PDA

View Full Version : KW "We're Bumping Up Against Our Payroll Limit"


Thome25
12-05-2008, 01:06 PM
What do you think about KW latest comment? Apparently we're at our payroll limit as of right now with the way things sit. I'm excited about going young but it also makes me nervous. Looks like we're going to have two more young guys in the rotation in 2009.

Unless KW is trying to use his best poker bluff, our payroll will probably be in the 80-90 million range. It also sounds like we don't have any room to add anyone else at this point.

SO what do you think? Does this worry you? Or are you OK with it?

Here's the link:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1315340,CST-SPT-sox05.article

THANKS for posting!!:D:

CashMan
12-05-2008, 01:13 PM
What do you think about KW latest comment? Apparently we're at our payroll limit as of right now with the way things sit. I'm excited about going young but it also makes me nervous. Looks like we're going to have two more young guys in the rotation in 2009.

Unless KW is trying to use his best poker bluff, our payroll will probably be in the 80-90 million range. It also sounds like we don't have any room to add anyone else at this point.

SO what do you think? Does this worry you? Or are you OK with it?

Here's the link:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1315340,CST-SPT-sox05.article

THANKS for posting!!:D:


At the end of the article, it says he is in listening mode. My guess, is that he would rather create a market for a Dye, by having teams ask for him. Trying to get more, rather than going out and decreasing his value by showing, he wants to trade him. That is just my guess. I cannot believe Kenny is anywhere done, when it is early December. Something is going to happen.

champagne030
12-05-2008, 01:24 PM
What do you think about KW latest comment? Apparently we're at our payroll limit as of right now with the way things sit. I'm excited about going young but it also makes me nervous. Looks like we're going to have two more young guys in the rotation in 2009.

Unless KW is trying to use his best poker bluff, our payroll will probably be in the 80-90 million range. It also sounds like we don't have any room to add anyone else at this point.

SO what do you think? Does this worry you? Or are you OK with it?

Here's the link:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1315340,CST-SPT-sox05.article

THANKS for posting!!:D:

http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/13516.gif

btrain929
12-05-2008, 01:24 PM
http://www.drinkstuff.com/productimg/13516.gif

:rolling::rolling:

hawkjt
12-05-2008, 01:25 PM
Kenny is good at keeping it vague but he said the current roster was
''bumping up against our payroll limit''

which could be interpeted as saying that last years roster's payroll is the limit..as he was speaking of a roster that still has Cabrera on it, and really was only missing Swish andCrede as big ticket guys from last year,right?

So a liberal interpetation would leave one thinking that now without Javy and Cabrera and possibly JD, that would leave room in the payroll for some more expenditures.

Now, I doubt they will go to last years payroll number and I personally hope they keep JD around, but I do think that Kenny has some leeway left here. But then,I am an optimist.

Thome25
12-05-2008, 01:29 PM
Kenny is good at keeping it vague but he said the current roster was
''bumping up against our payroll limit''

which could be interpeted as saying that last years roster's payroll is the limit..as he was speaking of a roster that still has Cabrera on it, and really was only missing Swish andCrede as big ticket guys from last year,right?

So a liberal interpetation would leave one thinking that now without Javy and Cabrera and possibly JD, that would leave room in the payroll for some more expenditures.

Now, I doubt they will go to last years payroll number and I personally hope they keep JD around, but I do think that Kenny has some leeway left here. But then,I am an optimist.

I'm not sure I understand how you're interpreting KW's quote this way. :scratch: I got the impression that he was referring to the current roster as of RIGHT NOW with Uribe, Cabrera, Crede, Swisher, and Vazquez gone is still at the limit.

hi im skot
12-05-2008, 01:36 PM
I rarely believe a word KW says in the offseason.

hawkjt
12-05-2008, 01:37 PM
If you read it carefully, he said that the current roster was bumping up against the limit but that Javy's trade was not a salary dump so that would indicate at the least that the payroll including Javy's 12 million was about maxed out. That would mean that payroll without Javy's 12 million has 12 million to work with,minimum.

munchman33
12-05-2008, 01:39 PM
Given all the money we received in trades from previous contracts and the expectations of the economy, I don't doubt that we're up against whatever the budget is set at. Our budget was never as high as most perceived it to be.

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 01:43 PM
Leave it to the Sox to be the fastest big market team to always cry "poor" first.

Meanwhile, the Angels and Yankees are ready to get in a bidding war for CC. The economy in Southern California is not any better than it is in Chicago right now.

Thome25
12-05-2008, 01:47 PM
Leave it to the Sox to be the fastest big market team to always cry "poor" first.

Meanwhile, the Angels and Yankees are ready to get in a bidding war for CC. The economy in Southern California is not any better than it is in Chicago right now.

Uh Oh.....this post isn't going to turn out too well.:tongue:

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 01:50 PM
Uh Oh.....this post isn't going to turn out too well.:tongue:


It's frustration at all the negative press we are getting because Kenny had to open his mouth. I love Kenny, but I wish he just stops discussing team finances with the media. It makes us look bad IMO.

Just say it how it is without dicussing financing, "We were getting old and bad too quick, this is why i have decided to inject a ton of young players into our system."

ChiSoxFan81
12-05-2008, 01:51 PM
Uh Oh.....this post isn't going to turn out too well.:tongue:

Maybe if attendance was higher, we could afford to spend more

:cower:

Thome25
12-05-2008, 01:52 PM
Maybe if attendance was higher, we could afford to spend more

:cower:

I think you're kidding but, PLEASE don't get this thread roadhoused.:D:

areilly
12-05-2008, 01:54 PM
Just say it how it is without dicussing financing, "We were getting old and bad too quick, this is why i have decided to inject a ton of young players into our system."

I don't think it's really KW's style to speak in such a manner...but it would be nice.

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 01:58 PM
I don't think it's really KW's style to speak in such a manner...but it would be nice.

Kenny is too honest of a GM and this is what gets him in trouble sometimes (mis quoted or losing a deal).

I think he should just give political answers like Lovie.

kittle42
12-05-2008, 02:09 PM
Whatever. It's same old, same old with the Sox that kind of went away for a few years because they won a WS and made some moves to contend the next year. But they'll never/rarely sign a big FA, and will mostly look to cut corners financially in a very public way, upsetting most of us.

voodoochile
12-05-2008, 02:11 PM
It's frustration at all the negative press we are getting because Kenny had to open his mouth. I love Kenny, but I wish he just stops discussing team finances with the media. It makes us look bad IMO.

Just say it how it is without dicussing financing, "We were getting old and bad too quick, this is why i have decided to inject a ton of young players into our system."

I think at this point in time he has to be counting OC as part of the money spent, so depending on how that goes he might have at least $10M to spend. In addition, anyone who believes what KW says to the press is in for a rude awakening. My guess is this means the Sox are about to sign CC and Lowe...

RADAR

:KW:

Thome25
12-05-2008, 02:17 PM
Whatever. It's same old, same old with the Sox that kind of went away for a few years because they won a WS and made some moves to contend the next year. But they'll never/rarely sign a big FA, and will mostly look to cut corners financially in a very public way, upsetting most of us.


Wasn't attendance pretty good in 2008? I'm not complaining because I have faith in the Sox either way but, that right there should give them some money to spend according to their own business philosophy

hawkjt
12-05-2008, 02:19 PM
I am not frustrated by the Sox spending in recent years at all. I want the money to be spent wisely,not foolishly.
A 100 million dollar payroll when they are transitioning from older higher paid players to younger cheaper players is acceptable to me. As those players perform, like Carlos, they will get paid and the payroll will rise again like it has the last 3 years.

Teams in the playoffs....Tampa,Brewers,Philly,and almost Twins...all lower payroll teams...just win, and all payroll concerns melt away.

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 02:20 PM
Whatever. It's same old, same old with the Sox that kind of went away for a few years because they won a WS and made some moves to contend the next year. But they'll never/rarely sign a big FA, and will mostly look to cut corners financially in a very public way, upsetting most of us.


I think the ticket price increase is what has many more fans up in arms than usual.

I think cutting back pay roll and giving some back to the fans by not increasing prices or even lowering them, all will be fine with most Sox fans. I think they need to realize we are hurting financialy too.

But like Voodoo says, Kenny is playing poker here with us. Under the radar is my feeling to all this (or I might be lying to myself to feel better).

voodoochile
12-05-2008, 02:26 PM
Wasn't attendance pretty good in 2008? I'm not complaining because I have faith in the Sox either way but, that right there should give them some money to spend according to their own business philosophy

It was solid, but after a dismal 2007 a lot of people who jumped on the wagon late 2005 and into 2006 dumped their tickets after a 90 loss season. I think someone said they were dosn 300K in attendance from the previous year.

Well not quite, but here's the numbers:

2005 2.4M
2006 2.9M
2007 2.7M
2008 2.5M

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance?sort=home_avg&year=2008&seasonType=2

So they definitely don't have the same revenue they had to spend in 2006 when they maxed things. They'd have probably matched 2006 in 2007 if they'd been in the hunt, but they sucked hard early so people didn't buy single game tickets late in the year and walkups for the most part probably scalped for much cheaper than box office from August on.

2008 was a victim of 2007's season ticket base bailing. You can see the similarities to 2005 with a slightly higher base. Next year the base should climb again, but who knows in this economy... The Sox are expcting a down year as are a lot of teams. In fact the Sox are one of only 10 teams to increase prices this year. Many are dropping or freezing prices or at least offering more inexpensive seats than in years past.

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 02:26 PM
I am not frustrated by the Sox spending in recent years at all. I want the money to be spent wisely,not foolishly.
A 100 million dollar payroll when they are transitioning from older higher paid players to younger cheaper players is acceptable to me. As those players perform, like Carlos, they will get paid and the payroll will rise again like it has the last 3 years.

Teams in the playoffs....Tampa,Brewers,Philly,and almost Twins...all lower payroll teams...just win, and all payroll concerns melt away.


I think you caught lightning in a bottle 3 times last season with Quentin, Alexei, & Gavin. Danks too but many expected him to eventually be as good as he now is.


I think trying to pull the same thing in catching lightning in a bottle at 3 key positions again this year is kind of playing with fire. Keep in mind, you are also assuming duplicate years from the 3 guys who broke out last year and assuming a bounce back year from Paulie.

The marging for error does not look right now. I expect the Twins and Indians to get better too this coming season. And I also expect KC to be very close to .500 team this year, just my feeling.

btrain929
12-05-2008, 02:39 PM
I think at this point in time he has to be counting OC as part of the money spent, so depending on how that goes he might have at least $10M to spend.

I think he counted Cabrera's money as off the books the day the playoffs ended. Him declining arb won't give us anymore money to play with.

but here's the numbers:

2005 2.4M
2006 2.9M
2007 2.7M
2008 2.5M

I'm drawing a blank, but did we go out and spend much leading up to the 2007 season? All I remember is we were coming off our best attendance numbers ever, we dumped Freddy Garcia's salary, added Darin Erstad, and traded for Sisco, Danks, and Masset.

Unless there was some big money-throwing that offseason I don't remember, JR came out waaaaaay ahead that year, and did a lot better than "breaking even."

voodoochile
12-05-2008, 02:56 PM
I think he counted Cabrera's money as off the books the day the playoffs ended. Him declining arb won't give us anymore money to play with.



I'm drawing a blank, but did we go out and spend much leading up to the 2007 season? All I remember is we were coming off our best attendance numbers ever, we dumped Freddy Garcia's salary, added Darin Erstad, and traded for Sisco, Danks, and Masset.

Unless there was some big money-throwing that offseason I don't remember, JR came out waaaaaay ahead that year, and did a lot better than "breaking even."

The big jump came during the 2005 off season, but it continued to climb the next two years:

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=4

hawkjt
12-05-2008, 03:14 PM
Pretty graphic how payroll has risen...last year it was five times what it was 9 years ago. Business has been good ,I guess.

I think roughly speaking Kenny has about 10 million left to work with..more if JD gets traded.

Thome25
12-05-2008, 03:14 PM
I can't blame the Sox for wanting to cut payroll. I mean, their payroll was well above 100 million in 2008 and for the amount they paid to only get a division winner out of it is the equivalent of paying top dollar for poop on a stick.

Now they're trying to be wiser with their money and fans should be thankful for that. I'd rather have a younger, cheaper, and more exciting team rather than an overpaid, underachieving team that has salaries on it that handcuffs the future.

