PDA

View Full Version : Report: Sox will use diminished skills clause on Thomas


Jerry_Manuel
08-22-2002, 07:29 AM
From the Daily Herald:

Sources in the Sox' front office have confirmed that Thomas' "diminished skills'' clause will be triggered at the end of the season. That means Thomas will have 45 days to shop himself as a free agent.

No matter what kind of offers he receives, anything figures to be more appealing than returning to the White Sox.

Thomas has been without representation since his agent, Robert Fraley, was killed in a plane crash on Oct. 25, 1999. And even though the 34-year-old designated hitter is preparing to change teams, Thomas said he's not planning on hiring another agent.

Moses_Scurry
08-22-2002, 07:31 AM
It will be interesting to see what they do with the extra money.

Jerry_Manuel
08-22-2002, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Moses_Scurry
It will be interesting to see what they do with the extra money.

Pay Buehrle and Konerko.

Rest goes into the chairman's pocket.

RedPinStripes
08-22-2002, 07:44 AM
Not sure if i believe they'll do that yet.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-22-2002, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Pay Buehrle and Konerko.

Rest goes into the chairman's pocket.

This is such a shell game. I swear the Chairman must have been a street corner three-card monte dealer growing up in Brooklyn.

Taking Thomas off the payroll does not make us a championship caliber team. The Sox are a joke.

Mediocrity now and forever!

:hurt
"Who ever heard of the Sox carrying a two-time MVP on its roster. Ha--what a laugh!"

Jerry_Manuel
08-22-2002, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
This is such a shell game. I swear the Chairman must have been a street corner three-card monte dealer growing up in Brooklyn.

Taking Thomas off the payroll does not make us a championship caliber team. The Sox are a joke.

Mediocrity now and forever!


Keeping him on the team doesn't do anything either. That's just my take though.

Next year will be very interesting if he isn't there.

Paulwny
08-22-2002, 08:12 AM
Is Harold the only one who didn't leave having a bad taste in his mouth after working for JR ?

PaleHoseGeorge
08-22-2002, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Keeping him on the team doesn't do anything either. That's just my take though.

Next year will be very interesting if he isn't there.

I know this is hard to believe the year after Thomas comes back from arm surgery, but the guy has REAL talent. Frank Thomas at 75 percent is a more valuable ballplayer than 600 or so others drawing MLB paychecks. You're smoking crack if you think anybody on the current Sox roster has a shot at becoming a three-time MVP.

Baseball talent is like the far right-side of a bell curve. The very best players are impossible to replace--that's why Arod gets a boxcar salary. Thomas's skills are on the way down. However the notion that Jeff Liefer, or anybody else JR and KW deem "affordable", could fill his shoes is a joke.

This is about saving payroll, removing one piece of the puzzle ostensibly to hold on to some other piece. It's a sham process that leads Sox Fans in a circle.

Reinsdorf has owned the team 22 seasons. Today he's further away from a championship than the day he bought the club--even though the franchise has appreciated in value TEN-FOLD. He will NEVER complete the championship puzzle.

Letting Frank Thomas go solves nothing. The club's problems start at the top.

RedPinStripes
08-22-2002, 08:32 AM
I'd say give him another year.

hold2dibber
08-22-2002, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I know this is hard to believe the year after Thomas comes back from arm surgery, but the guy has REAL talent. Frank Thomas at 75 percent is a more valuable ballplayer than 600 or so others drawing MLB paychecks. You're smoking crack if you think anybody on the current Sox roster has a shot at becoming a three-time MVP.

Baseball talent is like the far right-side of a bell curve. The very best players are impossible to replace--that's why Arod gets a boxcar salary. Thomas's skills are on the way down. However the notion that Jeff Liefer, or anybody else JR and KW deem "affordable", could fill his shoes is a joke.

This is about saving payroll, removing one piece of the puzzle ostensibly to hold on to some other piece. It's a sham process that leads Sox Fans in a circle.

Reinsdorf has owned the team 22 seasons. Today he's further away from a championship than the day he bought the club--even though the franchise has appreciated in value TEN-FOLD. He will NEVER complete the championship puzzle.

Letting Frank Thomas go solves nothing. The club's problems start at the top.

I agree with everything you say except, perhaps, your conclusion regarding what should be done about Thomas. The Sox do not have anyone in the organization who can step in and replace Thomas in the lineup. And I am one of many who still thinks Frank has some good years left in him. The question is, is spending 1/4 to 1/5 of your payroll dollars on Frank a wise use of the team's limited payroll dollars? The obvious answer, to me, is no. With that in mind, I'm hoping they can come to some resolution by re-negotiating with Frank. Maybe offer him a three year deal worth $5 mm/year. I seriously doubt he'll get a better offer than that on the free agent market. Also, is it that far fetched to think that he wouldn't keep playing under the current contract even if the diminished skills clause is exercised? Forty million dollars, even over 10 or 20 years, is a lot of $ to give up; I suppose it would depend upon the other offers he'd get.

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 09:26 AM
I think it's possible that the Sox are using the DSC to get Frank to renegotiate waaaaay down on his contract. Maybe give him one more year @ $3M or so to prove himself. If he can't hit next year, buh-bye.

Just invoking the DSC and kicking his tail out the door seems a wee bit, oh, harsh, shall I say?

PaleHoseGeorge
08-22-2002, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I agree with everything you say except, perhaps, your conclusion regarding what should be done about Thomas.... Forty million dollars, even over 10 or 20 years, is a lot of $ to give up; I suppose it would depend upon the other offers he'd get.

Yes, I agree Frank is overpaid at $10 million. A fair salary would be a fraction of that price given his production this season. Unforunately, that's not the point of my post.

I can go on and on about ballplayers who are overpaid and others who are underpaid. I'm sure all of us could. Mark Buehrle is an absolute STEAL for Reinsdorf. Union work rules prevent Buehrle from getting paid even one-tenth what he is worth. In fact, the Sox even pulled his chain with a reduced offer last spring--just to teach him a lesson about their negotiating leverage.

That's the breaks. Reinsdorf overpays for some players, and underpays for others. He's in the same boat with all his fellow owners. Guys like Buehrle are stuck, too. You want a "fair" pay scale, look somewhere besides MLB to find one.

At $10 million per season, Frank Thomas was an absolute steal for the Sox as recently as 1998. Thomas opted for less salary in return for more security. Yes, he complained about the deal after nearly winning the MVP title a third time in 2000--but that was ONLY BECAUSE he discovered Reinsdorf gave himself an out clause that paid Frank like a rookie if he didn't stay a top ballplayer at his position the duration of the contract. It goes without saying, Frank is no kind of businessman.

So back to your original point: does dumping Frank help the Sox? Absolutely not. If someone besides Reinsdorf was the owner, we could expect the savings to be channeled back towards winning a championship--like Nintendo did when it lost Griffey and Arod. The history about Reinsdorf says precisely the opposite.

