PDA

View Full Version : How full is Kenny's wallet?


markopat
11-11-2009, 12:36 AM
I was reading some of the threads tonight and it appears that a bigger name FA is not going to be an option for us from a "salary" perspective. Does anyone have a fairly simple breakdown of salaries on the "projected" 2010 team, and what would that leave for KW to sign additional players to fill some gaps?

Thanks!

tm1119
11-11-2009, 12:53 AM
I think we have enough money to sign ONE of the big name free agents, but the problem is that we have more than one hole to fill. Signing 1 guy, like say Figgins, for around 10mil will leave us with no money to fill the other spots on the roster. We're better off getting a few guys(via FA or trade) rather than spending everything on 1 guy.

And sorry I dont have the breakdown or anything that you asked for.

Domeshot17
11-11-2009, 01:03 AM
(1) Figgins is not worth anywhere close to 10 mil per, maybe half that. If we sign Figgins for 10 per Kenny should be fired.

(2) Kenny said he has about 20 mil left to fill the roster. That said, I am unsure if that includes arbitration players. That is a big difference. If it includes guys in Arbitration Jenks and Quentin will surely take half that, and who knows whats up with Danks contract.

No matter how you look at it, Kenny's come out and said there is no money. He has already ruled out signing a major free agent. I know everyone loves the whole OOOO HES POSTIONING THAT MEANS HELL SIGN SOMEONE idea, but usually when hes talking about no money or his having 50 cents and needing a dollar speech, he is serious. So we will see.

BadBobbyJenks
11-11-2009, 01:05 AM
Best place for this kind of stuff: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-white-sox.html

It looks like 73 million for the 2010 roster not including all the arbitration cases that will be held.

2010-2014: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tK7uKP_MP8Unu0Mx46heFcg&output=html

tm1119
11-11-2009, 01:33 AM
(1) Figgins is not worth anywhere close to 10 mil per, maybe half that. If we sign Figgins for 10 per Kenny should be fired.

(2) Kenny said he has about 20 mil left to fill the roster. That said, I am unsure if that includes arbitration players. That is a big difference. If it includes guys in Arbitration Jenks and Quentin will surely take half that, and who knows whats up with Danks contract.

No matter how you look at it, Kenny's come out and said there is no money. He has already ruled out signing a major free agent. I know everyone loves the whole OOOO HES POSTIONING THAT MEANS HELL SIGN SOMEONE idea, but usually when hes talking about no money or his having 50 cents and needing a dollar speech, he is serious. So we will see.

I wasnt saying we should sign him, in fact I dont want to sign him at all. I was just using him as an example. But youre crazy if you think Figgins will only get 5mil per year in the open market. Abreu got 9mil, Im thinking Figgins is gonna get about 7 or 8 per over probably 4 years or so. And that is the reason why I want no part of him.

And yeah I agree that there isnt much money. After adding Peavy and Rios I cant imagine the payroll expanding too much after a 3rd place finish. Probably just a few 1 or 2 year deals for some middle of the road vets to fill out the roster, thats about it.

russ99
11-11-2009, 09:24 AM
Here's my current Sox payroll numbers posting:

Link (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2380125&postcount=33)

I got my data from Cot's then did a little tweaking based on potential raises for below $1M players. I'll be keeping a running spreadsheed, since Cot's doesn't update their spreadsheet often.

Also, Cot's is unclear about Teahen's contract status. We did get cash from KC, but I think he's also arb eligible (as in my post) and will get a raise from his current $3.575M.

KenBerryGrab
11-11-2009, 09:50 AM
He's got enough for an Italian beef, but not the beef-and-sausage combo.

spawn
11-11-2009, 10:07 AM
I heard he had enough for a crave case from White Castle, and quite possibly the fries to go with it. At least, that's what the guy at baggage claim told me. :shrug:

doublem23
11-11-2009, 10:10 AM
Best place for this kind of stuff: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-white-sox.html

It looks like 73 million for the 2010 roster not including all the arbitration cases that will be held.

2010-2014: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tK7uKP_MP8Unu0Mx46heFcg&output=html

Alex Rios is the 4th highest paid player on the team

:chunks

russ99
11-11-2009, 11:20 AM
Alex Rios is the 4th highest paid player on the team



If he plays to his capabilities and talent level, that will be no problem. And if Carlos bounces back and puts together a few healthy seasons, he'll pass him in a few years.

UChicagoHP
11-11-2009, 01:20 PM
Given the Rios and Peavy trades, I'm guessing it's pretty close to empty. Still have a ton of optimism about the 2010 team, assuming the pitchers stay healthy, this team should be a playoff calibre squad.

Zisk77
11-11-2009, 03:29 PM
I hear kw's wallet is quite full. In fact, it resembles George Konstanza! Jerry is actually trying to talk KW into a more fashionable money clip...oh wait, that my brother trying to talk me into that. But where am I going to keep my Burger King receipts from 1997?

areilly
11-11-2009, 03:42 PM
If he plays to his capabilities and talent level, that will be no problem. And if Carlos bounces back and puts together a few healthy seasons, he'll pass him in a few years.

The existence of those conditionals scares me.

russ99
11-11-2009, 03:57 PM
The existence of those conditionals scares me.

Me too, but Kenny's banking his job on that, so I'll go along with our G.M. on that one...

WhiffleBall
11-11-2009, 05:05 PM
Season ticket deposits are due Friday November 20th. I'm sure they will allow a week or so for any stragglers to re-up even after the due date. After that the Sox should have a solid idea of how much money they have to work with unless there are some advertising deals still in the works.

kittle42
11-11-2009, 05:08 PM
His change purse is filled with 50 cents.

soxinem1
11-11-2009, 06:09 PM
(1) Figgins is not worth anywhere close to 10 mil per, maybe half that. If we sign Figgins for 10 per Kenny should be fired.

(2) Kenny said he has about 20 mil left to fill the roster. That said, I am unsure if that includes arbitration players. That is a big difference. If it includes guys in Arbitration Jenks and Quentin will surely take half that, and who knows whats up with Danks contract.