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 03:56 PM
I can't blame the Sox for wanting to cut payroll. I mean, their payroll was well above 100 million in 2008 and for the amount they paid to only get a division winner out of it is the equivalent of paying top dollar for poop on a stick.

Now they're trying to be wiser with their money and fans should be thankful for that. I'd rather have a younger, cheaper, and more exciting team rather than an overpaid, underachieving team that has salaries on it that handcuffs the future.

I agree 110% .... but where is the ticket price increase money going to?

That's my biggest beef.

I think a rule should be if you plan to cut payroll, you should not be allowed to increase ticket prices to your loyal fans, and in these economic times perhaps even decrease ticket prices a few bucks.

doublem23
12-05-2008, 04:02 PM
I agree 110% .... but where is the ticket price increase money going to?

That's my biggest beef.

I think a rule should be if you plan to cut payroll, you should not be allowed to increase ticket prices to your loyal fans, and in these economic times perhaps even decrease ticket prices a few bucks.

I believe we've established thousands and thousands of times already here that payroll budget and ticket prices have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

Lundind1
12-05-2008, 04:03 PM
I agree 110% .... but where is the ticket price increase money going to?

That's my biggest beef.

I think a rule should be if you plan to cut payroll, you should not be allowed to increase ticket prices to your loyal fans, and in these economic times perhaps even decrease ticket prices a few bucks.

Man, I hope that my funnel cakes and churros don't end up costing me my first born in 2009, that is if I have one....if not then I am going to give them something else.

But seriously, I think it is way to early on to begin a complaint about what money goes where. If it comes to February 10th and nothing has been done then by all means. At that point, let em' have it.

raven1
12-05-2008, 04:12 PM
I agree 110% .... but where is the ticket price increase money going to?

That's my biggest beef.

I think a rule should be if you plan to cut payroll, you should not be allowed to increase ticket prices to your loyal fans, and in these economic times perhaps even decrease ticket prices a few bucks.

They're anticipating that attendance will be down somewhat next year due to the economy, so even with the increased ticket prices revenue will likely be going down and payroll with it.

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 04:19 PM
They're anticipating that attendance will be down somewhat next year due to the economy, so even with the increased ticket prices revenue will likely be going down and payroll with it.


I think they are just setting up a cushion for the following years if this economy continues to tank. This year's payroll under normal economic circumstances would be based IMO on the previous season, I think that's how it has been based in the past. You come this year and we will spend next year. We make money this year (like play off money) and we will spend it next year. But I think the Sox are holding back starting now.

It's not a bad idea to be ahead of the curve I guess. The sox might be setting themselves up for the future and many other big spending teams might come crashing down.

If this economic recession lasts for more than 2 yrs, I can see some teams contracting or going BK.

doublem23
12-05-2008, 04:21 PM
If this economic recession lasts for more than 2 yrs, I can see some teams contracting or going BK.

:rolling:

Maybe some minor league teams, but Major League Baseball teams?

No. Way.

jdm2662
12-05-2008, 04:28 PM
Kenny is too honest of a GM and this is what gets him in trouble sometimes (mis quoted or losing a deal).

I think he should just give political answers like Lovie.

Then, we will be hearing complaints how Kenny lacks that "fire and passion".

Domeshot17
12-05-2008, 04:38 PM
They may not be related, but the Sox can say they are worried all they want about the economy, but if they really were, they would not be bumping ticket prices almost 10% coming off a year they did not even win 90 games (including playoff wins). I mean yah the division race was fun and the play in game was amazing, but really, when you think about it, The AL Central was almost as bad as the NL West last year. We really snuck into the playoffs. I wouldn't mind the Ticket Price jump if they were going to increase spending (and yes I know more goes into it then Ticket Prices), but really what the Sox are selling is, Pay More to See Less according to Kenny.

Lundind1
12-05-2008, 06:12 PM
I don't know how much of a drop off in talent that you are going to see this year. The only major change is going to be at 3rd. You know what you are getting with Ramirez at SS, and the only other unknown is going to be 2nd. Center is either going to be BA or Owens. Thats it. We shouldn't say that we are seeing less when our expectations were zero last year anyway. I'd rather have a bit of a tough year with anticipation than 2007 where I felt the whole franchise was falling apart.

jdm2662
12-05-2008, 06:31 PM
You know for all the stuff/griping/moaning, etc, of the Sox payroll, I'll ask a few quesitons.

Who were the two best position players last season? The obvious first choice is TCQ. Then, it's a toss up between Dye or TQM. I'll pick TQM as I feel, well, he was the second best player. Do you know what TCQ and TQM have in common? They were the two lowest paid starters on the team.

Now, we move on to the rotation. Who were the two best starters? I will say Floyd and Danks, although you can make a case for Mark, too. Do you know what Floyd and Danks have in common? You guessed it. They were by far the lowest paid starters on the team. Sorry, Richard and Broadway don't count.

On to the bullpen. Who was the closer and best pitcher? That would be Jenks. He didn't exactly exactly have a large pay check, either.

My point? Who gives a crap what players make. Put a team on the field and win games. Just because the team has high paid players, doesn't mean the team will be successful (see 2007 or 2008 Tigers). I have no idea what to expect, but you know what? We have no idea what to expect until spring training. Even then, we won't really know. The Tigers and Indians were susposed to fight for the division last season. Look how well that worked out.

Dan Mega
12-05-2008, 06:35 PM
I rarely believe a word KW says in the offseason.

A voice of reason.

Lip Man 1
12-05-2008, 06:41 PM
Love:

I agree a lot with your comments in this thread but with Proud To Be Your Bud now crowing publicly that MLB is now a 6 1/2 BILLION dollar business (that's NFL territory my friend...) with new revenue streams and advertisers lining up, I serious doubt ANY MLB would ever go belly up even if the economy tanked for another five years. With the caveat being unless an owner actually wanted to (a la Carl Pohland and the Twins 2002)

Lip

Lundind1
12-05-2008, 06:43 PM
You know for all the stuff/griping/moaning, etc, of the Sox payroll, I'll ask a few quesitons.

Who were the two best position players last season? The obvious first choice is TCQ. Then, it's a toss up between Dye or TQM. I'll pick TQM as I feel, well, he was the second best player. Do you know what TCQ and TQM have in common? They were the two lowest paid starters on the team.

Now, we move on to the rotation. Who were the two best starters? I will say Floyd and Danks, although you can make a case for Mark, too. Do you know what Floyd and Danks have in common? You guessed it. They were by far the lowest paid starters on the team. Sorry, Richard and Broadway don't count.

On to the bullpen. Who was the closer and best pitcher? That would be Jenks. He didn't exactly exactly have a large pay check, either.

My point? Who gives a crap what players make. Put a team on the field and win games. Just because the team has high paid players, doesn't mean the team will be successful (see 2007 or 2008 Tigers). I have no idea what to expect, but you know what? We have no idea what to expect until spring training. Even then, we won't really know. The Tigers and Indians were susposed to fight for the division last season. Look how well that worked out.

TQM, thats either Total Quality Management or The Quickie Monster. LOL

That is why I think the only real piece that we lost that was really important even if it is that he will be effective for 2 more seasons would be OC. Most of the other players that we lost didn't have that huge of an impact. If Swisher had more playing time and more AB's I would have had a heart attack, or I would have said that it was a bigger loss than it was.

I think that we will be okay after these off-season moves. Like I said in earlier posts, we're only done with the first week of December, the GM meetings are just getting started. Kenny says a lot of things that I don't buy, so there could be another huge deal or two in the works.

Stay tuned and keep the faith.

Lip Man 1
12-05-2008, 06:44 PM
JDM:

You have some valid points but depth and quality costs money. ESPECIALLY PITCHING. Right now the Sox appear to have neither at some positions and over the course of a 162 game season that shortcoming usually is fatal.

Let's just say that 40% of your starting rotation consisting of let's say Broadway and Richard don't especially excite the senses does it? (Although I'm sure there are a bunch of MLB hitters looking forward to that prospect...)

Lip

Noneck
12-05-2008, 07:45 PM
If this economic recession lasts for more than 2 yrs, I can see some teams contracting or going BK.

1st I would like to say that I really like your comments in this thread and agree with you except on the above comment. (owners may sell and if they do, a line will be wrapped around the corner to buy, but no one will go bankrupt)


Secondly, I notice the company men here don't really have much to say here, that must mean you hit the nail on the head. Nice work.

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 08:05 PM
:rolling:

Maybe some minor league teams, but Major League Baseball teams?

No. Way.


It was an exageration from my part, but ask yourself the question if indeed we start heading towards a depression economy instead of the current recession?

I don't want to get into business talk on this thread, but just an example today with the report that 1 in every 10 mortgage holders in America today is either delinquent or in foreclosure. :o: That's a depression waiting to happen right there if the trend continues.

Never say never. If you would have given me the list 5-10 years ago of giant financial institutions that would have crashed down today, I would have laughed at you. (Leehman, Merrill Lynch, WAMU, Countrywide, Fannie, Freddie... just to name a few).

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 08:13 PM
I believe we've established thousands and thousands of times already here that payroll budget and ticket prices have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

This one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted.

You seriously believe this?

Payroll and ticket prices/revenue has nothing to do with one another?

So where does the ticket price increase revenue go to, White Sox charities? Are you kidding me?

I agree that ticket revenue does not make up 100% of the payroll budget, but it makes up a good portion of it.

I honestly think ticket price increase will cover the Sox for many corporate sponsorship $$$ which will not exist next season. This, I am begining to believe.

munchman33
12-05-2008, 08:26 PM
This one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted.




Ticket prices are based on economic projections. What the team feels they can charge to make the most profit. It has less to do with team payroll than you think.

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 08:39 PM
Ticket prices are based on economic projections. What the team feels they can charge to make the most profit. It has less to do with team payroll than you think.

Economic projections should have suggested the Sox lower their ticket prices by min 10% from last year.

itsnotrequired
12-05-2008, 08:40 PM
Economic projections should have suggested the Sox lower their ticket prices by min 10% from last year.

source?

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 08:55 PM
source?


Source?


Look around. Turn on the TV and watch the news.

itsnotrequired
12-05-2008, 08:57 PM
Source?


Look around. Turn on the TV and watch the news.

I wasn't aware baseball had a financial crisis. Probably because they don't have one...

DumpJerry
12-05-2008, 09:00 PM
This one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted.

You seriously believe this?

Payroll and ticket prices/revenue has nothing to do with one another?

So where does the ticket price increase revenue go to, White Sox charities? Are you kidding me?

I agree that ticket revenue does not make up 100% of the payroll budget, but it makes up a good portion of it.

I honestly think ticket price increase will cover the Sox for many corporate sponsorship $$$ which will not exist next season. This, I am begining to believe.
Wrong. Ticket revenue are a minor, minor source of the overall revenue of a MLB team, White Sox included. This subject has been covered many times over the years on this board and in other places, so I'm not going to reiterate how concessions, television, radio, luxury tax, revenue sharing, licensing, advertising are among the more lucrative sources of revenue.

Noneck
12-05-2008, 09:08 PM
so I'm not going to reiterate how concessions, television, radio, luxury tax, revenue sharing, licensing, advertising are among the more lucrative sources of revenue.

And with Uncle Bud stating the MLB is 6 1/2 BILLION dollar business, they sure can't be hurting in their most lucrative sources of revenue. Increases in tic prices is just the nuts on top of their sundae.

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 09:13 PM
Wrong. Ticket revenue are a minor, minor source of the overall revenue of a MLB team, White Sox included. This subject has been covered many times over the years on this board and in other places, so I'm not going to reiterate how concessions, television, radio, luxury tax, revenue sharing, licensing, advertising are among the more lucrative sources of revenue.


All of that comes down to the consumer purchasing the produtct ..... the fans.

Brian26
12-05-2008, 09:27 PM
Biggest WSI beatdown since Aloha said he rather choose a pitcher based on W-L record than ERA.

LoveYourSuit
12-05-2008, 09:32 PM
Wrong. Ticket revenue are a minor, minor source of the overall revenue of a MLB team, White Sox included. This subject has been covered many times over the years on this board and in other places, so I'm not going to reiterate how concessions, television, radio, luxury tax, revenue sharing, licensing, advertising are among the more lucrative sources of revenue.


By the way, just did the math:

80 million tickets sold last year at an average ticket price of $25 per seat.... That's $2 billion in revenue right there.

$6 billion+ is what Bud is claiming?

Tickets make up 1/3 right there.