He'll go halfway--if even that far. Just since the division championship 2000 season, the centerfielder, catcher, and starting pitching problems haven't been addressed at all--unless anyone thinks signing Kenny Lofton for $1 million plus bonus clauses based on improved attendance (!) was a serious attempt at fielding a champion. *****!

As Sox Fans, it's time we start thinking about how to make this team a champion, and worry a bit less about whether the Chairman is making enough profit. We should all be as lucky as him to sit on an asset that appreciates TEN-FOLD like the Sox franchise has. After twenty-two seasons, he's further from a championship than the day he bought the team. Who does he think he's kidding?

I want a champion. Dumping Frank moves us not one iota closer to achieving it.

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


I agree with everything you say except, perhaps, your conclusion regarding what should be done about Thomas. The Sox do not have anyone in the organization who can step in and replace Thomas in the lineup. And I am one of many who still thinks Frank has some good years left in him. The question is, is spending 1/4 to 1/5 of your payroll dollars on Frank a wise use of the team's limited payroll dollars? The obvious answer, to me, is no. With that in mind, I'm hoping they can come to some resolution by re-negotiating with Frank. Maybe offer him a three year deal worth $5 mm/year. I seriously doubt he'll get a better offer than that on the free agent market. Also, is it that far fetched to think that he wouldn't keep playing under the current contract even if the diminished skills clause is exercised? Forty million dollars, even over 10 or 20 years, is a lot of $ to give up; I suppose it would depend upon the other offers he'd get.


Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
I think it's possible that the Sox are using the DSC to get Frank to renegotiate waaaaay down on his contract. Maybe give him one more year @ $3M or so to prove himself. If he can't hit next year, buh-bye.

Just invoking the DSC and kicking his tail out the door seems a wee bit, oh, harsh, shall I say?

Why would Frank take less upfront money from the Sox (especially when he can try the FA route at no risk)?

In reality Frank only cost the team $6 million a year in payroll on the years he has left on the contract. The rest of the money is already defered. How can the Sox justify treating him like this one year after major surgery? He at least deserves a chance next year to prove that this year was a fluke.

JR is the anti-Christ...

:selljerry

RedPinStripes
08-22-2002, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile






JR is the anti-Christ...

:selljerry

Well he sure is not a Christian. :D:

delben91
08-22-2002, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

You're smoking crack if you think anybody on the current Sox roster has a shot at becoming a three-time MVP.


This is the only point in your post I have a quibble with. I really think that Maggs has the talent to be a 3 time, or more, MVP. The drawback of course would be that the media votes on said award, and Magglio doesn't get nearly the coverage of most of the stars in baseball.

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Why would Frank take less upfront money from the Sox (especially when he can try the FA route at no risk)?


There is a risk to the FA route -- if there are no buyers, then Frank may be better off taking a relative lowball offer from the Sox. Frank's lack of production this year may not be the issue for many teams so much as his perceived headcase-dom; I just can't see many teams willing to bring that into their dugout.

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 09:48 AM
The question is, is spending 1/4 to 1/5 of your payroll dollars on Frank a wise use of the team's limited payroll dollars? The obvious answer, to me, is no.

I assume you are refering to the $10 million/year figure and not the $6.5 million/year figure that Frank actually costs the team.

The questions you should be asking are:

Will JR's budget of 40-50 million win the Sox a championship?
Will JR's refusal to sign veteran pitchers win the Sox a championship?
Will other veteran players look at JR's treatment of Frank with admiration and want to play for the team?
Will the Sox find a player with Frank's potential for less than $6 million?

The answer to all these questions is, "No."

If JR chases Frank out of town, I am done spending money on the team until JR sells, period.

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


There is a risk to the FA route -- if there are no buyers, then Frank may be better off taking a relative lowball offer from the Sox. Frank's lack of production this year may not be the issue for many teams so much as his perceived headcase-dom; I just can't see many teams willing to bring that into their dugout.

No, there is no risk. He can come back to the team in 45 days and finish the current contract under the DSC. He can declare for FA, check the market and then return to the team. There is no risk to him financially.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-22-2002, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by delben91


This is the only point in your post I have a quibble with. I really think that Maggs has the talent to be a 3 time, or more, MVP. The drawback of course would be that the media votes on said award, and Magglio doesn't get nearly the coverage of most of the stars in baseball.

In the 50 years or so since they created the MVP award, no Sox ballplayer has even won it twice, except Frank Thomas who came within the laughable grasp of Jason Giambi's firstbasemen's mitt of winning it a third time.

Luke Appling. Nellie Fox. Luis Aparicio. Dick Allen. Richie Zisk. Carlton Fisk. Harold Baines. A fleet of pitchers I care not to recap here.

Not one of them even came close to achieving what Frank already has. If you honestly think Magglio Ordonez has the talent to be a 3-time MVP (or more!), you're suffering from a simple case of having no sense of perspective.

Only one ballplayer gets to be MVP. Winning it even once makes them a serious threat for HOF induction--just on that one accomplishment alone. Getting picked to the all-star team isn't even in the same ballpark.

Jerry_Manuel
08-22-2002, 09:57 AM
I know this is hard to believe the year after Thomas comes back from arm surgery, but the guy has REAL talent. Frank Thomas at 75 percent is a more valuable ballplayer than 600 or so others drawing MLB paychecks. You're smoking crack if you think anybody on the current Sox roster has a shot at becoming a three-time MVP.

I never said anyone had a shot at becoming an MVP. I think his better days are behind arm injury be damned. If he goes to work with Hriniak he can have good again once again. If he doesn't, this is the Thomas we're going to get.

Baseball talent is like the far right-side of a bell curve. The very best players are impossible to replace--that's why Arod gets a boxcar salary. Thomas's skills are on the way down. However the notion that Jeff Liefer, or anybody else JR and KW deem "affordable", could fill his shoes is a joke.

If they send Liefer packing along with Frank, that's fine with me. Nobody can fill the .330, 35, 140 shoes that's right. They can find someone to hit like he's hitting now.

This is about saving payroll, removing one piece of the puzzle ostensibly to hold on to some other piece. It's a sham process that leads Sox Fans in a circle.

No doubt in my mind it's a payroll move. I think getting him away from the team will help the team. I'm young and stupid, I guess.

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


In the 50 years or so since they created the MVP award, no Sox ballplayer has even won it twice, except Frank Thomas who came within the laughable grasp of Jason Giambi's firstbasemen's mitt of winning it a third time.

Luke Appling. Nellie Fox. Luis Aparicio. Dick Allen. Richie Zisk. Carlton Fisk. Harold Baines. A fleet of pitchers I care not to recap here.

Not one of them even came close to achieving what Frank already has. If you honestly think Magglio Ordonez has the talent to be a 3-time MVP (or more!), you're suffering from a simple case of having no sense of perspective.

Only one ballplayer gets to be MVP. Winning it even once makes them a serious threat for HOF induction--just on that one accomplishment alone. Getting picked to the all-star team isn't even in the same ballpark.