No matter how you look at it, Kenny's come out and said there is no money. He has already ruled out signing a major free agent. I know everyone loves the whole OOOO HES POSTIONING THAT MEANS HELL SIGN SOMEONE idea, but usually when hes talking about no money or his having 50 cents and needing a dollar speech, he is serious. So we will see.

When has KW ever signed a marque FA? Try never.

We better get used to the phrase 'Lightning In A Bottle'.

markopat
11-11-2009, 06:23 PM
Thanks for the statistical info from BBJ and Russ...this helped a lot...much appreciation!

Mark

SOXSINCE'70
11-11-2009, 06:27 PM
His change purse is filled with 50 cents.

But it costs 75 cents to buy a cheap Chicago rag.:D:

Frater Perdurabo
11-11-2009, 07:48 PM
His change purse is filled with 50 cents.

Some material never gets old. :tongue:

kittle42
11-11-2009, 08:42 PM
Some material never gets old. :tongue:

It's my favorite sports-related quote ever, outside of the entire Dennis Green speech.

Ranger
11-11-2009, 09:18 PM
When has KW ever signed a marque FA? Try never.

We better get used to the phrase 'Lightning In A Bottle'.

This comment touches on one of my biggest pet peeves regarding some fans. Why does everything have to always be an extreme? You know, there are moves that occur "in between".

Just because a guy isn't the top free agent available, doesn't mean the signing is a garbage player that you're just praying will give you numbers extraordinarily above their norm. Many of the moves that help a team the most are those signings and acquisitions that live somehwere in the middle. Not blockbusters, but also not completely useless either.

He may not have signed the absolute top guys available, but he acquired one of the best pitchers in the game with a huge salary and also picked up another massive salary in Rios. But most of the time, anyway, it's not even realistic to sign guys like Teixeira, CC, etc. There are only like 3 teams that can really afford guys like that every offseason.

Domeshot17
11-11-2009, 09:27 PM
This comment touches on one of my biggest pet peeves regarding some fans. Why does everything have to always be an extreme? You know, there are moves that occur "in between".

Just because a guy isn't the top free agent available, doesn't mean the signing is a garbage player that you're just praying will give you numbers extraordinarily above their norm. Many of the moves that help a team the most are those signings and acquisitions that live somehwere in the middle. Not blockbusters, but also not completely useless either.

He may not have signed the absolute top guys available, but he acquired one of the best pitchers in the game with a huge salary and also picked up another massive salary in Rios. But most of the time, anyway, it's not even realistic to sign guys like Teixeira, CC, etc. There are only like 3 teams that can really afford guys like that every offseason.

But its the TYPE of player Kenny goes for. Sometimes he strikes Gold like with AJ and Dye. Sometimes he strikes out like he did with Erstad and Terrero.

But it is telling that the highest profile free agent we have signed is Linebrink. It is also the one we regret most.

The White Sox are typically never major players in Free Agency. We look for Bargains. There are good and bad with that. We don't get locked in albatross contracts like Soriano, but it also makes improving the team tough sometimes with a farm system that is used mostly to trade and has seldom had an impact on the major league roster.

I don't disagree with the idea these small moves pay off when they work. But with most of these they are lightning in the bottle moves. Hoping to get a guy to turn his career back around or have 1 more big year. When it works, its amazing (see 2005). When it fails, it hurts us big time (2007).

Brian26
11-11-2009, 09:32 PM
Just for the sake of argument:

Kenny offered Bartolo Colon the biggest contract for a pitcher in franchise history after the 2003 season, before the Angels ultimately signed him.

Kenny signed Konerko after 2005 when he was one of the top free agents available.

Kenny re-signed Dye and Buehrle before the end of the 2007 season, essentially taking them off the FA market.

Kenny had a lucrative contract and a handshake deal with Torii Hunter during the winter of 2007 before the Angels swooped in with their open checkbook.

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 09:41 PM
This comment touches on one of my biggest pet peeves regarding some fans. Why does everything have to always be an extreme? You know, there are moves that occur "in between".

Just because a guy isn't the top free agent available, doesn't mean the signing is a garbage player that you're just praying will give you numbers extraordinarily above their norm. Many of the moves that help a team the most are those signings and acquisitions that live somehwere in the middle. Not blockbusters, but also not completely useless either.

He may not have signed the absolute top guys available, but he acquired one of the best pitchers in the game with a huge salary and also picked up another massive salary in Rios. But most of the time, anyway, it's not even realistic to sign guys like Teixeira, CC, etc. There are only like 3 teams that can really afford guys like that every offseason.

Agreed.

People say that Kenny doesn't sign the "Big names" or "Marquee" FA. They forget that there are other ways to acquire players. Wasn't it a year ago that everyone on the North Side and in Atlanta were salivating over the fact that Jake Peavy could be headed their way? Some could have argued that he was the best pitcher on the market, even better than CC (cheaper too).

Kenny may not sign a "big name" guy like Chone Figgins this offseason, but I don't blame him because he did acquire one of the best pitchers in baseball last July. I still get goosebumps when I say "Jake Peavy is on the White Sox."

Daver
11-11-2009, 09:45 PM
Considering the fact that the White Sox don't develop talent very well, Kenny uses the approach that best suits the team as far as I am concerned.

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 09:49 PM
Considering the fact that the White Sox don't develop talent very well, Kenny uses the approach that best suits the team as far as I am concerned.

Well, they didn't used to. Right now, it looks as if they're doing better. However, we do need to see a lot more results before we can declare it fixed.

NLaloosh
11-11-2009, 09:55 PM
He's got enough money to sign Pods and after he does that will be it.

He'd have to move Konerko or Jenks to get any more payroll flexibility.

Daver
11-11-2009, 10:00 PM
Well, they didn't used to. Right now, it looks as if they're doing better. However, we do need to see a lot more results before we can declare it fixed.

Based on what?

He's got enough money to sign Pods and after he does that will be it.