So ticket revenue is minor :scratch:

champagne030
12-05-2008, 09:39 PM
Wrong. Ticket revenue are a minor, minor source of the overall revenue of a MLB team, White Sox included. This subject has been covered many times over the years on this board and in other places, so I'm not going to reiterate how concessions, television, radio, luxury tax, revenue sharing, licensing, advertising are among the more lucrative sources of revenue.

That's bull**** and you know it because we've already had this discussion. The Sox ticket revenue is significantly more that 1/2 their payroll (pre sharing) and that's a major source of revenue, in fact, their single largest source.

kittle42
12-05-2008, 09:41 PM
Source?


Look around. Turn on the TV and watch the news.

GMAB. People turn to sources of entertainment in economic downtimes. I'd be surprised if baseball and other sports suffered much from any recession.

champagne030
12-05-2008, 09:49 PM
Wrong. Ticket revenue are a minor, minor source of the overall revenue of a MLB team, White Sox included. This subject has been covered many times over the years on this board and in other places, so I'm not going to reiterate how concessions, television, radio, luxury tax, revenue sharing, licensing, advertising are among the more lucrative sources of revenue.

That's bull**** and you know it because we've already had this discussion. The Sox ticket revenue is significantly more that 1/2 their payroll (pre sharing) and that's a major source of revenue, in fact, their single largest source.

And in case you forgot, here's a link to some public information.

http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/secdoc.xhtml?ID=46733&ipage=238249-134503-141303

I understand this is before some of the current revenue sharing plans and sources of income, but ticket sales blow away any other single source of revenue.

doublem23
12-05-2008, 10:27 PM
That's bull**** and you know it because we've already had this discussion. The Sox ticket revenue is significantly more that 1/2 their payroll (pre sharing) and that's a major source of revenue, in fact, their single largest source.

You can't say that because MLB owners have never actually opened their books for public inspection. You, I, or anyone else on these boards have no idea the state of the White Sox's finances.

As for the ticket increase, that's set by the supply and demand of the product, and seeing as the White Sox have been hovering around 30,000 per game over the last few years. Their raising ticket prices has no bearing on what the team payroll will be, nor should it.

ilsox7
12-05-2008, 10:41 PM
You can't say that because MLB owners have never actually opened their books for public inspection. You, I, or anyone else on these boards have no idea the state of the White Sox's finances.



You seem to have forgotten that plenty of people around here, in fact the majorty of WSI, knows the exact specifics of The White Sox's finances.

Lundind1
12-05-2008, 11:02 PM
A friend of mine who works in the sports industry estimated that the Sox would make about 80 million in ticket revenues for last season's attendance. With the payroll in the 104+Mil range last year, the team did infact rely on other sources of revenue. The problem is, without breaking down all the expenses and disbursements the Sox make, coupled with revenues, you cannot make an assumption as to whether the club really made a ton in 2007 or 2008, esp late 2007 and early in 2008. We also don't know how much money is going in the gate 5 project from ISFA and how much out of the Sox pockets.

Just keep in mind that there are large expenses all around that place, not just on the field. It is in the field, in the building, in the dugout, in the maintenance, all the garbage we leave behind, everywhere. So to really take one side or the other without knowing all the facts of the balance sheet is ridiculous.

champagne030
12-05-2008, 11:15 PM
You can't say that because MLB owners have never actually opened their books for public inspection. You, I, or anyone else on these boards have no idea the state of the White Sox's finances.

As for the ticket increase, that's set by the supply and demand of the product, and seeing as the White Sox have been hovering around 30,000 per game over the last few years. Their raising ticket prices has no bearing on what the team payroll will be, nor should it.

You seem to have forgotten that plenty of people around here, in fact the majorty of WSI, knows the exact specifics of The White Sox's finances.

I just provided their "open" books. And it leaves zero doubt about the #1 source of revenue.

ilsox7
12-05-2008, 11:17 PM
I just provided their "open" books. And it leaves zero doubt about the #1 source of revenue.

Ah yes. Ten year old data from another team. Proves everything!

champagne030
12-05-2008, 11:28 PM
Ah yes. Ten year old data from another team. Proves everything!

Are you seriously going to question the #1 source of revenue?

ilsox7
12-05-2008, 11:31 PM
Are you seriously going to question the #1 source of revenue?

Until someone provides actual evidence from, well, this decade, yes. No half-baked finance professional would accept data from 10 years ago to prove their point in the present.

No one (well not me at least) is saying that ticket sales are not the top source of revenue, but until it is proved, it means nothing.

champagne030
12-05-2008, 11:41 PM
No one (well not me at least) is saying that ticket sales are not the top source of revenue, but until it is proved, it means nothing.

I'm not talking profits. Dumpjerry claimed that ticket sales are a tiny fraction of revenue. That's all I'm disputing in this thread.

voodoochile
12-05-2008, 11:47 PM
You don't set ticket prices based on how much payroll you want to spend.

You do set payroll (at least in part) based on how much money you expect to generate from ticket sales.

I think the proof of this is in the pudding if nothing else. Since 2005 season the Sox have seen some of their best years in terms of attendance and have also seen their payroll skyrocket at the same time.

Last year the Sox averaged $30.28/seat. http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2008/03/28/average_ticket_price_list/

Last year the Sox sold right about 2.5M tickets. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

That's $75M just for opening the gates. I'd say that's a pretty significant part of their budget.

Oh and the "true books" argument is old, IMO. There are plenty of big time financial experts getting paid plenty of big time money to take good guesses as to what these teams generate and earn.

And again, for example, the Sox don't even count their parking revenue as a revenue stream. The concession is owned by another company (which JR just happens to be a major stock holder in along with the other members of the Sox board). How many cars parked at USCF last year at $20 apiece? If it's 10K cars/game, it's $16M for the season and a good chunk of that is untraceable cash.

Lundind1
12-05-2008, 11:55 PM
You don't set ticket prices based on how much payroll you want to spend.

You do set payroll (at least in part) based on how much money you expect to generate from ticket sales.

I think the proof of this is in the pudding if nothing else. Since 2005 season the Sox have seen some of their best years in terms of attendance and have also seen their payroll skyrocket at the same time.

Last year the Sox averaged $30.28/seat. http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2008/03/28/average_ticket_price_list/

Last year the Sox sold right about 2.5M tickets. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

That's $75M just for opening the gates. I'd say that's a pretty significant part of their budget.

Oh and the "true books" argument is old, IMO. There are plenty of big time financial experts getting paid plenty of big time money to take good guesses as to what these teams generate and earn.

And again, for example, the Sox don't even count their parking revenue as a revenue stream. The concession is owned by another company (which JR just happens to be a major stock holder in along with the other members of the Sox board). How many cars parked at USCF last year at $20 apiece? If it's 10K cars/game, it's $16M for the season and a good chunk of that is untraceable cash.

The only problem is think about the income tax that is paid and all the amusement taxes to the city and county plus the sales tax. It is almost like a legal form of double taxation.

The season ticket holders paid $16 per pass last year and cash was $22, plus there are hefty taxes on that stuff too. Each pass is numbered and audited, any discrepancies can get you fired. A guy that I know runs the parking for Lot G and he told me how it all works. They watch the cash parking like a hawk he said.

Just a bit of food for thought, maybe taking an angle that would help the case here.

voodoochile
12-06-2008, 12:00 AM
The only problem is think about the income tax that is paid and all the amusement taxes to the city and county plus the sales tax. It is almost like a legal form of double taxation.

The season ticket holders paid $16 per pass last year and cash was $22, plus there are hefty taxes on that stuff too. Each pass is numbered and audited, any discrepancies can get you fired. A guy that I know runs the parking for Lot G and he told me how it all works. They watch the cash parking like a hawk he said.

Just a bit of food for thought, maybe taking an angle that would help the case here.

Valid points, but again all of that can be calculated out. If it's $5 of the average cost, then it's 25/average ticket net and that's 62.5M which is still a significant chunk.

Yes, the parking revenue is all audited like a hawk from the minute the tickets are dispensed until the minute the revenue is locked up in the office. How many lost or destroyed tickets/books of tickets are then reported by the actual owners when they officially clear the books?

Lundind1
12-06-2008, 12:17 AM
Valid points, but again all of that can be calculated out. If it's $5 of the average cost, then it's 25/average ticket net and that's 62.5M which is still a significant chunk.

Yes, the parking revenue is all audited like a hawk from the minute the tickets are dispensed until the minute the revenue is locked up in the office. How many lost or destroyed tickets/books of tickets are then reported by the actual owners when they officially clear the books?

That is the key right there. Unless it is a publicly traded entity, we will never know. That is the beauty of being a solely private corporation. The only paper trail is when either the funds pass through the corporation or the elected owners/officers elect to disburse a dividend to themselves.

I think that even MLB has a hard time tracking just how much cash flows through the franchises, unless bound by a contractual agreement to disclose that to the parent organization....in this case MLB.

Selig may know the rough numbers and things maybe accounted for well, but as for the grand scope of how deep the money trail goes and the impact of a rough economy on how the Sox will spend, this is something we may never know.

I think KW has a rough budget and has some leeway, just like a salesman would for all his accounts to dole out trade discounts and such. If he gets to negotiate with a top tier FA, then he might have the flexibility to pay a bit over the projected budget for the year.

voodoochile
12-06-2008, 12:21 AM
That is the key right there. Unless it is a publicly traded entity, we will never know. That is the beauty of being a solely private corporation. The only paper trail is when either the funds pass through the corporation or the elected owners/officers elect to disburse a dividend to themselves.

I think that even MLB has a hard time tracking just how much cash flows through the franchises, unless bound by a contractual agreement to disclose that to the parent organization....in this case MLB.

Selig may know the rough numbers and things maybe accounted for well, but as for the grand scope of how deep the money trail goes and the impact of a rough economy on how the Sox will spend, this is something we may never know.

I think KW has a rough budget and has some leeway, just like a salesman would for all his accounts to dole out trade discounts and such. If he gets to negotiate with a top tier FA, then he might have the flexibility to pay a bit over the projected budget for the year.

The Sox at least have the counterweight to the poor economy in that they are coming off a playoff season - and one that but for an ill timed wrist injury to TCQ who knows how far they could have gone?

In fact baseball interest is close to or at an all time high right now in Chicago. They may not add a bunch of season ticket holders, but the net loss from poor economy might be offset by people buying to see playoff caliber baseball. A team like Detroit now for example has no where to go but down, IMO.

Lundind1
12-06-2008, 12:31 AM
The Sox at least have the counterweight to the poor economy in that they are coming off a playoff season - and one that but for an ill timed wrist injury to TCQ who knows how far they could have gone?

In fact baseball interest is close to or at an all time high right now in Chicago. They may not add a bunch of season ticket holders, but the net loss from poor economy might be offset by people buying to see playoff caliber baseball. A team like Detroit now for example has no where to go but down, IMO.

I agree with that. The economy really stinks in Detroit. I had the distinct "honor" of sitting with one of the only Detroit fans at the Monday game late this past season. He feared that Mikey I. was going to lose his butt with how poor the team did in the past season and the poor economy.

I know that we had discussed this in an earlier thread but one thing I want you to be aware of, voodoo, is the fact that season ticket holders, myself included, were forced to keep our unplayed game ticket money in or lose our seats for next year. They kinda forced our hand and I would be silly to not keep mine right behind homeplate. So you might be seeing a reaction to not 2009 ticket sales but the projection of 2010 regardless of success or failure.

Just some more food for thought.

Vernam
12-06-2008, 12:49 AM
It's funny to me that even Phil Rogers has admitted by now that he was unfair to Kenny about earlier "salary dump" trades, yet so many Sox fans still have a knee-jerk reaction when we unload a big contract for young talent. I don't think he's infallible, but the state of our farm system left him little choice but to restock like this.

What's also funny is the sense of loss people feel when someone like Vazquez departs. He was a pariah when the 2008 season concluded! Yeah, we should try to get max value when trading a "proven workhorse," and I suppose 200+ innings are hard to replace, etc. But regarding him (and Swisher, for that matter), I don't see any huge gamble in dumping someone who is a pretty well-proven mediocrity. (Or less than mediocre, in Swisher's case.) In that context, what's the risk of trying a younger -- and yes, lower-paid -- player who at least might prove to be something more than maddeningly inconsistent? How is that causing anyone to lose sleep?

