PDA

View Full Version : KW on WSCR with Ranger


jabrch
12-13-2008, 03:16 PM
Some interesting discussion. Highlights... (note: I take everything KW says with a grain of salt)

1) Payroll is very flexible. They were willing to spend the money on Hunter with the assumption that revenue would follow. They won't do that for just any player - but they felt Torii was special.

2) They are unsure how the economy will impact our attendance, but JR has not forced any cuts at this point.

3) Cited a public report somewhere that the Sox and the Nats are #1 and #2 in all of baseball (not sure what order) in terms of revenue spent on payrolls.

4) The salary that Swisher was making this year (5.3mm) is EXACTLY the same amount that Viciedo is making. He said that was not a coincidence. While he didn't say it, this also explains what some of us felt was odd timing around moving Swisher - before the Vegas meetings.

5) Said the staff saw something in Lillibridge that will be easy to fix. Explains his only bad season ever. He is VERY high on Lillibridge and Getz (no surprise)

6) Doesn't EXPECT we see Beckham, because of Lilli/Getz/Fields, but said that the entire staff thinks Beckham is special enough to make it difficult to hold him down long.

7) KW admitted that he is what he is - and won't change. Someone told him he has made more trades than any other team during his tenure here.

8) Would like to be able to show prospects that they can make it to the bigs. Says that Fields will be totally healthy and will look good. Said he was walking on one leg all year last year. Believes we will see a much better Fields competing for a job this spring.

champagne030
12-13-2008, 03:24 PM
Sweet, we've got $20M to spend on payroll if there's no edict to cut.

Lillibridge might have had only one "bad" season, he hasn't had a good one in a few years. Hopefully this is just Kenny trying to throw others off and he's got a real plan.

JermaineDye05
12-13-2008, 03:27 PM
Some interesting discussion. Highlights... (note: I take everything KW says with a grain of salt)

1) Payroll is very flexible. They were willing to spend the money on Hunter with the assumption that revenue would follow. They won't do that for just any player - but they felt Torii was special.

2) They are unsure how the economy will impact our attendance, but JR has not forced any cuts at this point.

3) Cited a public report somewhere that the Sox and the Nats are #1 and #2 in all of baseball (not sure what order) in terms of revenue spent on payrolls.

4) The salary that Swisher was making this year (5.3mm) is EXACTLY the same amount that Viciedo is making. He said that was not a coincidence. While he didn't say it, this also explains what some of us felt was odd timing around moving Swisher - before the Vegas meetings.

5) Said the staff saw something in Lillibridge that will be easy to fix. Explains his only bad season ever. He is VERY high on Lillibridge and Getz (no surprise)

6) Doesn't EXPECT we see Beckham, because of Lilli/Getz/Fields, but said that the entire staff thinks Beckham is special enough to make it difficult to hold him down long.

7) KW admitted that he is what he is - and won't change. Someone told him he has made more trades than any other team during his tenure here.

8) Would like to be able to show prospects that they can make it to the bigs. Says that Fields will be totally healthy and will look good. Said he was walking on one leg all year last year. Believes we will see a much better Fields competing for a job this spring.

This was the most interesting thing I heard Kenny say during the interview. He basically said that Beckham is special. Rongey said that some scouts think he'll be up by midseason. Kenny said that with players like Beckham, Poreda, and Viciedo, they tell you when they're ready. The club doesn't make the decision, the players usually force the issue.

BadBobbyJenks
12-13-2008, 03:35 PM
The score has it posted on the website now, http://www.670thescore.com/pages/144516.php.

First one under recent audio.

Brian26
12-13-2008, 04:04 PM
5) Said the staff saw something in Lillibridge that will be easy to fix. Explains his only bad season ever. He is VERY high on Lillibridge and Getz (no surprise)


I heard that part. He said Lillibridge could steal 40 bases if he played everyday.

BadBobbyJenks
12-13-2008, 04:09 PM
Kenny said he is right at his budget or a little over so we don't have 20 million to spend. Sounded like they are projecting a fall in attendance/revenue with the economy.
Kenny really loves Lilibridge, I think he said he he can steal 40 bases, play great defense and with Getz there already it would make it difficult for Beckham to get in the mix this season.



Didn't say much about the rotation though would have liked to hear what the plan was.


Thanks to Ranger for asking about the budget, where it all comes from and how the number is set, because I think a lot of us were confused.

Sounds like if Dye is not moved, there will be no major signing as they are a little over budget right now.

jabrch
12-13-2008, 04:32 PM
I heard that part. He said Lillibridge could steal 40 bases if he played everyday.

He believes we will get good value from many of these guys. I know he is always overly optimistic - but that's his job. If Lillibridge goes back to hitting what was projected before last year's struggles (he is a career .270/.352/.421 hitter in the minors) he will fit in nicely.

The fact that it is possible that we come north with this roster is somewhat scary. He did say we are already overcomitted in 2009, but he has room if he has an opportunity that will be a revenue generator, and that he knows that ownership will support a move to go for it if there is a chance.

kjhanson
12-13-2008, 04:33 PM
Lillibridge might have had only one "bad" season, he hasn't had a good one in a few years.

Huh?

In 2007:
.282/.341/.417 13/58 42 SB

In 2006:
.305/.419/.480 13/71 53 SB

CashMan
12-13-2008, 04:45 PM
He kinda danced around how much money they have to spend. Btrain929, figures around $18mill after all the raises and trades.

guillensdisciple
12-13-2008, 04:53 PM
I think Lillibridge will be our leadoff man at the beginning of the year.

LoveYourSuit
12-13-2008, 04:57 PM
This is the first I ever heard of a pro team setting a budget based on "projected sales" instead of carryover and momentum from the previous year.

Remeber the old nonesense we used to get from management? "You show up, we will spend." What the hell happened to that?

So let me get this straight, if we show up in April, May, June this year in big numbers, what FAs can Kenny acquire during the middle of the season :scratch:

This makes no sense.

If we have a bad year at gate this year, it's the 2010 season that should take the hit with a budget cut. Not 2009.

Paulwny
12-13-2008, 04:59 PM
3) Cited a public report somewhere that the Sox and the Nats are #1 and #2 in all of baseball (not sure what order) in terms of revenue spent on payrolls..


Anyone know anything about this public report ?

kjhanson
12-13-2008, 05:04 PM
Remeber the old nonesense we used to get from management? "You show up, we will spend." What the hell happened to that?


I hate to break it to you, but we weren't in the top half of "showing up" last year, yet we had a top-20% payroll. Even if we cut the $18 million, we're still in the upper 30% of team payrolls.

Frontman
12-13-2008, 05:14 PM
I hate to break it to you, but we weren't in the top half of "showing up" last year, yet we had a top-20% payroll. Even if we cut the $18 million, we're still in the upper 30% of team payrolls.

Quoted for truth. There are a number of highlights from the Sox 2008 season showing home runs going into empty areas in the outfield.

I can't fault the Sox (or any organization for that matter) trying to be frugal now. Who knows how many of us will be able to afford going to the games this year?

Noneck
12-13-2008, 05:21 PM
Who knows how many of us will be able to afford going to the games this year?

Less I am sure if the Sox don't compete. But when it comes to making money, the Sox know what they doing so I am sure they got it covered.

champagne030
12-13-2008, 05:24 PM
Kenny said he is right at his budget or a little over so we don't have 20 million to spend. Sounded like they are projecting a fall in attendance/revenue with the economy.



He didn't still answer anything substantive about payroll. He called Viciedo and Swisher a wash. Great, they've still saved a net of $18M over last year. They've told me ticket renewals are at 95%+ and other revenue streams are long term so butts in the seats cannot account for the salary dump.

Nothing new here about payroll.....ignore the man behind the curtain.

soxfanreggie
12-13-2008, 05:24 PM
I wonder what the Sox will do with the:

$28.5 (or $40.0 if Dye is bought out) million coming off after 2009 (Thome, Contreras, Dotel, and maybe Dye)
$12 million after 2010 (Konerko)

Some will be spent in free agency, but I wonder if they will continue to cut payroll. I really hope some of it goes into a 3 year deal for Bobby after this season. I also wouldn't mind if Bobby gets a 3 or 4 year deal this year.

LoveYourSuit
12-13-2008, 05:26 PM
I hate to break it to you, but we weren't in the top half of "showing up" last year, yet we had a top-20% payroll. Even if we cut the $18 million, we're still in the upper 30% of team payrolls.


Bingo.

I wanted someone to admit this before me.

I took a beating last year for mentioning empty seasts in the game threads. I guess we did have an attendance problem last year after all.
:rolleyes:

So payroll is right in line for us not packing the park last year.


If this is the case, I stand with White Sox management.

LoveYourSuit
12-13-2008, 05:28 PM
I wonder what the Sox will do with the:

$28.5 (or $40.0 if Dye is bought out) million coming off after 2009 (Thome, Contreras, Dotel, and maybe Dye)
$12 million after 2010 (Konerko)

Some will be spent in free agency, but I wonder if they will continue to cut payroll. I really hope some of it goes into a 3 year deal for Bobby after this season. I also wouldn't mind if Bobby gets a 3 or 4 year deal this year.


Bobby is under Sox control for the next 3-4 years.... He is the last of my worries to extend long term. Take it one year at at time for him, knock on wood he stays in one piece for the next 3 years. But don't commit a long contract if you don't have to.

champagne030
12-13-2008, 05:42 PM
Huh?

In 2007:
.282/.341/.417 13/58 42 SB

In 2006:
.305/.419/.480 13/71 53 SB

Okay. He's hasn't had a good year above A ball. His OBP the last two seasons in the minors was less than .315. He's fast, but like Owens he cannot get on base to use than speed. Yes, he can steal a base far better than Owens, but you get my point.

EMachine10
12-13-2008, 06:01 PM
Okay. He's hasn't had a good year above A ball. His OBP the last two seasons in the minors was less than .315. He's fast, but like Owens he cannot get on base to use than speed. Yes, he can steal a base far better than Owens, but you get my point.
:scratch: What? Last season was his first season under .315 OBP since he debuted in rookie ball. The year before he had OBPs at .355 at AA and .331 at AAA. I'll add that his OBP was .400+ in A ball, but you apparently don't care about that.

Hitmen77
12-13-2008, 06:20 PM
From what he is saying about Lillibridge, Getz, and Fields (plus Viciedo and Beckham on the horizon), it sounds like we shouldn't expect the Sox to fill their infield holes through trade or free agency this offseason.

That still leaves a big question mark for me about who will play CF and who will be our #4 and #5 starting pitchers next year. I expect that one of our starting pitching spots willl go to someone already in the organization (Richard, Marquez, etc). But I hope we're not counting on filling both SP holes with our unproven rookies.

champagne030
12-13-2008, 07:26 PM
:scratch: What? Last season was his first season under .315 OBP since he debuted in rookie ball. The year before he had OBPs at .355 at AA and .331 at AAA. I'll add that his OBP was .400+ in A ball, but you apparently don't care about that.

His combined OBP the last two seasons was below .315. Yes, I don't give a **** what he did in A ball when he's sucked at AAA.

btrain929
12-13-2008, 07:30 PM
His combined OBP the last two seasons was below .315. Yes, I don't give a **** what he did in A ball when he's sucked at AAA.

He did good in '07 in AA/AAA. He did bad in '08 in AAA. Why do you think the '08 version of him is more true than the '07 version?

munchman33
12-13-2008, 07:34 PM
I wonder what the Sox will do with the:

$28.5 (or $40.0 if Dye is bought out) million coming off after 2009 (Thome, Contreras, Dotel, and maybe Dye)
$12 million after 2010 (Konerko)

Some will be spent in free agency, but I wonder if they will continue to cut payroll. I really hope some of it goes into a 3 year deal for Bobby after this season. I also wouldn't mind if Bobby gets a 3 or 4 year deal this year.

The young core will cost more than that to retain eventually. It wouldn't be wise to go out and spend that money long term.

btrain929
12-13-2008, 07:36 PM
The young core will cost more than that to retain eventually. It wouldn't be wise to go out and spend that money long term.

Well I wouldn't go on a shopping spree and spend it all, but I definitely wouldn't sit on all of it either waiting to give out contract extensions.

Zisk77
12-13-2008, 07:45 PM
He also hinted that if we stayed in the race in June & July we would have prospects to trade to fill holes.

EMachine10
12-13-2008, 07:50 PM
His combined OBP the last two seasons was below .315. Yes, I don't give a **** what he did in A ball when he's sucked at AAA.
If we're talking strictly minor leagues here, I can't figure out your math. And remember, you can not just average the two numbers (which would be above .315 anyway).

oeo
12-13-2008, 07:51 PM
He also hinted that if we stayed in the race in June & July we would have prospects to trade to fill holes.

So do the Crawford to Sox rumors start in June or July?

EMachine10
12-13-2008, 07:58 PM
So do the Crawford to Sox rumors start in June or July?
December

oeo
12-13-2008, 08:05 PM
December

We have to wait for TB to fall out of contention for them to valid, though.

areilly
12-13-2008, 08:16 PM
3) Cited a public report somewhere that the Sox and the Nats are #1 and #2 in all of baseball (not sure what order) in terms of revenue spent on payrolls

What public report was that? And how did they conduct it? And since when do individual MLB clubs release annual revenue figures?

Paulwny
12-13-2008, 08:31 PM
What public report was that? And how did they conduct it? And since when do individual MLB clubs release annual revenue figures?


Yep, I'd also be interested in the answers to your questions.

champagne030
12-13-2008, 08:40 PM
He did good in '07 in AA/AAA. He did bad in '08 in AAA. Why do you think the '08 version of him is more true than the '07 version?

Nah, 3-1 K to BB ratio with little power doesn't do it for me. And the trend has continued when facing MLB pitching.

If we're talking strictly minor leagues here, I can't figure out your math. And remember, you can not just average the two numbers (which would be above .315 anyway).

I may not have included SF, but I came up with 299/953 for his minor league stats over the last two seasons. That's .313 OBP.

Regardless, he's looked ugly at the plate for a while. And the Braves have been concerned for years.

champagne030
12-13-2008, 08:42 PM
3) Cited a public report somewhere that the Sox and the Nats are #1 and #2 in all of baseball (not sure what order) in terms of revenue spent on payrolls.



:bs:

oeo
12-13-2008, 08:42 PM
Regardless, he's looked ugly at the plate for a while. And the Braves have been concerned for years.

That's funny considering he was in their system for two years.

:bs:

You're a funny guy. Why wasn't this BS four and half hours ago?

champagne030
12-13-2008, 08:44 PM
That's funny considering he was in their system for two years.

2007 was years ago. :scratch:

oeo
12-13-2008, 08:48 PM
2007 was years ago. :scratch:

Since when does 'for years' mean one year? I mean they just acquired him before 2007. Maybe they were 'concerned' during 2007, which would mean they've been 'concerned' for a little over a year.

I'm increasingly thinking everything you say is fraudulent.

champagne030
12-13-2008, 08:58 PM
Since when does 'for years' mean one year? I mean they just acquired him before 2007. Maybe they were 'concerned' during 2007, which would mean they've been 'concerned' for a little over a year.

I'm increasingly thinking everything you say is fraudulent.

2007 and 2008 doesn't add up to one year - it's years. They didn't think he could hit in 2007 and 2008 confirmed their thoughts.

I'm increasingly thinking you are jabrch posting under a different name.

oeo
12-13-2008, 09:00 PM
They didn't think he could hit in 2007 and 2008 confirmed their thoughts.

That's 'for years?'

And let me guess, you have a "source" in the Braves organization that told you this?

I'm increasing thinking you are jabrch posting under a different name.Cool. At least I'm not the bull****ter. You've been questionable for awhile now...lately you've been posting more, and your posts just keep coming with holes in them.

EMachine10
12-13-2008, 09:04 PM
2007 and 2008 doesn't add up to one year - it's years. They didn't think he could hit in 2007 and 2008 confirmed their thoughts.