Frank Thomas actually ended the old trivia question which goes like this:

Name the 8 players who have won 2 MVP's in their career. Here's a hint. It exactly fills the 8 available positions on the field.

I don't remember the answer, but Frank made it two first-baggers when he did it. Still, it is a rare and amazing feat to win 2 MVP's I think the number of people who have done it is still in the area of 12 total since the awards inception.

CubKilla
08-22-2002, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by delben91


This is the only point in your post I have a quibble with. I really think that Maggs has the talent to be a 3 time, or more, MVP. The drawback of course would be that the media votes on said award, and Magglio doesn't get nearly the coverage of most of the stars in baseball.

Agreed :D:

ode to veeck
08-22-2002, 10:26 AM
Name the 8 players who have won 2 MVP's in their career. Here's a hint. It exactly fills the 8 available positions on the field.


Just off the top of my head, I'd make a stab through my old brain cells and say Foster, Parker, maybe Joe Morgan for three of the 8

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by ode to veeck



Just off the top of my head, I'd make a stab through my old brain cells and say Foster, Parker, maybe Joe Morgan for three of the 8

To be honest, I don't remember the answer. Someone asked me in 1996 or somethingn and I had to point out that Frank had won two also.

delben91
08-22-2002, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


To be honest, I don't remember the answer. Someone asked me in 1996 or somethingn and I had to point out that Frank had won two also.

I believe you can add Barry Bonds to that list.

WinningUgly!
08-22-2002, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel



No doubt in my mind it's a payroll move. I think getting him away from the team will help the team. I'm young and stupid, I guess.

I kinda feel the same way--even though I'd love to see Frank bounce back to his MVP form & finish his career off in a Sox uniform. There is something to the "addition by subtraction" theory, or the "Patrick Ewing" theory, or whatever you want to call it.

ode to veeck
08-22-2002, 10:43 AM
checking baseball-reference.com I found the following from the AL:

T Williams, Walter Johnson, Ripken Jr, Yogi (3), Jimmie Foxx, Maris, Mantle (3), Gehrig, so I guess that makes your trivia question more specifically "who are the two time AL MVP winners?"

From the NL, I found E Banks, Campanella, J Morgan, Hornsby, Bench, Hubbell, D Murphy, Mays, Schmidt (3), Musial (3), and Bonds (4)

and then with the only person to win in both leagues, we have Frank Robinson (cin/bal)

delben91
08-22-2002, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

Not one of them even came close to achieving what Frank already has. If you honestly think Magglio Ordonez has the talent to be a 3-time MVP (or more!), you're suffering from a simple case of having no sense of perspective.

Only one ballplayer gets to be MVP. Winning it even once makes them a serious threat for HOF induction--just on that one accomplishment alone. Getting picked to the all-star team isn't even in the same ballpark.

Well, this year he didn't even make the All Star team... :o:

But ignoring that, saying Maggs could be a 3-time MVP was an overstatement. The point I was more shooting for was that Magglio is now filling the role that Frank filled throughout the nineties. Now, he isn't as dominant with today's team as Thomas was comparitively to the Sox of the previous decade. However, I would be willing to argue that Magglio can be on the "short list" of MVP considerations. The MVP in my mind goes to the player who has meant the most to his respective team that particular season, and Magglio has definitely been that for our Sox. Will he win it, I'd be shocked, but is he our MVP this year as Thomas was for many years since he came into the league, yes, I think so. You may disagree with that, but I just don't see anyone on the current roster who could compare.

KingXerxes
08-22-2002, 10:50 AM
PaleHose - I agree with almost everything you've posted about Reinsdorf except for one thing.

He has not seen his investment in The White Sox go up ten fold as you posted previously - and the implication that his investment in The White Sox has been just a killer for him doesn't really prove out.

For something to grow ten fold, that means it would double ten times. If that were the case the $20 million or so he bought the white sox for would now be worth $20,480,000,000 which is not what the White Sox are worth - they are worth closer to ten times what he paid or about $200,000,000 which is what I think you were trying to convey.

But let's assume that the White Sox are worth $200 million. In the 22 years he's owned them (assuming that his periodic cash distributions and cash contributions net out over the 22 years) he's realized a return of about 10 1/2% on his $22 million.

An invesment in a no brainer like General Motors on 1/1/80 and he'd have $125,000,000.

Citicorp on 1/1/80 would now be $530,000,000.

Intel would be over a billion.

If you were to ask Jerry Reinsdorf how this investment has panned out he would probably respond:

:reinsy

"Mediocre at best."


The problem here is that you have a group which views the White Sox as an investment, and they manage it as an investment (albeit usually poorly).

idseer
08-22-2002, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


In the 50 years or so since they created the MVP award, no Sox ballplayer has even won it twice, except Frank Thomas who came within the laughable grasp of Jason Giambi's firstbasemen's mitt of winning it a third time.

Luke Appling. Nellie Fox. Luis Aparicio. Dick Allen. Richie Zisk. Carlton Fisk. Harold Baines. A fleet of pitchers I care not to recap here.

Not one of them even came close to achieving what Frank already has.


just for laughs, TWO actually came 'close'.
FOX who won in '59 (incidently aparicio and wynn finished 2nd and third that year) finished in the top ten on 5 other occasions. in '57 he finished 4th but had only one less first place vote than the winner (mantle).
also APPLING finished 2nd twice!

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
checking baseball-reference.com I found the following from the AL:

T Williams, Walter Johnson, Ripken Jr, Yogi (3), Jimmie Foxx, Maris, Mantle (3), Gehrig, so I guess that makes your trivia question more specifically "who are the two time AL MVP winners?"

From the NL, I found E Banks, Campanella, J Morgan, Hornsby, Bench, Hubbell, D Murphy, Mays, Schmidt (3), Musial (3), and Bonds (4)

and then with the only person to win in both leagues, we have Frank Robinson (cin/bal)

I don't recall it that way, so maybe the other person was mistaken, or maybe it was B2B MVP's. In either case, did you just leave Frank off the list, or did the website screw up?

ode to veeck
08-22-2002, 10:56 AM
saying Magglio may be the MVP for the Sox this year may be an arguably accurate statement, but thinking he's on the short list for the league MVP is a stretch (to put it mildly--its not even close)

on the multiple MVP winners, I was double checking the lists and found more on the AL side, so the orginal trivia quesion is now officially washed up

In addition, we have Hal Newhouser (Det '44, '45), Micky Cochrane (Pha '28, Det '34), Hank Greenberg (Det '35, '40), and DiMaggio, who won it three times, meaning there's actually (ugh!) three Yank-mes who won it three times (making all AL 3 timers Yank-mes)

On the NL side, I also missed that Roy Campanella had won it 3 times as well

ode to veeck
08-22-2002, 10:57 AM
I did leave Frank off the list as I assumed all totally biased Sox fans knew he won twice, but yes, he is one of the club

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
PaleHose - I agree with almost everything you've posted about Reinsdorf except for one thing.