He'd have to move Konerko or Jenks to get any more payroll flexibility.

I take it you attended a budget meeting in the GM's office this evening?

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 10:08 PM
Based on what?



I take it you attended a budget meeting in the GM's office this evening?

Richard, Poreda, Hudson

to name a few. I don't include Gordon because he was going to be good regardless of the system he was put into.

Richard is the only one to actually establish himself at the ML level right now but the other two don't see that far off. I consider that progress for talent development.

Daver
11-11-2009, 10:12 PM
Richard, Poreda, Hudson

to name a few. I don't include Gordon because he was going to be good regardless of the system he was put into.

Richard is the only one to actually establish himself at the ML level right now but the other two don't see that far off. I consider that progress for talent development.

There is fifty some rounds in the baseball amateur draft, and you are claiming an improvement because three players appear to have progressed?

I'm sorry but this made me literally laugh out loud.

JermaineDye05
11-11-2009, 10:21 PM
There is fifty some rounds in the baseball amateur draft, and you are claiming an improvement because three players appear to have progressed?

I'm sorry but this made me literally laugh out loud.

Again it's a small sample size and you have to realize they each came within the last year along with Brandon Allen. You can't deny that on the surface the White Sox minor leagues appear to be improving.

Daver
11-11-2009, 10:24 PM
Again it's a small sample size and you have to realize they each came within the last year along with Brandon Allen. You can't deny that on the surface the White Sox minor leagues appear to be improving.

I can't?

Ranger
11-11-2009, 10:26 PM
But its the TYPE of player Kenny goes for. Sometimes he strikes Gold like with AJ and Dye. Sometimes he strikes out like he did with Erstad and Terrero.

But it is telling that the highest profile free agent we have signed is Linebrink. It is also the one we regret most.

The White Sox are typically never major players in Free Agency. We look for Bargains. There are good and bad with that. We don't get locked in albatross contracts like Soriano, but it also makes improving the team tough sometimes with a farm system that is used mostly to trade and has seldom had an impact on the major league roster.

I don't disagree with the idea these small moves pay off when they work. But with most of these they are lightning in the bottle moves. Hoping to get a guy to turn his career back around or have 1 more big year. When it works, its amazing (see 2005). When it fails, it hurts us big time (2007).


What do you mean by "type"? I guess I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. If it isn't the top player available, then isn't it always usually somebody that's supposed to be a decent player but not the best player? This sounds to me like it's the same exact thing that every general manager (except for Brian Cashman) has to do in order to put a team together, if the farm system hasn't produced like they eed it to.

I'm of the mindset that it takes a good GM to find the so-called "diamonds in the rough".

Daver
11-11-2009, 10:42 PM
What do you mean by "type"? I guess I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. If it isn't the top player available, then isn't it always usually somebody that's supposed to be a decent player but not the best player? This sounds to me like it's the same exact thing that every general manager (except for Brian Cashman) has to do in order to put a team together, if the farm system hasn't produced like they eed it to.

I'm of the mindset that it takes a good GM to find the so-called "diamonds in the rough".

Brian Cashman's farm system produces players that make the MLB roster and stay there, he does not have to rely on the FA market, he uses the FA market to his advantage.

Ranger
11-12-2009, 01:47 AM
Brian Cashman's farm system produces players that make the MLB roster and stay there, he does not have to rely on the FA market, he uses the FA market to his advantage.

He can also afford to hold onto every single player they raise. Yeah, they draft and develop well, but he doesn't have to worry about them ever leaving for more cash.

Then he can afford to sign two of the games best pitchers and one of the best all-around players in the game in a single offseason, committing $400 million dollars to those three players. This while already on the line for two different 10 year contracts to two different players with $460 million committed to them.

Now how many teams do you know that could afford to have even one of those contracts, let alone 5 at at the same time? And then still be able to add another multi-year, multi-million dollar contract or two?

Not to mention they don't ever have to worry about who they draft because of "signability" issues.

The Yankees are operating on a different level, and it ain't because of their farm system.

JermaineDye05
11-12-2009, 01:50 AM
He can also afford to hold onto every single player they raise. Yeah, they draft and develop well, but he doesn't have to worry about them ever leaving for more cash.

Then he can afford to sign two of the games best pitchers and one of the best all-around players in the game in a single offseason, committing $400 million dollars to those three players. This while already on the line for two different 10 year contracts to two different players with $460 million committed to them.

Now how many teams do you know that could afford to have even one of those contracts, let alone 5 at at the same time? And then still be able to add another multi-year, multi-million dollar contract or two?

Not to mention they don't ever have to worry about who they draft because of "signability" issues.

The Yankees are operating on a different level, and it ain't because of their farm system.

I believe that's what we call "Check mate".

NLaloosh
11-12-2009, 06:46 AM
Realistically, how can anyone expect that the Sox payroll will be higher in 2010 than it was in 2009?

The attendance was dissapointing and the team missed the playoffs. There are no indications that attendance is going to spike in 2010.

Based on everything that I've read and heard the 2010 payroll will be right around $ 100 mil. and very unlikely to be above that by any significance.

This pretty much means that barring a trade for a leadoff hitter, Pods is re-signed for that role.

Then, factoring in arb. cases the Sox will pretty much be at their salary limit.

So, the Sox would have to make some deal or deals where salary is freed up - most likely moving either Konerko or Jenks.

So, if neither of them are moved, I do not expect any significant free agent signing. And, I'm not saying that in a negative way. KW just picked up two very expensive and talented players with long term contracts in Peavy and Rios.

The amount of money that the So xare investing in salary seems reasonable and about right to me considering the fan base and revenue streams. They are not the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs or Dodgers etc.

But, I also believe that this is why there is no way that Dye is back nor will Dotel be back if they decide to keep Jenks. In my opinion, they will keep one or the other.

Craig Grebeck
11-12-2009, 07:07 AM
Hopefully not too full to bring in some defensive help from a guy like Pedro Feliz.