I'm increasingly thinking you are jabrch posting under a different name.
He hit .282 in 2007, and they thought he couldn't hit? Last time I checked, a .282 batting average wasn't anything to cry over. Is it elite? Probably not, but I wouldn't say this is anything to be worried about, unless of course, you find a source telling us that Atlanta was worried about his hitting.

jabrch
12-13-2008, 09:08 PM
He kinda danced around how much money they have to spend. Btrain929, figures around $18mill after all the raises and trades.

He said based on their revenue projections, he is about maxed out. They are assuming that the economy is going to hit us hard.

He also said a lot of people don't understand the cost of some of their current contracts in terms of raises that players get. He commented that the media reports of where our payroll is this season has a huge range and he rarely hears the right number.


Anyone know anything about this public report ?

No - Ranger might - he seemed familiar with it, if it wasn't he who brought it up. Ranger - if you see this - any ideas?

I hate to break it to you, but we weren't in the top half of "showing up" last year, yet we had a top-20% payroll. Even if we cut the $18 million, we're still in the upper 30% of team payrolls.

Again - per Ranger or KW (not sure) we were #1 or #2 in terms of spending as a % of revenue. Take it with a grain of salt until we see the report.

From what he is saying about Lillibridge, Getz, and Fields (plus Viciedo and Beckham on the horizon), it sounds like we shouldn't expect the Sox to fill their infield holes through trade or free agency this offseason.

He did say that if the RIGHT deal were out there, he'd trade any of our minor league talent (not naming anyone). If there was a way to get a good fit, proven talent, I'm sure he'd do it. I just don't think he was enamoured with FA options at 2B like Hudson (I think that rumor was always overblown) and I am guessing Furcal's injury history and 4 year contract demand at his age were an issue.

CashMan
12-13-2008, 09:27 PM
He said based on their revenue projections, he is about maxed out. They are assuming that the economy is going to hit us hard.

He also said a lot of people don't understand the cost of some of their current contracts in terms of raises that players get. He commented that the media reports of where our payroll is this season has a huge range and he rarely hears the right number.



Media reports say we are $18.5 million freed up, we are actually $18.4 million freed up, Kenny can deny it. Technically he didn't hear the right number. I find it hard to imagine $18mill is far off. I am not bitching about the money in any way. I trust Kenny 100%. Other than CC(who is signed), or Texiria(sp?) there really isn't anything on the FA market I would want. I would like for Kenny to make a trade for a RP or a SP, I don't care which one.

jabrch
12-13-2008, 09:34 PM
Media reports say we are $18.5 million freed up, we are actually $18.4 million freed up, Kenny can deny it. Technically he didn't hear the right number. I find it hard to imagine $18mill is far off.


I just don't know that we can say this with any degree of surety since we don't know how they are accounting for many things. I'm not disagreeing that you can come to that conclusion legitimately - just disagreeing that it is neceasrily a fact.

I'm sure someone can do the math another way and draw a different number.

jcw218
12-13-2008, 10:11 PM
According to Cotts, there is aprox 87 million committed to 14 players for 2009. Not included in that figure are Danks, Floyd, Jenks, Richard, Russell, Wasserman, Fields, Getz, Lillibridge, Owens, Quentin and all the others that are on the 40 man roster. Those 14 with contracts are

Thome - 13M (possible money from Phil)
Buehrle - 14M
Konerko - 12M
Contreras - 10M
Dye - 11.5M
Pierzynski - 6.25M
Dotel - 6M
Linebrink - 4.5M
Viciedo - 1M (4M signing bonus, may be prorated)
Betemit - 1.3M
Ramirez - 1.1M
Thornton - 1.325M
Wise - .55M
Nix - .4M

Not including the money that we were paying to free agents, the only money to my knowledge that has been moved from the 2009 player payroll has been Javier 11.5M and Swisher 5.5M

btrain929
12-13-2008, 10:19 PM
Not including the money that we were paying to free agents, the only moner to my knowledge that has been moved from the 2009 player payroll has been Javier 11.5M and Swisher 5.5M

That happens to be a lot of money.

CashMan
12-13-2008, 10:24 PM
I just don't know that we can say this with any degree of surety since we don't know how they are accounting for many things. I'm not disagreeing that you can come to that conclusion legitimately - just disagreeing that it is neceasrily a fact.

I'm sure someone can do the math another way and draw a different number.


Perhaps, Kenny is using it as a smoke screen. You tell teams we are bumping up against payroll, and a team like the Reds are less likely to say pick up part of Dye's contract, idk. It can be anywhere from 15-18mill who knows, I really don't care.

champagne030
12-13-2008, 10:37 PM
He hit .282 in 2007, and they thought he couldn't hit? Last time I checked, a .282 batting average wasn't anything to cry over. Is it elite? Probably not, but I wouldn't say this is anything to be worried about, unless of course, you find a source telling us that Atlanta was worried about his hitting.

It was an empty .282 and the fact they had him on the block, while ready to deal Escobar, would suggest that they didn't think very highly of him. Texas didn't want him, the Braves didn't think much of him and most scouting reports don't think much of him. :scratch:

champagne030
12-13-2008, 10:41 PM
You're a funny guy. Why wasn't this BS four and half hours ago?

I wasn't here when this bull**** was posted 4.5 hours before I looked at this board. :shrug:

JohnTucker0814
12-13-2008, 11:06 PM
It was an empty .282 and the fact they had him on the block, while ready to deal Escobar, would suggest that they didn't think very highly of him. Texas didn't want him, the Braves didn't think much of him and most scouting reports don't think much of him. :scratch:

Actually now that they've traded Lillibridge reports are there is 0% chance that Atlanta will trade Escobar. Take that for what it's worth, but if Atlanta wanted to open up talks for Peavy, SD would NOT be getting Escobar. They may not thought very highly of Lillibridge but they thought highly enough of him to be a stop gap when trading Escobar until they could improve the SS position. For Atlanta to even consider trading Escobar without a top notch SS prospect, Lillibridge can't be THAT BAD!

WhiteSox5187
12-14-2008, 12:39 AM
It was an empty .282 and the fact they had him on the block, while ready to deal Escobar, would suggest that they didn't think very highly of him. Texas didn't want him, the Braves didn't think much of him and most scouting reports don't think much of him. :scratch:
What the hell is an "empty" .282? .282 is still .282, it's not like the guy had less than 100 at bats or something, is it?

A. Cavatica
12-14-2008, 01:22 AM
What the hell is an "empty" .282? .282 is still .282, it's not like the guy had less than 100 at bats or something, is it?

An empty .282 would be a .282 with very little power and very few walks. But Lillibridge's 2007 wasn't empty. His OBP was around .340 (above average); he slugged over .400 (which is good for a shortstop); and he stole 42 bases while being caught 12 times, which is excellent. Plus he did this while seeing AA and AAA for the first time.

Looks to me like he had a good year in 2007. And the competition between Lillibridge, Getz, and Nix ought to be fun to watch.

jabrch
12-14-2008, 02:07 AM
Gimme a T.....

waltwilliams
12-14-2008, 02:26 AM
The rankings of team salaries as a percentage of revenue may just be based on the Forbes Business of Baseball revenue estimates.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Revenue.html
(http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Revenue.html)

btrain929
12-14-2008, 02:45 AM
The rankings of team salaries as a percentage of revenue may just be based on the Forbes Business of Baseball revenue estimates.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Revenue.html
(http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Revenue.html)

No-Neck, what's up!

:welcome:

Ranger
12-14-2008, 06:13 AM
:bs:

You can cry "BS" all you want, but it's the truth...according to Forbes anyway. It was a report I read about a year and a half ago regarding all MLB teams on how much of their total revenue was thrown back into payroll. It showed all of the teams and listed the Sox and Nationals as the top two teams in all of baseball in terms of how much of their total revenue they spent on the players. Both of these teams were at 79-80%

I had a hard copy of the article, but haven't been able to find it. I wish I still had it and I realize that the data is a couple of years old by now but I'm not sure that has changed much.

There will be people (like champagne) who will always assume management is trying to stiff the fans, but I don't always believe in conspiracies.

WhiteSox5187
12-14-2008, 07:22 AM
You can cry "BS" all you want, but it's the truth...according to Forbes anyway. It was a report I read about a year and a half ago regarding all MLB teams on how much of their total revenue was thrown back into payroll. It showed all of the teams and listed the Sox and Nationals as the top two teams in all of baseball in terms of how much of their total revenue they spent on the players. Both of these teams were at 79-80%

I had a hard copy of the article, but haven't been able to find it. I wish I still had it and I realize that the data is a couple of years old by now but I'm not sure that has changed much.

There will be people (like champagne) who will always assume management is trying to stiff the fans, but I don't always believe in conspiracies.
For a second I thought you meant champagne as in the beverage and I was thinking "Why would champagne stiff fans?"

Anyhoo, it appears the article you were mentioning was linked a few posts ahead of yours, though if I'm reading that chart correctly (which I'm probably not, I am an English major), it looks like we are actually fourth in percentage of revenue invested our payroll behind the Nationals, the Marlins and the Mets.

Frontman
12-14-2008, 09:02 AM
For a second I thought you meant champagne as in the beverage and I was thinking "Why would champagne stiff fans?"

Anyhoo, it appears the article you were mentioning was linked a few posts ahead of yours, though if I'm reading that chart correctly (which I'm probably not, I am an English major), it looks like we are actually fourth in percentage of revenue invested our payroll behind the Nationals, the Marlins and the Mets.

Which is still in the top 5; and considering how I don't see the White Sox selling the same amount of products as the Cubs/Yanks/Red Sawx, I can see how they cut into their profits more than those teams.

The best way Kenny and the Ranger (hey Chris, thanks again for posting here and also doing "White Sox Weekly") could of explained the Torii Hunter risk/reward was in terms fans would understand:

"We offered Torii more money because we thought he'd sell more jerseys and shirts and put a few more butts in the seats; which then we can turn around and use that additional money for his own contract."

I'm just amazed at how many of my fellow Sox fans are convinced this team doesn't spend money. If that was the case, even with a chance at making the playoffs in 2008; Thome would of been sat more often so his at bats did not hit the required plate appearances to kick in the automatic option for 2009.

dickallen15
12-14-2008, 09:47 AM
The rankings of team salaries as a percentage of revenue may just be based on the Forbes Business of Baseball revenue estimates.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Revenue.html
(http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Revenue.html)

The funny thing is, they may refer to Forbes for things like that, but when Forbes mentions profits, all the teams say they have it all wrong. One thing I have noticed through the last few seasons is the White Sox profit per Forbes, generally is also the same amount payroll goes up the next season.

One question I have is who picks of the cost of JR's jet? I read where KW took it back to Phoenix with JR after the winter meetings concluded? KW used the $.75 vs $1.00 bit again this year. Do teams so broke take private jets for 300 mile trips?

Noneck
12-14-2008, 10:02 AM
One question I have is who picks of the cost of JR's jet? I read where KW took it back to Phoenix with JR after the winter meetings concluded? KW used the $.75 vs $1.00 bit again this year. Do teams so broke take private jets for 300 mile trips?

Yea I figured the way they are talking about the financial condition of the club, they would be using their thumbs to get home.

oeo
12-14-2008, 10:02 AM
There will be people (like champagne) who will always assume management is trying to stiff the fans, but I don't always believe in conspiracies.

You would think if he truly believed that, he would have more than the couple of instances he keeps repeating over and over (and over) again, where he thinks the Sox are cheap.

BTW, have you heard that quote where Kenny says he only has $0.50?

champagne030
12-14-2008, 10:19 AM
You can cry "BS" all you want, but it's the truth...according to Forbes anyway. It was a report I read about a year and a half ago regarding all MLB teams on how much of their total revenue was thrown back into payroll. It showed all of the teams and listed the Sox and Nationals as the top two teams in all of baseball in terms of how much of their total revenue they spent on the players. Both of these teams were at 79-80%

I had a hard copy of the article, but haven't been able to find it. I wish I still had it and I realize that the data is a couple of years old by now but I'm not sure that has changed much.

There will be people (like champagne) who will always assume management is trying to stiff the fans, but I don't always believe in conspiracies.

I was calling bull**** on the poster. The poster has said in the past that Forbes' numbers are bull****. Now he wants to use those numbers in a manner that casts a favorable shadow on the club and they're suddenly good as gold. :shrug:

oeo
12-14-2008, 10:21 AM
I was calling bull**** on the poster. The poster has said in the past that Forbes' numbers are bull****. Now he wants to use those numbers in a manner that casts a favorable shadow on the club and they're suddenly good as gold. :shrug:

:rolling:

Typical.

roylestillman
12-14-2008, 10:28 AM
You can cry "BS" all you want, but it's the truth...according to Forbes anyway. It was a report I read about a year and a half ago regarding all MLB teams on how much of their total revenue was thrown back into payroll. It showed all of the teams and listed the Sox and Nationals as the top two teams in all of baseball in terms of how much of their total revenue they spent on the players. Both of these teams were at 79-80%

I had a hard copy of the article, but haven't been able to find it. I wish I still had it and I realize that the data is a couple of years old by now but I'm not sure that has changed much.

There will be people (like champagne) who will always assume management is trying to stiff the fans, but I don't always believe in conspiracies.


This is a misleading statistic.

One of the main reasons that they can spend a high percentage of their revenues on players is that they have little else to spend it on. Their rent on the stadium is virtually non-existant. A lot of the upkeep is the responsibilty and/or funded by the the ISFA. I assume they have have no corporate debt payments that are due.

This isn't a criticism of the Sox organization. I believe the purse strings are more open than I ever imagined.

Tragg
12-14-2008, 11:27 AM
The issue of whether the Sox are "cheap" or properly reinvest revenue (or whatever word one uses) isn't answered by the % of revenues put into payroll; it's the % of revenues put back into baseball operations in total.
How do the Sox stand with % of revenues put into scouting and player development side?

Steelrod
12-14-2008, 11:42 AM
The issue of whether the Sox are "cheap" or properly reinvest revenue (or whatever word one uses) isn't answered by the % of revenues put into payroll; it's the % of revenues put back into baseball operations in total.
How do the Sox stand with % of revenues put into scouting and player development side?
Key is operations, period. All expenses have to be paid by an organization, team and otherwise.

Frontman
12-14-2008, 11:45 AM
Tragg does make a solid point, though. The moneys spent on the support services for a team (scouting, rehab, coaching staff) can be very important for the end result as well.

Yes, its the players who ultimately play the game; but if the team doesn't find the best potential in players and cultivate said potential?

Just because a kid is "young" and "talented" doesn't mean they know how to use said talent properly.

canOcorn
12-14-2008, 01:00 PM
You can cry "BS" all you want, but it's the truth...according to Forbes anyway. It was a report I read about a year and a half ago regarding all MLB teams on how much of their total revenue was thrown back into payroll. It showed all of the teams and listed the Sox and Nationals as the top two teams in all of baseball in terms of how much of their total revenue they spent on the players. Both of these teams were at 79-80%

I had a hard copy of the article, but haven't been able to find it. I wish I still had it and I realize that the data is a couple of years old by now but I'm not sure that has changed much.

There will be people (like champagne) who will always assume management is trying to stiff the fans, but I don't always believe in conspiracies.

Isn't the return for management in the value of the club? Jerry bought the club for about $20M, correct? ~25 years later the club is worth $450M. Seems like a pretty good return to me. :shrug: Operate the club with a small cash positive position and cash in when you sell. Otherwise you're just being Pohlad, Loria, ect.

Lip Man 1
12-14-2008, 01:03 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/deluca/1329738,CST-SPT-deluca14.article

Lip

SBSoxFan
12-14-2008, 01:16 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/deluca/1329738,CST-SPT-deluca14.article

Lip

Didn't Guillen used the R-word in his interview with MLB last week?

hawkjt
12-14-2008, 02:14 PM
Yea I figured the way they are talking about the financial condition of the club, they would be using their thumbs to get home.