He has not seen his investment in The White Sox go up ten fold as you posted previously - and the implication that his investment in The White Sox has been just a killer for him doesn't really prove out.

For something to grow ten fold, that means it would double ten times. If that were the case the $20 million or so he bought the white sox for would now be worth $20,480,000,000 which is not what the White Sox are worth - they are worth closer to ten times what he paid or about $200,000,000 which is what I think you were trying to convey.

But let's assume that the White Sox are worth $200 million. In the 22 years he's owned them (assuming that his periodic cash distributions and cash contributions net out over the 22 years) he's realized a return of about 10 1/2% on his $22 million.

An invesment in a no brainer like General Motors on 1/1/80 and he'd have $125,000,000.

Citicorp on 1/1/80 would now be $530,000,000.

Intel would be over a billion.

If you were to ask Jerry Reinsdorf how this investment has panned out he would probably respond:

:reinsy

"Mediocre at best."


The problem here is that you have a group which views the White Sox as an investment, and they manage it as an investment (albeit usually poorly).

I'd like to point out that the Sox are listed as being worth $223 million, so that changes the percentage slightly, but not dramatically. Second, your ROI formula completely ignores the profit that has also been earned in the past 22 years. That is a 10.5% ROI just on capital increase. Assuming the Sox have made as little as $1 million a year in profit, that would raise the ROI to roughly 15% for the first few years with decreasing values thereafter. Anyone who thinks the management group is only earning $1 million/year profit, raise their hand.

JR and his fellow owners have gotten fat and rich on this investment. Heck, they can leverage the value of the Sox into investment capital at any time they want, and the team is completely paid for with no major outstanding debts aside from player salarys. The ownership of the Sox has been a windfall for these guys, period.

KingXerxes
08-22-2002, 11:08 AM
I stated in the ROI that the assumption was distributions and contributions netted out over the years.

You have zero proof whatsoever that this club - has generated any cash flow in any given year. If these things are cash cows - as your post certainly implies, why were all the independent owners driven off the face of the game over the past thirty years or so. Why did Veeck have to sell if he was rolling in cash year after year, how about Griffith? Did cash flow mysteriously start shooting up only after all these guys were gone?

ode to veeck
08-22-2002, 11:13 AM
While checking up on the back-to-back winners, I found yet even more two timers on the AL side: Juan Gonzalez and Robin Yount.

Is the back-to-back the key to the real trivia question? as the list for both leagues suddenly shortens to Newhouser, Maris, Mantle, Banks, Bonds, Foxx, Berra, Thomas, Morgan, Schmidt, Murphy, the answer is nope, cause that makes 10 from both leagues and at most, 6 from one league (the AL)

One might ask a how heavy is B2B MVP to weighing in how great a player is and think maybe you could look at longevity and ask who won more than once over the greatest span of years?

Three are tied at winning 9 years apart: Dimaggio ('39-'47), Gerhig ('27-'36), and Bonds ('92-'01), and then there's the leader: Willie Mays who won his two 11 years apart ('54-'65) in a long productive career

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
I stated in the ROI that the assumption was distributions and contributions netted out over the years.

You have zero proof whatsoever that this club - has generated any cash flow in any given year. If these things are cash cows - as your post certainly implies, why were all the independent owners driven off the face of the game over the past thirty years or so. Why did Veeck have to sell is he was rolling in cash year after year, how about Griffith? Did cash flow mysteriously start shooting up only after all these guys were gone?

Bud, is that you? Oh come on. You don't honestly believe that the Sox are not turning a profit on JR's watch. Proof? No, common sense...

Still, 10.5% ROI is pretty damn decent in today's economy. Given the fact that the team has not dramatically increased in value in the last 5 years changes the pattern also. In 1993, what was the ROI? Sport's franchises made a major jump in value in the late 80's. Not my fault that JR held onto the investment too long.

Again, that is strictly the capital increase. Sorry if I misread your first post on that subject. Still, do you believe the Sox have been turning zero profit for the last 22 years? I was only pointing out that a meager profit would change the formula dramatically. Given that the Sox have generated $80+ million in revenue under their current media contracts, and havent't had a payroll above $67 million these past few years, it would seem unbelievable that they have not turned any profit at all...

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
While checking up on the back-to-back winners, I found yet even more two timers on the AL side: Juan Gonzalez and Robin Yount.

Is the back-to-back the key to the real trivia question? as the list for both leagues suddenly shortens to Newhouser, Maris, Mantle, Banks, Bonds, Foxx, Berra, Thomas, Morgan, Schmidt, Murphy, the answer is nope, cause that makes 10 from both leagues and at most, 6 from one league (the AL)

One might ask a how heavy is B2B MVP to weighing in how great a player is and think maybe you could look at longevity and ask who won more than once over the greatest span of years?

Three are tied at winning 9 years apart: Dimaggio ('39-'47), Gerhig ('27-'36), and Bonds ('92-'01), and then there's the leader: Willie Mays who won his two 11 years apart ('54-'65) in a long productive career

I think the b2b is the key then, because the guy was upset that Thomas blew the formula. He was convinced there were 9 and that Bonds had ruined the trivia question by becoming the 9th. I pointed out Frank and he got upset because being a flubbie fan, he hated everything Sox. Thanks for doing all the research and helping my memory along...

rmusacch
08-22-2002, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


This is such a shell game. I swear the Chairman must have been a street corner three-card monte dealer growing up in Brooklyn.

Taking Thomas off the payroll does not make us a championship caliber team. The Sox are a joke.

Mediocrity now and forever!

:hurt
"Who ever heard of the Sox carrying a two-time MVP on its roster. Ha--what a laugh!"

Should have been three.

KingXerxes
08-22-2002, 11:47 AM
I have no idea what - if any - distributions are made, but I've seen ever small guy get squeezed out and replaced by deep pockets over the years. I see the necessity for deep pockets as being due to the fact that these teams do not kick off a lot of operating cash, and can only be owned by entities which have other major sources of cash flow.

A 10 1/2% return (or 13% if the kick off $1mm per year, or 15% if it's $2mm) isn't horrible, but it isn't great. As I showed in my first post, an investment in the largest US bank at the time (Citicorp) and he would have done twice as well.

Jerry Reinsdorf and all his partners did not get rich by investing in things that returned 15% - that's not the game they play. My point was that a lot of Sox fans seem to think that the owners have just absolutely cleaned up here - and if you were to ask the owners they would tell you that it hasn't been a great investment. These guys made their money on real estate flips which yielded 100% returns and on taking fees for raising huge amounts of capital on the public markets for their investment partnerships. I don't think economic return is their primary reason for owning the White Sox - it's ego. But even ego has a price, and none of them want to pump cash into the team year after year.

Now for the real depressing part. One thing they all hate more than losses is paying tax on gains. If a $200 million capital gain awaits them, they'll hold forever (as long as it doesn't get too expensive).

Paulwny
08-22-2002, 11:57 AM
( MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL officials like to refer to their sport as an “industry,” but with its $3.5 billion in annual revenues it would barely even qualify as a member of the Fortune 500 — if it were a single company.