Even the 200 innings thing is overrated. Without Javi, do we forfeit any of those innings? Ozzie and Coop wake up one day and there's no one to pitch? No, the innings will get pitched. I bet they get pitched at something comparable to a 4.67 ERA. (By "comparable," I mean "significantly less than one ER per game higher.")

And then there's the issue that I don't gauge the Sox's love for me by the total of their payroll. I get a kick out of watching them retool. It'd be silly to expect minor miracles like Quentin and Ramirez every year, but it's happened often enough -- e.g., Floyd, Danks, Jenks, and even signing Dye long ago -- that it would take more than a few actual missteps for me to lose confidence in Kenny at this point.

I suppose if we hadn't won that tiebreaker against Minnesota, even I'd be singing a slightly different tune. But we did win it, and I think it buys the team a little breathing room. I'm not saying there won't or shouldn't be pressure to contend each year, including 2009. But keeping every high-salaried guy from our 2008 roster, much less adding to the number of high salaries, would have seemed to me like a recipe for disaster. IMO, you're virtually guaranteed to overpay drastically for any proven, highly paid player, whether acquired through trade or free agency. And from there, at best either they are overpaid guys who perform well, or at worst they become a financial albatross. No thanks.

But if we do now add some salary, that risk will be much more manageable than if we still had stinkers like Vazquez and Swisher. To me, adding a big contract is where the real danger lies. In comparison, IMO, going young is smarter and more responsible. You can take a chance that those players will reach their highest potential, whereas in acquiring veteran talent, you're almost guaranteed there's not an upside beyond what the player has already shown. And as we've seen, it's a gamble counting on them even to match prior performance. Kenny had little choice but to go that route, though, due to a barren farm system, which puts an incredible strain on the entire organization. Thank god that's starting to change.

We've got a GM who's shown an uncanny ability to pick up bargains. Watching him do his thing is a real part of the enjoyment I get from being a Sox fan. I wish everyone could relax and enjoy it, rather than anguish over how we can replace proven mediocrities.

Vernam

voodoochile
12-06-2008, 12:57 AM
I agree with that. The economy really stinks in Detroit. I had the distinct "honor" of sitting with one of the only Detroit fans at the Monday game late this past season. He feared that Mikey I. was going to lose his butt with how poor the team did in the past season and the poor economy.

I know that we had discussed this in an earlier thread but one thing I want you to be aware of, voodoo, is the fact that season ticket holders, myself included, were forced to keep our unplayed game ticket money in or lose our seats for next year. They kinda forced our hand and I would be silly to not keep mine right behind homeplate. So you might be seeing a reaction to not 2009 ticket sales but the projection of 2010 regardless of success or failure.

Just some more food for thought.

Hi there... You come here often? Can I get you a drink? :wink:

I doubt they are gaming it out that far in advance and besides next year, Contreras and Thome come off the books and I think they can let Dye walk too. Thats like $30M freed up right there.

I'm sticking with my thought that KW is counting OC on the books at the moment until after the deadline passes. Then he'll have a better idea of what he can do this year. I don't think they will cut payroll any more, but would be surprised if they didn't spend that $9M or whatever somehow. If season ticket sales actually go up next year because of the playoff season just past then they will definitely be able to be a buyer in the trade market while other teams may be desperate to unload some of their high priced talent.

We'll see, but again, I'm not gonna put a lot of faith in KW's word to the media even before he has been to the winter meetings...

Lundind1
12-06-2008, 01:13 AM
Hi there... You come here often? Can I get you a drink? :wink:

I doubt they are gaming it out that far in advance and besides next year, Contreras and Thome come off the books and I think they can let Dye walk too. Thats like $30M freed up right there.

I'm sticking with my thought that KW is counting OC on the books at the moment until after the deadline passes. Then he'll have a better idea of what he can do this year. I don't think they will cut payroll any more, but would be surprised if they didn't spend that $9M or whatever somehow. If season ticket sales actually go up next year because of the playoff season just past then they will definitely be able to be a buyer in the trade market while other teams may be desperate to unload some of their high priced talent.

We'll see, but again, I'm not gonna put a lot of faith in KW's word to the media even before he has been to the winter meetings...

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. They would be the best seats if they were in the lower deck behind home, but I am long foul ball territory in row 3 behind home with the Upper Deck crew. Nice view up there on a non-foggy, non-cloudy day. LOL. But I would take a beer, that'd be nice :gulp:.


Yeah I see them being a big player on the buying side before the trade deadline.

As for the expanded budgets, the Sox will have that worked out for 2010 by Late August or Late September of 2009, with flexibility to amend it if something drastic comes along.

Lundind1
12-06-2008, 01:17 AM
Kenny had little choice but to go that route, though, due to a barren farm system, which puts an incredible strain on the entire organization. Thank god that's starting to change.

We've got a GM who's shown an uncanny ability to pick up bargains. Watching him do his thing is a real part of the enjoyment I get from being a Sox fan. I wish everyone could relax and enjoy it, rather than anguish over how we can replace proven mediocrities.

Vernam

I could not have driven that notion home any better. No time to panic, just let this thing work out with the idea that it is still early December.

Domeshot17
12-06-2008, 01:32 AM
Not getting into the ins and outs of finances, don't want too, I do money 60 hours a week this is my down time :D:.

I will say again, this is my general problem with this statement.

Sometimes teams cut payroll because it has a heeping pile of young, ready talent (Twins esque). Sometimes teams cut payroll because they are over extended . Sometimes teams cut payroll because they are rebuilding.

Teams raise Ticket Prices for 1 of 4 reasons. They are coming off a fantastic year. They expect to make a major run at a great season, they have a milestone event or player addition that is going to be a major draw or that has been a huge push in the American Economy, inflation is up and they are keeping pace.

The sox, from all reports, are the 3rd tier of cutting payroll. We have moved 2 mlb players for prospects, and only 1 of those prospects may have any impact on us next year. They are talking about trading their most steady offensive player over the last 3 years for more prospects. They are talking about trading their young, superstar, face of the franchise closer for....prospects.

I have no problem with a rebuilding year. What I have a problem with, is there is very little economic justification in raising ticket prices. We don't fall into any of those 4 categories. We are coming off a nice but hardly great season. We had a piss poor showing in the playoffs and were clearly outmatched. We made the playoffs on a combination of pitching grit and a down AL Central. There is no reason right now to think we will be better than 88 wins next year, especially when we trade off members of our team for guys who won't contribute for a few years. We are relying very very heavily on the ideas none of our young break out guys will have a sophomore slump or regress.

It just bothers me we have a very large Ticket Increase and we are going from a team that underachieved, or maybe was par for the course, at 88 wins and a first round exit to a team that will have to vastly overachieve to get to that same 88 wins, especially when odds are the central bounces back and 88 wins does not take the division.

Say we went into 2009 with an offense of AJ C PK 1b Getz/Nix 2b Alexei SS Fields 3b and TCQ-Brian-Dayan/Owens, a Rotation of Burls Danks Floyd Marquez Richard and a bullpen of Poreda Dotel Linebrink and Thornton. We aren't royals bad, but we aren't playoff good. It is a building a year. Probably 83-84 wins. I will always support the Sox, but with the economy the way it is, I don't know if I would shell out more then I did last year to see that team.

Now yes, Pitchers and Catchers do not report for 2 1/2 months. There is a lot of time for Kenny to try and make something work. It just doesn't seem to add up for the fans.

Hopefully this is like when you tell someone all december they aren't getting what they want for Xmas just to pysche um and watch them shocked when they open the gift. But what I really think is the Sox are gearing back to the 75-85 mil payroll range, and what enough off the books to resign Danks and Floyd and Quentin when their Arbitration comes up. I like that idea, but there is no reason we shouldn't be spending 90-105 million a year.

voodoochile
12-06-2008, 01:46 AM
Not getting into the ins and outs of finances, don't want too, I do money 60 hours a week this is my down time :D:.

I will say again, this is my general problem with this statement.

Sometimes teams cut payroll because it has a heeping pile of young, ready talent (Twins esque). Sometimes teams cut payroll because they are over extended . Sometimes teams cut payroll because they are rebuilding.

Teams raise Ticket Prices for 1 of 4 reasons. They are coming off a fantastic year. They expect to make a major run at a great season, they have a milestone event or player addition that is going to be a major draw or that has been a huge push in the American Economy, inflation is up and they are keeping pace.

The sox, from all reports, are the 3rd tier of cutting payroll. We have moved 2 mlb players for prospects, and only 1 of those prospects may have any impact on us next year. They are talking about trading their most steady offensive player over the last 3 years for more prospects. They are talking about trading their young, superstar, face of the franchise closer for....prospects.

I have no problem with a rebuilding year. What I have a problem with, is there is very little economic justification in raising ticket prices. We don't fall into any of those 4 categories. We are coming off a nice but hardly great season. We had a piss poor showing in the playoffs and were clearly outmatched. We made the playoffs on a combination of pitching grit and a down AL Central. There is no reason right now to think we will be better than 88 wins next year, especially when we trade off members of our team for guys who won't contribute for a few years. We are relying very very heavily on the ideas none of our young break out guys will have a sophomore slump or regress.

It just bothers me we have a very large Ticket Increase and we are going from a team that underachieved, or maybe was par for the course, at 88 wins and a first round exit to a team that will have to vastly overachieve to get to that same 88 wins, especially when odds are the central bounces back and 88 wins does not take the division.

Say we went into 2009 with an offense of AJ C PK 1b Getz/Nix 2b Alexei SS Fields 3b and TCQ-Brian-Dayan/Owens, a Rotation of Burls Danks Floyd Marquez Richard and a bullpen of Poreda Dotel Linebrink and Thornton. We aren't royals bad, but we aren't playoff good. It is a building a year. Probably 83-84 wins. I will always support the Sox, but with the economy the way it is, I don't know if I would shell out more then I did last year to see that team.

Now yes, Pitchers and Catchers do not report for 2 1/2 months. There is a lot of time for Kenny to try and make something work. It just doesn't seem to add up for the fans.

Hopefully this is like when you tell someone all december they aren't getting what they want for Xmas just to pysche um and watch them shocked when they open the gift. But what I really think is the Sox are gearing back to the 75-85 mil payroll range, and what enough off the books to resign Danks and Floyd and Quentin when their Arbitration comes up. I like that idea, but there is no reason we shouldn't be spending 90-105 million a year.

A few questions/points:

How many wins were you expecting last year at this time in the off season?

Other than the rumors in WTS, how do you actually know who KW is shopping for prospects and who he is shopping for upgrades at other positions or who was being shopped but is no longer being shopped because of trades that have already happened? Rumors are circular on the Internet. Dye may have been being offered, but after the Swisher trade the demands may have changed. Also, why wouldn't KW listen to all offers for all players on a team that you were disappointed with last year?

Do you really think the closeness of the division last year had as much to do with the rest of the division or the loss of Contreras and TCQ for long periods of time at the end of the year. Want to play game 2 against the Rays over with TCQ in the lineup? Want to then take your chances on a game 5?

Your post while tempered still smacks of doom and gloom scenarios. The glass is at worst half full right now (though some prefer to see it half empty) but the Sox are a starting pitcher sign/trade away from being an ALC contender right now and given KW's history, I sincerely doubt he's done for the year. Just as the season isn't ever over on April 5th the roster is a long way from set on 12/6...

LoveYourSuit
12-06-2008, 03:55 AM
.................

Hopefully this is like when you tell someone all december they aren't getting what they want for Xmas just to pysche um and watch them shocked when they open the gift. But what I really think is the Sox are gearing back to the 75-85 mil payroll range, and what enough off the books to resign Danks and Floyd and Quentin when their Arbitration comes up. I like that idea, but there is no reason we shouldn't be spending 90-105 million a year.

Very good post you put together. I share plenty of the same thoughts you have put to gether.


As for what's on bold letters on top, you can forget about it. It is not the way Jerry does business. Look at what has become of Jenks now that he is arb. eligible...... he's on every trade rumor out there. Every White Sox star will have have some sort of sour ending with the club. Just go down the list, and in the majority of those cases, management was right to cut them lose. Paulie escaped the axe and we can't even give hime away right now.

LoveYourSuit
12-06-2008, 04:00 AM
You don't set ticket prices based on how much payroll you want to spend.

You do set payroll (at least in part) based on how much money you expect to generate from ticket sales.

I think the proof of this is in the pudding if nothing else. Since 2005 season the Sox have seen some of their best years in terms of attendance and have also seen their payroll skyrocket at the same time.