Haven't you heard? kenny picked up a plane from the auto-makers for 10 cents on the dollar.:D:

Seriously, this is now officially moving into petty territory.

champagne030
12-14-2008, 02:48 PM
:rolling:

Typical.

Except when using Forbes' numbers to show the Sox have one of the highest net incomes then the numbers are deemed to be bull****. Great, can we use Fobres' numbers that show the White Sox as taking home one of the best profits? :scratch: If not, then quit using said numbers to blow sunshine on ****.

Ranger
12-14-2008, 03:22 PM
Anyhoo, it appears the article you were mentioning was linked a few posts ahead of yours, though if I'm reading that chart correctly (which I'm probably not, I am an English major), it looks like we are actually fourth in percentage of revenue invested our payroll behind the Nationals, the Marlins and the Mets.


You know, WhiteSox, when I saw the link posted I thought he had found. Unfortunately, it is not the same article as the one I read. Like I said, the one I had was a couple of years old and gave the percentage of revenue spent on the payroll. And I believe it was the percentage spent of what was left AFTER taking care of fixed costs (stadium costs, employees, etc.). That I could be wrong about, but I believe it was the case. Man, I wish I could find that thing!

Anyway, even though the data is a couple of years old and the budget is complicated in that we really don't know every detail regarding the amount of money comes in and where that money is disbursed, I feel confident that they're doing what they can to break even after fixed costs. I know there will always be people that think Ownership loves to screw the fans over but, in this case, I simply don't believe that's true. I'm sorry, I just don't. Now, you could debate if the money is well spent or not. That's a different story. However you could debate that for every single team in baseball.

One thing Kenny said yesterday that made payroll easier to understand was in discussing 2005 to 2006. The payroll increased by about 25% from the 2005 season to 2006. It turned out to be a 25 million dollar increase. Now, the misconception is that the dramatic payroll jump occurred because of the 2005 attendance and WS, etc. However, the reality is that the attendance really wasn't that greatin '05. (Does anyone else recall people talking about the attendance midseason and the questions about why people weren't showing up to watch a first place team? It seemed the common perception was to think that people didn't want to get their hopes up only to see them let first place slip away. Didn't this happen? Or am I insane?). Anyway, they projected that because of success the previous year ('05) they were going to generate a significant among of money the following year in season tickets, merchandise, etc. It's mostly about projections of what you think you'll get, not what you did or had the year before.

Sorry to be long winded. I do that. Enjoy talking with you all.

Lip Man 1
12-14-2008, 03:43 PM
Chris:

And we enjoy the back and forth with you and your insights.

Lip

DumpJerry
12-14-2008, 03:49 PM
Look, unlike certain teams (Yankees, Red Sox), the White Sox do not have a separate source of huge revenues. This means the team has to plow it's own revenues back into operations, including player salaries.

A lawyer I know once met one of the Sox owners (there are 50 of them, by the way). Like the other 49 owners, this guy has been an owner since JR bought the team. This is what the owner told him:
1. The owners have to pay for their own tickets to games out of their own pockets. Yes, they have access to great seats, but they are not gratis.
2. Since buying the team in 1981, there was only one year where they received a dividend: 2005. Outside of 2005, the investment in the team could be considered a lousy one because the value of the investment can only be realized if and when the team is sold.

Ownership interests in the team cannot be sold to outside parties, only back to the other owners. There are no plans to sell the team anytime soon, so the initial money the owners put up has not benefited them financially. Having said that, I seriously doubt any of them are complaining.

dickallen15
12-14-2008, 03:59 PM
According to Forbes the White Sox made $21 million in 2005, $20 million in 2006 and almost $31 million in 2007. If they are basing their budget on projected incomes, they obviously have been projecting low by quite a large margin.

LoveYourSuit
12-14-2008, 04:01 PM
Don't the Sox own part of CSN Chicago?

I know any ownership there does not compare to "YES," but it has to help somewhat IMO.

DumpJerry
12-14-2008, 04:09 PM
Don't the Sox own part of CSN Chicago?

I know any ownership there does not compare to "YES," but it has to help somewhat IMO.
Yes, the White Sox, Cubs, Bulls, Blackhawks, and (IIRC) the Tribune co-own CSN.

CSN is not the revenue generator that YES and NESN are for the Yankees and Red Sox. Also, the Yanks and Red Sox are sole owners, they don't share the profits with 3-4 partners.

Remember, not too long ago it was reported that the Red Sox had a net worth of $1,500,000,000.00. The White Sox are nowhere near that.

TheOldRoman
12-14-2008, 04:27 PM
Yes, the White Sox, Cubs, Bulls, Blackhawks, and (IIRC) the Tribune co-own CSN.

CSN is not the revenue generator that YES and NESN are for the Yankees and Red Sox. Also, the Yanks and Red Sox are sole owners, they don't share the profits with 3-4 partners.

Remember, not too long ago it was reported that the Red Sox had a net worth of $1,500,000,000.00. The White Sox are nowhere near that.The Tribune co-owns it only by virtue of owning the Cubs. The four teams you mentioned have 20%, and so does Comcast itself.

DumpJerry
12-14-2008, 04:37 PM
The Tribune co-owns it only by virtue of owning the Cubs. The four teams you mentioned have 20%, and so does Comcast itself.
Duh. My brain works at 30% on Sundays......

canOcorn
12-14-2008, 06:12 PM
2. Since buying the team in 1981, there was only one year where they received a dividend: 2005.

That would be contrary to my neighbor, who's uncle is part of the ownership group. She might be full of ****, but her story isn't different from a lot of stuff out there.

champagne030
12-14-2008, 06:38 PM
According to Forbes the White Sox made $21 million in 2005, $20 million in 2006 and almost $31 million in 2007. If they are basing their budget on projected incomes, they obviously have been projecting low by quite a large margin.

You can only use Forbes when it shows that the Sox crying poor is true. :rolleyes:

canOcorn
12-14-2008, 07:13 PM
You can only use Forbes when it shows that the Sox crying poor is true. :rolleyes:

Stop using facts! Forbes sucks. :?:

ilsox7
12-14-2008, 07:28 PM
Stop using facts! Forbes sucks. :?:

Forbes is not an appropriate source whether they agree or disagree with the argument you are trying to make. People can argue all they want about the financial state of the White Sox, but using Forbes and their lack of transparency does nothing to advance an argument.

champagne030
12-14-2008, 07:42 PM
Forbes is not an appropriate source whether they agree or disagree with the argument you are trying to make. People can argue all they want about the financial state of the White Sox, but using Forbes and their lack of transparency does nothing to advance an argument.

Cool. There it is - Ranger's source is bull****. Jerry is stuffing his pockets. :dunno:

dickallen15
12-14-2008, 08:32 PM
Forbes is not an appropriate source whether they agree or disagree with the argument you are trying to make. People can argue all they want about the financial state of the White Sox, but using Forbes and their lack of transparency does nothing to advance an argument.

KW himself referred to how his team is in the top two as to percentage of revenue is used towards payroll. That was a Forbes report. To use them as a source and then say their numbers are off isn't credible. So according to Forbes, the White Sox, while increasing payroll significantly, have made over $70 million in profit between 2005-2007. No wonder they were willing to break the bank for Hunter. No wonder they offered Fukudome $50 million. Considering now they supposedly can only afford a 4 year $10 million and are bumping up against their limit if not above, 2008 must have been a disaster financially, if, as they claim, every last dime that comes in, goes towards a better team.

All that said, payroll isn't the problem for this team. I just think KW bring up budget and lack of funds every season is old. Most of us are sick of it. I don't think anyone here expects the White Sox to compete with the Yankees or Red Sox when it comes to total payroll. Cutting payroll, using the economy as an excuse, means you expect fewer customers this year. Why in the world would you increase ticket prices if you expect less demand? I think that's the one thing here that makes no sense.

Also, lets not cry for any of the White Sox shareholders. If, as they claim, they are making no money, and its just a terrible investment, why wouldn't they get out? Its a pretty cool deal for them. A lot of them also have shares in the Bulls, where they have been printing money for years. I remember a Rozner article with a Bulls shareholder after Jordan retired and they had little payroll but were still filling the place. He was embarrassed at the amount of money they were making.

canOcorn
12-14-2008, 08:37 PM
KW himself referred to how his team is in the top two as to percentage of revenue is used towards payroll. That was a Forbes report. To use them as a source and then say their numbers are off isn't credible. So according to Forbes, the White Sox, while increasing payroll significantly, have made over $70 million in profit between 2005-2007.

Kenny brought us a World Series. Do not question the man! :wink:

ilsox7
12-14-2008, 08:38 PM
KW himself referred to how his team is in the top two as to percentage of revenue is used towards payroll. That was a Forbes report. To use them as a source and then say their numbers are off isn't credible. So according to Forbes, the White Sox, while increasing payroll significantly, have made over $70 million in profit between 2005-2007. No wonder they were willing to break the bank for Hunter. No wonder they offered Fukudome $50 million. Considering now they supposedly can only afford a 4 year $10 million and are bumping up against their limit if not above, 2008 must have been a disaster financially, if, as they claim, every last dime that comes in, goes towards a better team.

All that said, payroll isn't the problem for this team. I just think KW bring up budget and lack of funds every season is old. Most of us are sick of it. I don't think anyone here expects the White Sox to compete with the Yankees or Red Sox when it comes to total payroll. Cutting payroll, using the economy as an excuse, means you expect fewer customers this year. Why in the world would you increase ticket prices if you expect less demand? I think that's the one thing here that makes no sense.

You make many valid points. I am simply saying that using Forbes as a "fact" in an argument is flawed given their historic nature of providing limited transparency to their calculations.

champagne030
12-14-2008, 08:50 PM
Kenny brought us a World Series. Do not question the man! :wink:

Ruh, roh.

:KW

I said under the radar....not off the radar.

Ranger
12-14-2008, 09:17 PM
Cool. There it is - Ranger's source is bull****. Jerry is stuffing his pockets. :dunno:

People are going to believe what they want to and nothing will change their minds. I never said the Forbes article was the final word, but it was something.

Again, I just don't believe the White Sox are trying to stiff the fans. I just don't think it's true. But, it's a popular stance for fans to take with the ownership of their teams (pretty much everywhere) and the ghost of Comiskey is having it's effect decades later.

I also don't see the Sox "crying poor". I see them telling everyone what they have to work with...usually when asked. Nobody is crying for them or feeling sorry for them. But if people want to know why they aren't signing this guy or taking on the salary of that guy, they give their answer.

There is no logical reason for me to think the White Sox make the same kind of money that the Yankees, Red Sox, or Cubs make. And they don't get near the attendance the Angels do (and I've seen some desire for the Sox to operate exactly like LA does). What I think some people don't realize is that just because the White Sox are in a major market, doesn't mean they make major market money.

champagne030
12-14-2008, 10:41 PM
I also don't see the Sox "crying poor". I see them telling everyone what they have to work with...usually when asked. Nobody is crying for them or feeling sorry for them. But if people want to know why they aren't signing this guy or taking on the salary of that guy, they give their answer.


I think we've all seen the comments of last year and this year that is hard to spend "$.50" or "$.75" when Kenny doesn't have a "$1" to spend. That's crying poor, especially when they hike up ticket, parking, concession and all other prices. So, they are crying poor.

You put them out there, so I'll assume you believe the Forbes numbers. They're not up against the 'wall' or whatever term Kenny wants to use.

I don't care if they don't go after the highest paid free agents, just don't insult my intelligence, raise prices, slash payroll and tell me your up against 'it'. Don't tell me season ticket renewals are at 95% if they're really not or maybe 95% of season ticket holders renewed, but downgraded from a full season package to a split or Ozzie plan.

I understand they may want to soothe advertisers for the upcoming season and not say anything in public, but then just shut your stinkin' trap when I ask about upgrading seats and don't tell me it cannot happen because there's so much demand.

Again, I assume you believe the Forbes numbers and I do too. They show the Sox are making a damn good cash profit each season. And based upon our roster of 12/14/08 they're well on their way to a massive profit in 2009.

gosox41
12-14-2008, 11:20 PM
That would be contrary to my neighbor, who's uncle is part of the ownership group. She might be full of ****, but her story isn't different from a lot of stuff out there.



People confuse dividend with getting a pay out to cover each partners share of the taxes. It's not the same as a stock. If the team makes money and a partner owes $1000 in taxes, then the team has been basically reimbursing that partner that portion of the taxes.

The partner doesn't gain on it because that money covers the taxes. People often confuse this with the commin definition of a dividend.

areilly
12-15-2008, 12:28 AM
Kenny brought us a World Series. Do not question the man! :wink:

A lot of people have brought a lot of World Series to a lot of places. . . so **** that line of thinking.

WhiteSox5187
12-15-2008, 12:39 AM
I think we've all seen the comments of last year and this year that is hard to spend "$.50" or "$.75" when Kenny doesn't have a "$1" to spend. That's crying poor, especially when they hike up ticket, parking, concession and all other prices. So, they are crying poor.

You put them out there, so I'll assume you believe the Forbes numbers. They're not up against the 'wall' or whatever term Kenny wants to use.

I don't care if they don't go after the highest paid free agents, just don't insult my intelligence, raise prices, slash payroll and tell me your up against 'it'. Don't tell me season ticket renewals are at 95% if they're really not or maybe 95% of season ticket holders renewed, but downgraded from a full season package to a split or Ozzie plan.

I understand they may want to soothe advertisers for the upcoming season and not say anything in public, but then just shut your stinkin' trap when I ask about upgrading seats and don't tell me it cannot happen because there's so much demand.

Again, I assume you believe the Forbes numbers and I do too. They show the Sox are making a damn good cash profit each season. And based upon our roster of 12/14/08 they're well on their way to a massive profit in 2009.
The key phrase there is "of 12/14." I don't think Kenny is at all done making moves and I wouldn't rule out the possiblity of him going after someone like Sheets (who might be able to be had fairly cheaply).

btrain929
12-15-2008, 12:42 AM
The key phrase there is "of 12/14." I don't think Kenny is at all done making moves and I wouldn't rule out the possiblity of him going after someone like Sheets (who might be able to be had fairly cheaply).

What do you consider "fairly cheap?"

Ranger
12-15-2008, 12:43 AM
I think we've all seen the comments of last year and this year that is hard to spend "$.50" or "$.75" when Kenny doesn't have a "$1" to spend. That's crying poor, especially when they hike up ticket, parking, concession and all other prices. So, they are crying poor.


Then you and I have different definitions of "crying poor". To me it means telling somebody how poor you are in order to gain their sympathy. The White Sox aren't asking for sympathy. They're just telling you what they have available to spend. And usually they bring it up when someone like me asks about it specifically and usually when they're being criticized for not going after the big free agent or something of that nature.

You know when you're in college and one of your buddies says, "yeah man, I'd love to go out tonight but I'm low on funds." He's not crying because he's poor and asking for your sympathy. He's just telling you that, at the moment, he can't afford to go out. It's stating a fact...it's not whining.

Again, for some people it seems to be a difficult concept to wrap their heads around when it comes to projecting. I think it's safe to say that logically we can expect to see equal or lower attendance in 2009 as compared to 2008. Businesses are backing off their season ticket commitments (I know one in particular that owned a suite but is now struggling to keep their business alive. I don't think they're worried right now about retaining the suite as they're struggling to keep their doors open)...as are a lot of average people. You'll probably see fewer walkups, too and I think with the recession, that makes sense. The raise in ticket prices are on average a couple dollars per ticket and it seems to me like an effort to make up the revenue they project to lose from fewer ticket sales overall. Again, you base payroll on projection. I can't blame them for being conservative. Any smart organization would. Of course, the payroll would be a different story if they were guaranteed to sell 41,000 tickets a night. Well, we know that's not going to happen.