Gerald Scully, a professor of economics at the University of Texas at Dallas, analyzed the 16 team sales from 1991 to 1998 and found that owners had gotten an average annual return on their investment of 9.8 percent, ranging from a low of 5.4 percent for the Detroit Tigers to 19.8 percent for the Baltimore Orioles )

http://www.msnbc.com/news/791398.asp

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Again, that is strictly the capital increase. Sorry if I misread your first post on that subject. Still, do you believe the Sox have been turning zero profit for the last 22 years? I was only pointing out that a meager profit would change the formula dramatically. Given that the Sox have generated $80+ million in revenue under their current media contracts, and havent't had a payroll above $67 million these past few years, it would seem unbelievable that they have not turned any profit at all...

Where are you getting the $80M figure from? I thought the Sox were taking in something like $30M a year in broadcast rights. (See this link: http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/07/news/column_sportsbiz/)

Me, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the Sox could be losing money.

Assume ticket revenue = 1.7M X $18 average ticket price (allowing for slightly higher ave. season ticket price and higher attendance during cheapie nights) = $30.6M. Regarding the gate split with visiting clubs, I'm going to assume that it evens out with them being the visiting team.

Luxury boxes/stadium club revenue = $10M (a guess)

Broadcast revenue = $30.1M

Food/merch revenue = $30M (this includes an assumption for extra revenue from worldwide sales of Sox stuff, not just at Comiskey)


This comes close to the figures reported to Crain's of $111.7M in 2001 revenues (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?mpid=25&portal_id=70&id='/cgi-bin/article.pl?portal_id=70fLaVmOpage_id=1179fLaVmOfor mat=list').

Now, expenses:

Payroll for the team = $55M (after deals made this summer)
Deferred pay = $? (they probably have some of this)
Payroll for the 220 employees worldwide = $10M?
Maintenance, overhead, insurance, etc. = $10M? (insurance on the players' contracts is probably $2M-$5M)
Cost of goods sold (food, merch) = $15M?
Travel, hotels, etc. = $3M?

That's close to $100M right there. Just with a rough calculation, I could see this being even with revenue. Of course, I don't have access to the Sox's books, but I could easily see them losing a few million on a year like this one.

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
I have no idea what - if any - distributions are made, but I've seen ever small guy get squeezed out and replaced by deep pockets over the years. I see the necessity for deep pockets as being due to the fact that these teams do not kick off a lot of operating cash, and can only be owned by entities which have other major sources of cash flow.

A 10 1/2% return (or 13% if the kick off $1mm per year, or 15% if it's $2mm) isn't horrible, but it isn't great. As I showed in my first post, an investment in the largest US bank at the time (Citicorp) and he would have done twice as well.

Jerry Reinsdorf and all his partners did not get rich by investing in things that returned 15% - that's not the game they play. My point was that a lot of Sox fans seem to think that the owners have just absolutely cleaned up here - and if you were to ask the owners they would tell you that it hasn't been a great investment. These guys made their money on real estate flips which yielded 100% returns and on taking fees for raising huge amounts of capital on the public markets for their investment partnerships. I don't think economic return is their primary reason for owning the White Sox - it's ego. But even ego has a price, and none of them want to pump cash into the team year after year.

Now for the real depressing part. One thing they all hate more than losses is paying tax on gains. If a $200 million capital gain awaits them, they'll hold forever (as long as it doesn't get too expensive).

You are correct in your comment about how people get rich, but once they are rich, the picture changes to some degree and high value assets like the Sox allow them to leverage their ownership into investment capital which in turn allows them to make money in other areas. Still, I have felt for a long time that JR likes seeing his name in the newspapers and his picture on TV, so for him owning the Sox and Bulls is indeed about ego, IMO.

Still, I think there is more going on here. I don't necessarily think small owners have been forced out, they have probably decided to take the money and run. If I am Bill Veeck in 1980, I am thinking of my family's future. $20 million goes a long way to ensuring that future generations of Veecks will be just fine and there is no worry about estate taxes forcing the sale of the team on my passing.

It doesn't take a major corporation to run a baseball franchise and make a profit, but if you want to win in today's game, you probably have to be willing to spend with the Yankees and other high revenue clubs. If you run the team efficiently there will be profit to be made, but you probably won't see a winner in your lifetime. The other option is to take the losses and try to field a winner. You are correct most small time owners cannot afford to lose millions year after year and as a result the team gets sold to a major corporation which can write off the losses and use the team for publicity. Thus is it now, thus will it ever be in the future given the price of owning a professional franchise...

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


Where are you getting the $80M figure from? I thought the Sox were taking in something like $30M a year in broadcast rights. (See this link: http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/07/news/column_sportsbiz/)

Me, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the Sox could be losing money.

Assume ticket revenue = 1.7M X $18 average ticket price (allowing for slightly higher ave. season ticket price and higher attendance during cheapie nights) = $30.6M. Regarding the gate split with visiting clubs, I'm going to assume that it evens out with them being the visiting team.

Luxury boxes/stadium club revenue = $10M (a guess)

Broadcast revenue = $30.1M

Food/merch revenue = $30M (this includes an assumption for extra revenue from worldwide sales of Sox stuff, not just at Comiskey)


This comes close to the figures reported to Crain's of $111.7M in 2001 revenues (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?mpid=25&portal_id=70&id='/cgi-bin/article.pl?portal_id=70fLaVmOpage_id=1179fLaVmOfor mat=list').

Now, expenses:

Payroll for the team = $55M (after deals made this summer)
Deferred pay = $? (they probably have some of this)
Payroll for the 220 employees worldwide = $10M?
Maintenance, overhead, insurance, etc. = $10M? (insurance on the players' contracts is probably $2M-$5M)
Cost of goods sold (food, merch) = $15M?
Travel, hotels, etc. = $3M?

That's close to $100M right there. Just with a rough calculation, I could see this being even with revenue. Of course, I don't have access to the Sox's books, but I could easily see them losing a few million on a year like this one.

My figure was an over all figure including the ticket revenue. Still, I appreciate you taking the time to break it all down and analyze it. I would be surprised if the food and merchandise figure is that low and it doesn't take into account the parking revenue. Also, given that the at the park business is primarily a cash business, it would be surprising to me if the Sox were accurately reporting every dollar brought in. Does the broadcast revenue include the national money? I thought the Sox were taking in almost $30 million on local contracts.

DVG
08-22-2002, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


This is such a shell game. I swear the Chairman must have been a street corner three-card monte dealer growing up in Brooklyn.

Taking Thomas off the payroll does not make us a championship caliber team. The Sox are a joke.

Mediocrity now and forever!

:hurt
"Who ever heard of the Sox carrying a two-time MVP on its roster. Ha--what a laugh!"

:moron


YIIIIIIPPPPPEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! Today, run the Antichrist out of town,
tomorrow, contract the team!!!! All my wet dreams are coming
true!!!! DEEEEEEEEEEE-LICIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MisterB
08-23-2002, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
My figure was an over all figure including the ticket revenue. Still, I appreciate you taking the time to break it all down and analyze it. I would be surprised if the food and merchandise figure is that low and it doesn't take into account the parking revenue. Also, given that the at the park business is primarily a cash business, it would be surprising to me if the Sox were accurately reporting every dollar brought in. Does the broadcast revenue include the national money? I thought the Sox were taking in almost $30 million on local contracts.

Here's a different breakdown for '01: (thanks again, Doug Pappas)
$30.9M - Gate
$30.1M - Local Broadcast (TV/Radio)
$26.3M - Other Local (Skyboxes, Parking, Concessions)
$24.4M - National (cut of Nat'l Broadcast, Merchandising)
$111.7M TOTAL REVENUE

$66.7M - Player Salaries
$50.6M - Other Expenses (non-player salaries, minor league, stadium costs)
$4.2M - Revenue Sharing
(+$2.3M) - Interest
$119.3M TOTAL EXPENSES

=$7.7M NET LOSS

The one trick to all this is the 'Other Expenses' category, which is where the most finagling occurs. This category has pretty wide variations from team to team, although most teams have essentially the same costs, with stadium costs being the only real difference.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-23-2002, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by MisterB


Here's a different breakdown for '01: (thanks again, Doug Pappas)....

I'm not disputing this or any other financial breakdown of the Sox reported profits or losses. What I like about this one is the admission that plenty of finagling goes on amongst expenses--there is plenty of wiggle room here--including what the accountants are allowed to report under "generally accepted accounting principles."

Here is one FACT nobody can dispute: the Sox franchise is now appraised north of $200 million. Jerry Reinsdorf bought it for $20 million.

The Sox are worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. If you and I don't have the insight to understand how a team that reports "a loss" could appreciate by this magnitude, it's a FACT plenty of other people--more clever than you and I--most definitely DO KNOW how to make it worth their while.

Apologies to an earlier post, but if Reinsdorf is entitled to investments that have has much equity return as Intel, then where is the love for the other 200 million investors who get stuck with those like GM or Motorola, or iMclone or Enron? That argument was beyond stupid.

You would be hard pressed to find another investment that gives you more shelter from taxes while simultaneously generating as much cash. That's because federal tax law allows you to write-off the most valuable asset the club owns--the contracts for the players' services. That's pretty sweet. I don't claim to know even one-tenth of the financial tricks, so I'm sure there are plenty more.

The Sox are doing just fine. Field a champion and stop whining about what you can afford.

...and back to the original point... letting Frank Thomas go doesn't get us to where we want to be.

ma-gaga
08-23-2002, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
...and back to the original point... letting Frank Thomas go doesn't get us to where we want to be.

Is there a DH caliber player on the Sox roster?
Carlos Lee maybe. If he continues to improve.

Maybe one can be had in free-agency. I wouldn't "let" Thomas get away without a feasable backup plan in place. Someone who can hit for average, hit for power and can take a walk. That is what the Sox need, and are surely not getting it right now.

voodoochile
08-23-2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I'm not disputing this or any other financial breakdown of the Sox reported profits or losses. What I like about this one is the admission that plenty of finagling goes on amongst expenses--there is plenty of wiggle room here--including what the accountants are allowed to report under "generally accepted accounting principles."

The Sox are doing just fine. Field a champion and stop whining about what you can afford.

...and back to the original point... letting Frank Thomas go doesn't get us to where we want to be.

Good points, especially the one about other expenses. For example. What does JR get paid to run the club? Is his salary included in those "other expenses"? legally that is an expense, but from a players perspective it is profit. Are the other partners on payroll? There are lots of ways to make a profit look like a loss.

The other point is also correct. The Sox do not get better by dumping FT.

I'd be interested in hearing from some of the people who are glad the clause will be invoked. What do you think FT is worth salary wise? Is that figure based strictly on his performance this year, 1999, 2000, or is it a figure he has earned by being the greatest hitter in team history?

voodoochile
08-23-2002, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by ma-gaga


Is there a DH caliber player on the Sox roster?
Carlos Lee maybe. If he continues to improve.

Maybe one can be had in free-agency. I wouldn't "let" Thomas get away without a feasable backup plan in place. Someone who can hit for average, hit for power and can take a walk. That is what the Sox need, and are surely not getting it right now.

Lee is as good a choice as anyone on the team with the imminent arrival of Borchard. Still, the Sox would have to find a CF, though there are some who feel Rowand will be just fine out there (I am not one of them).

KingXerxes
08-23-2002, 10:06 AM
IMHO they should not invoke it.

Paulwny
08-23-2002, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile

Good points, especially the one about other expenses. For example. What does JR get paid to run the club? Is his salary included in those "other expenses"? legally that is an expense, but from a players perspective it is profit. Are the other partners on payroll? There are lots of ways to make a profit look like a loss.


Last week my local paper had an article on the negotiations. Part of the article mentioned that Steinbrenner is on the yankmee payroll as a consultant. OPEN THE BOOKS !!!

Randar68
08-23-2002, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Moses_Scurry
It will be interesting to see what they do with the extra money.

When Frank can't find a better deal with the new tax/revenue sharing in place, I would hope they resign him for less or he takes all the deferred money and stays. I do think he will straighten his stuff out in the offseason with Walt and be a dangerous hitter again. I would hate to see it happen with another team.

Randar68
08-23-2002, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by delben91


This is the only point in your post I have a quibble with. I really think that Maggs has the talent to be a 3 time, or more, MVP. The drawback of course would be that the media votes on said award, and Magglio doesn't get nearly the coverage of most of the stars in baseball.

Maggs is a VERY-good/All-Star player. Unfortunately, it takes more than this to be a 3-time MVP. He does not have the 50+HR power or .440+ OBP capability that an MVP requires in today's age, especially at a position like RF. If he put up his #'s at SS, 3B, 2B, or C, then yes, I would agree, but he doesn't.

Kilroy
08-23-2002, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


When Frank can't find a better deal with the new tax/revenue sharing in place, I would hope they resign him for less or he takes all the deferred money and stays. I do think he will straighten his stuff out in the offseason with Walt and be a dangerous hitter again. I would hate to see it happen with another team.

I agree with this 100%. He needs more time away than just a 3 day series or an all-star break. He needs to put his bats away and not start swinging again until Dec 1. And when he starts back up, Walt should be sitting in a chair 10 feet away making sure that when Thomas rebuilds his muscle memory after the layoff, he does it right.

The thought of Thomas turning it around on another team makes me ill...

Randar68
08-23-2002, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I'd be interested in hearing from some of the people who are glad the clause will be invoked. What do you think FT is worth salary wise? Is that figure based strictly on his performance this year, 1999, 2000, or is it a figure he has earned by being the greatest hitter in team history?

The problems in all of this for Frank, is the side fact of his huge alimony and child support payments. He may not be able to afford such payments due to the fact of his failed business ventures and having that much $$$ deferred. I would hope this organization would not be so bone-headed as to do this to a player that has done this much for the White Sox in his situation. I would certainly offer to renegotiate in good faith with the clause as leverege, but to do that to the best hitter ever to wear the jersey is ludicrous.

That being said, my faith in management to do the right thing is null to begin with. (see Fisk, Carlton)

Kilroy
08-23-2002, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


The problems in all of this for Frank, is the side fact of his huge alimony and child support payments. He may not be able to afford such payments due to the fact of his failed business ventures and having that much $$$ deferred.

He'd be able to go to court and have those amounts reduced. He can't pay if he doesn't have it, plain and simple. If he can show how and why he's unable to meet the requirements, he can be granted relief.

steff
08-23-2002, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


The problems in all of this for Frank, is the side fact of his huge alimony and child support payments. He may not be able to afford such payments due to the fact of his failed business ventures and having that much $$$ deferred. I would hope this organization would not be so bone-headed as to do this to a player that has done this much for the White Sox in his situation.

Oh boy.. here we go again. Frank does NOT have a huge alimony payment. He paid her a lump sum in a settlement, and pays 25% of his monthly salary for CS (just like everyone else in Illinois who pays CS). Marriage dissolution records are public record and on file at the courthouse, and online if you know someone :D:
Additionally... Frank has made hundreds of MILLIONS of $$'s and his failed business ventures were funded mostly by others. He barely felt the sting financially (although his ego was badly bruised).

Also... if he does shop around and doesn't get a good offer.. why do the Sox have to "re-sign" him. As long as he takes the pay cut then he's still a member of the team, correct? Or the minute he talks to another team is the contract void? I honestly don't know jack about these things :?:

steff
08-23-2002, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


He'd be able to go to court and have those amounts reduced. He can't pay if he doesn't have it, plain and simple. If he can show how and why he's unable to meet the requirements, he can be granted relief.


Correct Kilroy. CS is modifiable with a change in financial circumstances. But he's got plenty of money. It won't come to that.

yyz
08-23-2002, 11:56 AM
I know this is hard to believe the year after Thomas comes back from arm surgery, but the guy has REAL talent. Frank Thomas at 75 percent is a more valuable ballplayer than 600 or so others drawing MLB paychecks. You're smoking crack if you think anybody on the current Sox roster has a shot at becoming a three-time MVP.

I like watching Frank and want him to stay in Chicago, but Frank Thomas at 75% (or whatever % he's at this year) has been a liability. He has the second worst batting average of any AL regular (of players with 3.1AB/G, he is 73 of 74, only Mike Cameron is worse) and is 160 of 164 in MLB. People point to his OPS, but he is 51 of 74 in the AL (93 of 164 overall). He can't field, and according to this article (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/bp/1420485.html) on ESPN, has been one of the worst baserunners in the game this year to boot. This is not worth $10mm a year, regardless of what financial straits his divorce and failed record company have placed him in.

Some of the articles make it sound like he is definitely a goner after the RPR is exercised, but I'm not sure who is going to pay him enough to make it worth his while to forgo the $10mm deferred he gets if he stays in Chicago, especially if a salary cap and luxury tax kick in. The Trib mentioned he is looking at selling his $10mm mansion, which should tide him over, and Reinsdorf may be willing to renegotiate to give him more current comp.

He may well turn it around, and I hope he does, wherever he is, but other than guys who mysteriously gain 30 pounds of lean muscle mass through 'working out' and 'vitamins,' not many players regain their peak at age 35 and above.

Randar68
08-23-2002, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by steff3603
Also... if he does shop around and doesn't get a good offer.. why do the Sox have to "re-sign" him. As long as he takes the pay cut then he's still a member of the team, correct? Or the minute he talks to another team is the contract void? I honestly don't know jack about these things :?:

Well, since we're all excited about accuracy, Frank takes no effective paycut, as the money is deferred instead of up-front. That being said, the current value becomes a little less.

Jerry_Manuel
08-23-2002, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The Sox do not get better by dumping FT.


The clubhouse atmosphere gets a little better. I think that 2001 team was a little better without him, from the standpoint that they had to play as a team. They couldn't just wait for Thomas to hit the big homer or whatever. They had to play as a unit. Just the way I see it.


Originally posted by voodoochile
Lee is as good a choice as anyone on the team with the imminent arrival of Borchard. Still, the Sox would have to find a CF, though there are some who feel Rowand will be just fine out there (I am not one of them).

Wouldn't shock me to see Borchard start the next baseball season, whenever that may be, in the minors. Harris is going to be moved to center, with Hummel playing second. That is how looks now, unless they trade him.

Jerry_Manuel
08-23-2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
He needs to put his bats away and not start swinging again until Dec 1. And when he starts back up, Walt should be sitting in a chair 10 feet away making sure that when Thomas rebuilds his muscle memory after the layoff, he does it right.

Hopefully he will work with Walt, but, there's no guarantee that he will.

If he doesn't, then this is the Thomas we're going to see.

Dadawg_77
08-23-2002, 12:24 PM
Thomas has a 45 day window where he can declare himself a FA. I believe he can talk to other teams during this window, so if there is a better deal he will walk from the Sox. If there isn't a better deal, he still could walk from the Sox because of ego and pride. There will be at least one team willing to pay him 5-6 million probably more for a couple of years. If the clause is exercised Thomas will walk, IMHO.

longshot7
08-23-2002, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
While checking up on the back-to-back winners, I found yet even more two timers on the AL side: Juan Gonzalez and Robin Yount.

what about Giambi?

hold2dibber
08-23-2002, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by yyz


I like watching Frank and want him to stay in Chicago, but Frank Thomas at 75% (or whatever % he's at this year) has been a liability. He has the second worst batting average of any AL regular (of players with 3.1AB/G, he is 73 of 74, only Mike Cameron is worse) and is 160 of 164 in MLB. People point to his OPS, but he is 51 of 74 in the AL (93 of 164 overall). He can't field, and according to this article (http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/bp/1420485.html) on ESPN, has been one of the worst baserunners in the game this year to boot. This is not worth $10mm a year, regardless of what financial straits his divorce and failed record company have placed him in.

Some of the articles make it sound like he is definitely a goner after the RPR is exercised, but I'm not sure who is going to pay him enough to make it worth his while to forgo the $10mm deferred he gets if he stays in Chicago, especially if a salary cap and luxury tax kick in. The Trib mentioned he is looking at selling his $10mm mansion, which should tide him over, and Reinsdorf may be willing to renegotiate to give him more current comp.

He may well turn it around, and I hope he does, wherever he is, but other than guys who mysteriously gain 30 pounds of lean muscle mass through 'working out' and 'vitamins,' not many players regain their peak at age 35 and above.