Last year the Sox averaged $30.28/seat. http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2008/03/28/average_ticket_price_list/

Last year the Sox sold right about 2.5M tickets. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

That's $75M just for opening the gates. I'd say that's a pretty significant part of their budget.

Oh and the "true books" argument is old, IMO. There are plenty of big time financial experts getting paid plenty of big time money to take good guesses as to what these teams generate and earn.

And again, for example, the Sox don't even count their parking revenue as a revenue stream. The concession is owned by another company (which JR just happens to be a major stock holder in along with the other members of the Sox board). How many cars parked at USCF last year at $20 apiece? If it's 10K cars/game, it's $16M for the season and a good chunk of that is untraceable cash.


Thanks Voodoo.

You are the only Mod that has come in here to make sense on this thread. The other guys just storm in here and dump there 2 sentences of illogical ideas and assume everyone should just agree with them.

4 points
12-06-2008, 05:02 AM
Until someone provides actual evidence from, well, this decade, yes. No half-baked finance professional would accept data from 10 years ago to prove their point in the present.



No one (well not me at least) is saying that ticket sales are not the top source of revenue, but until it is proved, it means nothing.

GW did in 2001.:bandance::bandance::bandance:

Frater Perdurabo
12-06-2008, 05:36 AM
It's funny to me that even Phil Rogers has admitted by now that he was unfair to Kenny about earlier "salary dump" trades, yet so many Sox fans still have a knee-jerk reaction when we unload a big contract for young talent. I don't think he's infallible, but the state of our farm system left him little choice but to restock like this.

... (edited for brevity) ...

We've got a GM who's shown an uncanny ability to pick up bargains. Watching him do his thing is a real part of the enjoyment I get from being a Sox fan. I wish everyone could relax and enjoy it, rather than anguish over how we can replace proven mediocrities.

Vernam

Great post, Vernam. Well argued! :smile:

gosox41
12-06-2008, 07:32 AM
This one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted.

You seriously believe this?

Payroll and ticket prices/revenue has nothing to do with one another?

So where does the ticket price increase revenue go to, White Sox charities? Are you kidding me?

I agree that ticket revenue does not make up 100% of the payroll budget, but it makes up a good portion of it.

I honestly think ticket price increase will cover the Sox for many corporate sponsorship $$$ which will not exist next season. This, I am begining to believe.

I agree with you. I've argued your point many years but some don't get it. But those are same people who think that every ML team makes huge money every year over the last 100+ years.

doublem23
12-06-2008, 09:05 AM
Thanks Voodoo.

You are the only Mod that has come in here to make sense on this thread. The other guys just storm in here and dump there 2 sentences of illogical ideas and assume everyone should just agree with them.

:rolling:

You should learn how to take your own advice before throwing it around.

doublem23
12-06-2008, 09:06 AM
I agree with you. I've argued your point many years but some don't get it. But those are same people who think that every ML team makes huge money every year over the last 100+ years.

Ticket prices are set by the market. Just like every other product. You don't set the price based on what you project your expenses will be, you set the price based on what you predict will generate the most revenue. If you want to argue that the Sox should have held prices in check or lowered them because of the potential for lower attendance as the economy slides, fine, that's an opinion that, although I personally disagree with, but at least respect as being logical. But to say the Sox need to raise player payroll because they're raising ticket prices is thuroughly insane.

Granted, I only got a B in Econ 101, but even I understand this concept.

Lip Man 1
12-06-2008, 10:28 AM
My only contribution to the discussion is that I've spoken to a number of folks who have actual working knowledge of the Sox payroll situation or personally know someone who is on the Sox board of directors.

They have told me that the lost haven't lost money (direct quote) "for a long time..."

Take it for what it's worth.

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-06-2008, 10:29 AM
Sorry...keyboard issues.

The second line should read "that the Sox haven't lost money in (direct quote) "a long time..."

Lip

Vernam
12-06-2008, 04:34 PM
Great post, Vernam. Well argued! :smile:Thanks, Frater. I should've edited it a bit for brevity myself. :D:

Not to hijack, but what a great White Sox Weekly today from the clubhouse sale. Wish I could've stayed by the radio all day. They had Hawk on being Hawk (I've come to like his phone-ins wasy better than his play by play, that's for sure). They interviewed Tyler Flowers at length. The kid admitted he has things to learn behind the plate but loves playing there -- clearly doesn't want to switch to 1B as Atlanta often had him do. Made a comment that he'd like to follow AJ, who "has two years left," he said. :o: He may have been referring to AJ's contract, but if there's any overlap between the two of them in Chicago, Flowers better be prepared for some serious hazing. :tongue:

Vernam

soxfanreggie
12-07-2008, 10:25 PM
I don't really buy this combination of "being competitive now" but "getting younger" stuff, especially with what we're getting rid of and what we're adding. Please Kenny, feel free to shock the heck out of me, but I don't expect with the moves we are making, especially if Dye goes, and the reluctance to sign some big name FAs in the off-season to be at the top of the division or competing for a wild card slot.

I think some of the acquisitions we have made through the last couple drafts and this offseason will allow us to be very competitive in a year or two (Jordan Danks, Bechham, Viciedo, Poreda, etc.), but I highly doubt they would, as it stands right now, for next season. Granted, a PK that plays great for a full season and a Thome that can still mash can really help. However, when I look and see Jerry Owens or someone of his calibre as the leadoff, I cringe.

RedPinStripes
12-07-2008, 10:27 PM
Nothing new. The White Sox say they have no money.

kittle42
12-08-2008, 12:18 AM
Nothing new. The White Sox say they have no money.

Yup. Another year, another cry of poor.

doublem23
12-08-2008, 12:25 AM
Yup. Another year, another cry of poor.

Nothing new. The White Sox say they have no money.

No offense, but after last year ended, did anyone really expect to see Javier come back? Once Ozzie said he would start Clayton Richard had the ALDS gone to Game 5, you had to know Javier was done with the Sox. Swisher was 50/50, but apparently the Sox felt it best to cut the cord with him, too. Neither really is a true "salary dump," they're simply shedding dead weight from their '08 roster that as we all know, was fatally flawed.

kittle42
12-08-2008, 12:39 AM
No offense, but after last year ended, did anyone really expect to see Javier come back? Once Ozzie said he would start Clayton Richard had the ALDS gone to Game 5, you had to know Javier was done with the Sox. Swisher was 50/50, but apparently the Sox felt it best to cut the cord with him, too. Neither really is a true "salary dump," they're simply shedding dead weight from their '08 roster that as we all know, was fatally flawed.

I just want to see something done with the money and fear nothing will be.

voodoochile
12-08-2008, 01:39 AM
I just want to see something done with the money and fear nothing will be.

Well KW's already said he had to make a payroll cut, so odds are you aren't going to see it all plowed back in and $10M is already eaten up in raises to players already under contract.

btrain929
12-08-2008, 01:42 AM
Well KW's already said he had to make a payroll cut, so odds are you aren't going to see it all plowed back in and $10M is already eaten up in raises to players already under contract.

According to my addition, plus the signing of Dayan, that total goes up to about 14MIL. That number could be higher/lower depending on Jenks' arbitration. I put him down as earning an extra 5MIL.

RedPinStripes
12-08-2008, 04:10 AM
No offense, but after last year ended, did anyone really expect to see Javier come back? Once Ozzie said he would start Clayton Richard had the ALDS gone to Game 5, you had to know Javier was done with the Sox. Swisher was 50/50, but apparently the Sox felt it best to cut the cord with him, too. Neither really is a true "salary dump," they're simply shedding dead weight from their '08 roster that as we all know, was fatally flawed.

I don't have a problem at all with KW's moves this winter. I just don't like hearing the Sox cry broke. I heard it every winter beside a few years since 82'.

kittle42
12-08-2008, 10:03 AM
Well KW's already said he had to make a payroll cut, so odds are you aren't going to see it all plowed back in and $10M is already eaten up in raises to players already under contract.

I don't have a problem at all with KW's moves this winter. I just don't like hearing the Sox cry broke. I heard it every winter beside a few years since 82'.

Exactly. It's ****ing tiring.

Lip Man 1
12-08-2008, 11:37 AM
Kittle:

Agreed.

Lip

LoveYourSuit
12-08-2008, 11:54 AM
Kittle:

Agreed.

Lip

Count me it with you, Kittle, & Pin Stripes.

This crying poor crap is getting very annoying, coming from a big market team especially.

Thome25
12-08-2008, 12:23 PM
I can understand everyone's frustration on here. I feel the same way too sometimes. I ask myself the same questions......how can a mega-market team that draws well at the gate ever cry poor? I think that alot of us felt that more would change with the city's perception of this team and the team's finances after we won it all in 2005.

Here we are again, and I still have faith in KW, JR, and the White Sox because it's still early......but, we seem to be in the same financial situation we were in pre-2005. We're using words like "being creative" with payroll and looking for players KW can "fix".

This doesn't surprise me at all. KW, JR and company will always continue to do what they feel is right even if it doesn't look to smart on the surface......JR broke up the Bulls championship team even though it wasn't the popular thing to do.....but, he wanted to do it his way.

With that said, I would still rather have a team filled with younger, cheaper, and hungrier players rather than a team filled with overpaid, underachieving veterans with bloated contracts that handcuff the future.

gosox41
12-08-2008, 10:22 PM
You can't say that because MLB owners have never actually opened their books for public inspection. You, I, or anyone else on these boards have no idea the state of the White Sox's finances.

As for the ticket increase, that's set by the supply and demand of the product, and seeing as the White Sox have been hovering around 30,000 per game over the last few years. Their raising ticket prices has no bearing on what the team payroll will be, nor should it.

I won't get into the first part since the people that don't wan to believe it anyway won't believe it.

Ticket prices do have a bearing on how a team's payroll but in a more direct fashion.

Pretend you walk into a Lexus dealer and say I want to buy a new, Black 2009 GS 400 (not even sure if they make that car or the price) for $50,000. The dealer says no problem and to come back tomorrow to pick it up. Now based on previous history of Lexus you realize that their cars have certain standard features (ie leather, GPS whatever) and buying this car you assume you're buying getting these standard features. But when you get to the dealer to pick up the car, you're getting cloth seats, a cassette player, no docking station, no GPS ,etc. because due to the tough economoy Lexus unbeknownst to you decided to cut back on the product.

How would this make you feel as a longtime Lexus customer? Would this raise your likelihood of buying another Lexus the next time you need a car?

It's that way with the Sox. My season tickets went up in price. I'm not expecting a team coming off a division championship season where they made a small profit to cut payroll 30%. Do I expect the economoy to hurt fans? Absolutely. Do I mind seeing a deacrease in payroll? Not at all, especially due to how bad it is out there. But a 35% decrease in payroll coinciding with an 11% increase in season ticket prices is bound to piss of some fans.

gosox41
12-08-2008, 10:28 PM
Ticket prices are set by the market. Just like every other product. You don't set the price based on what you project your expenses will be, you set the price based on what you predict will generate the most revenue. If you want to argue that the Sox should have held prices in check or lowered them because of the potential for lower attendance as the economy slides, fine, that's an opinion that, although I personally disagree with, but at least respect as being logical. But to say the Sox need to raise player payroll because they're raising ticket prices is thuroughly insane.

Granted, I only got a B in Econ 101, but even I understand this concept.

Based on how the Sox stand right now (and forgetting about payroll) if they don't make another move this off season, I expect this team to not be very good in 2009. If that's the ase then ticket prices at this level won't create much demand.

The Sox have been a team that plows profits back into payroll. I realize that it won't go on forever. And I don't blame them for maximizing revenues. But a team that is bad in 2009 won't have much deamnd for tickets in 2010 (unless of course they make a splash and get a big name-and expensive player).

It all ties together. Maybe not in the immediate short term but in the longer term. But if Richard and Marquez are stud pitchers, I can be wrong about the 2009 team being not very good.

LoveYourSuit
12-08-2008, 11:22 PM
Based on how the Sox stand right now (and forgetting about payroll) if they don't make another move this off season, I expect this team to not be very good in 2009. If that's the ase then ticket prices at this level won't create much demand.

The Sox have been a team that plows profits back into payroll. I realize that it won't go on forever. And I don't blame them for maximizing revenues. But a team that is bad in 2009 won't have much deamnd for tickets in 2010 (unless of course they make a splash and get a big name-and expensive player).