I believe the Sox do a very good job of investing in the payroll with what they have to work with. Some of you don't and you never will, but I'm not with those folks. In my opinion, there is nothing sinister going on here.

By the way, gosox41 makes a very good point.

ilsox7
12-15-2008, 01:00 AM
Businesses are backing off their season ticket commitments (I know one in particular that owned a suite but is now struggling to keep their business alive. I don't think they're worried right now about retaining the suite as they're struggling to keep their doors open)...as are a lot of average people.

I think that is a pretty good point that I have not seen many people talk about. It seems reasonable that the Sox will lose a sizable chunk of revenue from their premium seating. So while attendance numbers may not take as big of a hit, the premium seats may suffer disproportionately.

Ranger
12-15-2008, 01:04 AM
I think that is a pretty good point that I have not seen many people talk about. It seems reasonable that the Sox will lose a sizable chunk of revenue from their premium seating. So while attendance numbers may not take as big of a hit, the premium seats may suffer disproportionately.

I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if you see quite a few empty boxes on a given night at the park.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 01:06 AM
The key phrase there is "of 12/14." I don't think Kenny is at all done making moves and I wouldn't rule out the possiblity of him going after someone like Sheets (who might be able to be had fairly cheaply).

No way.

They will not spend on a FA pitcher IMO nor do I think Sheets can "be had fairly chepaly."

Part of me thinks that whole Loaiza fiasco last year was in preparation for this coming season. They were looking to catch lightning in a bottle once again. Ugh, it sucks to operate this way.

ilsox7
12-15-2008, 01:06 AM
I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if you see quite a few empty boxes on a given night at the park.

I wouldn't be surprised if numerous businesses flat-out cancel their suites. Hell, some businesses probably will not be in business to even occupy the boxes next year. In an economy like this, these are the types of things that businesses eliminate first.

DumpJerry
12-15-2008, 01:07 AM
No way.

They will not spend on a FA pitcher IMO nor do I think Sheets can "be had fairly chepaly."

Part of me thinks that whole Loaiza fiasco last year was in preparation for this coming season. They were looking to catch lightning in a bottle once again. Ugh, it sucks to operate this way.
:?: I don't know where to begin.......

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 01:15 AM
Then you and I have different definitions of "crying poor". To me it means telling somebody how poor you are in order to gain their sympathy. The White Sox aren't asking for sympathy. They're just telling you what they have available to spend. And usually they bring it up when someone like me asks about it specifically and usually when they're being criticized for not going after the big free agent or something of that nature.

You know when you're in college and one of your buddies says, "yeah man, I'd love to go out tonight but I'm low on funds." He's not crying because he's poor and asking for your sympathy. He's just telling you that, at the moment, he can't afford to go out. It's stating a fact...it's not whining.

Again, for some people it seems to be a difficult concept to wrap their heads around when it comes to projecting. I think it's safe to say that logically we can expect to see equal or lower attendance in 2009 as compared to 2008. Businesses are backing off their season ticket commitments (I know one in particular that owned a suite but is now struggling to keep their business alive. I don't think they're worried right now about retaining the suite as they're struggling to keep their doors open)...as are a lot of average people. You'll probably see fewer walkups, too and I think with the recession, that makes sense. The raise in ticket prices are on average a couple dollars per ticket and it seems to me like an effort to make up the revenue they project to lose from fewer ticket sales overall. Again, you base payroll on projection. I can't blame them for being conservative. Any smart organization would. Of course, the payroll would be a different story if they were guaranteed to sell 41,000 tickets a night. Well, we know that's not going to happen.

I believe the Sox do a very good job of investing in the payroll with what they have to work with. Some of you don't and you never will, but I'm not with those folks. In my opinion, there is nothing sinister going on here.

By the way, gosox41 makes a very good point.


That's the wrong way to go.

You can't put the entire burden of the recession to your loyal season ticket holders that remain on-board. You might end up pissing them off too and out the door they go. Sox need to realize that we the loyal consumer are also hurting too.

What they should do:
1. They need to suck up the loses and operate in the red for once (as many teams do once in awhile).
2. Get creative and find other sources for revenue. Build up the exterior surounding of the ballpark so that people make it a reason to go the Cell for other than baseball. The Sox can get their cut from those establishments but also it can boost attendance and exposure.
3. Bring back the weekday specials for 1/2 price games in April and May. Some fans is better that no fans. That has always been my thinking.

WhiteSox5187
12-15-2008, 01:21 AM
What do you consider "fairly cheap?"
Well...good question! I guess what I meant by that was really in terms of monetary value, but I think he could be offered a two year deal with an option for a third...I think he might be looking at the sort of deal that Kerry Wood got which, really isn't all that cheap, but I think a club like the White Sox is more unnerved by number of years being offered rather than the amount of money being offered, but I might be dead wrong.

I think the economy is going to play a huge role in this as Ranger said, I a lot of suites might be empty and even more seats might be empty as well and not just with the Sox but all around the league. Really the only team that has spent a significant sum of cash is the Yankees and that's because they're the Yankees, but if the economy continues to dip like this and corporations keep going under, in a year or two they might be looking to dump those salaries. We'll see.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 01:24 AM
I think the economy is going to play a huge role in this as Ranger said, I a lot of suites might be empty and even more seats might be empty as well and not just with the Sox but all around the league. Really the only team that has spent a significant sum of cash is the Yankees and that's because they're the Yankees, but if the economy continues to dip like this and corporations keep going under, in a year or two they might be looking to dump those salaries. We'll see.


There have been a few posters on this board that have made the claim that entertainment never suffers from a bad economy.

WhiteSox5187
12-15-2008, 01:32 AM
There have been a few posters on this board that have made the claim that entertainment never suffers from a bad economy.
I'm not an economics expert, so I can't really say...I've heard a school of thought that points to the fact that sales for baseball and movie tickets went way up in the Depression (not sure if this was true or not though); but let's face it, things have changed a lot since the Depression. With all the corporate boxes and naming rights tied so closely into baseball, I wouldn't be shocked to see baseball take a large hit. In fact, if what I'm reading on ESPN is true even the NFL is taking a big hit and the NHL has five teams that are on teh verge of bankruptacy...but I don't know, anything that i say regarding economics is pure bull****, I just recite what I have heard; whether that is true or not, I don't know.

Ranger
12-15-2008, 01:35 AM
That's the wrong way to go.

You can't put the entire burden of the recession to your loyal season ticket holders that remain on-board. You might end up pissing them off too and out the door they go. Sox need to realize that we the loyal consumer are also hurting too.

What they should do:
1. They need to suck up the loses and operate in the red for once (as many teams do once in awhile).
2. Get creative and find other sources for revenue. Build up the exterior surounding of the ballpark so that people make it a reason to go the Cell for other than baseball. The Sox can get their cut from those establishments but also it can boost attendance and exposure.
3. Bring back the weekday specials for 1/2 price games in April and May. Some fans is better that no fans. That has always been my thinking.

In case you haven't noticed -- and it appears you haven't -- they are constantly trying to look for new ways to generate money (7:11 start time, sponsored promotions, etc.). The irony is that people tend to sneer at those efforts as they see it as a greedy organization just trying to make an extra buck. That's how people always treat their sports teams.

You also have failed to realize they are trying to "build up the exterior" to generate revenue. Maybe you haven't noticed what they're doing across the street on 35th where the ramp is. There is an attempt to put businesses there. But you also have to understand that it isn't as simple as just deciding they want to do it and then getting it done. You need approval from the neighborhood and city for projects like that. You can't just go do it. And as some of you know, Bridgeport tends to really like to keep things as they are...not big on change there. I think the Sox would very much like to have a Comiskeyville.

Let's be honest, Suit, $1 to $2 increase on a ticket is not going to prevent people from showing up. It's minimal. People aren't going to say, "ya know, I was gonna go to the game tonight, but tickets are $38!!! Now if they were only $36..."

There are only so many ways for a team to generate revenue.

Why do they need to operate in the red if they can prevent it? That doesn't make any sense. Teams don't operate in the red unless they have a guarantee they'll recoup that money somehow. I'm sorry, but that's a terrible idea.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 01:48 AM
In case you haven't noticed -- and it appears you haven't -- they are constantly trying to look for new ways to generate money (7:11 start time, sponsored promotions, etc.). The irony is that people tend to sneer at those efforts as they see it as a greedy organization just trying to make an extra buck. That's how people always treat their sports teams.

You also have failed to realize they are trying to "build up the exterior" to generate revenue. Maybe you haven't noticed what they're doing across the street on 35th where the ramp is. There is an attempt to put businesses there. But you also have to understand that it isn't as simple as just deciding they want to do it and then getting it done. You need approval from the neighborhood and city for projects like that. You can't just go do it. And as some of you know, Bridgeport tends to really like to keep things as they are...not big on change there. I think the Sox would very much like to have a Comiskeyville.

Let's be honest, Suit, $1 to $2 increase on a ticket is not going to prevent people from showing up. It's minimal. People aren't going to say, "ya know, I was gonna go to the game tonight, but tickets are $38!!! Now if they were only $36..."

There are only so many ways for a team to generate revenue.

Why do they need to operate in the red if they can prevent it? That doesn't make any sense. Teams don't operate in the red unless they have a guarantee they'll recoup that money somehow. I'm sorry, but that's a terrible idea.


When was the last time you owned season tickets for any team or paid for any tickets to attend a game? You get to watch games for free by working for the media.

You say that a $2 increase is nothing? When is enough, enough when it comes to increasing ticket prices? $2 X 81 games X 4 seats.... $648. It adds up, especially in a time right now where every consumer is looking to cut from somewhere to make ends meet.

And yes, I am aware of all the things the Sox have done (like 7:11 start times) and the stuff going on around the ballpark with the new ramp. But it's not enough. You have to keep pounding at it. The Sox are way behind the curve when it comes to development of the exterior of the park. Sox fans have been bitching about this ever since the new ballpark opened. And you know who's at fault? Not the neighborhood or the city. It's ownerhsip. JR and Co wanted it to be this way because they wanted every $$$ that was out there to be had to be consumed inside the ballpark and not outside. This the reason we have not seen any development since the ballpark opened. I've heard this from more than one person in the media. They are finally moving on this now, 10-15 years too late if you ask me.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 01:59 AM
Why do they need to operate in the red if they can prevent it? That doesn't make any sense. Teams don't operate in the red unless they have a guarantee they'll recoup that money somehow. I'm sorry, but that's a terrible idea.

I forgot to add to this one:

Because that's how many of the most succesful businesses in America become succesful. They take a chance and roll the dice. I think the Sox have a better chance in 2010 to draw 2.8 -2.9 million fans if they win a World Series in 2009 than if they develop Jeff Marquez into a .500 pitcher.

Ranger
12-15-2008, 02:11 AM
When was the last time you owned season tickets for any team or paid for any tickets to attend a game? You get to watch games for free by working for the media.

That has what to do with what? I've bought a lot of baseball tickets in my lifetime and a couple of bucks a game is not going to make a difference. As for season tickets, everyone knows it's an expensive venture. It would still be expensive without the per game increase and I would figure most people had made their decision to renew or cancel season tickets regardless of the increase.

And yes the neighborhood does have a LOT to say about the businesses that open in their area. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the Sox have long been open to the idea to a bar/restaurant area outside the park (of course where they would have a stake), but Bridgeport wasn't thrilled about that prospect. You can't just open up a row of bars and restaurants if the neighborhood doesn't want it. Bridgeport isn't really filled with 20-somethings just out of college.

Even if they do all of this, it's still not going to make up the revenue to put them on par with NYY, BOS, and Cubs.

btrain929
12-15-2008, 02:15 AM
:popcorn:

Ranger
12-15-2008, 02:27 AM
I forgot to add to this one:

Because that's how many of the most succesful businesses in America become succesful. They take a chance and roll the dice. I think the Sox have a better chance in 2010 to draw 2.8 -2.9 million fans if they win a World Series in 2009 than if they develop Jeff Marquez into a .500 pitcher.

That's a pretty big and costly "if" you're talking about. If the roll of the dice doesn't result in a championship, then what? You can overspend and still not win a title. You can't guarantee a title. If they could, I'm sure the Sox would be happy to operate in the red. However, if they do as you say but it doesn't work out...they'll have some issues for a while.

I will go ahead and assume that you will not be running a multi-million dollar organization anytime soon.

And in looking at the Sox history, it would have take a world championship to draw 2.9 mil the following year. Only one time since 1993 have the Sox drawn more than the AL average. Even in a year where they were in first place from wire to wire, the Sox still drew under league average and averaged less than 29,000 per game. That was in the year they won it all...on a $75 million payroll.

hawkjt
12-15-2008, 02:38 AM
You are fighting a losing battle,ranger. Certain fans seem to think that throwing money are overpriced free agents is a smart way to operate.
The World Series teams did not have a bunch of overpaid free agents spurring their success...not last year anyway.

Management needs to anticipate not react to changing business conditions... the yanks have a new stadium opening with 4000 dollar seats/game that are already sold. The rest of baseball will get hurt next year...and the smart teams will not be overextended and be able to pick up a bargain in the late free agent market ,possibly.
Fools rush in...Kenny aint no fool.

Ranger
12-15-2008, 03:09 AM
You are fighting a losing battle,ranger. Certain fans seem to think that throwing money are overpriced free agents is a smart way to operate.
The World Series teams did not have a bunch of overpaid free agents spurring their success...not last year anyway.

Management needs to anticipate not react to changing business conditions... the yanks have a new stadium opening with 4000 dollar seats/game that are already sold. The rest of baseball will get hurt next year...and the smart teams will not be overextended and be able to pick up a bargain in the late free agent market ,possibly.
Fools rush in...Kenny aint no fool.

Nice. On a side note, I've always thought the good GMs are the ones that can find the bargains...not the ones that can throw a bunch of cash around.

DumpJerry
12-15-2008, 08:00 AM
And yes, I am aware of all the things the Sox have done (like 7:11 start times) and the stuff going on around the ballpark with the new ramp. But it's not enough. You have to keep pounding at it. The Sox are way behind the curve when it comes to development of the exterior of the park. Sox fans have been bitching about this ever since the new ballpark opened. And you know who's at fault? Not the neighborhood or the city. It's ownerhsip. JR and Co wanted it to be this way because they wanted every $$$ that was out there to be had to be consumed inside the ballpark and not outside. This the reason we have not seen any development since the ballpark opened. I've heard this from more than one person in the media. They are finally moving on this now, 10-15 years too late if you ask me.
You're absolutely correct. I know more people than I can count who have decided not to go to a Sox game because the exterior of the park turned them off. As for "entertainment," outside the park, you're spot-on again. The other 29 teams have a veritable Great America outside their stadiums while we have only parking lots. People always show up to a baseball game four hours before first pitch so they can be entertained outside the park ahead of time. Especially on the weekdays when employers give people the day off to go to a night game. The stuff inside the ballpark is too boring to draw people inside......

:rolleyes:

dickallen15
12-15-2008, 08:29 AM
Then you and I have different definitions of "crying poor". To me it means telling somebody how poor you are in order to gain their sympathy. The White Sox aren't asking for sympathy. They're just telling you what they have available to spend. And usually they bring it up when someone like me asks about it specifically and usually when they're being criticized for not going after the big free agent or something of that nature.

You know when you're in college and one of your buddies says, "yeah man, I'd love to go out tonight but I'm low on funds." He's not crying because he's poor and asking for your sympathy. He's just telling you that, at the moment, he can't afford to go out. It's stating a fact...it's not whining.

