steals on the payroll, but the Sox' check-writing is not without its flaws.

For every White Sox mistake that is pointed out in hindsight, I can point out more of the opposite that shows that the White Sox are being wise and fiscally responsible with their money.

Vazquez was a steal at the time and is still a great value. The White Sox were smart to not give Crede a long term deal and keep him at 'arms length" away even though people were clamoring for a long-term deal for him. (including myself.) Dye was and still is a bargain. Buehrle is a steal with his 4-year deal.

The White Sox were wise not to bring Rowand back at an inflated contract and trade for a bargain outfielder in Carlos Quentin instead. They were just as wise not to break the bank for Jon Garland. They also got Freddy Garcia to agree to a bargain-basement deal at the time. Need I mention Alexei Ramirez?

I believe what the White Sox do with their money qualifies as being wise and fiscally responsible don't you?

itsnotrequired
12-01-2008, 10:47 AM
I have to admit I was a little disappointed when I found out the White Sox would be cutting the payroll in 2009.

Where did you get this information?

Thome25
12-01-2008, 10:50 AM
Where did you get this information?

Link:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=107864

itsnotrequired
12-01-2008, 11:12 AM
Link:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=107864

The cut isn't going to be drastic in terms of dollars out of the Sox pocket. The article mentions $25 million for Cabrera, Crede, Swisher and Uribe. The total is actually $23.2 milllion and subtracting the $1.5 million the Sox got from the Angels for Cabrera, it is $21.7 million. Returning players are owed an additional $8 million or so. Jenks is going to see a massive pay rise through arbitration, something to the tune of $5 million. Viciedo has already been signed for what I assume to be $2.75 million. Thome's salary doesn't increase from 2008 but the amount the Sox are paying out of their own pocket is more. Part of Thome's $14 million salary in 2008 was paid by the Phillies while in 2009, it is all on the Sox. It isn't clear exactly how much Philly paid last year but for discussion sake, let's assume it is $5 millon.

Add all that up and the $21.7 million lost through Cabrera, Crede, Swisher and Uribe leaving is negated with contracts already on the books. There is a little wiggle in there since MacDougal is a minor leager now and the Ozuna salary is gone but the numbers are pretty close.

So no, I am not too worried about cutting payroll, especially if it is to trade a veteran (i.e. Dye) for a lot of young talent.

CashMan
12-01-2008, 11:15 AM
The cut isn't going to be drastic in terms of dollars out of the Sox pocket. The article mentions $25 million for Cabrera, Crede, Swisher and Uribe. The total is actually $23.2 milllion and subtracting the $1.5 million the Sox got from the Angels for Cabrera, it is $21.7 million. Returning players are owed an additional $8 million or so. Jenks is going to see a massive pay rise through arbitration, something to the tune of $5 million. Viciedo has already been signed for what I assume to be $2.75 million. Thome's salary doesn't increase from 2008 but the amount the Sox are paying out of their own pocket is more. Part of Thome's $14 million salary in 2008 was paid by the Phillies while in 2009, it is all on the Sox. It isn't clear exactly how much Philly paid last year but for discussion sake, let's assume it is $5 millon.

Add all that up and the $21.7 million lost through Cabrera, Crede, Swisher and Uribe leaving is negated with contracts already on the books. There is a little wiggle in there since MacDougal is a minor leager now and the Ozuna salary is gone but the numbers are pretty close.

So no, I am not too worried about cutting payroll, especially if it is to trade a veteran (i.e. Dye) for a lot of young talent.

My question is, who do people want Kenny to go out and sign?

areilly
12-01-2008, 11:16 AM
I believe what the White Sox do with their money qualifies as being wise and fiscally responsible financially don't you?

I generally agree with the latter but hesitate to go along with the former - but I probably have different ideas about what I would do with my $100MM per year hobby than Jerry Reinsdorf has.


(And before the grammar police get on your case, "fiscally responsible financially" is a redundant phrase.)

esbrechtel
12-01-2008, 11:17 AM
My question is, who do people want Kenny to go out and sign?


Check out WTS thread for the answer to that...

Names you will find include Hudson, CC, Furcal, etc.....

Thome25
12-01-2008, 11:50 AM
I generally agree with the latter but hesitate to go along with the former - but I probably have different ideas about what I would do with my $100MM per year hobby than Jerry Reinsdorf has.


(And before the grammar police get on your case, "fiscally responsible financially" is a redundant phrase.)

I realized my redundant phrase after the fact and I was too lazy to go back and correct it. :redface: Thanks for pointing that out though!!:D:

CashMan
12-01-2008, 12:42 PM
Check out WTS thread for the answer to that...

Names you will find include Hudson, CC, Furcal, etc.....


Those are not realistic players for Kenny to sign.

Lundind1
12-01-2008, 12:44 PM
Those are not realistic players for Kenny to sign.

Not only that but are they players that will fit into the system that the Sox would like to go forward with.

CashMan
12-01-2008, 12:48 PM
Not only that but are they players that will fit into the system that the Sox would like to go forward with.

Don't think so. From what I hear, Getz can hit for avg, and Beckham is almost ready, so there goes Hudson's name. Furcal would be a nice leadoff, but has been hurt, and Alexei will be playing SS. CC, would be nice, but too much money. I think he would thrive in the NL anyway. I think Kenny is positioning himself for something, what it is IDK, but he always has a plan.

russ99
12-01-2008, 01:08 PM
I'd go for Hudson, but probably not for the length and money he wants. I guess it's up to Kenny to decide if he wants to overpay to stabilize the top of the order, just like he did with the bullpen last year.

And as I said before, I'm not opposed to a cut in payroll as long as we can continue to contend.

I'm opposed to Anderson/Owens, Getz and Fields all being in our starting lineup, and one of them being in the top 2 spots of the lineup.

Unless we bring in some players to improve those areas, IMO we'll be hard-pressed to break .500 next season, i.e. a backslide to a 2007-like team.

Hopefully Kenny's far from done with his winter's work.

Thome25
12-01-2008, 01:16 PM
I'd go for Hudson, but probably not for the length and money he wants. I guess it's up to Kenny to decide if he wants to overpay to stabilize the top of the order, just like he did with the bullpen last year.

And as I said before, I'm not opposed to a cut in payroll as long as we can continue to contend.

I'm opposed to Anderson/Owens, Getz and Fields all being in our starting lineup, and one of them being in the top 2 spots of the lineup.

Unless we bring in some players to improve those areas, IMO we'll be hard-pressed to break .500 next season, i.e. a backslide to a 2007-like team.

Hopefully Kenny's far from done with his winter's work.

If we miss the playoffs and a couple of the young guys you mentioned develop into pretty good ballplayers, then I'm all for sacrificing one year to develop them and give them playing time.

The question to fans and KW is: Are these guys good enough to suffer through one mediocre year for? I'm not sure.