It all ties together. Maybe not in the immediate short term but in the longer term. But if Richard and Marquez are stud pitchers, I can be wrong about the 2009 team being not very good.

Everything was fine until you got there.

Richard will not be anything close to a stud and had Marquez been any good, the Yankees would not have given him up for a sucky player like Swisher. With all the pitching issues the Yankees have had the last 2-3 seasons, anyone stop to think why this guy was given up so easily?

Rockabilly
12-08-2008, 11:29 PM
Count me it with you, Kittle, & Pin Stripes.

This crying poor crap is getting very annoying, coming from a big market team especially.


The Sox might play in a big city but I believe our attendance last year was about 17th in the league...

I think that is pretty brutal for a 1st place team...

itsnotrequired
12-09-2008, 05:36 AM
The Sox might play in a big city mark but I believe our attendance last year was about 17th in the league...

I think that is pretty brutal for a 1st place team...

16th, actually. Their numbers will always be on the leaner side as they play in a relatively small stadium. As a percentage of capacity, the Sox were 13th last year.

Madscout
12-09-2008, 07:28 AM
I just want to see something done with the money and fear nothing will be.
Perhaps something will be done with it for 2010, when we have a lot of money coming off the books, and Kenny should (:unsure:) have more money to play with?

oeo
12-09-2008, 08:00 AM
I just want to see something done with the money and fear nothing will be.

He just guaranteed a 19-year-old kid $11 million. Does that not count? Does it have to be a CC, Tex, or Manny?

Besides, spending money doesn't necessarily make things better. I'd rather it be spent wisely, otherwise you open up a new can of worms around here in a couple of years when we have all these bad contracts. And we already have a few of those in Contreras, MacDougal, Linebrink, and some people will even say Konerko. People are not afraid to come out of left field and say Kenny is a moron for making those deals.

doublem23
12-09-2008, 08:30 AM
Count me it with you, Kittle, & Pin Stripes.

This crying poor crap is getting very annoying, coming from a big market team especially.

Cry me a river, you babies. The Sox's payroll will be around $100 million again. I thought last year we were tired of the slow, plodding 1-dimensional team the Sox had.

:whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

palehozenychicty
12-09-2008, 08:38 AM
Cry me a river, you babies. The Sox's payroll will be around $100 million again. I thought last year we were tired of the slow, plodding 1-dimensional team the Sox had.

:whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:


People here are never happy. :tongue:

Lip Man 1
12-09-2008, 10:04 AM
Double:

At least in my mind the question isn't how much money is being spent....it's how much talent do you have.

I see the Sox as of right now, (always important to note) as a team with a ton of question marks, far to many for it to consider itself a legit "contender".

Yes I understand the division is thought to be mediocre...I'm talking about a genuine threat to return to the World Series.

I thought this was a pretty well written story summing up the way things are now:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1320789,CST-SPT-sox09.article

Kenny's the G.M., he can do as he pleases....but if it blows up in his face, Sox fans are going to let him know about it (and deservedly so) but more so they are going to let the organization know their feelings at the gate. And if you believe the organization from a financial standpoint, they can't afford to have fans stay away.

We'll see.

Lip

WHILEPITCH
12-09-2008, 10:14 AM
I didnt read all this thread but, just quickly...

KW said we're bumping up against payroll limits BEFORE the Javy trade, right?



The article quote is kind of nebulously phrased: "The current roster was 'bumping up against...' "

The current-past roster? Pre-Javy trade i take it.

palehozenychicty
12-09-2008, 10:20 AM
This is all well and good, but as people have said before, it's Joe Cowley. Whatever.

We had question marks last year at similar spaces, eg. 3B, CF, SS, 2B, Danks and Floyd, and it worked out. The team wasn't a strong WS contender, but we built a good foundation for '09 and especially '10.

Quentin and Ramirez were needs found during the season. It's cool to talk about having a set roster on opening day, but teams rarely have that same lineup at the close of the season. Nowadays you assess near Memorial Day and pluck things from the waiver wire/trade route/farm.

It's even more rare to fill every need in one offseason like '04-'05. 3B and CF are still revolving doors. Betemit and Fields will battle it out, and may the best man produce. I think Fields' time is now or never.

The market options for CF are hardly more promising than Anderson, for all of his detractors. He'll either get traded or play a lot this coming year. Just my guess, people, unless somebody knows something with another. Cameron is just more expensive than Anderson, Cameron Maybin will probably get time with the Marlins this year. The Phils ain't giving up Victorino. Nobody's touching Rowand's deal for at least two more years.

My point is that people simply need to relax and let it play out. Follow the Blackhawks and Bulls, do your Xmas shopping, hit the Holiday parties, whatever you do in the winter. We'll have a good team next year.

oeo
12-09-2008, 10:26 AM
Kenny's the G.M., he can do as he pleases....but if it blows up in his face, Sox fans are going to let him know about it (and deservedly so) but more so they are going to let the organization know their feelings at the gate.

Isn't that the case with every dollar spent, trade made, draft pick chosen, etc.?

Like Kenny said, Sox fans are going to complain no matter what. If he spends money on a free agent, and it doesn't work out, there will be people that come from nowhere and say, "I told you so." If they paid Porcello what he got out of the draft, and he didn't pan out, "I told you so." If Flowers doesn't reach his potential, "I told you so."

It's lose-lose. Let Kenny do his job.

kittle42
12-09-2008, 10:36 AM
Like Kenny said, Sox fans are going to complain no matter what. If he spends money on a free agent, and it doesn't work out, there will be people that come from nowhere and say, "I told you so." If they paid Porcello what he got out of the draft, and he didn't pan out, "I told you so." If Flowers doesn't reach his potential, "I told you so."

If they signed Sabathia or Ramirez and it didn't work out somehow, or traded for Peavy and it didn't work out somehow, I'm pretty certain I'd shrug my shoulders, say "Whaddya gonna go?" and give them credit for trying.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 10:42 AM
Cry me a river, you babies. The Sox's payroll will be around $100 million again. I thought last year we were tired of the slow, plodding 1-dimensional team the Sox had.

:whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:


Spoken like a company man..... are you part of that $100 million payroll?

It's about 2009 talent we babies are crying about. We want to win here in 2009, that's all that mattes to a few of us.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 10:45 AM
My point is that people simply need to relax and let it play out. Follow the Blackhawks and Bulls, do your Xmas shopping, hit the Holiday parties, whatever you do in the winter. We'll have a good team next year.

How's that Bull rebuilding phase/youth movement going for you?

That's what I don't want the Sox to become.

oeo
12-09-2008, 10:55 AM
If they signed Sabathia or Ramirez and it didn't work out somehow, or traded for Peavy and it didn't work out somehow, I'm pretty certain I'd shrug my shoulders, say "Whaddya gonna go?" and give them credit for trying.

You might, but I'm sure a number of others would not.

Things can change quickly, and people will quickly change their minds about the moves. At the time, locking up Contreras was a great move...now: what was Kenny thinking? Konerko better be re-signed...now: Kenny's an idiot.

esbrechtel
12-09-2008, 11:00 AM
Why does everyone forget Konerko RAKED in 2006? He had a bad year last year, give the guy a break. I almost wish he did get traded and hit 50 HR and drove in 130 and won an MVP just to hear WSI bitch about how we gave up on our "beloved" captian....

His Double plays are pissing me off just as much as the next guy but he did hit for us in the playoffs this year (.313/.353/.688) isn't that a sign he can return to form?

Lip Man 1
12-09-2008, 11:09 AM
Kittle and others:

What I find interesting is the approaches being taken by the Cubs and the Sox.

Both teams share the same market, both teams understand the economic issues that are currently going across the U.S., including the Chicago-area (and by proxy the world) and both certainly understand the potential hardships economically facing their fan bases.

Yet while the Sox are "retrenching" (is that a word?) and showing more concern about the future (too much so in my opinion), the Cubs are basically saying "the hell with that."

Hendry yesterday said they'd be raising payroll and speculation states it could be as much as 13% (which would put them in the area of 140-143 million...that getting into Mets and Red Sox territory.)

Do the Cubs think their fans will pay to see them play regardless of their economic conditions and hardships? Do they think their fans are richer then Sox fans? Do they agree with Proud To Be Your Bud that MLB is now a 6 1/2 billion dollar industry and that even if the economy goes down the toilet, they'll still be in great shape? (If so on the last question, why do they think that but the Sox may not?)

I just don't get the polar opposite dynamics of the two organizations. But then I never understood the Sox attitude dating back to the mid 80's regarding their rivals for the entertainment dollar in their own city.

Perhaps if they actually did understand they are competing with them for a limited entertainment dollar in the here and now, they wouldn't have to worry so much about the future.

All G.M.'s have to have some regard for the future. I understand that and subscribe to it myself but as Kittle and others have commented, worrying about the future to the point that the Sox apparently do, to me is counterproductive.

It "turns off" your fan base (or can we agree a part of it?) and puts fans in the position of wondering what is going on. Also given the Sox track record when it comes to "the future", "rebuilding", "retrenching" (or whatever words you choose to use,) it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Kenny talks about how he doesn't want the Sox to get into a position of being losers for ten years say like the Pirates. Again I appreciate that but honestly, why should he care?

I seriously doubt he'll be around ten years from now. Let that G.M. worry about that issue when or if that time ever comes.

The future isn't promised to anyone. My attitude is basically "let's worry about 2009." We'll worry about 2010 next off season, 2013 when that comes around, 2022 when that comes.

Again it's early December. This won't be the finished product (if it is I'll be stunned) but as of right now I just don't have the faith that Kenny does that all these kids, pick up's from other organizations and career minor leaguers are all going to pan out. Those are very, very, VERY long odds in my opinion.

They have serious talent issues in my opinion to be able to contend in 2009 as of this moment in time.

We'll see.

Lip

voodoochile
12-09-2008, 11:13 AM
How's that Bull rebuilding phase/youth movement going for you?

That's what I don't want the Sox to become.

Well good news and you can relax now. Dye is staying on the Southside as is PK, JT and the rest of the veterans.

hi im skot
12-09-2008, 11:16 AM
This is all well and good, but as people have said before, it's Joe Cowley. Whatever.

We had question marks last year at similar spaces, eg. 3B, CF, SS, 2B, Danks and Floyd, and it worked out. The team wasn't a strong WS contender, but we built a good foundation for '09 and especially '10.

Quentin and Ramirez were needs found during the season. It's cool to talk about having a set roster on opening day, but teams rarely have that same lineup at the close of the season. Nowadays you assess near Memorial Day and pluck things from the waiver wire/trade route/farm.

It's even more rare to fill every need in one offseason like '04-'05. 3B and CF are still revolving doors. Betemit and Fields will battle it out, and may the best man produce. I think Fields' time is now or never.

The market options for CF are hardly more promising than Anderson, for all of his detractors. He'll either get traded or play a lot this coming year. Just my guess, people, unless somebody knows something with another. Cameron is just more expensive than Anderson, Cameron Maybin will probably get time with the Marlins this year. The Phils ain't giving up Victorino. Nobody's touching Rowand's deal for at least two more years.

My point is that people simply need to relax and let it play out. Follow the Blackhawks and Bulls, do your Xmas shopping, hit the Holiday parties, whatever you do in the winter. We'll have a good team next year.

GREAT post.

esbrechtel
12-09-2008, 11:16 AM
Well good news and you can relax now. Dye is staying on the Southside as is PK, JT and the rest of the veterans.


Is this speculation...or do you know something we don't?

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 11:20 AM
Well good news and you can relax now. Dye is staying on the Southside as is PK, JT and the rest of the veterans.


I never thought the middle of the order was the issue on this team. They get paid to mash and they do it as good as any bunch around MLB today. That's the strength of this ball club and they play to the strength of their park. They will hit into a ton of Dps, but name a 3-4-5-6 that doesn't do that around baseball today.


The issue with this team is the top of the order every year. Other than '05 where Pods and Iguchi played out of their minds, our top of the order has sucked every year before and after that.


We tweak that top of the order with good speed and obp% guys and this line up becomes the best in the game. Problem is, you would have to bump up payroll to do that or trade young assets to do it (Roberts).

doublem23
12-09-2008, 11:21 AM
The future isn't promised to anyone. My attitude is basically "let's worry about 2009." We'll worry about 2010 next off season, 2013 when that comes around, 2022 when that comes.


Very easy to say when you're just an armchair GM.

Lip Man 1
12-09-2008, 11:25 AM
Double:

I'm a fan and have the right to that opinion.