Again, for some people it seems to be a difficult concept to wrap their heads around when it comes to projecting. I think it's safe to say that logically we can expect to see equal or lower attendance in 2009 as compared to 2008. Businesses are backing off their season ticket commitments (I know one in particular that owned a suite but is now struggling to keep their business alive. I don't think they're worried right now about retaining the suite as they're struggling to keep their doors open)...as are a lot of average people. You'll probably see fewer walkups, too and I think with the recession, that makes sense. The raise in ticket prices are on average a couple dollars per ticket and it seems to me like an effort to make up the revenue they project to lose from fewer ticket sales overall. Again, you base payroll on projection. I can't blame them for being conservative. Any smart organization would. Of course, the payroll would be a different story if they were guaranteed to sell 41,000 tickets a night. Well, we know that's not going to happen.

I believe the Sox do a very good job of investing in the payroll with what they have to work with. Some of you don't and you never will, but I'm not with those folks. In my opinion, there is nothing sinister going on here.

By the way, gosox41 makes a very good point.

You may think raising ticket prices $2-3 a game doesn't make a difference, but if you have 81 games and you have 2 seats, that's $500. If you take your kids to the game, it could mean an additional $20-30 a game when you figure in parking and everything else. It might not seem like much, but a lot of people are hurting. If you have disposable income for entertainment, you may be budgeting less these days, and the slightest increase may get you to decide to spend that money elsewhere. Would the White Sox have raised prices if they didn't already have a lot of the money due to non refundable playoff invoices, and still lopped off all this payroll and still considered themselves over budget? I doubt it. They are trying to take what they can get from their most valued customers. It will all be fine if all these young guys are half as good as Kenny thinks they are. If they play like the Willie Harrises and the Nick Massets in the world, guys we were given almost the exact same prediction of stardom, who played like garbage for the most part, the White Sox will essentially have stabbed themselves in the eye with a fork. The economy probably won't be much better next year at this time, in fact, many think it will be worse. They have to win to draw. The pressure will be on.

If owning professional sports teams is such a bad investment, how come some of the sharpest financial minds are always bidding for teams when they become available? The White Sox were such a bad investment for JR and his buddies that he went out and bought the Bulls with a lot of the same people.

Lip Man 1
12-15-2008, 12:18 PM
Proud To Be Your Bud now claims that MLB is a 6 1/2 Billion dollar industry and he's stated that publicly more then once the past year.

That's NFL territory folks.

Yet some teams (the White Sox?) are trying to make the case that things are about to go very south in a hurry.

The two divergent points of view makes you think that someone is lying doesn't it?

Lip

KenBerryGrab
12-15-2008, 12:27 PM
Proud To Be Your Bud now claims that MLB is a 6 1/2 Billion dollar industry and he's stated that publicly more then once the past year.

That's NFL territory folks.

Yet some teams (the White Sox?) are trying to make the case that things are about to go very south in a hurry.

The two divergent points of view makes you think that someone is lying doesn't it?

Lip

These two facts can exist in the same space-time continuum.
Just because baseball has hit the heights Bud mentioned doesn't preclude a downturn ahead.

dickallen15
12-15-2008, 12:35 PM
Proud To Be Your Bud now claims that MLB is a 6 1/2 Billion dollar industry and he's stated that publicly more then once the past year.

That's NFL territory folks.

Yet some teams (the White Sox?) are trying to make the case that things are about to go very south in a hurry.

The two divergent points of view makes you think that someone is lying doesn't it?

Lip

Hawk constantly harps everyone is making money. Maybe they will go south, but the White Sox are totally set up for that as well. If things are worse in 2010, Dotel's 6.5 million is gone, Vaciedo will be -$4.0 million cheapervs. 2009 (signing bonus), Thome's 13.0 million gone, Dye's 11.5 million gone, Contreras $10 million gone. That's another $45 million gone a year from now.

Lip Man 1
12-15-2008, 12:40 PM
Ken:

True it can... but that massive revenue drop in such a short period of time? That's a little hard to believe, at least to me.

History shows that during hard times the entertainment industry actually does quite well.

Lip

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 12:48 PM
That's a pretty big and costly "if" you're talking about. If the roll of the dice doesn't result in a championship, then what? You can overspend and still not win a title. You can't guarantee a title. If they could, I'm sure the Sox would be happy to operate in the red. However, if they do as you say but it doesn't work out...they'll have some issues for a while.

I will go ahead and assume that you will not be running a multi-million dollar organization anytime soon.

And in looking at the Sox history, it would have take a world championship to draw 2.9 mil the following year. Only one time since 1993 have the Sox drawn more than the AL average. Even in a year where they were in first place from wire to wire, the Sox still drew under league average and averaged less than 29,000 per game. That was in the year they won it all...on a $75 million payroll.

Wow, a smart ass here just like you are on your show. Very nice.

What does anything here have to do with me?

hi im skot
12-15-2008, 12:51 PM
Wow, a smart ass here just like you are on your show. Very nice.

What does anything here have to do with me?


Well, you are quite the ****-stirrer.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 12:57 PM
You're absolutely correct. I know more people than I can count who have decided not to go to a Sox game because the exterior of the park turned them off. As for "entertainment," outside the park, you're spot-on again. The other 29 teams have a veritable Great America outside their stadiums while we have only parking lots. People always show up to a baseball game four hours before first pitch so they can be entertained outside the park ahead of time. Especially on the weekdays when employers give people the day off to go to a night game. The stuff inside the ballpark is too boring to draw people inside......

:rolleyes:

I love your sarcasm :rolleyes:

Believe it or not, the difference between the the Sox making up that 5,000 -6,000 additional fans per game they are lacking to be up there with everyone else who is spending big can come from the development of the area around the park.

This arguement gets old. Anyone who thinks that the 35,000 fans who go to a game go specifiically and ONLY to watch baseball is completely ignorant. A huge portion go out there only for the entertainment.

Steelrod
12-15-2008, 01:00 PM
Ken:

True it can... but that massive revenue drop in such a short period of time? That's a little hard to believe, at least to me.

History shows that during hard times the entertainment industry actually does quite well.

Lip
The stock market has lost 40% of it's value. Companies are on the verge of being bankrupt, who were healthy 12 months ago.
Why can't entertainment suffer a similiar fate?

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 01:00 PM
Well, you are quite the ****-stirrer.


He took 2 personal shots at me on two different posts....

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 01:08 PM
The stock market has lost 40% of it's value. Companies are on the verge of being bankrupt, who were healthy 12 months ago.
Why can't entertainment suffer a similiar fate?


I agree.

Lip makes mention, like others have, regarding entertainment doing good during hard economic times. The problem with that is that we have not seen what is happening here today with the economy since the Great Depression. And I don't think the stakes were so high back then when it comes to entertainment. These multi-billion industries we are talking about which does not compare to anything back then.

dickallen15
12-15-2008, 01:09 PM
The stock market has lost 40% of it's value. Companies are on the verge of being bankrupt, who were healthy 12 months ago.
Why can't entertainment suffer a similiar fate?

I understand, but don't say how you feel for everyone out there, how tough things are, and then raise ticket prices, even if you have your season ticket base held hostage with the playoff money from last season. Ranger says its a $1 or 2 a game. Good to know radio hosts have a lot of money. Why is it every team that holds the line on ticket prices or lowers them $1 makes a huge deal about it? Raising ticket prices and worrying about the economy and attendance makes zero sense. Raising prices does not increase demand.

dickallen15
12-15-2008, 01:10 PM
I agree.

Lip makes mention, like others have, regarding entertainment doing good during hard economic times. The problem with that is that we have not seen what is happening here today with the economy since the Great Depression. And I don't think the stakes were so high back then when it comes to entertainment. These multi-billion industries we are talking about which does not compare to anything back then.

People now have less money and the White Sox want it to cost you more money to watch them play while they pay less money to the players you are watching play. The economy has had such an effect on MLB, the KC Royals were only able to pay Kyle Farnsworth $4.6 million a year.

2906
12-15-2008, 01:33 PM
People now have less money and the White Sox want it to cost you more money to watch them play while they pay less money to the players you are watching play. The economy has had such an effect on MLB, the KC Royals were only able to pay Kyle Farnsworth $4.6 million a year.

No one likes higher prices. Many disagree with their "going young" philosophy.

They have always said they plow 100% of what they take in back into the product. By product that means the organization.

A question I'd like Chris Rongey to ask (and I will contact him directly) is how much more money is being added to minor league operations and scouting?

I do know they spent money to get out of Tucson and they continue to spend money on the new Glendale operation. Also I heard they have revamped and added to the Dominican and other operations after the Wilder thing settled down.

If they are reallocating resources to scouting and development that's fine by me. Very tough to find out that sort of info though. And if Rongey gets an affirmative answer from a White Sox employee some people won't believe it anyway.

WhiteSox5187
12-15-2008, 01:37 PM
Ken:

True it can... but that massive revenue drop in such a short period of time? That's a little hard to believe, at least to me.

History shows that during hard times the entertainment industry actually does quite well.

Lip
Yes but never before has baseball had so much of its cash flow coming in from corporations, many of which are the on the verge of going under.

jdm2662
12-15-2008, 01:51 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if numerous businesses flat-out cancel their suites. Hell, some businesses probably will not be in business to even occupy the boxes next year. In an economy like this, these are the types of things that businesses eliminate first.

I can tell you for a fact the company I work was a sponser of the Bulls and Sox. They aren't sponsoring the Bulls this season, and I wouldn't doubt it if they cut the Sox. They also haven't given away tickets in quite some time. Some people underestimate just how much sponsors make up a good chunk of team's revenue. NASCAR is taking a hit, and smaller leagues, such as Arena Football, may not run because lack of sponsor funds.

And to note, I went to 11 games last year. If I got an Ozzie plan, I'd actually be paying less for any tickets I did last year. So, maybe it won't be so bad, at least for me.

As for the Sox, people crowned DET division champs last year around this time. Look how well that turned out. Let's wait and see how they look in April...

Ranger
12-15-2008, 02:10 PM
Yes but never before has baseball had so much of its cash flow coming in from corporations, many of which are the on the verge of going under.

Suit, relax. Hardly a personal shot. But I question your financial credibility when you suggest a multi-million dollar operation should "take a chance" and "operate in the red". No established business takes a gamble unless they're certain from their own calculations that they're going to get a significant return. Sometimes they're wrong, and when they're wrong their businesses can fail. Big gamble.

Lip, you often bring up the $6.5 billion in revenue, but I wouldn't be so confident that the $6 bil is split up 30 ways. I'm not sure it works that way. In fact, I've read that many teams end up getting less than $5 million from that chunk in revenue sharing. Again, I don't know exactly how it is disbursed but let's not pretend that each team is receiving a $200 million check from the league.

I never said owning a team was a bad investment, but certainly there are better ones. Owning a sports franchise often becomes a hobby for people who are already wealthy. I think a lot of people ignore a team's (or MLB's) operating costs.

What is most important is that whatever money is spent on the team is spent as wisely as possible. What's also important, is that while not making nearly the kind of cash the Yankees, Cubs, and Red Sox do, your home team does a pretty good job of spending what they get.

What a lot of you lose sight of is that teams with an attendance around AL average over the last 3 years don't usually have a payroll in the top 5 during that span.

oeo
12-15-2008, 02:14 PM
Well, you are quite the ****-stirrer.

Doesn't really stir up anything, just bitches...about everything.

hi im skot
12-15-2008, 02:16 PM
Doesn't really stir up anything, just bitches...about everything.

It must suck to be so miserable all the time.

Lip Man 1
12-15-2008, 02:25 PM
Ranger:

As always you bring up some good points but revenue sharing is just a small fraction of the total intake (at least in what Bud claims) MLB is making.

The new MLB Network, the MLB audio and video subscriptions, the MLB Extra Innings revenue, MLB merchandising. There is a very lot of money at stake and in many cases. (i.e. revenue from national audio and video subscriptions and MLB merchandise) it is split exactly 30 ways.

I venture to say those specific areas total a lot more then 5 million per team times 30.

Lip

jabrch
12-15-2008, 02:36 PM
Doesn't really stir up anything, just bitches...about everything.

People like that go away if people don't feed their intenet based sense of self importance.

DumpJerry
12-15-2008, 03:09 PM
I love your sarcasm :rolleyes:

Believe it or not, the difference between the the Sox making up that 5,000 -6,000 additional fans per game they are lacking to be up there with everyone else who is spending big can come from the development of the area around the park.

This arguement gets old. Anyone who thinks that the 35,000 fans who go to a game go specifiically and ONLY to watch baseball is completely ignorant. A huge portion go out there only for the entertainment.
You know what? If you backed up your assertions with facts from market research, people might not be so willing to dismiss your opinions.

I can write "people will come to Sox games in larger numbers if they doubled the number of Chevy Pride Crew members" and it would be as believable as the stuff you write. You seem to be writing about what some of your friends, as opposed to the general public, feel needs to be done to bring out more people and revenues.

Bottom line, unless you can show otherwise, people go to Comiskey to see a baseball game. There is plenty of entertainment in addition to the ballgame inside the park to keep the kiddies happy, so stuff outside the park might not be needed. If people are looking to go to a family-style sports-themed restaurant, there are millions of options for that in the Chicago area already.

The only people who complain to me about "the lack of entertainment" around Comiskey are Cub fans. But then, since when do they go to a ballpark for a baseball game?

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 03:21 PM
The only people who complain to me about "the lack of entertainment" around Comiskey are Cub fans. But then, since when do they go to a ballpark for a baseball game?

Not true.

The boderline casual fan on the fence between both teams is always the one who bitches about the "lack of entertainment." Those are the $$$ Sox management needs to make an effort to capture. Sox fans will have their die hards that will be there every night. It's those casual people we need to bring in. If they want bars, then build them. All it does is help the ballclub compete with additional revenue streams at their control.

Ranger
12-15-2008, 03:52 PM
I think Suit does actually make a good point here about the ball[ark peripherals. Were the Sox the only baseball team in town, the need for a rest./bar scene wouldn't be as great. Unfortunately, the Cubs do have plenty to do outside the park which attracts more of the casual fan. And it's the casual fan -- not the diehards -- that sustains attendance. This is true for every team in baseball.

However, where Suit is off is the idea that "if they want bars, build them." Well, this is the city of Chicago and you can't just build a bar because you want to. Even if you own vacant land, you can't just decide one day you're going to build a bar. You have to have the approval of the neighborhood in which you plan to build. For example, in my neighborhood (which is already full of establishments), we received a notice last week regarding a new place that's applying for a liquor license. If the residents of this area don't want it there, all they have to do is object.

Bridgeport is a quiet, closely-knit, safe neighborhood that really doesn't want a herd of young, drunk yahoos walking around 4 hours after a game ends. Personally, I think the rest./bar idea would be wonderful for the team because it would only add more incentive for the casual fan to show up. But, you can't just do it because you want to. That kind of thing takes time.

kittle42
12-15-2008, 03:55 PM
This arguement gets old. Anyone who thinks that the 35,000 fans who go to a game go specifiically and ONLY to watch baseball is completely ignorant. A huge portion go out there only for the entertainment.

I agree with you, LYS, and, though I hate to bring them into this, the reason is the Cubs.

Dump, you are correct that there are 29 other teams and not many of those teams have "fun" areas around their park, including the Angels, who everyone likes to bring up as a team we should model. However, the issue here is that we have direct competition 9 miles away, and that competition DOES have an area that people flock to as an all-day activity. Hell, people come there on game days and have no intention of going to the game. That helps the baseball bottom line in many ways.

What Ranger said about Bridgeport residents being the reason for a lack of change is disturbing. Get with the times, folks.

btrain929
12-15-2008, 04:02 PM
If a "casual" fan is choosing between a Cubs and a Sox game, I doubt a restaurant outside of the stadium will suede their opinion that much....

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 04:13 PM
Bridgeport is a quiet, closely-knit, safe neighborhood that really doesn't want a herd of young, drunk yahoos walking around 4 hours after a game ends. Personally, I think the rest./bar idea would be wonderful for the team because it would only add more incentive for the casual fan to show up. But, you can't just do it because you want to. That kind of thing takes time.