Hell, I don't expect for Frank to re-gain his peak, but if he can hit .280 with a .370 or so OBP, we'd be sittin' pretty. And that certainly seems attainable to me.

yyz
08-23-2002, 01:05 PM
Hell, I don't expect for Frank to re-gain his peak, but if he can hit .280 with a .370 or so OBP, we'd be sittin' pretty. And that certainly seems attainable to me.

I'd be very happy with that too. I checked out baseball-reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomafr04.shtml) for the ten players most similar to Frank through age 33. Here are the number of quality seasons (over .800 OPS) and total remaining seasons they had at age 35 and over:

1. Jeff Bagwell (No data - he's Frank's age and still active)
2. Albert Belle - 0/0
3. Fred McGriff - 3/4 (still active)
4. Duke Snider - 1/3
5. Chuck Klein - 0/5
6. Ted Williams - 6/7
7. Joe DiMaggio - 1/2
8. Dick Allen - 0/1
9. Rafael Palmeiro - 3/3 (still active)
10. Willie McCovery - 4/10

I think this actually bodes well for Frank, since today's players play longer. He just needs to get his head right. Unfortunately, Manuel and Ward are no help.

steff
08-23-2002, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by yyz


The Trib mentioned he is looking at selling his $10mm mansion, which should tide him over,


ROTFLMAO!!! This is reeeeaaalllyyy interesting considering it's:

A. Not his to sell

and

B. Has been on the market since February.

steff
08-23-2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Well, since we're all excited about accuracy, Frank takes no effective paycut, as the money is deferred instead of up-front. That being said, the current value becomes a little less.


Thanks Randar!!

Kilroy
08-23-2002, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by steff3603



ROTFLMAO!!! This is reeeeaaalllyyy interesting considering it's:

A. Not his to sell

and

B. Has been on the market since February.

And why is it not his to sell?? Not that you're wrong, just lookin for more facts. Actually the property was for sale back during the 2K season. I looked at an internet listing for it back then...

whitesoxwilkes
08-23-2002, 02:09 PM
It's been on the market for a while. Look at the Real Estate section of the WSJ and you can see the Big Hurt's big manse, complete with dance floor. I wonder if he has a disco ball?

RKMeibalane
08-23-2002, 02:28 PM
I remember reading about his mansion in the Sports Illustrated article published before the 2000 season. I know that it has eight garages, and one of them is a workout room with a batting cage. What else does he have in that place?

Kilroy
08-23-2002, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I remember reading about his mansion in the Sports Illustrated article published before the 2000 season. I know that it has eight garages, and one of them is a workout room with a batting cage. What else does he have in that place?

Look here (http://www.realtor.com/FindHome/HomeListing.asp?pgnum=20&frm=bycomm&areaid=1003544&mls=chicago&mlsttl=Chicago&st=il&mnprice=0&mxprice=99999999&typ=1&mnbed=0&mnbath=0&gate=wsj&poe=realtor&sid=BECAB5108939404F9ECF74FD8E2A300&snum=98&lnksrc=RSR_PROPPHOT) and see for yourself...

yyz
08-23-2002, 02:48 PM
Thanks for the link, Kilroy. It's a little harder to feel sympathy for him after looking at that.

steff
08-23-2002, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


And why is it not his to sell?? Not that you're wrong, just lookin for more facts. Actually the property was for sale back during the 2K season. I looked at an internet listing for it back then...

It was given to his ex in the settlement.
She had it on the market.. then took it off.. then put it back on.

steff
08-23-2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I remember reading about his mansion in the Sports Illustrated article published before the 2000 season. I know that it has eight garages, and one of them is a workout room with a batting cage. What else does he have in that place?


The funniest thing (imo) about it was the fact that the "whirpool" next to the "pool" was as big as a normal sized "pool". And OMG.. The windows in that place!!! I swear it must have taken a full crew of 10 a week to clean them!!

steff
08-23-2002, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Look here (http://www.realtor.com/FindHome/HomeListing.asp?pgnum=20&frm=bycomm&areaid=1003544&mls=chicago&mlsttl=Chicago&st=il&mnprice=0&mxprice=99999999&typ=1&mnbed=0&mnbath=0&gate=wsj&poe=realtor&sid=BECAB5108939404F9ECF74FD8E2A300&snum=98&lnksrc=RSR_PROPPHOT) and see for yourself...

Oops.. there's the link. :D: It is a pretty awesome house..

FarmerAndy
08-23-2002, 03:03 PM
If they invoke the clause, Frank should just stay on board. He'd be kind of sticking it to the Sox if he did. If they invoke the clause, they are obviously doing it because they want him to leave. If he stays though, they still have to pay him all of his money, it's just deferred until 2009 I think.

That's why I think this clause is a dumb idea from the Sox standpoint. If he stays, wouldn't it be better to pay him his ten million a year? Think about it. Jerry would have to order another firesale in 2009, because we'll have to pay Frank, who will be long gone by then, his $40 million dollars.

Randar68
08-23-2002, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
If they invoke the clause, Frank should just stay on board. He'd be kind of sticking it to the Sox if he did. If they invoke the clause, they are obviously doing it because they want him to leave. If he stays though, they still have to pay him all of his money, it's just deferred until 2009 I think.

That's why I think this clause is a dumb idea from the Sox standpoint. If he stays, wouldn't it be better to pay him his ten million a year? Think about it. Jerry would have to order another firesale in 2009, because we'll have to pay Frank, who will be long gone by then, his $40 million dollars.

No, financially, and from a bottom-dollar point of vue, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. Similarly, 10 million dollars in 2002 is worth much less at a later point. The Chairman is allowed to make money, via interest or investment, off the money he will later pay to Frank as deferred money (inflation is also factored in)

yyz
08-23-2002, 03:21 PM
Assuming a 5% interest rate, $10,000,000 in 2009 is worth $7.1mm now. (If you assume 10%, it's worth $5.1mm now.)

The big question is how long it is deferred until. I think I've read that it is deferred 'over ten years', but that doesn't really help unless you know the payment amounts in each year. ($3mm of his current $10mm is already deferred.)

RKMeibalane
08-23-2002, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by steff3603



The funniest thing (imo) about it was the fact that the "whirpool" next to the "pool" was as big as a normal sized "pool". And OMG.. The windows in that place!!! I swear it must have taken a full crew of 10 a week to clean them!!

Is Frank actually living in the house right now? I know he still lives in Oakbrook, but I find it hard to believe that he would stay there, because he's only one person. Nobody needs that much space, except for Sammy Sosa and his huge head.

oldcomiskey
08-23-2002, 03:52 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ode to veeck
[B]
Is the back-to-back the key to the real trivia question?

It is the back to back that makes this list so unique

steff
08-23-2002, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane


Is Frank actually living in the house right now? I know he still lives in Oakbrook, but I find it hard to believe that he would stay there, because he's only one person. Nobody needs that much space, except for Sammy Sosa and his huge head.


Noooo.. She got the house. Lived there for a few months then moved back to Georgia. She bought a townhouse in OakBrook when she's here with the kids to see Frank. The house has been vacant since before the start of the 2000 season.