I'd have to think the writing is on the wall for Bobby Jenks, though I don't see anyone giving up equal value for him.

russ99
11-12-2009, 09:40 AM
Realistically, how can anyone expect that the Sox payroll will be higher in 2010 than it was in 2009?

The attendance was dissapointing and the team missed the playoffs. There are no indications that attendance is going to spike in 2010.

Based on everything that I've read and heard the 2010 payroll will be right around $ 100 mil. and very unlikely to be above that by any significance.

This pretty much means that barring a trade for a leadoff hitter, Pods is re-signed for that role.

Then, factoring in arb. cases the Sox will pretty much be at their salary limit.

So, the Sox would have to make some deal or deals where salary is freed up - most likely moving either Konerko or Jenks.

So, if neither of them are moved, I do not expect any significant free agent signing. And, I'm not saying that in a negative way. KW just picked up two very expensive and talented players with long term contracts in Peavy and Rios.

The amount of money that the Sox are investing in salary seems reasonable and about right to me considering the fan base and revenue streams. They are not the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs or Dodgers etc.



Only one reason. You don't get an ace like Peavy and have a 2-year window with a potentially dominant starting staff and then cheap out on the rest of the team. It's proven that if the Sox have a contending team, attendance will spike.

Jerry and Kenny know they have things in their favor to make a run the next two years, so I can't see the payroll under what it was last year, which was a shade over $100M. At that figure Kenny has some room to work with. As he was quoted today, he has a budget but he'll always work on changing it.

Oh, and also see my sig below. :D:

Ranger
11-12-2009, 11:44 AM
Only one reason. You don't get an ace like Peavy and have a 2-year window with a potentially dominant starting staff and then cheap out on the rest of the team. It's proven that if the Sox have a contending team, attendance will spike.

Jerry and Kenny know they have things in their favor to make a run the next two years, so I can't see the payroll under what it was last year, which was a shade over $100M. At that figure Kenny has some room to work with. As he was quoted today, he has a budget but he'll always work on changing it.

Oh, and also see my sig below. :D:


Attendance will spike, but I wouldn't count on it happening until mid or late-season. I'm pretty sure they would expect the same.

Balfanman
11-12-2009, 11:57 AM
Attendance will spike, but I wouldn't count on it happening until mid or late-season. I'm pretty sure they would expect the same.

If Kenny went out and got a big name, Adrian Gonzales for example, I would think that the attendance spike might happen sooner than mid season.

parlaycard
11-12-2009, 12:03 PM
If Kenny went out and got a big name, Adrian Gonzales for example, I would think that the attendance spike might happen sooner than mid season.

Kenny already got a big name, and his name is Peavy. This isnt fantasy baseball.

Kenny did tell Peavy that they were not going to rebuild, they were going to reload. Which helped Peavy agree to the trade.

So dont be so sure the Sox arent going to spend some money wisely.

Balfanman
11-12-2009, 12:14 PM
Kenny already got a big name, and his name is Peavy. This isnt fantasy baseball.

Kenny did tell Peavy that they were not going to rebuild, they were going to reload. Which helped Peavy agree to the trade.

So dont be so sure the Sox arent going to spend some money wisely.

I agree with this for the most part, but Kenny is a gambler. I think that he sees the starting staff that he has assembled and realizes that he is one big bat away from a couple of seasons of long playoff runs. I don't believe that he is the type to just get by when he smells blood.

Didn't he recently say something to the effect of trying to get Jerry to pony up a little more. I would bet that he has a big bat in the works from somewhere and personally I hope that it is Gonzales. JMHO

Ranger
11-12-2009, 12:14 PM
If Kenny went out and got a big name, Adrian Gonzales for example, I would think that the attendance spike might happen sooner than mid season.


I don't know, man. It could, I guess, but I certainly wouldn't count on it. I said this before somewhere (not sure where, so my apologies if you've heard it) but that '05 team didn't sell out games until August. And they were 10 games in front by July. Even still, they had games in September where they didn't even draw 30,000 and some games where they drew 18,500 or less. We're talking the peak of the pennant race, a team still in first, and they're at 65-75% capacity in a series against the Angels.

I understand why that happens, but I can't blame the Sox for being cautious. It's unfortunate, but anything they do above and beyond becomes a huge risk.

Ranger
11-12-2009, 12:16 PM
I agree with this for the most part, but Kenny is a gambler. I think that he sees the starting staff that he has assembled and realizes that he is one big bat away from a couple of seasons of long playoff runs. I don't believe that he is the type to just get by when he smells blood.

Didn't he recently say something to the effect of trying to get Jerry to pony up a little more. I would bet that he has a big bat in the works from somewhere and personally I hope that it is Gonzales. JMHO

Gonzalez would not surprise me, by the way. I know they like him and they've made efforts to get him before.

Balfanman
11-12-2009, 12:20 PM
I don't know, man. It could, I guess, but I certainly wouldn't count on it. I said this before somewhere (not sure where, so my apologies if you've heard it) but that '05 team didn't sell out games until August. And they were 10 games in front by July. Even still, they had games in September where they didn't even draw 30,000 and some games where they drew 18,500 or less. We're talking the peak of the pennant race, a team still in first, and they're at 65-75% capacity in a series against the Angels.

I understand why that happens, but I can't blame the Sox for being cautious. It's unfortunate, but anything they do above and beyond becomes a huge risk.

But I don't believe that there were very many expectations going into 2005. Didn't most "experts" predict a 3rd or 4th place finish for us? I know that I was optomistic about the team that spring, but I also felt that we could take a while to "gel" from the big offensive changeover from 2004.

I think that fans see our starting staff and see that we have a chance from the get go. Add a big bat to that and I think that fans get excited about our chances. JMHO

Ranger
11-12-2009, 01:30 PM
But I don't believe that there were very many expectations going into 2005. Didn't most "experts" predict a 3rd or 4th place finish for us? I know that I was optomistic about the team that spring, but I also felt that we could take a while to "gel" from the big offensive changeover from 2004.

I think that fans see our starting staff and see that we have a chance from the get go. Add a big bat to that and I think that fans get excited about our chances. JMHO

You're right, there weren't a whole lot of expectations going into that year. But you would think 3 straight months of first place baseball would be enough to get people in the seats.

fox23
11-12-2009, 02:43 PM
If Kenny went out and got a big name, Adrian Gonzales for example, I would think that the attendance spike might happen sooner than mid season.

That may help the team, yes, but no way would that create any sort of attendance spike. The Sox just don't draw well in April and May no matter how good they are or who they have.

Balfanman
11-12-2009, 03:02 PM
That may help the team, yes, but no way would that create any sort of attendance spike. The Sox just don't draw well in April and May no matter how good they are or who they have.

True, but when was the last time that we went into the season with a starting staff this good? I could be wrong, but I think that if we add a big bat to this club, then the media (espn, etc), which the casual fan listens to, would start to mention us as serious contenders, fans would get excited, and buy tickets.
I think that the only problem we might have then, is if the Sox get off to a poor start. Then they would have to regain the fans confidence again.

Daver
11-12-2009, 09:08 PM
The Yankees are operating on a different level, and it ain't because of their farm system.

No, it's because they built a business model and chose to stick with it, but don't try to blame the fact that the White Sox choose to dabble in profit margins over formulating an overall plan to strengthen the team from the bottom up on the Yankees.

gosox41
11-12-2009, 09:29 PM
He can also afford to hold onto every single player they raise. Yeah, they draft and develop well, but he doesn't have to worry about them ever leaving for more cash.

Then he can afford to sign two of the games best pitchers and one of the best all-around players in the game in a single offseason, committing $400 million dollars to those three players. This while already on the line for two different 10 year contracts to two different players with $460 million committed to them.

Now how many teams do you know that could afford to have even one of those contracts, let alone 5 at at the same time? And then still be able to add another multi-year, multi-million dollar contract or two?

Not to mention they don't ever have to worry about who they draft because of "signability" issues.

The Yankees are operating on a different level, and it ain't because of their farm system.

You nailed it. The reality is that small market teams aren't drafting players because of signability issues. It seems to happen every year where one or two real talented players slide down in the draft because of asking price issues.

The draft needs to be revamped big time to help the small market teams survive.

Also, it must be nice when you have the flexibility to just sign free agents and aren't forced to trade prospects for lesser players.

So nice to see this post.


Bob

gosox41
11-12-2009, 09:30 PM
If Kenny went out and got a big name, Adrian Gonzales for example, I would think that the attendance spike might happen sooner than mid season.


If the Sox have a fast start to the season, atendance will spike quickly. A fast start, and attendance will jump more then normal after school is out, around Memorial Day.


Bob

gosox41
11-12-2009, 09:33 PM
No, it's because they built a business model and chose to stick with it, but don't try to blame the fact that the White Sox choose to dabble in profit margins over formulating an overall plan to strengthen the team from the bottom up on the Yankees.

How do you know the Yankees don't dabble in profit margins? They just have a much larger revenue base to "dabble" in.


Bob

Daver
11-12-2009, 09:40 PM
How do you know the Yankees don't dabble in profit margins? They just have a much larger revenue base to "dabble" in.


Bob

They have that because George Steinbrennar made the commitment to field a winner at whatever price early on, he is now reaping the return on that investment. That's the part no one wants to accept, because it defeats the purpose of their misguided debate.

gosox41
11-12-2009, 09:50 PM
They have that because George Steinbrennar made the commitment to field a winner at whatever price early on, he is now reaping the return on that investment. That's the part no one wants to accept, because it defeats the purpose of their misguided debate.


So you're saying early on he took financial losses? It may be true, but can it be proved?


Bob

Daver
11-12-2009, 09:53 PM
So you're saying early on he took financial losses? It may be true, but can it be proved?


Bob

There is no financial statement that can be proven or disproven about MLB finances.

parlaycard
11-13-2009, 12:18 AM
I know they like him and they've made efforts to get him before.

Really going out on a limb there. Doesnt every team like him.

I know the Sox like Pujols too. I dont see the Sox getting him though.

Domeshot17
11-13-2009, 12:37 AM
I think for the Sox to draw better they have to start knowing their fans better. I think last year they priced a ton of their fans out. The dodgers series said it all. Should have never been a premium series. The Sox need to grasp onto the idea of stop trying to stick the fans. They scrambled late in the season to readjust but honestly, the team was so bad at that point. The whole thing is to keep the people coming. You have a chance to, you have a chance for young kids to beg mom and dad to take them to see Jake Peavy. He is really our only BIG draw. Sox fans love Buehrle, but Peavy is the only SUPERSTAR on this team. Few kids dream about being Paul Konerko in the back yard. But Peavy gives us something we have not had since big Frank and that is a player fans will go goto the ballpark to watch. Im not talking hardcore Sox fans but younger and more casual fans. Peavy is our first big marketable player. You can argue Thome, maybe, but we got him at the wrong point in his career. On the downside, he was kind of forgotten about. Too much of a quiet guy to really ever be a star. Nobody jumped ship to the southside because of Thome.

The Sox have a chance to undo what they failed to do in 2006-2007. Had the white sox capitalized at all on the World Series this team could be in tremendous shape. Look at the phillies. Even with this loss, they are really building a following. With this pitching staff, we can be very dangerous. That said, we need to score runs. If we go into the season with a Jordan Danks leading off in the OF or Flowers at DH, we could be in a world of trouble, because missing the playoffs is pissing away a championship staff.

doublem23
11-13-2009, 01:27 AM
No, it's because they built a business model and chose to stick with it, but don't try to blame the fact that the White Sox choose to dabble in profit margins over formulating an overall plan to strengthen the team from the bottom up on the Yankees.

A) The Yankees have inherent advantages over every MLB team that predate Jerry Reinsdorf's birth, let alone his purchase of the White Sox. And you can't be serious that the Yankees aren't watching the bottom line, right? You really think for one second George and the boys wouldn't slash payroll to keep the ledger in the black?

B) On that note, I don't believe MLB teams are even currently allowed to be constantly run in the red. Like, if some crazy billionaire bought the Sox, I don't think he could just funnel millions of dollars into the team to keep it financially afloat to off-set the massive losses they would be taking at the gate.

I don't begrudge the Yankees for using their vast financial resources, and you're correct, at least they reinvest their money to buy the best team they can, but they simply have the resources that no other team can match. To say the Sox are running a nickel and dime operation compared to the Yankees is, quite frankly, stupid.

cards press box
11-13-2009, 01:45 AM
They have that because George Steinbrennar made the commitment to field a winner at whatever price early on, he is now reaping the return on that investment. That's the part no one wants to accept, because it defeats the purpose of their misguided debate.

I have to disagree. The Yankees' success doesn't turn on the Steinbrenners' "commitment" as much as it turns on the accident of geography and the vast local media revenue available from New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, As I said in another thread (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=116492&page=3), if the Steinbrenners owned K.C. and spent $200 million on payroll with the Royals' available local media revenue, that would say a lot more about their commitment to winning than spending a percentage of the gargantuan media revenue currently available to them.

Nellie_Fox
11-13-2009, 01:50 AM
As I said in another thread (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=116492&page=3), if the Steinbrenners owned K.C. and spent $200 million on payroll with the Royals' available local media revenue, that would say a lot more about their commitment to winning than spending a percentage of the gargantuan media revenue currently available to them.

And as Doub correctly points out, MLB has rules that prohibit doing this.

TheOldRoman
11-13-2009, 09:54 AM
A) The Yankees have inherent advantages over every MLB team that predate Jerry Reinsdorf's birth, let alone his purchase of the White Sox. And you can't be serious that the Yankees aren't watching the bottom line, right? You really think for one second George and the boys wouldn't slash payroll to keep the ledger in the black?

B) On that note, I don't believe MLB teams are even currently allowed to be constantly run in the red. Like, if some crazy billionaire bought the Sox, I don't think he could just funnel millions of dollars into the team to keep it financially afloat to off-set the massive losses they would be taking at the gate.

I don't begrudge the Yankees for using their vast financial resources, and you're correct, at least they reinvest their money to buy the best team they can, but they simply have the resources that no other team can match. To say the Sox are running a nickel and dime operation compared to the Yankees is, quite frankly, stupid.*stands up and starts slow clap*

russ99
11-13-2009, 12:06 PM
B) On that note, I don't believe MLB teams are even currently allowed to be constantly run in the red. Like, if some crazy billionaire bought the Sox, I don't think he could just funnel millions of dollars into the team to keep it financially afloat to off-set the massive losses they would be taking at the gate.


That is very doubtful. Up until a few years ago with the new revenue streams from internet-based products and sales, along with better TV contracts and revenue sharing pretty much every team was in the red.

It was well known that when someone bought a MLB team they only made a profit when they sold it years later.

Any year Jerry (and the other Sox owners) make a profit is a heck of a year. To Jerry's credit, he seems willing to reinvest that profit both in the betterment of the park and overall fan experience and on the product on the playing field.

voodoochile
11-13-2009, 12:26 PM
That is very doubtful. Up until a few years ago with the new revenue streams from internet-based products and sales, along with better TV contracts and revenue sharing pretty much every team was in the red.

It was well known that when someone bought a MLB team they only made a profit when they sold it years later.

Any year Jerry (and the other Sox owners) make a profit is a heck of a year. To Jerry's credit, he seems willing to reinvest that profit both in the betterment of the park and overall fan experience and on the product on the playing field.

Are we counting the salaries the BOD (read: owners) take for their jobs on the board? JR gets paid $1M a year to be the president.

doublem23
11-13-2009, 01:30 PM
That is very doubtful. Up until a few years ago with the new revenue streams from internet-based products and sales, along with better TV contracts and revenue sharing pretty much every team was in the red.

It was well known that when someone bought a MLB team they only made a profit when they sold it years later.

Any year Jerry (and the other Sox owners) make a profit is a heck of a year. To Jerry's credit, he seems willing to reinvest that profit both in the betterment of the park and overall fan experience and on the product on the playing field.

You're telling me 30 established businessmen stayed with their teams, and many increased their expenses (player salaries) for years, despite the fact that they were all losing money year in and year out?

That's a whopper.

The Immigrant
11-13-2009, 01:38 PM
Any year Jerry (and the other Sox owners) make a profit is a heck of a year.

Let's not kid ourselves - they make a profit every year. This information comes from a friend who is a member of the ownership group.

DumpJerry
11-13-2009, 02:35 PM
You're telling me 30 established businessmen stayed with their teams, and many increased their expenses (player salaries) for years, despite the fact that they were all losing money year in and year out?

That's a whopper.
During the entire time Jerry and his friends have owned the White Sox, they received a dividend payment only once. 2005.

They have to buy their own tickets if they want to see the team play, by the way. They did not buy into the White Sox to get rich (they already were), they did it because how many people can say they own a baseball team versus how many say they would love to own one?

RealFan
11-13-2009, 03:10 PM
Let's not kid ourselves - they make a profit every year. This information comes from a friend who is a member of the ownership group.


And I have a friend who is a member of the ownership group as well since 2006 who tells me that he has not seen any distributions at all. That is to say, all net cash flow is reinvested. This same friend told me that this understanding is a prequisite before new owners are admitted and that most of these new owners are buying a piece of the Sox because of their love for the team, not as an investment. Now of course if/when Jerry sells the team, these owners will have the opportunity to cash out at a profit depending on when they bought in and at what price.

RealFan
11-13-2009, 03:15 PM
During the entire time Jerry and his friends have owned the White Sox, they received a dividend payment only once. 2005.

They have to buy their own tickets if they want to see the team play, by the way. They did not buy into the White Sox to get rich (they already were), they did it because how many people can say they own a baseball team versus how many say they would love to own one?

I can substantiate this as well as I know folks who sold their position but kept their season tickets as those were paid for separately. I also know one owner who owned 16+ season tickets and sold a friend of mine four of his tickets. There are no freebies in Jerry's group.

DumpJerry
11-13-2009, 03:18 PM
And I have a friend who is a member of the ownership group as well since 2006 who tells me that he has not seen any distributions at all. That is to say, all net cash flow is reinvested. This same friend told me that this understanding is a prequisite before new owners are admitted and that most of these new owners are buying a piece of the Sox because of their love for the team, not as an investment. Now of course if/when Jerry sells the team, these owners will have the opportunity to cash out at a profit depending on when they bought in and at what price.
Exactly. One of my officemates met one of the original investors, that is how I know about the sole distribution. One of the top VPs (not Brooks) is a member of a friend's temple, that is how I know about the no free tickets provision. Should Jerry every sell, that is when the investors will realize their ROI.

dickallen15
11-13-2009, 03:21 PM
Let's not kid ourselves - they make a profit every year. This information comes from a friend who is a member of the ownership group.

Of course they do. People like to quote Forbes, even Kenny Williams quoted Forbes when they mentioned the White Sox had one of the highest payroll to revenue ratios in MLB. Of course when Forbes says they are turning $20-30 million in profit every season, the numbers are incorrect. Doesn't everyone hear Hawk when he praises Selig and says everyone is making money under his watch.

DumpJerry
11-13-2009, 03:25 PM
Of course they do. People like to quote Forbes, even Kenny Williams quoted Forbes when they mentioned the White Sox had one of the highest payroll to revenue ratios in MLB. Of course when Forbes says they are turning $20-30 million in profit every season, the numbers are incorrect. Doesn't everyone hear Hawk when he praises Selig and says everyone is making money under his watch.
http://www.facebook.com/profile/pic.php?uid=AAAAAQAQ0CUXb9oWmy90Wpsf8FCN-QAAAAqXHC_IBVSVfCGTeQ2UCCx6
Hyman Roth always made money for his partners.

dickallen15
11-13-2009, 03:45 PM
I really don't know why JR would have put up with all the shots he has taken the 20 years or so prior to winning if all he was doing was breaking even. What's funny about all these investors supposedly having to pay for their tickets is the freebies they are able to pass out. If my scanner worked I would scan you a ticket from 2006 when I was able to sit in 138 row 3, the front row there and my ticket next to price says 0.00.

I can also tell you about the time I was in will call at the old Yankee Stadium when a guy in front of me, claiming to be an investor was arguing for 15 minutes about how he is entitled to comps for himself and his family.

As far as getting dividends and not getting dividends, can there be different levels of "membership"?

Ranger
11-13-2009, 03:48 PM
They have that because George Steinbrennar made the commitment to field a winner at whatever price early on, he is now reaping the return on that investment. That's the part no one wants to accept, because it defeats the purpose of their misguided debate.

I was in the midst of repsonding to this last night (twice), but this new laptop does this goofy thing where if I hit the touchpad a certain way, it's like hitting the "back" button and it goes to the previous webpage, thus erasing everything I've written. So, I just gave up. But doublem and cards press box, pretty much took care of it:


A) The Yankees have inherent advantages over every MLB team that predate Jerry Reinsdorf's birth, let alone his purchase of the White Sox. And you can't be serious that the Yankees aren't watching the bottom line, right? You really think for one second George and the boys wouldn't slash payroll to keep the ledger in the black?

B) On that note, I don't believe MLB teams are even currently allowed to be constantly run in the red. Like, if some crazy billionaire bought the Sox, I don't think he could just funnel millions of dollars into the team to keep it financially afloat to off-set the massive losses they would be taking at the gate.

I don't begrudge the Yankees for using their vast financial resources, and you're correct, at least they reinvest their money to buy the best team they can, but they simply have the resources that no other team can match. To say the Sox are running a nickel and dime operation compared to the Yankees is, quite frankly, stupid.

I have to disagree. The Yankees' success doesn't turn on the Steinbrenners' "commitment" as much as it turns on the accident of geography and the vast local media revenue available from New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, As I said in another thread (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=116492&page=3), if the Steinbrenners owned K.C. and spent $200 million on payroll with the Royals' available local media revenue, that would say a lot more about their commitment to winning than spending a percentage of the gargantuan media revenue currently available to them.



The Yankees have one of the most popular brands in the world, and it was like this before George took over. They have a history that cannot be matched and they operate in the largest media market in the country (twice the size of Chicago) and the 4th largest city on the planet. The advantages are built in. The Sox, regardless of business model, would NEVER be able to match that.


Really going out on a limb there. Doesnt every team like him.

I know the Sox like Pujols too. I dont see the Sox getting him though.

Sounds like your intention here is to be a smartass, but I'm telling you that their "like" for him has manifested in real attempts to acquire him within the last few years. And I don't mean in casual conversation with Kevin Towers a "hey, what about that Gonzalez kid?" thrown in. I'm talking actual efforts at laying foundation for a deal.

DumpJerry
11-13-2009, 03:48 PM
I can also tell you about the time I was in will call at the old Yankee Stadium when a guy in front of me, claiming to be an investor was arguing for 15 minutes about how he is entitled to comps for himself and his family.
Sounds like there are no "freebies" since he was arguing.

dickallen15
11-13-2009, 03:55 PM
Sounds like there are no "freebies" since he was arguing.

It was a road game. If they have to pay for tickets when they are at home, why would or should they get freebies when they are on the road? He must of mentioned he was a White Sox shareholder 25 times, and he was getting really angry. Normally when you're behind something like that, it gets kind of old pretty quickly, but this was comical.

DumpJerry
11-13-2009, 04:36 PM
It was a road game. If they have to pay for tickets when they are at home, why would or should they get freebies when they are on the road? He must of mentioned he was a White Sox shareholder 25 times, and he was getting really angry. Normally when you're behind something like that, it gets kind of old pretty quickly, but this was comical.
You don't know what was the basis for his belief that there were comp tickets waiting for him. Maybe he is friends with a Yank investor who forgot to leave tickets. When people get pissed, they start dropping names and status like leaves in Autumn.

dickallen15
11-13-2009, 04:42 PM
You don't know what was the basis for his belief that there were comp tickets waiting for him. Maybe he is friends with a Yank investor who forgot to leave tickets. When people get pissed, they start dropping names and status like leaves in Autumn.
He stated his name and said he was a White Sox shareholder/partner/owner at least 25 times. He said his status assured him comps. It was like a bad SNL skit but real he was so angry.

DumpJerry
11-13-2009, 04:50 PM
He stated his name and said he was a White Sox shareholder/partner/owner at least 25 times. He said his status assured him comps. It was like a bad SNL skit but real he was so angry.
Having worked on the receiving side of the counter in a setting like that, I can assure you he was the butt of jokes for many months afterwards.

"I'm an owner of the White Sox. The White Sox! Do you know who they are?? Yeah, the White Sox. Did I mention that I am an owner of the White Sox? Who are you? Costanza?"

dickallen15
11-13-2009, 04:52 PM
Having worked on the receiving side of the counter in a setting like that, I can assure you he was the butt of jokes for many months afterwards.

"I'm an owner of the White Sox. The White Sox! Do you know who they are?? Yeah, the White Sox. Did I mention that I am an owner of the White Sox? Who are you? Costanza?"
He had a lot of people laughing. It was really funny. They finally had him stand by as they were going to get someone, so I got my tickets and left. I don't know if they were getting him someone who would give him tickets or someone with a straight jacket.

DumpJerry
11-13-2009, 05:11 PM
He had a lot of people laughing. It was really funny. They finally had him stand by as they were going to get someone, so I got my tickets and left. I don't know if they were getting him someone who would give him tickets or someone with a straight jacket.
They got someone alright. Took him until the bottom of the Fourth to get there to see what the problem was, but at least Mr. White Sox got his audience......

gosox41
11-13-2009, 10:55 PM
There is no financial statement that can be proven or disproven about MLB finances.

Exactly. So you don't know for certain that when Steibrenner made the commitment to win no matter what the cost, if he actually lost money during those years. He very well could have been operating with a set profit margin in mind when he made said commitment.

Lip Man 1
11-14-2009, 02:52 AM
Bob:

Well what we know with absolute certainty is that Steinbrenner took over a franchise that had gone to hell in a handbasket and in three years times won the A.L. pennant (1976).

As bad off as the Yankees were that was impressive and almost from the get go he tried to put the best produce that he could on the field, when free agency became a reality he jumped in with both feet even though the Yankees hadn't been to the postseason or won squat in 10+ seasons.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
11-14-2009, 07:47 AM
Sorry to bust your chops, Lip, but I had no idea that the Yankees also ran a farmer's market at Yankee Stadium!

he tried to put the best produce that he could on the field

Actually, if the Yankees had a dry spell, wouldn't the fans be throwing produce on the the field?

:tongue:

Lip Man 1
11-14-2009, 12:17 PM
Frater:

Good one! Sorry it was late and I just got back from eating with the team after the game here in the Bay Area.

Lip

JNS
11-14-2009, 02:47 PM
Sorry to bust your chops, Lip, but I had no idea that the Yankees also ran a farmer's market at Yankee Stadium!



Actually, if the Yankees had a dry spell, wouldn't the fans be throwing produce on the the field?

:tongue:

More like 9 volt batteries. Tomatoes at the Met, harder objects at the Stadium.

soxinem1
11-18-2009, 07:30 PM
This comment touches on one of my biggest pet peeves regarding some fans. Why does everything have to always be an extreme? You know, there are moves that occur "in between".

Just because a guy isn't the top free agent available, doesn't mean the signing is a garbage player that you're just praying will give you numbers extraordinarily above their norm. Many of the moves that help a team the most are those signings and acquisitions that live somehwere in the middle. Not blockbusters, but also not completely useless either.

He may not have signed the absolute top guys available, but he acquired one of the best pitchers in the game with a huge salary and also picked up another massive salary in Rios. But most of the time, anyway, it's not even realistic to sign guys like Teixeira, CC, etc. There are only like 3 teams that can really afford guys like that every offseason.

This was not a critique of Williams style at all. It was just a statement of fact.

He has never been a player in the upper-echelon of FA. Sure, he dabbled in a few in regards to Torii Hunter and A-Rod, but he never bagged them.

True, he signed Buehrle, Dye, and Konerko, his own players as Lip pointed out, to large deals, but let's look at the circumstances.

An extension was not happening with MB until he proved his 2006 second half was a fluke. If his post-ASB 2006 would have continued he would have been gone.

For JD it would be the same. His pre-ASB 2007 was dismal, but once he picked it up only then did he sign him. Plus, the options for replacing Dye were thin.

Konerko's contract was a result of several things. First, as KW pointed out, 1B was very poor on the organization's depth chart. He was even miffed that he had to pay PK what they did, as he made it clear he felt he was backed into a corner with Paulie because fallback options were not plentiful.

Also, losing one of the most popular players on the team after a World Championship would have crippled the team and pissed off the fans big time. Thome might not have come here if PK did not resign.

He has always targeted mid-level players and veterans who were what he deemed to be bounce-back candidates. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Balfanman
11-19-2009, 08:40 AM
Also, losing one of the most popular players on the team after a World Championship would have crippled the team and pissed off the fans big time. Thome might not have come here if PK did not resign.

I thought that it was the other way around. Didn't Konerko resign here because they brought in Thome? Maybe I'm "misremembering".

soxinem1
11-19-2009, 09:35 PM
I thought that it was the other way around. Didn't Konerko resign here because they brought in Thome? Maybe I'm "misremembering".

You are correct, but Thome had a NTC with PHI, IIRC, just like he had before he okayed the trade to LAD.