Agree.

It's not as easy as getting up one morning and dumping a bar on a parking lot. Not going to happen.

But the Sox have had plenty of years to put preassure on the city and neighborhood to do so as they watched their bottom line suffer as the team up north kept kicking their ass in taking away the casual fan. Not sure why nothing was done until now. Some in the media have told me that it's JR the one that did not want anything to do with it. He wanted to keep all the revenue inside the ballpark.

Now can that be true? Well, being that they were one of the 1st franchises in all of sports to try paperview (On-TV), I would not put it past them.

Jim Shorts
12-15-2008, 04:15 PM
If a "casual" fan is choosing between a Cubs and a Sox game, I doubt a restaurant outside of the stadium will suede their opinion that much....

I think you crossed the streams here, btrain. It's not choosing a game between the sox and/or cubs. It's the casual fan that is deciding between going to a sox game, or spending their entertainment dollars elsewhere (not wrigley).

At least that is how I've taken their argument.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 04:19 PM
If a "casual" fan is choosing between a Cubs and a Sox game, I doubt a restaurant outside of the stadium will suede their opinion that much....

Not only a restaurant. It's a boom in neighborhood development which is needed. US Cellular needs to become an entertainment destination and not just a plain old baseball stadium. I know old school fans like DumpJerry laugh at it, but that's what the fans want.

champagne030
12-15-2008, 04:35 PM
You know when you're in college and one of your buddies says, "yeah man, I'd love to go out tonight but I'm low on funds." He's not crying because he's poor and asking for your sympathy. He's just telling you that, at the moment, he can't afford to go out. It's stating a fact...it's not whining.

Except in that case I didn't see his ATM receipt showing a $10K balance and he probably didn't have the cash. You're right, I doubt the sincerity of the White Sox. The source of your report has shown the White Sox NOI over the years of 2003-2007 to be approximately $12M, $8M, $21M, $20M and $30M, respectfully. Now they've slashed payroll about $20M and they've got no room to add any back? That doesn't pass the smell test.

Again, for some people it seems to be a difficult concept to wrap their heads around when it comes to projecting. I think it's safe to say that logically we can expect to see equal or lower attendance in 2009 as compared to 2008. Businesses are backing off their season ticket commitments (I know one in particular that owned a suite but is now struggling to keep their business alive. I don't think they're worried right now about retaining the suite as they're struggling to keep their doors open)...as are a lot of average people. You'll probably see fewer walkups, too and I think with the recession, that makes sense. The raise in ticket prices are on average a couple dollars per ticket and it seems to me like an effort to make up the revenue they project to lose from fewer ticket sales overall. Again, you base payroll on projection. I can't blame them for being conservative. Any smart organization would. Of course, the payroll would be a different story if they were guaranteed to sell 41,000 tickets a night. Well, we know that's not going to happen.
Sure, I'd expect a possible dropoff in attendance, but I'd expect that to be partially offset by the fact we're not coming off an abominable 2007. And if people are going to be watching at home that means increases in TV and radio ratings. I suppose if I'm wrapping my head around this whole projecting thing that would suggest more money down the road. You state that you personally know of one company, who lease a suite, is struggling to stay in business. The Sox say ticket renewals are at 95% percent.

The numbers just don't add up.

dickallen15
12-15-2008, 04:36 PM
Not only a restaurant. It's a boom in neighborhood development which is needed. US Cellular needs to become an entertainment destination and not just a plain old baseball stadium. I know old school fans like DumpJerry laugh at it, but that's what the fans want.

Its not what the people who live in the neighborhood want. Buy them out and build bars. That's the only way its going to happen. I really don't think the majority of people want strangers staggering drunk in front of their home, pissing in their bushes.

DumpJerry
12-15-2008, 04:40 PM
But the Sox have had plenty of years to put preassure on the city and neighborhood to do so as they watched their bottom line suffer as the team up north kept kicking their ass in taking away the casual fan. Not sure why nothing was done until now. Some in the media have told me that it's JR the one that did not want anything to do with it. He wanted to keep all the revenue inside the ballpark.
Now, how do you suggest the White Sox "put pressure" on the city and neighborhood? "Let us put some restaurants and bars near the park or else we'll throw baseballs through your windows!"? What is the leverage the Sox have to get the people who live near the park to agree to more congestion? Free tickets for everyone who says yes to the Sox' plans?

I'm not saying that having some bars and restaurants around the ballpark is a bad thing, but it just isn't going to happen on the scale that people who live outside of B-port want it to happen.

Chinatown, downtown, South Loop, and the near West Side are a short drive, train ride or taxi ride away, there are plenty of options already available. As has been discussed in numerous other threads, there are plenty of establishments less than a 10 minute walk from the park on Halsted Street and also 31st Street.

DumpJerry
12-15-2008, 04:41 PM
Its not what the people who live in the neighborhood want. Buy them out and build bars. That's the only way its going to happen. I really don't think the majority of people want strangers staggering drunk in front of their home, pissing in their bushes.
While the Supreme Court has made it possible for eminent domain to be used for development, it is a very costly proposition and would takes years, if not a decade, to complete. Look at how much difficulty the city is having for doing the very thing you're suggesting to expand O'Hare Airport.

dickallen15
12-15-2008, 04:47 PM
While the Supreme Court has made it possible for eminent domain to be used for development, it is a very costly proposition and would takes years, if not a decade, to complete. Look at how much difficulty the city is having for doing the very thing you're suggesting to expand O'Hare Airport.

That's not what I am suggesting. The people who want bars need to move into the neighborhood. It would take even longer. People just have to face it, Bridgeport likes what it is. They aren't going to go for what a lot on here propose. Ever.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 04:52 PM
Its not what the people who live in the neighborhood want. Buy them out and build bars. That's the only way its going to happen. I really don't think the majority of people want strangers staggering drunk in front of their home, pissing in their bushes.


Why do you need to exagerate?

Come on. The surrounding US Cellular Field Area (1 block each way) has ZERO homes being bothered by such a proposal (and nothing is being proposed directly S or S/E of the park - as well as it shouldn't. All of the proposals are within the parking lot areas.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 04:55 PM
That's not what I am suggesting. The people who want bars need to move into the neighborhood. It would take even longer. People just have to face it, Bridgeport likes what it is. They aren't going to go for what a lot on here propose. Ever.


When they start looking at the potential $$$ of property value increase as what has occured in Wrigleyville, Lincoln Park, etc .... I think they might think differently.

Wrigleyville Homeowners are bathing in money because of the Cubs and the bars.

DumpJerry
12-15-2008, 05:02 PM
That's not what I am suggesting. The people who want bars need to move into the neighborhood. It would take even longer. People just have to face it, Bridgeport likes what it is. They aren't going to go for what a lot on here propose. Ever.
You're right. There are people who have been in the homes they own for generations. Then there are the mega mansions being built just west of the park. I don't see people paying $1,000,000+ for a home wanting to turn their quiet street into a drunk-fest.

jabrch
12-15-2008, 05:12 PM
You're right. There are people who have been in the homes they own for generations. Then there are the mega mansions being built just west of the park. I don't see people paying $1,000,000+ for a home wanting to turn their quiet street into a drunk-fest.

Spot on Dump...If you spend any time in the neighborhood, and know anyone who lives there, and has lived there for a long time, you'd know how little the neighborhood (in general) would be interested in selling their homes, en masse, for development. Where would they move? I know - anywhere they want - but they want to be in bridgeport. The people who have lived there all their life don't want to live in Lincoln Park or the Gold Coast. They don't want to move to S. Loop. They don't want to move further West. Many like where they are.

A proposal to build a ton of new bars in then neighborhood would fly like a ton of bricks. Many people living in that neighborhood have lived their all their lives, and are quite content with how it is.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 05:14 PM
You're right. There are people who have been in the homes they own for generations. Then there are the mega mansions being built just west of the park. I don't see people paying $1,000,000+ for a home wanting to turn their quiet street into a drunk-fest.

Are you kidding me?

Quiet Street with 81+ home dates of baseball?

Give me a break Dump. People buying into the area realize they are not "buying into a quiet street." You are buying/building a home near a ML ballpark, how much quiet to you expect?

And get off this notion that they are dumping these bars and establishments right under the residents' door steps. They would be putting them along 35th street within a block or two from the stadium. I don't see too many residences affected by this.

Wow, call me out for all my bitching and crying. You guys are right there behind me with all these exagerations.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 05:16 PM
Spot on Dump...If you spend any time in the neighborhood, and know anyone who lives there, and has lived there for a long time, you'd know how little the neighborhood (in general) would be interested in selling their homes, en masse, for development. Where would they move? I know - anywhere they want - but they want to be in bridgeport. The people who have lived there all their life don't want to live in Lincoln Park or the Gold Coast. They don't want to move to S. Loop. They don't want to move further West. Many like where they are.

A proposal to build a ton of new bars in then neighborhood would fly like a ton of bricks. Many people living in that neighborhood have lived their all their lives, and are quite content with how it is.


I still don't see where anyone has proposed to re-locate people. Where are you guys reading this? All the proposals and ideas are within the ballpark area. Who is being pushed out of their home?

DumpJerry
12-15-2008, 05:18 PM
my head hurts......

2906
12-15-2008, 05:19 PM
When they start looking at the potential $$$ of property value increase as what has occured in Wrigleyville, Lincoln Park, etc .... I think they might think differently.

Wrigleyville Homeowners are bathing in money because of the Cubs and the bars.

Bridgeport property values have exploded over the last decade. One of the reasons given for this huge increase is that Bridgeport isn't Lincoln Park or Wrigleyville, i.e. not a haven for bar hoppers.

I'm not suggesting the right establishement(s) around the ballpark would be a bad idea. As demographics change and more casual fans vs. long term diehards enter the scene, it might be a good idea for the White Sox. But, residents might feel differently, and many do. Therein lies the rub, and the property value argument doesn't wash with them in the slightest.

WhiteSox5187
12-15-2008, 05:19 PM
I think Suit does actually make a good point here about the ball[ark peripherals. Were the Sox the only baseball team in town, the need for a rest./bar scene wouldn't be as great. Unfortunately, the Cubs do have plenty to do outside the park which attracts more of the casual fan. And it's the casual fan -- not the diehards -- that sustains attendance. This is true for every team in baseball.

However, where Suit is off is the idea that "if they want bars, build them." Well, this is the city of Chicago and you can't just build a bar because you want to. Even if you own vacant land, you can't just decide one day you're going to build a bar. You have to have the approval of the neighborhood in which you plan to build. For example, in my neighborhood (which is already full of establishments), we received a notice last week regarding a new place that's applying for a liquor license. If the residents of this area don't want it there, all they have to do is object.

Bridgeport is a quiet, closely-knit, safe neighborhood that really doesn't want a herd of young, drunk yahoos walking around 4 hours after a game ends. Personally, I think the rest./bar idea would be wonderful for the team because it would only add more incentive for the casual fan to show up. But, you can't just do it because you want to. That kind of thing takes time.
I don't think that throwing a few bars around Bridgeport would attract a casual fan, the fact is the people who go to Wrigley Field just to go to the bars aren't even "casual" fans, they are people who are out to be seen. The only way the White Sox are going to attract this sort of fan is to have a period of sustained winning, because Wrigley is in and of itself a tourist attraction and I don't think US Cellular will ever be that.

I think the best way to attract the casual fan is to a) win and b) things like fireworks nights, dollar dog days, areas for kids to play, etc. will bring out the casual fan. It may not bring them out in droves the way that Wrigley does, but if you set up an enviornment that is safe and fun for families to watch a ball game, a lot of families might figure "Well, to hell with the trip to Florida this year, we'll go to a few more Sox games instead." And I think the Sox do a fairly good job of appealing to that casual fan.

2906
12-15-2008, 05:25 PM
I still don't see where anyone has proposed to re-locate people. Where are you guys reading this? All the proposals and ideas are within the ballpark area. Who is being pushed out of their home?

No one. But that's not the issue. The issue is the neighborhood is very powerful and the relationship between the neighborhood and the team is quite good because the team respects the neighborhood. Historically, the neighborhood doesn't want ESPN Zones or the other big chain places you want built in Bridgeport and that's why it hasn't been done. They are protective of the mom and pop, places that are owned and run by people who've lived there for years.

Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it wrong, but it is what it is. If they proceed with development around the ballpark, in the immediate vicinity, it will be done carefully and slowly so they can measure the impact. The neighborhood does not want to be Lincoln Park or Wrigleyville, nor do they much care what people from Naperville or Aurora think about it.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 05:27 PM
my head hurts......


mine too.

let's leave it at that.

the Sox need to figure out and find other revenue streams... that's the bottom line.

Bars or whatever, something needs to happen.

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 05:28 PM
No one. But that's not the issue. The issue is the neighborhood is very powerful and the relationship between the neighborhood and the team is quite good because the team respects the neighborhood. Historically, the neighborhood doesn't want ESPN Zones or the other big chain places you want built in Bridgeport and that's why it hasn't been done. They are protective of the mom and pop, places that are owned and run by people who've lived there for years.

Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it wrong, but it is what it is. If they proceed with development around the ballpark, in the immediate vicinity, it will be done carefully and slowly so they can measure the impact. The neighborhood does not want to be Lincoln Park or Wrigleyville, nor do they much care what people from Naperville or Aurora think about it.


Then the Sox made an awful mistake to stay in that neighborhood.


This could be a reason in 10-15 years the Sox might be looking for a new address.

WhiteSox5187
12-15-2008, 05:31 PM
Then the Sox made an awful mistake to stay in that neighborhood.


This could be a reason in 10-15 years the Sox might be looking for a new address.
This might have been a valid argument ten years ago, but Bridgeport is a rather up and coming neighborhood, though it is still able to hold onto it's traditions such as numerous mom and pop stores and a lack of national chains. Yet the Sox are still quite capable of bringing in money and as I have said they have numerous ways of making revenue through that park as it is a safe and fun place to bring a family to watch a ball game.

2906
12-15-2008, 05:33 PM
I think the best way to attract the casual fan is to a) win and b) things like fireworks nights, dollar dog days, areas for kids to play, etc. will bring out the casual fan. It may not bring them out in droves the way that Wrigley does, but if you set up an enviornment that is safe and fun for families to watch a ball game, a lot of families might figure "Well, to hell with the trip to Florida this year, we'll go to a few more Sox games instead." And I think the Sox do a fairly good job of appealing to that casual fan.

Agree, and I think they should try some sort of ticket package of some sort, just thinking out loud here, like a Recession Buster Special that comes with a food voucher or something.

I would also like to see more aggressive promotion with some of the bars in the suburbs, up to and including sponsoring bus trips to the games and doing stuff like the Blackhawks are doing now. That kind of thing can help with the casual fan. From a selfish standpoint I would like to see them get more aggressive in downtown Naperville, which has a good demographic but is ridiculously Cubsessed.

2906
12-15-2008, 05:36 PM
Then the Sox made an awful mistake to stay in that neighborhood.


This could be a reason in 10-15 years the Sox might be looking for a new address.

As for your first statement, it's reality so what's the point of debating it.

As for your second statement, Bridgeport is an up and coming neighborhood, accessible to expressways and public transportation, with plenty of parking. A lack of big chain bars won't be the reason they'd relocate and spend 1/2 billion dollars to build a new ballpark.

DumpJerry
12-15-2008, 05:44 PM
This could be a reason in 10-15 years the Sox might be looking for a new address.
[quote=enlightened cub fan}What? So they can drive the murder rate up in another community???[enlightened Cub fan}

Frontman
12-15-2008, 05:51 PM
Is it a bad time to point out that the goal of any business is to make money?

I have to laugh how fans of a team get upset that said team tries to turn a profit. Anyone go to work today with the thought of NOT getting paid?

Didn't think so.