I think it was Hal who said (and I'm paraphrasing) there's a reason why the Sox have been to two World Series since 1919, in one of his posts or columns....perhaps constantly "worrying about the future" is part of that reason.

Lip

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 11:27 AM
The future isn't promised to anyone. My attitude is basically "let's worry about 2009." We'll worry about 2010 next off season, 2013 when that comes around, 2022 when that comes.


Lip


And brings me to another thought. Every "expert" on this board who appears to know everything about every Minor League prospect in the world who is so excited about the chips Kenny has picked up this offseason ........ Not a single guy is a top 50 blue chip. But yet you are going to hang your hat on a succesful future based on just getting a body in here?

I don't understand what's all this love for prospects and assuming they will all become a Danks, Gavin, or Quentin. All 3 of those mentioned were Blue Chips by the way.

Lip Man 1
12-09-2008, 11:27 AM
Double:

I am interested though if you could help explain the questions I asked about the apparent divergence in philosophy between the Cubs and Sox under the same economic uncertainty.

I'd like to hear your views.

Lip

doublem23
12-09-2008, 11:28 AM
Spoken like a company man..... are you part of that $100 million payroll?

It's about 2009 talent we babies are crying about. We want to win here in 2009, that's all that mattes to a few of us.

:whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

My point has been basically that I'm willing to cut KW and the Sox some slack and trust what they're up to. Yes, I have qualms about the '09 roster. The Sox "pay-roll slashing" has still only amounted to dumping dead weight from the '09 team.

It's Time
12-09-2008, 11:31 AM
KW is not going to show his true hand to anyone after last year, so lets wait til Sox fest before the roasting. I don't buy the payroll comments. I call BS.

oeo
12-09-2008, 11:35 AM
I'm a fan and have the right to that opinion.

True, but your opinion is flawed. How do you expect the Sox to continue doing what you want (spending money), when 2-3 years down the road, we may be bogged down by a few bad contracts. Then what's your master plan? Bad farm system, and contracts like we're Giants East.

You say you want the Sox to win every year, but you can't say to hell with the future if you want to sustain success. Could we try buying a team like the Cubs? Sure, but the Cubs will pay for it, just like every other team that has tried to buy a championship. You try to buy a championship, and you give yourself a very small window to do so. Maybe you win one, but then you're going to watch bad teams for at least a few years.

voodoochile
12-09-2008, 11:36 AM
Is this speculation...or do you know something we don't?

Just what I read. Ozzie reassured Dye he was a big part of the team and wasn't going anywhere just the other day. I doubt he'd say it if it wasn't true. The rest is just speculation. I don't see the Sox trading either of the other two guys this off season. If they do, I'll be shocked.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 11:36 AM
:whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

My point has been basically that I'm willing to cut KW and the Sox some slack and trust what they're up to. Yes, I have qualms about the '09 roster. The Sox "pay-roll slashing" has still only amounted to dumping dead weight from the '09 team.


Your first reasonable thought right there.

I agree with you right there. I don't care about any guy let go so far unless Dye is added to that mix. Homer Bailey does nothing for me in exchange for a potential league MVP and the best protection in the line up for Quentin.

Now, let's see how things play out. But if we don't get veteran help in here to plug some holes for the next season or two, 2009 will be very ugly. Assuming Dye is traded for Bailey, this is what you have:

3B - Fields
2B- Getz
CF - Ownens
RF - Wise/Anderson

That takes me back to the 88 team with Russ Morman, Dave Gallagher, & Steve Lyons.

voodoochile
12-09-2008, 11:38 AM
I never thought the middle of the order was the issue on this team. They get paid to mash and they do it as good as any bunch around MLB today. That's the strength of this ball club and they play to the strength of their park. They will hit into a ton of Dps, but name a 3-4-5-6 that doesn't do that around baseball today.


The issue with this team is the top of the order every year. Other than '05 where Pods and Iguchi played out of their minds, our top of the order has sucked every year before and after that.


We tweak that top of the order with good speed and obp% guys and this line up becomes the best in the game. Problem is, you would have to bump up payroll to do that or trade young assets to do it (Roberts).

But those are the only veterans on the team at the moment. Everyone else is in their first few years of service. You were concerned about a youth movement as I read the post I replied to. Sox aren't going to get any younger, IMO.

NLaloosh
12-09-2008, 11:39 AM
I'm saying this. If the Sox can work with $ 121 mil. payroll last year and $ 108 mil. payroll the year before - then, I don't see why they have to drop to $ 90 mil. this year.

Attendance and interest has been excellent. I'd love to see them unload another vet or two for young talent and then spend a little and sign a couple of vets. It looks like some good deals will be out there in a little bit after the big names are gone.

And, maybe that's Kenny's plan.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 11:41 AM
True, but your opinion is flawed. How do you expect the Sox to continue doing what you want (spending money), when 2-3 years down the road, we may be bogged down by a few bad contracts. Then what's your master plan? Bad farm system, and contracts like we're Giants East.

You say you want the Sox to win every year, but you can't say to hell with the future if you want to sustain success. Could we try buying a team like the Cubs? Sure, but the Cubs will pay for it, just like every other team that has tried to buy a championship.


He gave you the example of the Cubs.

You see how many "bad" contracts the Cubs have right now and they just keep on adding?

Soriano, Lee, ****adome, Marquis, Zambrano.... are all bad contracts to an extent. And they are so much more fatter than any of our bad contracts (Paulie & Contreras).

Bad contracts are part of the game, every big market team has to make such risks.

spiffie
12-09-2008, 11:56 AM
And brings me to another thought. Every "expert" on this board who appears to know everything about every Minor League prospect in the world who is so excited about the chips Kenny has picked up this offseason ........ Not a single guy is a top 50 blue chip. But yet you are going to hang your hat on a succesful future based on just getting a body in here?

I don't understand what's all this love for prospects and assuming they will all become a Danks, Gavin, or Quentin. All 3 of those mentioned were Blue Chips by the way.
It has nothing to do with being an expert. It has to do with the fact that those people KW has chosen to bring in have tended to become very good players. Those he has cast off tend to never do much of anything.

If these are the guys he is targeting, I assume good things until proven otherwise. But what does he know, he only has ONE World Series ring after all.

bestkosher
12-09-2008, 12:03 PM
"Bad contracts are part of the game, every big market team has to make such risks."

Are you sure about that? Yes there are a lot of bad contracts out there. Yet do teams really need to use them? Bad contracts come from desperation and or stupid management. If you are a big market team should you each either point. No. Some still do it because they can like the Yankees and Carmines because they can and have the financial resources to be able to take the hit if the contracts turns out to be a lemon. Does it mean they have to. No

It is like saying just because your rich you have to buy a Mercedes. If a team can get by with out big contracts and still win more power to them for being smarter, and not just a money bags.

oeo
12-09-2008, 12:13 PM
He gave you the example of the Cubs.

You see how many "bad" contracts the Cubs have right now and they just keep on adding?

Soriano, Lee, ****adome, Marquis, Zambrano.... are all bad contracts to an extent. And they are so much more fatter than any of our bad contracts (Paulie & Contreras).

Their contracts have not bit them in the butt yet...besides Marquis, who was a dumb signing from the beginning. A bad rookie year by Fukudome does not mean he will suck, either.

Bad contracts are part of the game, every big market team has to make such risks.This is not only stupid from the business standpoint, but from the baseball standpoint, as well. You don't spend just to spend...you spend it wisely.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 12:15 PM
This is not only stupid from the business standpoint, but from the baseball standpoint, as well. You don't spend just to spend...you spend it wisely.


Taking Risks is stupid?

oeo
12-09-2008, 12:17 PM
Taking Risks is stupid?

It's certainly not smart when you have tens of millions of dollars on the line.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 12:33 PM
It's certainly not smart when you have tens of millions of dollars on the line.

So by yout thinking, the Sox should never ever sign a Free Agent or trade for a heavy contract?

kittle42
12-09-2008, 12:47 PM
So by yout thinking, the Sox should never ever sign a Free Agent or trade for a heavy contract?

All this talk is making me miss the old days when everyone was just mad they didn't spend. Now we have the budget-conscious crowd, too. The Fiscal Responsibility Championship shall return to the South Side!

thedudeabides
12-09-2008, 12:55 PM
I'm saying this. If the Sox can work with $ 121 mil. payroll last year and $ 108 mil. payroll the year before - then, I don't see why they have to drop to $ 90 mil. this year.

Attendance and interest has been excellent. I'd love to see them unload another vet or two for young talent and then spend a little and sign a couple of vets. It looks like some good deals will be out there in a little bit after the big names are gone.

And, maybe that's Kenny's plan.

It's very tough to guess what KW is ever going to do, but I think you've hit the nail on the head. In many past markets he has complained everyone is overpriced. For the first time in a while there looks like there could be some value. I don't see him going into the season with this many question marks. Guys like Dye, AJ, and El Duque have been brought in as value contracts. I expect some similar type of deals. The market should start to shape up fairly soon and we'll see who's on the outside looking in.

doublem23
12-09-2008, 12:57 PM
Wait, now the Sox aren't doing their job because they don't throw around bloated contracts to undeserving players!?!?!

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/gruesome_scanners_431x300.jpg

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 01:11 PM
All this talk is making me miss the old days when everyone was just mad they didn't spend. Now we have the budget-conscious crowd, too. The Fiscal Responsibility Championship shall return to the South Side!


All it took was one season of producing with young guys like Quentin, Danks, and Gavin ..... and now it became the flavor of the week. But people fail to recognize that those 3 guys were at a different level as prospects compared to the B grade stuff we are bringing in right now.

Let's also not forget, the 2005 WS was won via the FA market and the build up of a strong veteran starting rotation.

My goal is to win the 2009 World Series, that is it.

soltrain21
12-09-2008, 01:17 PM
All it took was one season of producing with young guys like Quentin, Danks, and Gavin ..... and now it became the flavor of the week. But people fail to recognize that those 3 guys were at a different level as prospects compared to the B grade stuff we are bringing in right now.

Let's also not forget, the 2005 WS was won via the FA market and the build up of a strong veteran starting rotation.

My goal is to win the 2009 World Series, that is it.

It was built on a bunch of pitchers having career years at once.

Luckily your goal isn't the team's goal. Let me ask you this - the team is trying to get younger, faster and more well rounded. What on the free agent market (outside of Furcal) could help us achieve this?

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 01:23 PM
It was built on a bunch of pitchers having career years at once.

Luckily your goal isn't the team's goal. Let me ask you this - the team is trying to get younger, faster and more well rounded. What on the free agent market (outside of Furcal) could help us achieve this?

What have they done so far to get faster, if I may ask?

Furcal is the guy I wanted from the FA market.

Or via trade, I wanted Roberts or even Figgins.

Hell, right now I would take Juan Pierre + Cash over Owens/Anderson/Wise. Very sad indeed.

soltrain21
12-09-2008, 01:25 PM
What have they done so far to get faster, if I may ask?

Furcal is the guy I wanted from the FA market.

Or via trade, I wanted Roberts or even Figgins.

Hell, right now I would take Juan Pierre + Cash over Owens/Anderson/Wise. Very sad indeed.

They haven't done anything - which is why I said "trying."

doublem23
12-09-2008, 01:27 PM
Hell, right now I would take Juan Pierre + Cash over Owens/Anderson/Wise. Very sad indeed.

And that is why, thankfully, you don't have any say in what the White Sox do.

OmarLittle
12-09-2008, 01:37 PM
What was last years payroll?

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 01:40 PM
And that is why, thankfully, you don't have any say in what the White Sox do.


Pierre sucks, I'm not saying he's any good. But sadly what we have right now (not counting salary) is so much more worse. If the Dodgers pay 1/2 the salary, I would take Pierre.

I would prefer Furcal, Roberts, or Figgins... but we know those options are 110% impossible.

kittle42
12-09-2008, 01:45 PM
Wait, now the Sox aren't doing their job because they don't throw around bloated contracts to undeserving players!?!?!

See, in my wildest dreams, I would never think the Sox would sign a Sabathia or a Ramirez or a Teixeira. I hardly think any of those three is "undeserving."

Not everyone who gets a big contract is Barry Zito.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 01:54 PM
See, in my wildest dreams, I would never think the Sox would sign a Sabathia or a Ramirez or a Teixeira. I hardly think any of those three is "undeserving."

Not everyone who gets a big contract is Barry Zito.


Only once in my lifetime have the Sox gone out and signed the biggest FA in the market ..... Albert Belle. And I disagree with everyone's belief that he was a bust for the money he got paid. He produced. Not his fault everyone else around him sucked.

palehozenychicty
12-09-2008, 01:59 PM
How's that Bull rebuilding phase/youth movement going for you?

That's what I don't want the Sox to become.


That is a whole different animal and ecosystem, owned by the same man.

palehozenychicty
12-09-2008, 02:03 PM
Only once in my lifetime have the Sox gone out and signed the biggest FA in the market ..... Albert Belle. And I disagree with everyone's belief that he was a bust for the money he got paid. He produced. Not his fault everyone else around him sucked.


Joey put up stats, but the whole thing was a lemon from the get-go. The strike effectively ruined the organization's mojo and it still lingered. Uncle Jerry's timing was also impeccable, as he lambasted the system that allowed him to offer that deal.

whitem0nkey
12-09-2008, 02:07 PM
What was last years payroll?

dont be lazy, Google is your friend

jabrch
12-09-2008, 02:09 PM
See, in my wildest dreams, I would never think the Sox would sign a Sabathia or a Ramirez or a Teixeira. I hardly think any of those three is "undeserving."

Not everyone who gets a big contract is Barry Zito.

You could argue that a 7 year contract, for any of those guys, would be undeserved because of the ridiculous amount of risk associated with it. And for CC, I'd wouldn't go 6 even.

20+mm a year is a lot to dedicate to one player. Let's say payroll averages 120 - TOPS - over the course of those 6-7 years. That's 1/5 of your payroll on one player.

Just doesn't seem smart to me.

doublem23
12-09-2008, 02:18 PM
See, in my wildest dreams, I would never think the Sox would sign a Sabathia or a Ramirez or a Teixeira. I hardly think any of those three is "undeserving."

Not everyone who gets a big contract is Barry Zito.

Yes, but it only takes 1 Barry Zito to completely handcuff a team.

kobo
12-09-2008, 03:23 PM
Pierre sucks, I'm not saying he's any good. But sadly what we have right now (not counting salary) is so much more worse. If the Dodgers pay 1/2 the salary, I would take Pierre.

I would prefer Furcal, Roberts, or Figgins... but we know those options are 110% impossible.
If Anderson can hit .250 or better next year he is definitely better than Pierre, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

And we have no idea what is possible or impossible. KW might be blowing smoke up everyone's ass at this point. I highly doubt we head into next season with the rotation like it is now and with all these youngsters vying for a spot on the roster.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 03:30 PM
If Anderson can hit .250 or better next year he is definitely better than Pierre, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

And we have no idea what is possible or impossible. KW might be blowing smoke up everyone's ass at this point. I highly doubt we head into next season with the rotation like it is now and with all these youngsters vying for a spot on the roster.


Problem is, Andeson cannot hit .250. That's a given fact.

Konerko05
12-09-2008, 03:37 PM
Problem is, Andeson cannot hit .250. That's a given fact.

If by fact, you mean opinion.. you might be correct.

soltrain21
12-09-2008, 03:42 PM
Problem is, Andeson cannot hit .250. That's a given fact.

By this logic, any player that hasn't won a Cy Young award will never win a Cy Young award.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 03:47 PM
By this logic, any player that hasn't won a Cy Young award will never win a Cy Young award.


There is just some players you know have ZERO chance to acheive such dreams.

hi im skot
12-09-2008, 03:52 PM
There is just some players you know have ZERO chance to acheive such dreams.


Well yeah...Brian Anderson probably won't win a Cy Young award.

soltrain21
12-09-2008, 03:53 PM
There is just some players you know have ZERO chance to acheive such dreams.

I would bet you that Anderson could hit .250 or over if he achieved enough at bats to qualify for the batting title.

Konerko05
12-09-2008, 03:54 PM
There is just some players you know have ZERO chance to acheive such dreams.

Brian Anderson hitting .250 isn't really that farfetched. Using the word "fact," while being definitively incorrect, is also a little over the top.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 03:57 PM
Brian Anderson hitting .250 isn't really that farfetched. Using the word "fact," while being definitively incorrect, is also a little over the top.


OK, Anderson is great. I think he should start in CF and lead off for us next seson.

hi im skot
12-09-2008, 04:00 PM
OK, Anderson is great. I think he should start in CF and lead off for us next seson.

Sigh.

kittle42
12-09-2008, 04:12 PM
OK, Anderson is great. I think he should start in CF and lead off for us next seson.

Sigh.

Exactly, skot. Resorting to hyperbole is a terrible way to argue your point. Whether or not he should start in CF and lead off is irrelevant to the argument as to whether he can hit .250.

jabrch
12-09-2008, 04:18 PM
Exactly, skot. Resorting to hyperbole is a terrible way to argue your point. Whether or not he should start in CF and lead off is irrelevant to the argument as to whether he can hit .250.


And it is typical of some posters.... Nobody is etching BA's triple crown in stone. But it's also foolish to project there is no way he can hit .250.

I'm not a huge BA fan. But it isn't out of the realm of possiblity that he could hit .265/.320/.440 and play very good defensive CF.

Everything has to be black or white for some people - when reality is that it is all shades of gray.

kobo
12-09-2008, 05:03 PM
Problem is, Andeson cannot hit .250. That's a given fact.
Actually, that is not a fact. I have a feeling we'll find out next year, and if he does end up hitting .250 in the 8th or 9th spot with his defense then I will be satisfied.

esbrechtel
12-09-2008, 05:11 PM
I am not really a FOBA but he is a different player now than he was in 2006 and I would be very interested to see how he could do given the chance to play every day in CF. I think it is much harder to only play every once and awhile and be expected to produce. Why not give him a chance, especially if he is in the 9 hole. Can he really be worse than Uribe was?

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 05:26 PM
And it is typical of some posters.... Nobody is etching BA's triple crown in stone. But it's also foolish to project there is no way he can hit .250.

I'm not a huge BA fan. But it isn't out of the realm of possiblity that he could hit .265/.320/.440 and play very good defensive CF.

Everything has to be black or white for some people - when reality is that it is all shades of gray.


I just left a voice message for Bud Selig to ask him if we can hit 10 guys insread of 9 and hold a position for "Extra Hitter."

Because it appears it doesn't cross anyone's mind that WE NEED A LEAD-OFF HITTER!!!


"Play this guy here, play that guy there, Play Getz at 2B, BA in CF, Play Fields at 3B" .....WHO THE **** LEADS OFF???

guillensdisciple
12-09-2008, 05:32 PM
I am not really a FOBA but he is a different player now than he was in 2006 and I would be very interested to see how he could do given the chance to play every day in CF. I think it is much harder to only play every once and awhile and be expected to produce. Why not give him a chance, especially if he is in the 9 hole. Can he really be worse than Uribe was?

Exactly, him at the 9 can't possibly be worse then Uribe at the 9. Anderson did have some clutch hitting last year, if I remember correctly.

gosox41
12-09-2008, 08:25 PM
Everything was fine until you got there.

Richard will not be anything close to a stud and had Marquez been any good, the Yankees would not have given him up for a sucky player like Swisher. With all the pitching issues the Yankees have had the last 2-3 seasons, anyone stop to think why this guy was given up so easily?


I feel the same way. I could be wrong but I as I said in the first part of the post, I don't see the 2009 team winning if our 4-5 starters are Richard and Marquez.

champagne030
12-09-2008, 08:30 PM
I feel the same way. I could be wrong but I as I said in the first part of the post, I don't see the 2009 team winning if our 4-5 starters are Richard and Marquez.

The lineup won't matter if those two are our 4th-5th starters.

gosox41
12-09-2008, 08:32 PM
Double:

I am interested though if you could help explain the questions I asked about the apparent divergence in philosophy between the Cubs and Sox under the same economic uncertainty.

I'd like to hear your views.

Lip


One difference is the socio economic status of Cub fans. They have more of a Yuppie crowd, though that gap has narrowed.

Another difference is the Sox cater to familiies. It's a lot cheaper for a 20 something to go blow $100 on tickets and beer then it is for someone to take a family of 4. I'm just speculating that there are more singles at Cubs park then the Cell. Don't know for sure if that's true.

Daver
12-09-2008, 08:40 PM
I really wish Ken Williams would trade Brian Anderson.

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2008, 08:49 PM
I really wish Ken Williams would trade Brian Anderson.
Just curious, but why? I assume to get him an opportunity elsewhere.

kittle42
12-09-2008, 08:49 PM
I really wish Ken Williams would trade Brian Anderson.

You and me both, man, but there would follow yet another undeserving champion of the people.

Tragg
12-09-2008, 08:54 PM
I really wish Ken Williams would trade Brian Anderson.
And leave CF to Dewayne Wise and Jerry Owens? Yikes

BadBobbyJenks
12-09-2008, 08:55 PM
I really wish Ken Williams would trade Brian Anderson.

Trying to incite a riot are we?:D:

Daver
12-09-2008, 08:57 PM
Just curious, but why? I assume to get him an opportunity elsewhere.

Because I grow weary of the bickering over whether he should play or not.

Craig Grebeck
12-09-2008, 08:59 PM
Because I grow weary of the bickering over whether he should play or not.
It's a pretty pointless argument, admittedly, but if/when BA is shipped out, there'll be a resurgence of his supporters/detractors debating another player's abilities.

champagne030
12-09-2008, 09:05 PM
And leave CF to Dewayne Wise and Jerry Owens? Yikes

Fits in with the battles as our club is currently constructed.

CF - Wise/Owens
3B - Fields/Betemit
2B - Gets/Nix
SP - Richard/bag of balls
SP - Marquez/sanitary socks

:puking:

OmarLittle
12-09-2008, 09:08 PM
dont be lazy, Google is your friend
Thanks for the help.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 10:53 PM
And leave CF to Dewayne Wise and Jerry Owens? Yikes

Well, just saw CSN Ozzie stating that this is his guy for CF and lead off.

Makes me want to swallow broken glass right now.

LoveYourSuit
12-09-2008, 10:55 PM
Fits in with the battles as our club is currently constructed.

CF - Wise/Owens
3B - Fields/Betemit
2B - Gets/Nix
SP - Richard/bag of balls
SP - Marquez/sanitary socks

:puking:


Don't forget Dye's replacement too...... The loser of the Wise/Owens battle.

PalehosePlanet
12-09-2008, 11:17 PM
Well, just saw CSN Ozzie stating that this is his guy for CF and lead off.

Makes me want to swallow broken glass right now.

Me too, with a bullet to the head chaser.

kobo
12-09-2008, 11:25 PM
Don't forget Dye's replacement too...... The loser of the Wise/Owens battle.
Why are you assuming Owens or Wise would replace Dye? Do you honestly believe that if the Sox do move Dye and don't end up signing a CF that the Sox will go into 2009 with a combo of Wise/Owens/Anderson in 2 of the 3 OF positions? I sure don't. KW likes to gamble but he isn't stupid.

HebrewHammer
12-09-2008, 11:42 PM
You and me both, man, but there would follow yet another undeserving champion of the people.
http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2008/02/23/tRFMg7Mf.jpg
"Just tell me where you need me today, skip!"

WHILEPITCH
12-09-2008, 11:58 PM
I really honestly feel they know what's up with Owens and will not go with him in cf

They'll start all the other youth, but they'll stop with him.

I still think KW is waiting in the weeds to sign Hudson once the NYs get other people instead (trade Dye if payroll is a problem).



But if Dye was really going to be dumped, i dont think they'd have dropped Swisher (b/c his contract is decent).

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 12:05 AM
I really honestly feel they know what's up with Owens and will not go with him in cf.

:?:

That's Ozzie's guy according to the interview tonight.

WHILEPITCH
12-10-2008, 12:30 AM
:?:

That's Ozzie's guy according to the interview tonight.

The only reason I say that is they say they want to contend and put old core in with a few young parts.

And also b/c KW was coy tonight about his free agent plans.

I think all the other young parts make sense but Owens. Hope I'm right.

stevemcstud
12-10-2008, 02:05 AM
I just left a voice message for Bud Selig to ask him if we can hit 10 guys insread of 9 and hold a position for "Extra Hitter."

Because it appears it doesn't cross anyone's mind that WE NEED A LEAD-OFF HITTER!!!


"Play this guy here, play that guy there, Play Getz at 2B, BA in CF, Play Fields at 3B" .....WHO THE **** LEADS OFF???

Jim Thome