To argue that they should operate "in the red" once in a while; tell me, are you willing to do the same in YOUR job? Are you willing to work, knowing that you won't be paid enough to cover the costs of going to work?

That's exactly what you're asking the Sox to do.

Ranger
12-15-2008, 05:52 PM
Are you kidding me?

Quiet Street with 81+ home dates of baseball?

Give me a break Dump. People buying into the area realize they are not "buying into a quiet street." You are buying/building a home near a ML ballpark, how much quiet to you expect?

And get off this notion that they are dumping these bars and establishments right under the residents' door steps. They would be putting them along 35th street within a block or two from the stadium. I don't see too many residences affected by this.

Wow, call me out for all my bitching and crying. You guys are right there behind me with all these exagerations.

Suit, the parts of the neighborhood closest to the park are pretty quiet given the circumstances. Those neighborhoods, I'm sure, would like to keep it that way. Whether or not a bar area close to the park would change that a whole lot is debatable. But that's not what matters. What matters is what the people who live there THINK will happen. And if they THINK a row of bars would turn their front lawns into toilets, then there will not be a row of bars built.

Frontman
12-15-2008, 06:01 PM
Suit, the parts of the neighborhood closest to the park are pretty quiet given the circumstances. Those neighborhoods, I'm sure, would like to keep it that way. Whether or not a bar area close to the park would change that a whole lot is debatable. But that's not what matters. What matters is what the people who live there THINK will happen. And if they THINK a row of bars would turn their front lawns into toilets, then there will not be a row of bars built.

Actually, Ranger; I think the White Sox should keep to the idea of making an entertainment complex like the Patriots have done at Gillette stadium. Make it something that year round; people would want to come to. Resturants, bars, shops, even a banquet hall. Having a Chicago Baseball Museum there would bring people in. Considering the history of the team; there is alot to work with.

That way, it can allieve the fear of "bars will ruin the neighborhood." Keep it all contained, who can complain then? (If this thread has proven anything, someone would find fault with that idea. But you get my point.)

Ranger
12-15-2008, 06:08 PM
I don't think that throwing a few bars around Bridgeport would attract a casual fan, the fact is the people who go to Wrigley Field just to go to the bars aren't even "casual" fans, they are people who are out to be seen. The only way the White Sox are going to attract this sort of fan is to have a period of sustained winning, because Wrigley is in and of itself a tourist attraction and I don't think US Cellular will ever be that.

I think the best way to attract the casual fan is to a) win and b) things like fireworks nights, dollar dog days, areas for kids to play, etc. will bring out the casual fan. It may not bring them out in droves the way that Wrigley does, but if you set up an enviornment that is safe and fun for families to watch a ball game, a lot of families might figure "Well, to hell with the trip to Florida this year, we'll go to a few more Sox games instead." And I think the Sox do a fairly good job of appealing to that casual fan.

No, it would certainly help attract the casual fan. Those people you speak of may go to Wrigleyville because they want to be seen at the bars, but before (or after) they go to the bars, they're seen inside the ballpark. Which means they've bought tickets. The other side is that I think the Sox do a great job of attracting families. Which may be part of disturbing the delicate balance of having a bar area outside the park. But I would doubt that very many people (on a yearly basis) would choose between family trips and going to more Sox games. I think if people want to (and can afford to) go on vacation, then they will.

DumpJerry
12-15-2008, 06:16 PM
So, getting back to the topic of this thread.....

Ranger, next time you interview Kenny by telephone, can something be done about the feedback we heard when he spoke? (it caused some casual fans to shun the White Sox)

LoveYourSuit
12-15-2008, 06:34 PM
As for your first statement, it's reality so what's the point of debating it.

As for your second statement, Bridgeport is an up and coming neighborhood, accessible to expressways and public transportation, with plenty of parking. A lack of big chain bars won't be the reason they'd relocate and spend 1/2 billion dollars to build a new ballpark.


If the Sox are going to be handcuff by their neighborhood on trying to find other revenue streams, then what good does it do for the Sox to be there?

WhiteSox5187
12-15-2008, 06:53 PM
No, it would certainly help attract the casual fan. Those people you speak of may go to Wrigleyville because they want to be seen at the bars, but before (or after) they go to the bars, they're seen inside the ballpark. Which means they've bought tickets. The other side is that I think the Sox do a great job of attracting families. Which may be part of disturbing the delicate balance of having a bar area outside the park. But I would doubt that very many people (on a yearly basis) would choose between family trips and going to more Sox games. I think if people want to (and can afford to) go on vacation, then they will.
Oh, of course, but my point was with the economy as it is there might be some families this year that think "We can't afford to go on a vacation, but we can use some of our extra money to go to a few Sox games instead..."

Frontman
12-15-2008, 06:55 PM
If the Sox are going to be handcuff by their neighborhood on trying to find other revenue streams, then what good does it do for the Sox to be there?

I swear to God, if this turns into another "Dey should of moved closer to da city so dey'd have da skyline in da outfield" thread, I'm going to vomit.

2906
12-15-2008, 07:34 PM
If the Sox are going to be handcuff by their neighborhood on trying to find other revenue streams, then what good does it do for the Sox to be there?

Huh? I just explained it ... lots of parking, easy access to expressways and public transportation.

They're there, they've been there since 1900. Highly doubtful they'd move because a Dave and Busters or ESPN Zone isn't built on the parking lots to keep the 20-something chain restaurant loving crowd happy.

Frater Perdurabo
12-15-2008, 07:48 PM
Ken:

True it can... but that massive revenue drop in such a short period of time? That's a little hard to believe, at least to me.

History shows that during hard times the entertainment industry actually does quite well.

Lip

Lip, the only players the Sox have dumped so far were underperforming slouches.

It's not as if they've dumped high-priced players who are actually solid contributors, like Buehrle, Thome or Dye.

And what free agent(s) are on the market right now that realistically could help the Sox significantly over what they have now?

spiffie
12-15-2008, 08:09 PM
Is it a bad time to point out that the goal of any business is to make money?

I have to laugh how fans of a team get upset that said team tries to turn a profit. Anyone go to work today with the thought of NOT getting paid?

Didn't think so.

To argue that they should operate "in the red" once in a while; tell me, are you willing to do the same in YOUR job? Are you willing to work, knowing that you won't be paid enough to cover the costs of going to work?

That's exactly what you're asking the Sox to do.
Good thing you weren't in charge of Amazon.com in its first few years. They never would have gotten out of the planning stage.

manders_01
12-15-2008, 09:51 PM
Development around the park is not at all as easy as some are making it out. I just looked on the City of Chicago website and none of the property surrounding the stadium is zoned correctly. Rezoning involves a lot of time and a HUGE amount of neighborhood outreach. The neighbors can railroad the project during this time. There's also getting planning approval. Again, the neighbors can railroad the project during this time. These two items can take upwards of a year, even for a simple one-story restaurant. It'd take even more time for several, a large complex, etc. There are soooooo many factors that go into these two stages, never mind that the building doesn't even have a building permit at this point in time. It's never just a matter of purchasing property and building a building in any major metropolitan area.

areilly
12-15-2008, 10:08 PM
Development around the park is not at all as easy as some are making it out. I just looked on the City of Chicago website and none of the property surrounding the stadium is zoned correctly. Rezoning involves a lot of time and a HUGE amount of neighborhood outreach. The neighbors can railroad the project during this time. There's also getting planning approval. Again, the neighbors can railroad the project during this time. These two items can take upwards of a year, even for a simple one-story restaurant. It'd take even more time for several, a large complex, etc. There are soooooo many factors that go into these two stages, never mind that the building doesn't even have a building permit at this point in time. It's never just a matter of purchasing property and building a building in any major metropolitan area.

Oh come on, this is Chicago. All you really need is a vision and a guy who knows a guy. I would assume Reinsdorf and pals have both by now.

manders_01
12-15-2008, 11:02 PM
Oh come on, this is Chicago. All you really need is a vision and a guy who knows a guy. I would assume Reinsdorf and pals have both by now.

Yes, those guys help, but they don't bypass the entire system, even in Chicago.

jabrch
12-15-2008, 11:11 PM
Oh come on, this is Chicago. All you really need is a vision and a guy who knows a guy. I would assume Reinsdorf and pals have both by now.

None have more power than a strong Chicago neighborhood like Bridgeport.

DumpJerry
12-15-2008, 11:15 PM
Let's back away from the politics. No more discussion of how zoning changes are done in Chicago, ok?

voodoochile
12-15-2008, 11:23 PM
Development around the park is not at all as easy as some are making it out. I just looked on the City of Chicago website and none of the property surrounding the stadium is zoned correctly. Rezoning involves a lot of time and a HUGE amount of neighborhood outreach. The neighbors can railroad the project during this time. There's also getting planning approval. Again, the neighbors can railroad the project during this time. These two items can take upwards of a year, even for a simple one-story restaurant. It'd take even more time for several, a large complex, etc. There are soooooo many factors that go into these two stages, never mind that the building doesn't even have a building permit at this point in time. It's never just a matter of purchasing property and building a building in any major metropolitan area.

Are you telling us that the PAY parking lot where the team had PAY baseball ticket booths and PAY souvenir stands and that happens to abut a major comercial street like 35th isn't zoned for commercial use? Wow, that's amazing. I am shocked. What's it zoned as?

kittle42
12-15-2008, 11:24 PM
Chinatown, downtown, South Loop, and the near West Side are a short drive, train ride or taxi ride away, there are plenty of options already available. As has been discussed in numerous other threads, there are plenty of establishments less than a 10 minute walk from the park on Halsted Street and also 31st Street.

Why do people persist with this argument? It is nowhere near the same - at all - as what the competition has, and that's what consumers prefer.

gosox41
12-15-2008, 11:34 PM
Proud To Be Your Bud now claims that MLB is a 6 1/2 Billion dollar industry and he's stated that publicly more then once the past year.

That's NFL territory folks.

Yet some teams (the White Sox?) are trying to make the case that things are about to go very south in a hurry.

The two divergent points of view makes you think that someone is lying doesn't it?

Lip


Lip,


Things have gone bad in a hurry. We'll see how people react to the bad economy vs their discretionary spending.

Keep in mind a lot of people, including yours truly, don't think the worst is over for the economy and stock mkt.

Nothing goes up forever.

DumpJerry
12-15-2008, 11:40 PM
Are you telling us that the PAY parking lot where the team had PAY baseball ticket booths and PAY souvenir stands and that happens to abut a major comercial street like 35th isn't zoned for commercial use? Wow, that's amazing. I am shocked. What's it zoned as?
The zoning is more complicated that commercial/residential, etc. The zoning code also determines what type of structures can be on the land and how tall the structures can be. It's possible that the parking lots are zoned commercial, but with no permanent structures. The concession stands in the parking lots are trailers.

Frontman
12-15-2008, 11:46 PM
Good thing you weren't in charge of Amazon.com in its first few years. They never would have gotten out of the planning stage.

Good thing Amazon.com came along when it did to take a risk; versus 2008 when the country is not in the best of fiancial conditions.

Over to you for a whitty response.

voodoochile
12-15-2008, 11:48 PM
The zoning is more complicated that commercial/residential, etc. The zoning code also determines what type of structures can be on the land and how tall the structures can be. It's possible that the parking lots are zoned commercial, but with no permanent structures. The concession stands in the parking lots are trailers.

And the ticket booths? They might be considered temporary, but IIRC they stayed their year round. Oh and does the fact that there was a permanent 5 story tall admission point for a major commercial enterprise that sold both beer and food there affect those zones? Heck, that lot used to hold the original Comiskey - how much more multi-commercial useage can you get than a baseball stadium - entertainment license, check. Beer and food permits, check. Retail establishment, check.

Did they lose all those rights when they built across the street?

manders_01
12-16-2008, 12:18 AM
And the ticket booths? They might be considered temporary, but IIRC they stayed their year round. Oh and does the fact that there was a permanent 5 story tall admission point for a major commercial enterprise that sold both beer and food there affect those zones? Heck, that lot used to hold the original Comiskey - how much more multi-commercial useage can you get than a baseball stadium - entertainment license, check. Beer and food permits, check. Retail establishment, check.

Did they lose all those rights when they built across the street?

I guess I'm confused - is this new complex being built on Sox property or just in the area? The zoning of the Sox property was more than likely written to allow for restaurants or bars and if it's being built there, there's probably not an issue.

However, it seemed to me that the original "argument" was that multiple restaurants and bars should be developed in the neighborhood by private owners. Not all of the neighborhood is zoned to allow restaurants and bars. And I don't think the Sox would lease their property for someone else to develop (or maybe they would if they're so hard up for money). I was responding directly to that "argument".

DumpJerry
12-16-2008, 12:20 AM
And the ticket booths? They might be considered temporary, but IIRC they stayed their year round. Oh and does the fact that there was a permanent 5 story tall admission point for a major commercial enterprise that sold both beer and food there affect those zones? Heck, that lot used to hold the original Comiskey - how much more multi-commercial useage can you get than a baseball stadium - entertainment license, check. Beer and food permits, check. Retail establishment, check.

Did they lose all those rights when they built across the street?
The ticket windows are part of the structure. The zoning line could be 5 feet north of the structure or there is a variance for that part of the land north of 35th Street. I'm sure when they tore down Comiskey (:whiner:), they got the zoning changed to unimproved commercial to greatly reduce the property tax liability for that land. If you own a building and it is empty and you cannot sell it (and it's a dump), tear it down- unimproved property is taxed at a much lower amount than improved.

DumpJerry
12-16-2008, 12:22 AM
And I don't think the Sox would lease their property for someone else to develop (or maybe they would if they're so hard up for money). I was responding directly to that "argument".
It's not the White Sox' property. It belongs to the State of Illinois-the Sox lease it from the State. The lease gives the Sox exclusive control over the property which allows the Sox to say we can tailgate in the parking lots, among other things.

But the Sox cannot lease to someone else-it's not theirs to lease or sell.

manders_01
12-16-2008, 12:27 AM
It's not the White Sox' property. It belongs to the State of Illinois-the Sox lease it from the State. The lease gives the Sox exclusive control over the property which allows the Sox to say we can tailgate in the parking lots, among other things.

But the Sox cannot lease to someone else-it's not theirs to lease or sell.

Okay, so that goes more to the point. It was brought up that development should happen in the neighborhood. The land surrounding the park not owned by Illinois (I knew IL developed the property but didn't realize they still owned it - will the Sox ever buy it?) is not zoned currently that it could be developed with restaurants and bars without rezoning.

dickallen15
12-16-2008, 08:27 AM
The Stadium Club and Bullpen Bar are open for an hour after the game. Unlike Wrigley, you don't even have to leave the park to go drink now. Most games are on weeknights. When those bars stop serving, its 11 pm, probably time to go home and go to bed.

The White Sox have been trying to make going to USCF more of a family experience than a drunken frat boy experience. A block or two of new bars built by their insistance, is never going to happen.

Its funny, Cubs fans and Wrigley get ripped all the time around here. Who knew that all this time it was jealousy?

Once they get this new bar built, there will be that plus the bullpen bar, 2 bars for everyone to get hammerred for the ride home. Those with Stadium Club access have another venue.

There are more than twice as many people living within a one mile radius of Wrigley Field as there are USCF. Bars and restaurants by Wrigley are constantly changing names as several fail. With even less to draw from, a drinking complex by USCF would more than likely be financial disaster for those who invest.

Ranger
12-16-2008, 09:20 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-16-sportsecon_subdec16,0,2965427.story?page=1

This is along the lines of what we've been discussing for the last couple of days. You'll see in the article that even a lucrative organization like the Cubs (where sponsorships have been huge) is expecting to take a significant hit. So much that they are raising their ticket prices...in most cases, more than the Sox are. And it's being done to offset the decrease in sponsorship revenue.

And another note in case you haven't seen it, but the city has ordered work on the 35th st. ramp to be stopped because the permit to build wasn't given to them yet. It seems to be a minor setback, but the point is that you can't just "do" things because you want to. There are a series of obstacles you have to bypass to get something done and something minor can hold up your operation. Even if you are a person with clout.

DumpJerry
12-16-2008, 11:10 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-16-sportsecon_subdec16,0,2965427.story?page=1

This is along the lines of what we've been discussing for the last couple of days. You'll see in the article that even a lucrative organization like the Cubs (where sponsorships have been huge) is expecting to take a significant hit. So much that they are raising their ticket prices...in most cases, more than the Sox are. And it's being done to offset the decrease in sponsorship revenue.

And another note in case you haven't seen it, but the city has ordered work on the 35th st. ramp to be stopped because the permit to build wasn't given to them yet. It seems to be a minor setback, but the point is that you can't just "do" things because you want to. There are a series of obstacles you have to bypass to get something done and something minor can hold up your operation. Even if you are a person with clout.
Based on the article, it sounds like Borass might have to find a real job soon.......:praying:

jabrch
12-16-2008, 11:14 AM
Based on the article, it sounds like Borass might have to find a real job soon.......:praying:


I am sure he won't be flipping burgers anytime soon.

Lip Man 1
12-16-2008, 12:12 PM
Frater:

To answer your question about who is out there who is better, well off the top of my head Orlando Hudson for 2nd base.

--------------------

Front:

That's a good point about "operating in the red" however the average working person doesn't have a sweetheart lease agreement with their employee do they, like the Sox do with the city....or the fact that taxpayer money helped build the stadium in the first place...or that the White Sox are not a "normal" business, aka the corner hardware store or the local small grocery store.

The White Sox in Eddie Einhorn's own words (direct quote) "are a public trust" (from the prologue to Rich Lindberg revised White Sox Encyclopedia). Einhorn also wrote that he realized owners are mearly "caretakers"... that the franchise belongs to the fans.

So in my opinion given the advantages and breaks the Sox have been given directly by taxpayer money over the years, it is not unreasonable to me that they do "operate in the red" occasionally... if the bottom line is getting back to or even winning another World Series.

No one (at least not me) is arguing the Sox shouldn't make a profit...absolutely not. The owners took a risk - they are entitled to a return. The question is how much of a return and when (or if) that desire to make more money interfears with the basic rule of pro sports, you play to win first then make money, than I take umbrage with that.

I just don't think the organization is hurting for money as badly as they portray and like I'm said I have had contact with those who know board members, former Sox people themselves and that's what they tell me.

Lip

spiffie
12-16-2008, 12:18 PM
Good thing Amazon.com came along when it did to take a risk; versus 2008 when the country is not in the best of fiancial conditions.

Over to you for a whitty response.
You're right. Amazon was investing for the future in 2001.

During a recession.

I will also point out you said nothing about any specific year. You mocked the original poster for daring to suggest the Sox operate "in the red" and asked him if he would work without pay, completely mucking up the analogy between a business owner and an employee.

voodoochile
12-16-2008, 12:23 PM
Based on the article, it sounds like Borass might have to find a real job soon.......:praying:

Yeah, he'll be slinging burgers at McD's before we know it. No way he's made enough money to buy a small island and retire...:rolleyes: :wink:

jabrch
12-16-2008, 12:26 PM
Frater:

To answer your question about who is out there who is better, well off the top of my head Orlando Hudson for 2nd base.



He's got a bad history of injury. Do you really want to give a long term FA deal to him? I don't. .282/.346/.433 is his career line. He misses about 30 games a year and is just turning 30 - when that number likely goes up. I know he is a swith hitter, but I recall he is poorer from the right side. I also don't think he is a great defender to justify it.

Again - if Hudson could be had reasonably, I wouldn't oppose it. But if Hudson wants 4+ years or 10+mm, then I don't see it being a risk worth taking. I know it isn't your money - and you don't care - but wherever the payroll number is set, the question is if that's a good risk or a bad risk. Given the depth we have of prospects who could be 2B, I wouldn't make this risk at this position. For Furcal, I'd be more likely. For a big bat at 3B, a great CF, a SP, or even a releiver, I would. But this seems like a bad player to go after if he gets what he has indicated he wanted.

Frontman
12-16-2008, 01:08 PM
You're right. Amazon was investing for the future in 2001.

During a recession.

I will also point out you said nothing about any specific year. You mocked the original poster for daring to suggest the Sox operate "in the red" and asked him if he would work without pay, completely mucking up the analogy between a business owner and an employee.

Show of hands.

Anyone think the economy is in a better condition now to take a risk than it was in mid-2001?

No?

And no, I didn't say to work without pay, I said work and not make enough money to even function that week. If you can't pay to get to and from work, why ask the Sox to spend more than they make?

Operating "in the red" means somewhere down the road; that money comes due. If a person tried to operate that way, its next to impossible to do. Why ask a multi-million dollar business to risk everything on spending when everyone, and I do mean everyone; is watching their bottom line?

It's a cliche with Sox fans; going back to the Veeck era. "The team is cheap." Well, maybe at times the Sox have been cheap. But right now, on 12/15/08; with the economy in such a bad situation, its moronic to suggest a team that already operates at close-to-break-even to extend itself. Anyone willing to take out loans right now, for a new car (wait, those might not be around much longer) or home improvements? How about us average joes who may or may not be laid off in the next few months; willing to take on more financial burden, not knowing what you'd be making?

That's what has been asked of the Sox; and I'm sorry, in a troubled economy, when you're not sure how your attendance will be (and the Sox played to some numerous empty seats to begin 2008, so nothing is for certain) I find it on the moronic side of things to ask.

I want the Sox to remain competitive and be around for DECADES; not just "win now, and hope the hell you make enough to stay out of bankruptcy" philosophy.

And another thing, getting hung up on the 50 cent/75 cent/dollar comment by Kenny Williams is sports-talk radio level of commentary? That's sports-talk radio level of commentary to get that upset over Kenny's comments (no offense meant to you Ranger. I'm talking the guys who use that type of comment to yell/scream/fire up the phone lines.)

champagne030
12-16-2008, 01:31 PM
its moronic to suggest a team that already operates at close-to-break-even to extend itself. :scratch:

The source that Ranger used to champion the White Sox payroll spending habits also shows they had operating income of $30M for 2007. That's not "close-to-break-even".

dickallen15
12-16-2008, 02:09 PM
:scratch:

The source that Ranger used to champion the White Sox payroll spending habits also shows they had operating income of $30M for 2007. That's not "close-to-break-even".

In fact, its a collective $70 million profit from 2005-2007.

voodoochile
12-16-2008, 03:35 PM
In fact, its a collective $70 million profit from 2005-2007.

EBIDTA.

I don't think the Sox have a lot of depreciation. I don't know their interest situation, I don't know their Amortization situation, but taxes at least are going to impact that number. I also wonder if they are including just the cost of running the big league club or money spent on minor league teams, scouting, etc.

Of course there's the other side of things too - the parking is leased out to another company the BOD owns. Oh and JR is paid $1M/yr for his role as COB. I am sure others on the BOD also get salaries. Still, I don't begrudge the owners a profit. They deserve one too. It's why we own a business in the first place.

Just for ****s and giggles, assume the 70M is cut by 32% by taxes (federal and state) that leaves 46M. If 1/2 of that is spent running minor league franchises (and it probably is) that leaves 23M over two years that's not a ton of profit for a 12 person ownership group or whatever it is.

dickallen15
12-16-2008, 03:40 PM
EBIDTA.

I don't think the Sox have a lot of depreciation. I don't know their interest situation, I don't know their Amortization situation, but taxes at least are going to impact that number. I also wonder if they are including just the cost of running the big league club or money spent on minor league teams, scouting, etc.

Of course there's the other side of things too - the parking is leased out to another company the BOD owns. Oh and JR is paid $1M/yr for his role as COB. I am sure others on the BOD also get salaries. Still, I don't begrudge the owners a profit. They deserve one too. It's why we own a business in the first place.

Just for ****s and giggles, assume the 70M is cut by 32% by taxes (federal and state) that leaves 46M. If 1/2 of that is spent running minor league franchises (and it probably is) that leaves 23M over two years that's not a ton of profit for a 12 person ownership group or whatever it is.

Its 23 million more than they claim they have sitting around. I'm guessing if the team made $70 million, there's a better chance JR makes it mandatory to be a Boras client to be a White Sox, than that $70 million profit shows as a $70 million profit on a tax return.

voodoochile
12-16-2008, 03:41 PM
Its 23 million more than they claim they have sitting around. I'm guessing if the team made $70 million, there's a better chance JR makes it mandatory to be a Boras client to be a White Sox, than that $70 million profit shows as a $70 million profit on a tax return.

Oh I agree - it'd be spent as bonuses for the BOD before they'd admit they made it.

Ranger
12-16-2008, 04:38 PM
Front, very well said.

I think it's just safe to say that no matter what, some people will ALWAYS think the White Sox are pinching pennies while bathing in cash. No matter what. Even when it's unclear how much profit they truly make AFTER paying off expenses, some people will never be sold on the idea that maybe this organization does as well as it possibly can to put together a competitive payroll. Even when it's blatantly obvious they don't have the same kind of attendance and sponsorship revenue that other high payroll teams have.

That being the case, I really see no reason to continue the discussion.

spiffie
12-16-2008, 04:48 PM
Show of hands.

Anyone think the economy is in a better condition now to take a risk than it was in mid-2001?

No?

I wouldn't say things are any less uncertain in October of 2001 than they are now. To continue this thread however risks getting overly political, and I would not want to sully the thread with such roadhouseable offenses.

And no, I didn't say to work without pay, I said work and not make enough money to even function that week. If you can't pay to get to and from work, why ask the Sox to spend more than they make?

Operating "in the red" means somewhere down the road; that money comes due. If a person tried to operate that way, its next to impossible to do. Why ask a multi-million dollar business to risk everything on spending when everyone, and I do mean everyone; is watching their bottom line?
Agreed, you did not ask the person to not get paid. Mea maxima culpa.

Instead you continue to defend the tortured analogy of an employee willingly taking less money for no apparent reason as being somehow equivalent to a business taking on debt (if indeed it would require such a thing, but sure, let's assume that) for the purposes of future growth. Of course you also extend the analogy as far as possible with terminology such as "risk everything". Not quite sure where the idea of the White Sox leveraging themselves to the point of bankruptcy in the event of any sort of misstep was found other than inside of your mind, but oh well.

It's a cliche with Sox fans; going back to the Veeck era. "The team is cheap." Well, maybe at times the Sox have been cheap. But right now, on 12/15/08; with the economy in such a bad situation, its moronic to suggest a team that already operates at close-to-break-even to extend itself. Anyone willing to take out loans right now, for a new car (wait, those might not be around much longer) or home improvements? How about us average joes who may or may not be laid off in the next few months; willing to take on more financial burden, not knowing what you'd be making?


That's what has been asked of the Sox; and I'm sorry, in a troubled economy, when you're not sure how your attendance will be (and the Sox played to some numerous empty seats to begin 2008, so nothing is for certain) I find it on the moronic side of things to ask.

I want the Sox to remain competitive and be around for DECADES; not just "win now, and hope the hell you make enough to stay out of bankruptcy" philosophy.
Again, somehow you have extended things inside your mind to be that the White Sox would somehow move into Bankruptcy, despite the fact that as of yet no major sports franchise that I can think of has ever done such a thing. I guess when the only options are Payroll $X or a smoking crater of bankruptcy and ruined dreams at 35th and Shields, well I guess I can understand your concern.

I hope I'm not late on a credit card payment this month. I'd hate to go to debtors prison.

I should also add, I have liked every move the Sox made this offseason. I feel like KW is a good enough GM he can win no matter what the payroll. My issues are with the argument you are making, not the actions of the Sox. Or to turn the joke often made around, KW only needs 50 cents when everyone else has a dollar. It keeps it fair that way.

Frontman
12-16-2008, 06:12 PM
Spiffie,

My point is that if the Sox extend themselves to compete with teams like the Yankees; the Yankees have more money for ammo than the Sox do. To go beyond what you feel you can cover; just to sign another talent?

The first decade of the 21st century has proven that money does not automatically punch your ticket to the fall classic.

But as Ranger said, I doubt we'll find common ground here. How about we shake hands and say "Go White Sox" and leave it at that?

Because, at the end of the day; neither of us will complain if the Sox put forth a competitive team.

Frater Perdurabo
12-16-2008, 07:31 PM
Frater:

To answer your question about who is out there who is better, well off the top of my head Orlando Hudson for 2nd base.

They may yet sign him. The offseason is yet young.

Or maybe they believe that Getz/Lillibridge can produce similar numbers and play similar defense for a lot less money. And frankly I tend to trust KW's judgment on whether or not a young player can produce.

champagne030
12-16-2008, 09:28 PM
They may yet sign him. The offseason is yet young.



According to Kenny, they don't have room to add salary. :shrug:

CashMan
12-17-2008, 02:29 PM
According to Kenny, they don't have room to add salary. :shrug:


I quote Terry Boers when I say this: Are you retarded?

Mod Edit: I quote the things every poster should know thread when I say this: Don't use the word retarded as a put down.

It is early December and you are taking everything Kenny says literally. If Kenny said the world would end next week, would you believe him? Do you honestly think, Kenny would say on the air, we have $15mill to spend this offseason? Kenny plays coy, makes good trades, and under the radar signings. Dye, wasn't a big name, but he has produced well. Also, isn't Kenny philosophy, he would rather trade for a guy who has like 2-3yrs left on his contract, then go out and shell out a ton on a 6-7yr deal? I would rather this team get younger during this recession, then paying a ton of money for mediocredy just because they are vets. This team needs to get younger and faster, Kenny gives Ozzie a leadoff guy in 2005 and look what happend. Getz/Liliabridge(sp?), might be that leadoff. I am willing to wait until Kenny is done, before I start my bitching. Manny, CC, Burnett are/were wayyyyy toooo expensive to sign. Give me a name of a player you want Kenny to go out and sign.

hi im skot
12-17-2008, 02:47 PM
http://www.neowin.net/forum/fun/thread_wont_die.jpg

champagne030
12-17-2008, 02:53 PM
It is early December and you are taking everything Kenny says literally. If Kenny said the world would end next week, would you believe him? Do you honestly think, Kenny would say on the air, we have $15mill to spend this offseason?

I would tell Kenny he full of **** and quit insulting my intelligence if he told me the world was going to end next week. And that's all I'm saying when he says we're currently "at our limit" on payroll for 2009.

JB98
12-17-2008, 03:06 PM
I don't really have anything to add to this discussion. I just think it's kinda funny that the tags on this thread are "dinosaur jamboree," "pants pissing morons" and "payroll dump." :D:

whitesox901
12-17-2008, 03:07 PM
I don't really have anything to add to this discussion. I just think it's kinda funny that the tags on this thread are "dinosaur jamboree," "pants pissing morons" and "payroll dump." :D:

I just noticed that, it is pretty funny :D:

Brian26
12-17-2008, 11:56 PM
Frater:

To answer your question about who is out there who is better, well off the top of my head Orlando Hudson for 2nd base.


Gentleman's bet for you, Lip-

I bet Lillibridge ends 2009 with a higher OBP, more stolen bases and more games played than Hudson.

jabrch
12-18-2008, 10:02 AM
Gentleman's bet for you, Lip-

I bet Lillibridge ends 2009 with a higher OBP, more stolen bases and more games played than Hudson.

We'd be in an awfully good position.

Lip Man 1
12-18-2008, 12:18 PM
Brian:

As you wish.

Lip

thedudeabides
12-18-2008, 12:22 PM
I don't really have anything to add to this discussion. I just think it's kinda funny that the tags on this thread are "dinosaur jamboree," "pants pissing morons" and "payroll dump." :D:

:rolling: