PDA

View Full Version : Report that $ aren't enough in proposal to Colon


soxtalker
10-03-2003, 06:57 AM
Joe Cowley's column in Daily Southtown today (10/3/03) (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/031sd4.htm)

Looks like we may get to see what plan B is. Article indicates that a number of teams are expected to bid for Colon's services.

hold2dibber
10-03-2003, 08:26 AM
I would love to have Colon back; if he's here, the rotation all falls into place with Buehrle, Loaiza and Garland behind him. But for a team that is going to have a payroll of, most likely, no more than $60 million for the next few years, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to spend 1/4 of that payroll on Colon. I think 3 years at about $10 to $11 mm per year is about as high as the Sox can afford to go (and that's pushing it). If the payroll cap truly is under $60 million, the could probably get two good starting pitchers and a decent center fielder for the $15 million Colon appears to be asking for.

Rocky Soprano
10-03-2003, 08:33 AM
The offer the Sox put on the table, IMHO, is a great one. I was shocked to hear they layed out such a nice offer for him. If he TRULY wants to stay on the south side then I dont see how he would turn it down.

If he doesnt resign then I wont blame the Sox, they are trying, not Colon give us some help!

mandmandm
10-03-2003, 08:41 AM
Bartlo vs. Maggs

Lets say that the Sox organization is going to allocate the 2003 payroll of these two. $23 million.

Senerio One: If you offer Bartlo $12 million, you have $11 million left to get a outfield replacement (Carl Everret) and a fifth starter. That does not even consider what you can get for Maggs.

Senerio two: Keep Maggs at $15 million. you have $8 million to find a number one starter and a number five starter. At the end of 2004 the Sox risk losing Maggs.

If KW is hell bent on two things, pitching and "grinders", senerio one fits the bill. I have much more confidence in KW having to find a 5th starter and a replacement outfielder sitting in his lap with more money than him finding a 1 and 5 starter with less money.

Maggs fans flame away.

soxtalker
10-03-2003, 08:52 AM
I guess that I'm not terribly disappointed if this report is true. While I would like to see Colon in a Sox uniform next year, signing him for three years at this kind of salary also raises some concerns. Not so much for next year, though you never know. But looking three years out, Colon could very well not be pitching so well. I believe that he had some back problems this year, and there were a number of games that he wasn't in top form. That being said -- yes, it would have helped a lot next year.

hold2dibber
10-03-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by mandmandm
Bartlo vs. Maggs

Lets say that the Sox organization is going to allocate the 2003 payroll of these two. $23 million.

Senerio One: If you offer Bartlo $12 million, you have $11 million left to get a outfield replacement (Carl Everret) and a fifth starter. That does not even consider what you can get for Maggs.

Senerio two: Keep Maggs at $15 million. you have $8 million to find a number one starter and a number five starter. At the end of 2004 the Sox risk losing Maggs.

If KW is hell bent on two things, pitching and "grinders", senerio one fits the bill. I have much more confidence in KW having to find a 5th starter and a replacement outfielder sitting in his lap with more money than him finding a 1 and 5 starter with less money.

Maggs fans flame away.

Great post - and I am a huge Maggs fan. But I think there is a third scenario you're not accounting for. And that I think is highly likely. I think that the Sox will either trade Maggs this offseason or will extend his contract, and in that negotiation for an extension, will seek to have him defer a large chunk of the $14 mm (not $15 mm) he is due in '04. If they can extend his deal for three more years (at say $10 mm/year) and have him agree to defer $5 mm next year, he's only going to cost $9 in '04. That would leave the Sox not with $8 mm (using your $23 mm allocation) but with $14 million to find two good starters - which should be plenty. If I'm KW, that is most certainly the approach I'd take. I think Maggs would be receptive to this - he seems to like playing here and I think he could be convinced that paying him the full $14 mm next year will put a serious crimp in the Sox's ability to field a contender.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2003, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
...I think that the Sox will either trade Maggs this offseason or will extend his contract, and in that negotiation for an extension, will seek to have him defer a large chunk of the $14 mm (not $15 mm) he is due in '04. If they can extend his deal for three more years (at say $10 mm/year) and have him agree to defer $5 mm next year, he's only going to cost $9 in '04. That would leave the Sox not with $8 mm (using your $23 mm allocation) but with $14 million to find two good starters - which should be plenty. If I'm KW, that is most certainly the approach I'd take. I think Maggs would be receptive to this - he seems to like playing here and I think he could be convinced that paying him the full $14 mm next year will put a serious crimp in the Sox's ability to field a contender.

Accepting deferred payments is money out of Maggs' pocket. If Maggs isn't smart enough to know it, I guarantee his agent has more than enough brains to make up the difference. You're basically asking Maggs to take a paycut for the good of the Sox and at his personal loss. Furthermore you're locking him up for future years at less than market prices, too.

This idea is a non-starter. Maggs has way more negotiating leverage than this. He doesn't need to give back anything. Make your choice: sign pitchers and grinders, or keep Maggs.

Rocky Soprano
10-03-2003, 09:54 AM
Why cant they just finally decide its time to spend and sign pitchers, grinders, and keep Maggs.

Seems like the best solution to me. :D:


Honestly, why not raise our payroll to atleast 75M?

gosox41
10-03-2003, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
Joe Cowley's column in Daily Southtown today (10/3/03) (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/031sd4.htm)

Looks like we may get to see what plan B is. Article indicates that a number of teams are expected to bid for Colon's services.

I'm glad the Sox are trying to sign Colon, but I don't think he'll stay. Of course he's going to test the FA market and see what's out there, no matter what is being said in the papers.

I see the Yankees or Red Sox outbidding the Sox for Colon.


Bob

hold2dibber
10-03-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Accepting deferred payments is money out of Maggs' pocket. If Maggs isn't smart enough to know it, I guarantee his agent has more than enough brains to make up the difference. You're basically asking Maggs to take a paycut for the good of the Sox and at his personal loss. Furthermore you're locking him up for future years at less than market prices, too.

This idea is a non-starter. Maggs has way more negotiating leverage than this. He doesn't need to give back anything. Make your choice: sign pitchers and grinders, or keep Maggs.

Of course Maggs knows that deferring is $ out of his pocket. But you're not asking him to take a paycut without any benefit to him - you're extending his contract at the same time, giving him the security of several more years under a lucrative contract. However, I would not expect Maggs to accept under market value on the extension. I guess the question in my mind is what is Maggs' market value? In the current environment, I think it's probably about $10 mm per year. As good as Maggs has been, he's not at the Jim Thome, 1.000 OPS, 45 HR level. Thome got about $14 mm/per last year. I think Maggs could expect about 2/3 to 3/4 of that, hence the $10 mm figure. If you offer him an extension at market value I think he would be willing to defer some money in '04.

I'm not certain that this would work - you might have to offer Maggs 4 years. But I don't see it as unworkable. KW is going to have to be creative this off season to keep this team a contender while staying within the Chairman's budgetary constraints, and I think this would be one way, potentially, to do it.

However, as much as I like Maggs, if they can't make this happen, I would try like hell to trade him, but not for young prospects - for several major league proven/ready players who can help the team compete in '04 (i.e., Nomo and Mota from LA or Webb and Finley from Arizona).

fuzzy_patters
10-03-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Rocky Soprano
Why cant they just finally decide its time to spend and sign pitchers, grinders, and keep Maggs.

Seems like the best solution to me. :D:


Honestly, why not raise our payroll to atleast 75M?

Didn't KW make a big point in 2001 that, if the Sox had stayed in the race, he had a budget that allowed him to go to $75 million? What happened to that money in two years?

Lip Man 1
10-03-2003, 10:24 AM
I don't think anybody is surprised at this. I appreciate the fact that the Sox made Colon a generous offer but the fact remains that in order to win you've got to spend and the Sox refuse to do this.

To me it's just unfathomable how the Sox with their TV / radio money, drawing almost two million fans can insist they are a "small market" franchise in the 3rd largest market in the country.

Even more shocking to me is that some fans continue to buy the BS line.

Lip

GoSox2K3
10-03-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Rocky Soprano
Why cant they just finally decide its time to spend and sign pitchers, grinders, and keep Maggs.

Seems like the best solution to me. :D:


Honestly, why not raise our payroll to atleast 75M?

Good point! Sox ownership has a small market mentality and it has been driving our franchise towards small market status over the past 10 years.

34 Inch Stick
10-03-2003, 10:46 AM
No reason in the world for him not to test the market. That 11 million is in his pocket. Even if the Sox pull it from the table someone else will match it. At this point Colon should field offers and identify cities in which he would like to play. Once the legitimate offers are in he will play one against the other and get the highest amount possible. We will all complain about being held up but that is the smart move.

I think the Sox will quickly drop out of the bidding as the Yankees look to fill the slot created by Clemens and possibly Wells and Weaver.

Randar68
10-03-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'm glad the Sox are trying to sign Colon, but I don't think he'll stay. Of course he's going to test the FA market and see what's out there, no matter what is being said in the papers.

I see the Yankees or Red Sox outbidding the Sox for Colon.


Bob

That's also fine with me. Sox get two high draft picks.

voodoochile
10-03-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
No reason in the world for him not to test the market. That 11 million is in his pocket. Even if the Sox pull it from the table someone else will match it. At this point Colon should field offers and identify cities in which he would like to play. Once the legitimate offers are in he will play one against the other and get the highest amount possible. We will all complain about being held up but that is the smart move.

I think the Sox will quickly drop out of the bidding as the Yankees look to fill the slot created by Clemens and possibly Wells and Weaver.

I really didn't think Colon would jump at the Sox offer and think the PR the Sox tried to generate by telling everyone they had made the offer smacks of misdirection and "We are pursuing ARod" style hype.

I want to know what they are going to do with that money. Are they going to sign another big talent, big name pitcher or use the money to resign some arbitration cases and then cry poor? If they sink that same money into Buehrle, Lee and Garland then the team is minus a top two pitcher and not seriously improved for next year. In fact, they will be a worse team than the one that fell short this year.

JR, the onus is on you and KW to prove you really do want to win as much as you say you do. Up the offer or find another comparable FA arm to keep the team in contention, or sell and GTFO of the business.

Randar68
10-03-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I really didn't think Colon would jump at the Sox offer and think the PR the Sox tried to generate by telling everyone they had made the offer smacks of misdirection and "We are pursuing ARod" style hype.

I want to know what they are going to do with that money. Are they going to sign another big talent, big name pitcher or use the money to resign some arbitration cases and then cry poor? If they sink that same money into Buehrle, Lee and Garland then the team is minus a top two pitcher and not seriously improved for next year. In fact, they will be a worse team than the one that fell short this year.

JR, the onus is on you and KW to prove you really do want to win as much as you say you do. Up the offer or find another comparable FA arm to keep the team in contention, or sell and GTFO of the business.

If they don't end up with Colon, they will definitely have to find another #1 or #2 pitcher. Millwood, Vazquez, someone of that ilk.

pudge
10-03-2003, 12:19 PM
This is a prime example of why we should have acted with more desperation this season - ie, getting a solid #5 in spring training, firing our manager immediately when the team failed to produce, finding an effective closer sooner.... blah, blah, blah.... I'm over it, really I am.

FarmerAndy
10-03-2003, 12:28 PM
My brother had a creative idea that might help the Sox keep Colon.

Along with the offer Kenny put on the table, if the Sox added a lifetime pass to Shakey's, Bart might jump on it.

Win1ForMe
10-03-2003, 01:17 PM
If Bartolo thinks he can get $12.5M to $15M in Free Agency then that's great for him. Personally, I like Bartolo but don't think he's worth that amount.

$12.5 to $15M is money you pay to a top flight ace. Bartolo, outside of last season, has never had an ERA below 3.70. That's not an ace. I realize he could be an important part of the team's future success but overpaying is overpaying. Even if the Sox had a $75M budget this would not be a wise move.

This is similar to the Konerko deal. Pauly is a good player but the Sox did overpay by giving him that contract last year. This was mainly based on his great first half performance just like Bartolo's stock is inflated by his career year in 2002.

Hopefully we have a good plan B.

Dadawg_77
10-03-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
If Bartolo thinks he can get $12.5M to $15M in Free Agency then that's great for him. Personally, I like Bartolo but don't think he's worth that amount.

$12.5 to $15M is money you pay to a top flight ace. Bartolo, outside of last season, has never had an ERA below 3.70. That's not an ace. I realize he could be an important part of the team's future success but overpaying is overpaying. Even if the Sox had a $75M budget this would not be a wise move.

This is similar to the Konerko deal. Pauly is a good player but the Sox did overpay by giving him that contract last year. This was mainly based on his great first half performance just like Bartolo's stock is inflated by his career year in 2002.

Hopefully we have a good plan B.

True but Colon also did have Manny and Belle in the outfield behind him, that hurts a pitchers ERA

Iwritecode
10-03-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
True but Colon also did have Manny and Belle in the outfield behind him, that hurts a pitchers ERA

He also had Lofton, Alomar and Visquel(sp?) behind him.

I doubt Manny or Albert contributed significantly to his high ERA...

Win1ForMe
10-03-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
True but Colon also did have Manny and Belle in the outfield behind him, that hurts a pitchers ERA

True, but with Vizquel, Robbie, and Lofton up the middle, it didn't get any better than those guys.

soxtalker
10-03-2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Win1ForMe
If Bartolo thinks he can get $12.5M to $15M in Free Agency then that's great for him. Personally, I like Bartolo but don't think he's worth that amount.

$12.5 to $15M is money you pay to a top flight ace. Bartolo, outside of last season, has never had an ERA below 3.70. That's not an ace. I realize he could be an important part of the team's future success but overpaying is overpaying. Even if the Sox had a $75M budget this would not be a wise move.

This is similar to the Konerko deal. Pauly is a good player but the Sox did overpay by giving him that contract last year. This was mainly based on his great first half performance just like Bartolo's stock is inflated by his career year in 2002.

Hopefully we have a good plan B.

I must admit that this did remind me of Konerko's deal. Now, there are more fans in favor of signing Colon than were in favor of signing Pauly. However, at the time, signing Konerko was a rather popular move. He'd been hitting well. Two things happened. As we all know, he went into a horrible slump. (In hindsight -- though some pointed it out at the time -- he seems to hit for only half seasons.) But second, the FA market appears to have changed.

Colon looks like a good pitcher for now. But if he falters in a couple of years (or sooner), we'll regret it, as he'll be eating a lot of salary that we'll wish could be placed elsewhere. And that changing FA market may even begin to affect pitchers.

Irishsox1
10-03-2003, 01:54 PM
I doubt the offer to Colon was the only offer. It was a first offer and Bart came back with his offer. I bet the Sox counter offer with a big signing bonus that can be paid out over time and up the salary to $11 million per year. I would cut Bartolo off at $12.5 million per year, but I would throw in a nice signing bonus that is paid over 5 to 7 years. If he rejects that, then its time to go get another 21 game winner off the scrap heap.

chosk8
10-03-2003, 02:10 PM
This is just hypothetical, but there has been a lot of talk about unloading Konerko and his contract. Now, I don't know what use the Yankees would have for him, but what about a deal involving him and Jeff Weaver? Both have pretty hefty contracts and both have fallen out of favor with their current teams. I know the Sox have liked Weaver, they drafted him his Junior year out of Fresno State. I'm just trying to think of plan 'B' because from the sounds of it, Colon will likely not be back next year. I would imagine that this is the sort of deal we would have to be involved in to make any deal with Konerko work, trading salary for salary ( I hate to use this example, but similar to the Karros/Grudz - Hundley trade). I understand Boras is Weaver's agent, and the Sox have had a bad history with Boras clients, but is this even a possibility in your guys opinions?

SoxxoS
10-03-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by chosk8
This is just hypothetical, but there has been a lot of talk about unloading Konerko and his contract. Now, I don't know what use the Yankees would have for him, but what about a deal involving him and Jeff Weaver? Both have pretty hefty contracts and both have fallen out of favor with their current teams. I know the Sox have liked Weaver, they drafted him his Junior year out of Fresno State. I'm just trying to think of plan 'B' because from the sounds of it, Colon will likely not be back next year. I would imagine that this is the sort of deal we would have to be involved in to make any deal with Konerko work, trading salary for salary ( I hate to use this example, but similar to the Karros/Grudz - Hundley trade). I understand Boras is Weaver's agent, and the Sox have had a bad history with Boras clients, but is this even a possibility in your guys opinions?

That is a very interesting idea. I would love to get Weaver for Konerko. He has the talent...some pitchers just can't hang in New York. That should seriously be considered.

34 Inch Stick
10-03-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
I doubt the offer to Colon was the only offer. It was a first offer and Bart came back with his offer. I bet the Sox counter offer with a big signing bonus that can be paid out over time and up the salary to $11 million per year. I would cut Bartolo off at $12.5 million per year, but I would throw in a nice signing bonus that is paid over 5 to 7 years. If he rejects that, then its time to go get another 21 game winner off the scrap heap.

Signing bonus is a football contractual concept used because the contracts are not guaranteed. Baseball contracts are guaranteed. Therefore the money must be paid no matter what.

How about Maddux as a plan B. He can get his 300th in a White Sox uniform. I imagine the Braves will not be hot to re sign him this year.

thepaulbowski
10-03-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
That is a very interesting idea. I would love to get Weaver for Konerko. He has the talent...some pitchers just can't hang in New York. That should seriously be considered.

The Yankees have no use for Konerko. They have Nick Johnson & Jason Giambi, why would they want Konerko? Plus, Weaver seems to be a head-case right now, is he worth $ 6-8 million a year when you don't what you are going to get?

hold2dibber
10-03-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by chosk8
This is just hypothetical, but there has been a lot of talk about unloading Konerko and his contract. Now, I don't know what use the Yankees would have for him, but what about a deal involving him and Jeff Weaver? Both have pretty hefty contracts and both have fallen out of favor with their current teams. I know the Sox have liked Weaver, they drafted him his Junior year out of Fresno State. I'm just trying to think of plan 'B' because from the sounds of it, Colon will likely not be back next year. I would imagine that this is the sort of deal we would have to be involved in to make any deal with Konerko work, trading salary for salary ( I hate to use this example, but similar to the Karros/Grudz - Hundley trade). I understand Boras is Weaver's agent, and the Sox have had a bad history with Boras clients, but is this even a possibility in your guys opinions?

Never happen - the Yankees have absolutely no use for PK; they already have Giambi and Nick Johnson clogging up 1B/DH. Plus, from a White Sox perspective, I think PK is more likely to bounce back and be good next year than Weaver is.

voodoochile
10-03-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Signing bonus is a football contractual concept used because the contracts are not guaranteed. Baseball contracts are guaranteed. Therefore the money must be paid no matter what.

How about Maddux as a plan B. He can get his 300th in a White Sox uniform. I imagine the Braves will not be hot to re sign him this year.

They will not be able to afford him, will they? They have to offer him 80% of his current contract, minimum. Didn't he get over $15M in arbitration last year? Richest single award ever and all that? Braves are going to have to part ways with him at this rate.

Hangar18
10-03-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
They will not be able to afford him, will they? They have to offer him 80% of his current contract, minimum. Didn't he get over $15M in arbitration last year? Richest single award ever and all that? Braves are going to have to part ways with him at this rate.

The only good thing about the Current SetUp in baseball, is that the Cubs will have to come down this Road also. Kerry Wood is going to, in the words of the poet Flavor Flav, GET PAID. He is going to get some serious Cash. The Messiah ...........heh heh,
will get a Brinks truck with a Giant Red Bow on it. Thought he was Greedy as a HS player? Thought he was pretty arrogant and Greedy as a College Player? Think what hes going to be like with a couple CyYoungs under his belt, and a girlfriend that wants a GoldPlated Kitchen with 18 bathrooms. The NY Yankees are going to make him a 190 Million Dollar Pitcher.

jeremyb1
10-03-2003, 04:07 PM
What it says to me more than anything is that the talk that he badly wanted to stay was lip service and little else. There's a good chance he'll get 13 a year but probably not a lot more. If you really prefered to play with a team the difference between 11 and 13 isn't huge. Personally I'd go up to 13 and see if he bites since that's about what I think his market value is and 2 million more a year isn't an incredible amount of money if you willing to pay 11 but I doubt we'll offer any more money.

voodoochile
10-03-2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
What it says to me more than anything is that the talk that he badly wanted to stay was lip service and little else. There's a good chance he'll get 13 a year but probably not a lot more. If you really prefered to play with a team the difference between 11 and 13 isn't huge. Personally I'd go up to 13 and see if he bites since that's about what I think his market value is and 2 million more a year isn't an incredible amount of money if you willing to pay 11 but I doubt we'll offer any more money.

Of course they won't. It was all a smoke screen so JR can say he tried. Remember the ARod "negotiations" when JR offered $5M less than the minimum total dollar figure that Boras had released? The more things change the more they stay the same.

You know most teams won't make their first offer their final one. They normally make an offer with the understanding that it will be a negotiation and they may have to go up to a higher value to actually land the player. The Sox don't do that. They put an offer on the table and if it is good enough, they get the player if not then oh well...

:reinsy
"My way or the highway. It's worked thus far and has made me very very wealthy. I told Horace Grant he would never get a better offer and I was right... what? He got more? Now who's making stuff up just to make me look bad..."

steff
10-03-2003, 05:12 PM
Bart will be a Yankee. I said it in March.

RichH55
10-03-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Of course they won't. It was all a smoke screen so JR can say he tried. Remember the ARod "negotiations" when JR offered $5M less than the minimum total dollar figure that Boras had released? The more things change the more they stay the same.

You know most teams won't make their first offer their final one. They normally make an offer with the understanding that it will be a negotiation and they may have to go up to a higher value to actually land the player. The Sox don't do that. They put an offer on the table and if it is good enough, they get the player if not then oh well...

:reinsy
"My way or the highway. It's worked thus far and has made me very very wealthy. I told Horace Grant he would never get a better offer and I was right... what? He got more? Now who's making stuff up just to make me look bad..."


Considering everything, you don't think the deal offered was at least competitive? Cmon

If Bartolo hits the open market, then you get into a bidding war, posibly with the Yankees. I don't see us winning unless we are willing to pay foolishly (Which we have done in the past --> Just because the players don't earn the big money they are paid, doesn't mean they weren't paid big money)

At least this way, we make a fair and competitive offer for Colon, and we know if we have him or not by the end of the world series, which allows us to go in another direction if we have to(which it looks like we were)

voodoochile
10-03-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Considering everything, you don't think the deal offered was at least competitive? Cmon

If Bartolo hits the open market, then you get into a bidding war, posibly with the Yankees. I don't see us winning unless we are willing to pay foolishly (Which we have done in the past --> Just because the players don't earn the big money they are paid, doesn't mean they weren't paid big money)

At least this way, we make a fair and competitive offer for Colon, and we know if we have him or not by the end of the world series, which allows us to go in another direction if we have to(which it looks like we were)

Fair? Yes. Competitive? No. Not if he signs elsewhere for only a few extra million over the length of the contract.

RichH55
10-03-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Fair? Yes. Competitive? No. Not if he signs elsewhere for only a few extra million over the length of the contract.


Well fair is what I was shooting for.....at a certain point to be competitive is foolish, especially once the Yankees get involved.

Pony up some prospects and deal for Cabrera and Vazquez in Montreal

Foulke You
10-03-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I don't think anybody is surprised at this. I appreciate the fact that the Sox made Colon a generous offer but the fact remains that in order to win you've got to spend and the Sox refuse to do this.

To me it's just unfathomable how the Sox with their TV / radio money, drawing almost two million fans can insist they are a "small market" franchise in the 3rd largest market in the country.

Even more shocking to me is that some fans continue to buy the BS line.

Lip

You hit the nail on the head Lip. I'm sick of this crap. We probably could have Bartolo signed right now if they would just up their offer a couple million. But they won't do that because they are the White Sox and this is Jerry Reinsdorf we are talking about. I do believe that KW is trying but he has his "smaller than Minnesota" budgetary constraints and he can't raise the bar much higher than this. I genuinely believe that Bartolo doesn't want to leave Chicago but c'mon, this is a business. Money talks and bull**** runs the marathon. He knows that he can be a filthy rich man if he waits. All he wants is the Sox to come closer to what he can get from teams like NY and Boston and he'll stay.

You're also right Lip, that people are buying into this low budget line of thinking. I don't get excited at the prospect of draft picks or finding out what "Plan B" is. I want Bartolo Colon back with everyone else and a new field manager ready to make a run at the AL Central. If we lose Bartolo and Esteban Loaiza doesn't have another stellar year like he did this year, I fear it is just another 2nd place finish for the 2004 season. Bartolo Colon is a proven commodity. Lock him up for our rotation for the next 3 years! We can't win this division if we are getting outspent by teams like Minnesota. This is Chicago, it is time to start thinking bigger.

cornball
10-03-2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
You hit the nail on the head Lip. I'm sick of this crap. We probably could have Bartolo signed right now if they would just up their offer a couple million. But they won't do that because they are the White Sox and this is Jerry Reinsdorf we are talking about. I do believe that KW is trying but he has his "smaller than Minnesota" budgetary constraints and he can't raise the bar much higher than this. I genuinely believe that Bartolo doesn't want to leave Chicago but c'mon, this is a business. Money talks and bull**** runs the marathon. He knows that he can be a filthy rich man if he waits. All he wants is the Sox to come closer to what he can get from teams like NY and Boston and he'll stay.

You're also right Lip, that people are buying into this low budget line of thinking. I don't get excited at the prospect of draft picks or finding out what "Plan B" is. I want Bartolo Colon back with everyone else and a new field manager ready to make a run at the AL Central. If we lose Bartolo and Esteban Loaiza doesn't have another stellar year like he did this year, I fear it is just another 2nd place finish for the 2004 season. Bartolo Colon is a proven commodity. Lock him up for our rotation for the next 3 years! We can't win this division if we are getting outspent by teams like Minnesota. This is Chicago, it is time to start thinking bigger.

I agree whole heartedly, we will never be able to to contend with the mentality of meeting a 60MM budget.... in CHICAGO no less, with competition 8 miles north.

If we lose Colon for 1-2 million dollars, that is a shame. KW does think big and i am developing confidence in him, hope he comes through.

It would be nice....one time... that a player actually wants to play for the Sox.( ala Irod and Thome trying to convince the Cubs last year) Most established players have no desire to play for the Sox unless the money is there. Colon did say he would like to return when the season ended, now it comes to money again. If JR ever wants to win he will have to pay, because in todays baseball it will never happen on his type of budget.

gosox41
10-03-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I don't think anybody is surprised at this. I appreciate the fact that the Sox made Colon a generous offer but the fact remains that in order to win you've got to spend and the Sox refuse to do this.

To me it's just unfathomable how the Sox with their TV / radio money, drawing almost two million fans can insist they are a "small market" franchise in the 3rd largest market in the country.

Even more shocking to me is that some fans continue to buy the BS line.

Lip

1. You dont need to spend to win, it just makes it easier.

2. Most people don't know the issue of the White Sox finances. What I've been told isn't believed here, and that's fine. Bit things aren't always what they seem and JR is an owner who refuses to create a lot of debt to try to win. He has however, taken out money in previous seasons to try to have a winning team.

3. Relaity says most Sox fans are fickle. Maybe not in this site, but in general. How much complainnig did we hear about the UD policy and ticket prices when the team was in freaking first place? The point is, even if this team does spend, if they don't win, a lot of fans aren't going to support a losing team. It's reality. There's a lack of loyal fans. Sure some of it was JR's doing, but look at previous Sox teams that were bad before JR became owner. They weren't coming anywhere near 2 million people.

I'd love to see JR raise payroll to whatever it takes. It's not going to happen. From the business side, I don't blame him for limiting his risk if he knows how fickle the fans are. You may not believe the numbers and want to believe that JR is lying and cheating, but I don't think it's happening.

Bob

bludupree
10-03-2003, 09:30 PM
This isn't totally researched, but I would like to know what you guys think. First of all I do not have any faith in Konerko. I don't think he is a great player, nor do I believe he helps the chemistry. Thomas had some power numbers, but I don't think he is a situational hitter and his average is low. The 2 most valuable position players are Magg's and Carlos Lee. Carlos had an amazing season and a great attitude. I think he likes it here. Alomar had a horrible time in NY. I think he is also happy to be here.

Anyway, what if, assuming we can get someone to take Thomas and/or Konerko off our hands, we use Lee, Rowand and Maggs in the outfield, Olivio behind the plate, Crede at third, Alomar at second. Rowand, Olivo, and Crede are cheap. Now for first base, this may not be practicle, but we could stick Everitt there. I have heard he is happy in Chicago. If not, he could be the DH with either Thomas or Konerko at first. By getting rid of Konerko and Thomas(if possible) and getting a cheaper DH/1B to work with Everitt, we could free up a lot of money to put towards our starting rotation.

The one last hole is a shortstop. I don't like Valentin anymore. I like his attitude and what he as done against the Cubs, but I think we need a better SS. Willie Harris is a great athlete and can throw from Center. Would it be possible to use him there? It is risky, but we could have Graf to back him up. I know willie wasn't the best hitter this year, but he does have potential and a lot of speed(Which Thomas and Konerko do not).

I don't know all of the numbers, but I would think that this would free up enough money to spend on our 1-4 starters and find a solid 5. Along with a manager who is worth something I think we would have a good chance. Let me know what you think.

TDog
10-03-2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
...I'd love to see JR raise payroll to whatever it takes. It's not going to happen. From the business side, I don't blame him for limiting his risk if he knows how fickle the fans are. You may not believe the numbers and want to believe that JR is lying and cheating, but I don't think it's happening.

And as much as a lot of people around here refuse to accept it, anyone likely to buy out Reinsdorf is just as unlikely to go into debt to to try to put a winning team on the field.

voodoochile
10-03-2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by TDog
And as much as a lot of people around here refuse to accept it, anyone likely to buy out Reinsdorf is just as unlikely to go into debt to to try to put a winning team on the field.

Depends on what kind of debt you are talking about. Ranger type losses? No. That won't and shouldn't happen. But, maybe a new owner would be willing to forgo profit and salary for a few years to put a better product on the field. Reinsy plays shell games with the money, hiding it from the books (like the parking revenue) and he takes home $1M a year in salary for sitting on his ass and pissing off the Sox fans.

A new owner might have the resources to invest more money in the players themselves and might not be so cheap when it comes to bringing in proven MLB managers and GM's thus giving the team a better chance at finding better players for more reasonable rates.

In either case, how can it be worse? What has Reinsy accomplished in the last 15 years other than 2 division championships and a lot of lost fanbase and good will?

Lip Man 1
10-03-2003, 10:47 PM
Bob:

I guess we simply have some fundamental differences in how we view sports ownership.

I'm not saying that you are right or wrong...all I'm saying is that in my opinion, if you are in sports to make a profit you're very much in the wrong business.

Sports is about winning...not making a profit.

If Reinsdorf wishes to make a sizable profit let him go back to real estate.

The Chicago White Sox are not and should not be run like Bob's Hardware Story, or Nick's Corner Grocery, not when the city of Chicago and the taxpayers of Illinois subsidized the stadium and allow Reinsdorf to play there. Now if he spent his own money a la in San franciso or Miami then that is a completely different situation and I would tend to agree more with your feelings.

Don't you feel since Reinsdorf has invested little or no money of his own in the financing of Comiskey Park that the fans through the city and state should have something to say for their troubles?

They are clearly saying they are more concerned with putting a winning team that challenges for the post season and World Series then whether or not Jerry Reinsdorf as CEO of the White Sox takes home "only" say fifteen million in profit instead of 23 million.

Lip

xil357
10-04-2003, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

I guess we simply have some fundamental differences in how we view sports ownership.

I'm not saying that you are right or wrong...all I'm saying is that in my opinion, if you are in sports to make a profit you're very much in the wrong business.

Sports is about winning...not making a profit.

Lip

Lip and Bob,

I think you both are right.

I believe that JR has a moral (or at least civic) obligation to deliver a winner even if it means sacrificing profit because the Cell was built with public funds. But his chairmanship is predicated on his continued ability to make his co-owners happy, because, IIRC, he is not a majority owner. I believe that his ownership group wants, nay, demands a big profit.

I believe JR when he says that he would trade his six Bulls championships for one White Sox WS win. But I also understand that he is limited in his ability to sacrifice profits for increased payroll. I believe his rhetoric about his beloved Brooklyn Dodgers and loving baseball more than anything in life.

I also believe that JR likes being chairman. I think that by himself JR is a wealthy man, but among the "big fish" like Steinbrenner and Colangelo and other sports owners like Cuban and Paul Allen he's a little minnow. I believe that JR likes to swim with the big boys and will hold on to his position with all his might. He's not going to give it up; the chairmanship will have to be pulled from his cold, dead, grubby little hands.

He's not going to win a WS if he is not chairman, so his only chance -- even if it is a snowball's chance in hell -- of winning a WS rests on him continuing to hold that position.

I don't like that he isn't honest with us when he says (through KW) that payroll is limited.

I believe that the ownership group -- like just about every other corporation in the world (if they are smart) -- keeps two sets of books -- one for public scrutiny and for the IRS, and one for themselves. I think they, by themselves, are all like Reinsdorf -- individually wealthy but not like Tom Hicks or Cuban or Allen. So they have to stick together and they all want to make a profit.

So what is my conclusion? JR is not going to risk pissing off his partners -- and by extension risk his chairmanship -- by reducing the level of profit to which they all are accustomed. I don't know how much profit the Sox generate per year, but let's say its $50 million. I don't believe that JR is going to add $25 million to the payroll and cut their profits in half, even if he believes that it will increase attendance (but also increase their lease payments.)

So, what am I going to do? I'm going to continue to despise this rotten ownership group and hope against hope that enough of them are greedy enough to want to max out their profits immediately that they decide to sell their interests to a multi-billionaire who wants a "toy" team like Steinbrenner, Cuban, Allen, Hicks or Jerry Jones -- someone who doesn't care about profits, only winning -- thereby depriving JR of his precious chairmanship. I don't ever wish for someone to kick the bucket despite the fact that it is WAY tempting to do so.

In the meantime, I'm going to continue to fantasize given the reality of the situation and think positively about what the Sox can do, within their existing self-imposed payroll restraints, to improve their team.

idseer
10-04-2003, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Foulke You


You're also right Lip, that people are buying into this low budget line of thinking. I


i don't think that's a fair assessment. people are using the low budget mentality because they know that's what they're stuck with. that's not the same thing as 'buying into it'.
everyone would like a $100 M budget to play with but that's not what jr is going to give us so it's not like we have much choice.
so you can either talk like you have more money to spend and spin your wheels, or talk like you have a $55M budget and try to figure out how to put your team together in the best way possible.

jabrch
10-04-2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by TDog
And as much as a lot of people around here refuse to accept it, anyone likely to buy out Reinsdorf is just as unlikely to go into debt to to try to put a winning team on the field.

Debt - NO....of course not...

However someone might consider taking that team that generates 50mm in profit and cut their profit down to 10mm. Sure, the ROI might go down... but if a very very rich person makes another 10mm and wins a world championship, that just might be enough to make them happy.

Nobody is saying JR should lose money...just that he should reduce his profit margins and invest more in salary.

harwar
10-04-2003, 09:59 AM
We all know that no matter how much we hear about that Reinsdorf would do anything to be a World Series winner,it will never happen if it means big time payroll advances.

MisterB
10-04-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Sports is about winning...not making a profit.

Yes, sports is about winning.

Professional sports is about money. Period. Always has been, always will be.

I can't believe you're that naive, Lip.

Lip Man 1
10-04-2003, 04:28 PM
Mister B:

Tell that to George Steinbrenner, Mark Cuban and Paul Allen.

Lip

kittle42
10-04-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mister B:

Tell that to George Steinbrenner, Mark Cuban and Paul Allen.

Lip

Those fellows, at least Steinbrenner, realize that winning = money. If winning occurred and money was still scarce (see 1997 Florida Marlins), they would salary dump with the best of 'em (well, maybe not Cuban!).

MisterB
10-04-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Tell that to George Steinbrenner, Mark Cuban and Paul Allen.


And the minute you can prove that none of them are making a profit off their teams, I'll believe they are just about winning.

TDog
10-04-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
...
In either case, how can it be worse? What has Reinsy accomplished in the last 15 years other than 2 division championships and a lot of lost fanbase and good will?

Theoretically, you're absolutely right. Realistically ...

Since 1983, I have changed jobs twice, but I have worked for six companies. Every time my operation has been sold, people I worked with said the new boss couldn't be any worse than the old boss. Every time they later said they were wrong.

What you want to see in new ownership is likely not what you would get with new ownership. Corporate ownership is profit-driven. In the real world, corporations are getting away with cutting salaries and slashing benefits in their quests for better bottom lines. Some baseball teams have proven they can effectively do the same thing by playing minor leaguers at the major-league level. You and I would love to bankroll a star-studded Sox team, but we don't have the money. As I don't see many benevolent billionnaires who want to put their money into baseball, I honestly don't believe that any potential buyer would be interested in doing everything Sox fans want to see done with their team.

I hope I'm wrong. Reinsdorf was an improvement over 1970s Veeck in that he rose the Sox out of poverty. Maybe a new owner could raise the Sox higher.

But it could get worse.

voodoochile
10-04-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by TDog
Theoretically, you're absolutely right. Realistically ...

Since 1983, I have changed jobs twice, but I have worked for six companies. Every time my operation has been sold, people I worked with said the new boss couldn't be any worse than the old boss. Every time they later said they were wrong.

What you want to see in new ownership is likely not what you would get with new ownership. Corporate ownership is profit-driven. In the real world, corporations are getting away with cutting salaries and slashing benefits in their quests for better bottom lines. Some baseball teams have proven they can effectively do the same thing by playing minor leaguers at the major-league level. You and I would love to bankroll a star-studded Sox team, but we don't have the money. As I don't see many benevolent billionnaires who want to put their money into baseball, I honestly don't believe that any potential buyer would be interested in doing everything Sox fans want to see done with their team.

I hope I'm wrong. Reinsdorf was an improvement over 1970s Veeck in that he rose the Sox out of poverty. Maybe a new owner could raise the Sox higher.

But it could get worse.

Yes, but a corporation would realize that if they put a winning team on the field they will make more money than if they try to be cheap.

MisterB
10-04-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, but a corporation would realize that if they put a winning team on the field they will make more money than if they try to be cheap.

Disney unloaded the Angels despite winnng a WS. AOL/TimeWarner has been trying to unload the Braves. Ditto Fox with the Dodgers. The corporations are finding out that baseball doesn't work like the rest of the business world. Putting out the better product doesn't make the franchise profitable. Two examples: The Oakland A's - excellent product, low revenues; The Cubs - lousy product, raking in the bucks.

voodoochile
10-04-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
Disney unloaded the Angels despite winnng a WS. AOL/TimeWarner has been trying to unload the Braves. Ditto Fox with the Dodgers. The corporations are finding out that baseball doesn't work like the rest of the business world. Putting out the better product doesn't make the franchise profitable. Two examples: The Oakland A's - excellent product, low revenues; The Cubs - lousy product, raking in the bucks.

You are correct, but there are a couple of other issues.

1)The flubbies are owned by a major media conglomerate who gives them tons of national exposure. AOL/TW cannot do the same thing because of the differences in their publications. A newspaper is a perfect medium for promoting a sports product. So are cable TV stations.

2)I don't doubt that in the long run it wouldn't make sense, but the initial response would be to make the Sox competitive on a yearly basis and hire experienced quality people to run the team from the front office to the head coach and scouting department.

3)The ROI would be a big issue. The Trib bought the flubbies for how much money? $20M or something equally ridiculous? That means their ROI is good no matter what (just as JR's group makes ROI hand over fist on their initial investment). Now those dynamics have changed and the value of the clubs have gone up so much that it would make it difficult to justify the investment, IMO.

Still, I have to believe that a big corporation would be a better option than JR and his buddies. However, I think it more likely they would be sold to an wealthy individual who wants a toy and a chance to win a trophy. Just like JR says he does, but this time for real...

MisterB
10-04-2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You are correct, but there are a couple of other issues.

1)The flubbies are owned by a major media conglomerate who gives them tons of national exposure. AOL/TW cannot do the same thing because of the differences in their publications. A newspaper is a perfect medium for promoting a sports product. So are cable TV stations.

Tribune Co, AOL/TW and Fox all own baseball teams and the cable outlets that carry them. The point is that the Cubs attendance (and therefore a large chunk of revenue) is no longer tied to on field performance, as a comparison of W-L record and attendance can show. Another example is the Brewers, who are a second-division team with no media ownership, but apparently one of the most profitable franchises in baseball.

2)I don't doubt that in the long run it wouldn't make sense, but the initial response would be to make the Sox competitive on a yearly basis and hire experienced quality people to run the team from the front office to the head coach and scouting department.

Corporations (in general) don't know how to run baseball teams. Disney didn't spend heaps of money or hire savvy front office people to make the Angels better. The Dodgers and Braves were run pretty well before the corps. took over, so no need for help there. They expect the teams to already be self-sufficient both monetarily- and management-wise. Any large scale corporate spending I've seen has been on capital improvements. (i.e. the ballparks the teams play in)

3)The ROI would be a big issue. The Trib bought the flubbies for how much money? $20M or something equally ridiculous? That means their ROI is good no matter what (just as JR's group makes ROI hand over fist on their initial investment). Now those dynamics have changed and the value of the clubs have gone up so much that it would make it difficult to justify the investment, IMO.

Remember that ROI only applies when ownership changes hands. If you bought a house for $50k 20 years ago, and it's now worth $150k, it doesn't mean you have $100k in cash on hand. You only get that by selling the house. Do you really want to have ownership turned over every few years because the corporations got a good return and needed that cash instead?

Still, I have to believe that a big corporation would be a better option than JR and his buddies. However, I think it more likely they would be sold to an wealthy individual who wants a toy and a chance to win a trophy. Just like JR says he does, but this time for real...

A corporation would want the team to turn a profit, whether or not being 'competitive' is how it's done.

voodoochile
10-04-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
Tribune Co, AOL/TW and Fox all own baseball teams and the cable outlets that carry them. The point is that the Cubs attendance (and therefore a large chunk of revenue) is no longer tied to on field performance, as a comparison of W-L record and attendance can show. Another example is the Brewers, who are a second-division team with no media ownership, but apparently one of the most profitable franchises in baseball.

Corporations (in general) don't know how to run baseball teams. Disney didn't spend heaps of money or hire savvy front office people to make the Angels better. The Dodgers and Braves were run pretty well before the corps. took over, so no need for help there. They expect the teams to already be self-sufficient both monetarily- and management-wise. Any large scale corporate spending I've seen has been on capital improvements. (i.e. the ballparks the teams play in)

A corporation would want the team to turn a profit, whether or not being 'competitive' is how it's done.

Well Nintendo seems to be doing alright with the Mariners. As they continue to be comptitive year after year. The Angels won a WS under Disney and after 40 years of futility, the Tribune has gotten the flubbies into the playoffs 4 times in the last 20 years.

I agree about the media stuff, but if the team isn't bought by a major media conglmerate (and there are other forms of corporations out there) then the main way to increase revenue and profits would be to make the team competitive. In either case, it would mean more money being spent on the team initially at least until the media hype kicked in. No guarantees, but I would take my chances over JR and the boys...

gosox41
10-05-2003, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Depends on what kind of debt you are talking about. Ranger type losses? No. That won't and shouldn't happen. But, maybe a new owner would be willing to forgo profit and salary for a few years to put a better product on the field. Reinsy plays shell games with the money, hiding it from the books (like the parking revenue) and he takes home $1M a year in salary for sitting on his ass and pissing off the Sox fans.

A new owner might have the resources to invest more money in the players themselves and might not be so cheap when it comes to bringing in proven MLB managers and GM's thus giving the team a better chance at finding better players for more reasonable rates.


A new owner may have more resources to spend money, but I think JR has maxed out his.

I'm curious to know, where is the information about JR's $1 mill a year salary and the Sox specifically hiding parking lot money from the books?

Until I see proof, I'm going to stick with what my friend tells me. She's told me the numbers for the last few years and I trust her. Also, I've quesitoned her on some of these issues about two sets of books, etc. and she laughed and thought that was ridiculous.

Bob

gosox41
10-05-2003, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

I guess we simply have some fundamental differences in how we view sports ownership.

I'm not saying that you are right or wrong...all I'm saying is that in my opinion, if you are in sports to make a profit you're very much in the wrong business.

Sports is about winning...not making a profit.

If Reinsdorf wishes to make a sizable profit let him go back to real estate.

The Chicago White Sox are not and should not be run like Bob's Hardware Story, or Nick's Corner Grocery, not when the city of Chicago and the taxpayers of Illinois subsidized the stadium and allow Reinsdorf to play there. Now if he spent his own money a la in San franciso or Miami then that is a completely different situation and I would tend to agree more with your feelings.

Don't you feel since Reinsdorf has invested little or no money of his own in the financing of Comiskey Park that the fans through the city and state should have something to say for their troubles?

They are clearly saying they are more concerned with putting a winning team that challenges for the post season and World Series then whether or not Jerry Reinsdorf as CEO of the White Sox takes home "only" say fifteen million in profit instead of 23 million.

Lip

As a fan, I agree that in a perfect world sports would be about winning only. But the fact is it is as business, and it's a multi-billion dollar industry. There's no getting around that so I long ago realized that and moved on from that concept. It's not happening.

As for the stadium, the state didn't have to build a new one. They could have kissed the Sox good bye. Instead they voted to do it. Makes JR a smart businessman. And all those elected officials that did it were voted in by citizens of the state. After the new Comiskey was approved, I don't recall seeing any political careers ruined because they voted for it.

Also, the park was built from a hotel tax, which doesn't apply to most citizens in the state of Illinois.

And, lastlly, are you serious about JR taking home $15-23 mill. in salary. Do you have proof??

Bob

gosox41
10-05-2003, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Debt - NO....of course not...

However someone might consider taking that team that generates 50mm in profit and cut their profit down to 10mm. Sure, the ROI might go down... but if a very very rich person makes another 10mm and wins a world championship, that just might be enough to make them happy.

Nobody is saying JR should lose money...just that he should reduce his profit margins and invest more in salary.

So I'll ask you the same question I've asked 3 others: How do you know the Sox are generating huge profit?

Let's see some proof. Or at least project some numbers to show this $50 mill in profit.

Bob

gosox41
10-05-2003, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well Nintendo seems to be doing alright with the Mariners. As they continue to be comptitive year after year. The Angels won a WS under Disney and after 40 years of futility, the Tribune has gotten the flubbies into the playoffs 4 times in the last 20 years.

I agree about the media stuff, but if the team isn't bought by a major media conglmerate (and there are other forms of corporations out there) then the main way to increase revenue and profits would be to make the team competitive. In either case, it would mean more money being spent on the team initially at least until the media hype kicked in. No guarantees, but I would take my chances over JR and the boys...

Meanwhile, Seattles ownership wouldn't let the team add on any payroll for the stretch run this season. Why not make $2-3 mill. less in profit if it means a shot of getting in the playoffs..unless there is no profit and htey have to justify these losses to the share holders.

Bob

voodoochile
10-05-2003, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
A new owner may have more resources to spend money, but I think JR has maxed out his.

I'm curious to know, where is the information about JR's $1 mill a year salary and the Sox specifically hiding parking lot money from the books?

Until I see proof, I'm going to stick with what my friend tells me. She's told me the numbers for the last few years and I trust her. Also, I've quesitoned her on some of these issues about two sets of books, etc. and she laughed and thought that was ridiculous.

Bob

The salary figure has been quoted here in other posts. That is my only source for it, but it wouldn't surprise me either.

The Parking money isn't part of the Sox corporation. It is a different corporation with the same owners.

Why do you and your friend trust the owners? Just curious? Does your source have access to the books themselves?

cornball
10-05-2003, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
As a fan, I agree that in a perfect world sports would be about winning only. But the fact is it is as business, and it's a multi-billion dollar industry. There's no getting around that so I long ago realized that and moved on from that concept. It's not happening.

As for the stadium, the state didn't have to build a new one. They could have kissed the Sox good bye. Instead they voted to do it. Makes JR a smart businessman. And all those elected officials that did it were voted in by citizens of the state. After the new Comiskey was approved, I don't recall seeing any political careers ruined because they voted for it.

Also, the park was built from a hotel tax, which doesn't apply to most citizens in the state of Illinois.

And, lastlly, are you serious about JR taking home $15-23 mill. in salary. Do you have proof??


On ther other hand, do you have proof JR is not making money. Most of the teams with high payrolls or high budgets have terrific have terrific media deals, for example, the YES network. The Sox knew this years ago, but it blew up in their faces with Sox vision. The fact that we have a very favorable lease, 50MM payroll for years, located in a large market, with money coming in of merchandising ect and other places....it seems hard to believe he is not making money.

Many teams have made money, after winning. An investment to win pays dividends in season tix sales. Happened here in the early 1990's, happened this year in Anahem.

As far as the stadium deal costing a politician their seat, doesnt matter what they do.....the return rate is over 98%.

Baseball will not open their books to find the truth, Sox included. When the numbers are large enough, you can make them say whatever benefits. Just my thoughts.

Lip Man 1
10-05-2003, 12:58 PM
Bob:

The 15/23 number was just something tossed out as an example. It could have just as easily been 85/100 or 2/5.

You keep asking for proof and all I can say is that in the book by John Helyar entitled "The Lords Of The Realm" they had specific examples from teams that use subterfuge and different ways of hiding money earned.

They also had the report from the unbiased Stanford economic professor that was selected by BOTH the owners and the players union to examine the books from MLB during the labor impasse of 1994. That professor concluded that the overwhelming majority of teams were making large amounts of money. According to the book this really pissed off the owners and hardened the resolve of the union.

Remember this was an unbiased observer.

Also what the owners are doing is NOT illegal, let me make that clear, it's apparently smart business which enabled these people to make the millions needed to own baseball teams. To me though it's unethical because these teams do not really belong to them, they belong to the communities that help subsidize them. The owners are mearly the current caretakers.

You seem to trust your bookkeeper, that's fine. I don't. She's paid by the White Sox, what do you expect her to tell you?

And again she's probably not doing anything illegal.

Meanwhile the fans of the White Sox continue to suffer while the owners keep laughing all the way to the bank.

Bottom line, these are very smart people...if they were losing money they'd get the hell out of the sports business.

Lip

joecrede
10-05-2003, 01:14 PM
I'd venture to say that Reinsdorf spends a greater percentage of revenue on payroll than Steinbrenner does.

TDog
10-05-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Meanwhile, Seattles ownership wouldn't let the team add on any payroll for the stretch run this season. Why not make $2-3 mill. less in profit if it means a shot of getting in the playoffs..unless there is no profit and htey have to justify these losses to the share holders.

Sox fans may be envious of Seattle's success, but the only reason Seattle fans aren't as frustrated as Sox fans is that there were already generations of frustrated Sox fans around when the Seattle Mariners emerged as an expansion team in 1977.

The Mariners have folded down the stretch during the last two seasons. The only way to make sense of the Nelson trade is to attribute it to his public criticism of management for not strengthening the team at the trading deadline. Maybe it was smart to trade Rodriguez and Johnson when they were facing huge contracts, but had the Sox done those things, people would still be posting threads complaining about ownership not sucking it up and paying their huge salaries.

hold2dibber
10-06-2003, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bottom line, these are very smart people...if they were losing money they'd get the hell out of the sports business.

That's the point exactly. Think about it - there are only two reasons to own a professional sports team that I can think of:

(1) To make a lot of money; or
(2) To feed one's competitiveness and desire to win.

JR has owned the team for over 20 years. He has not won. He has clearly not taken a "I am going to win no matter what, no matter what it costs, come hell or high water" approach. Makes me think he's in it because he's making money. If he was in it for the winning, I think he'd open his pocket book. Anyone who thinks he isn't rolling in cash is nuts - the guy had to have made oogles of money off the Bulls in the '90s. And if I'm wrong, I sure as hell wish he'd just sell the team (he'd make a tidy profit on the sale) to someone who had the $ and the resolve to win.

soxtalker
10-06-2003, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
That's the point exactly. Think about it - there are only two reasons to own a professional sports team that I can think of:

(1) To make a lot of money; or
(2) To feed one's competitiveness and desire to win.

JR has owned the team for over 20 years. He has not won. He has clearly not taken a "I am going to win no matter what, no matter what it costs, come hell or high water" approach. Makes me think he's in it because he's making money. If he was in it for the winning, I think he'd open his pocket book. Anyone who thinks he isn't rolling in cash is nuts - the guy had to have made oogles of money off the Bulls in the '90s. And if I'm wrong, I sure as hell wish he'd just sell the team (he'd make a tidy profit on the sale) to someone who had the $ and the resolve to win.

The problem that I have with the pure money argument is that it isn't the only thing that is keeping JR from winning. In fact, he can point to times when he has spent (well, at least one, with Albert Bell). But he's made other errors. Think of the major blunders that his GM's and managers have made over the years. Think of the errors in PR.

MRKARNO
10-06-2003, 09:10 AM
I think JR does want to win really badly, he's just still convinced that he can do it pretty cheaply

Dadawg_77
10-06-2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
I think JR does want to win really badly, he's just still convinced that he can do it pretty cheaply

You can win cheaply just the Sox don't have the system in place to accomplish it.

MisterB
10-06-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
To me though it's unethical because these teams do not really belong to them, they belong to the communities that help subsidize them.

I think the people who paid large sums of money for a percentage interest in a major league team would strongly disagree with you. If this statement were actually true, then JR would be correct in his assertion that it's the fans' fault that the Sox can't field a winning team.

hold2dibber
10-06-2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
I think JR does want to win really badly, he's just still convinced that he can do it pretty cheaply

I guess it depends on what you mean by "win". The Sox are probably over .500 during the JR ownership tenure. But they haven't won much of anything.

I also think JR wants to win, but only if he can win "his way" - i.e., within budget while being exceedingly loyal to those who are loyal to him. IMHO, those restraints are more important to him than winning - if he can't win under those conditions, so be it.

Lip Man 1
10-06-2003, 01:04 PM
Mister B:

Then I would reply to your point that if these people are making such substancial investments as to own the clubs, they why are they demanding that communities help pay for it by bankrolling stadiums with tax payer money?

San Francisco owner Peter McGowan to this day is reviled by many owners in MLB because he built Pac Bell himself with no outside money. He showed it could be done and that concerned the other owners greatly. In the future a city might say to an owner demanding help (a la Minnesota) build it yourself...McGowan did.

Now the owners are in trouble because there are very few realistic places left where they could move a franchise to.

So if they spend their own money to buy and build the stadium I agree with your point, they have the right to spend as much or as little money as they choose. They also have the right to leave a city without asking for permission. After all, they took all the risks.

But your arguement doesn't fly when owners are buying controlling interests in a team (and remember controlling interest does NOT have to be 51%) and then saying "oh we need a new stadium or zoning law changes or business tax breaks" As soon as the community has a financial stake in a club then said club STOPS becomming the sole property of the priniciple investor. In that case (and this encompasses 90% of pro sports franchises) the city and community DOES have the right to make claims of their own. One of those claims could be demanding a winner.

Just my opinion.

Lip

eshunn2001
10-06-2003, 03:51 PM
Let me explain how our country works....

A corporation is basically a separate identity. You get a separate number (like a social security number) and it works like a separate person basically. There is no limit to how many corporations you could set up.

Let's just say for the sake of arguement Reinsdork has 2. He has SOX corp. and White corp. Now Sox corp. is the Corporation that controls the sox, The ticket revenues and the players salaries Ect....

White corp. Is just a separate entity that does nothing. A mother corp.

Well Sox corp. hires White corp. to take care of consessions, parking and all other revenues that have nothing to do directly with the Whitesox.

Now White corp. has revenues but no overhead. And Sox corp has costs but little if no revenues on consessions and parking and so on and so forth.

Even if he wanted to Reinsdork could transfer money from one corporation to the other with no penalty (If he has set up in Nevada or deleware especially.) He could say it is a loan to white corp from sox corp.(another way of hiding revenues)

COMED the electric company in california just did the same thing over the lasy 15 years over 15 billion dollars to thier mother corp and filed BK. But it is all leagal. STUPID BUT TRUE

Brian26
10-06-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by eshunn2001
Let me explain how our country works....

A corporation is basically a seperate identity. You get a seperate number (like a social security number) and it works like a seperate person basically. There is no limit to how many corporations you could set up.

Let's just say for the sake of arguement Reinsdork has 2. He has SOX corp. and White corp. Now Sox corp. is the Corporation that controls the sox, The ticket revenues and the players salaries Ect....

White corp. Is just a separate entity that does nothing. A mother corp.

Well Sox corp. hires White corp. to take care of consessions, parking and all other revenues that have nothing to do directly with the Whitesox.

Now White corp. has revenues but no overhead. And Sox corp has costs but little if no revenues on consessions and parking and so on and so forth.

Even if he wanted to Reinsdork could transfer money from one corporation to the other with no penalty (If he has set up in Nevada or deleware especially.) He could say it is a loan to white corp from sox corp.(another way of hiding revenues)

COMED the electric company in california just did the same thing over the lasy 15 years over 15 billion dollars to thier mother corp and filed BK. But it is all leagal. STUPID BUT TRUE

That's cool, but you spelled separate incorrectly.

eshunn2001
10-06-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
That's cool, but you spelled separate incorrectly.

Thanks!!! I will correct that... LOL

thepaulbowski
10-06-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by eshunn2001
Let me explain how our country works....

A corporation is basically a seperate identity. You get a seperate number (like a social security number) and it works like a seperate person basically. There is no limit to how many corporations you could set up.

Let's just say for the sake of arguement Reinsdork has 2. He has SOX corp. and White corp. Now Sox corp. is the Corporation that controls the sox, The ticket revenues and the players salaries Ect....

White corp. Is just a separate entity that does nothing. A mother corp.

Well Sox corp. hires White corp. to take care of consessions, parking and all other revenues that have nothing to do directly with the Whitesox.

Now White corp. has revenues but no overhead. And Sox corp has costs but little if no revenues on consessions and parking and so on and so forth.

Even if he wanted to Reinsdork could transfer money from one corporation to the other with no penalty (If he has set up in Nevada or deleware especially.) He could say it is a loan to white corp from sox corp.(another way of hiding revenues)

COMED the electric company in california just did the same thing over the lasy 15 years over 15 billion dollars to thier mother corp and filed BK. But it is all leagal. STUPID BUT TRUE

Comparing this to ComEd or Enron or anything else is off base.
This doesn't even seem relevant to the conversation at hand. How JR handles his finances is between him, the minority owners & the IRS. Whether or not this team is making or losing money or how things are set up internally is not our concern. This is not a public corporation, therefore the only people who should be concerned with this is the stakeholders of record (the minority share owners). Since none of us are stakeholders, it doesn't concern us. If JR goes bankrupt because of his dealings, who cares (which won't happen).

Just field a freakin' winning team. I don't care about how JR counts his money

voodoochile
10-06-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Comparing this to ComEd or Enron or anything else is off base.
This doesn't even seem relevant to the conversation at hand. How JR handles his finances is between him, the minority owners & the IRS. Whether or not this team is making or losing money or how things are set up internally is not our concern. This is not a public corporation, therefore the only people who should be concerned with this is the stakeholders of record (the minority share owners). Since none of us are stakeholders, it doesn't concern us. If JR goes bankrupt because of his dealings, who cares (which won't happen).

Just field a freakin' winning team. I don't care about how JR counts his money

You don't care that JR might be not counting the parking money as part of the money needed to run the team? You don't care that he might be hiding money spent on watching the team and pocketing it rather than paying players higher salaries and fielding a competitive team year after year?

JR hides money spent by fans while going to Sox games and than cries poor when it comes to spending money on players. I don't know about you, but that thought bothers the crap out of me....

eshunn2001
10-06-2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Comparing this to ComEd or Enron or anything else is off base.
This doesn't even seem relevant to the conversation at hand. How JR handles his finances is between him, the minority owners & the IRS. Whether or not this team is making or losing money or how things are set up internally is not our concern. This is not a public corporation, therefore the only people who should be concerned with this is the stakeholders of record (the minority share owners). Since none of us are stakeholders, it doesn't concern us. If JR goes bankrupt because of his dealings, who cares (which won't happen).

Just field a freakin' winning team. I don't care about how JR counts his money
What the books show is all he could spend.. I think it coulld have alot to do with this conversation. If the books do not show that he has it how can he spend it??? Enron and ComEd are 2 different situations. And they are for from the only companies that do things like I explained above. I was not trying to connect the 3 any how...

MisterB
10-06-2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mister B:

Then I would reply to your point that if these people are making such substancial investments as to own the clubs, they why are they demanding that communities help pay for it by bankrolling stadiums with tax payer money?

San Francisco owner Peter McGowan to this day is reviled by many owners in MLB because he built Pac Bell himself with no outside money. He showed it could be done and that concerned the other owners greatly. In the future a city might say to an owner demanding help (a la Minnesota) build it yourself...McGowan did.

Now the owners are in trouble because there are very few realistic places left where they could move a franchise to.

So if they spend their own money to buy and build the stadium I agree with your point, they have the right to spend as much or as little money as they choose. They also have the right to leave a city without asking for permission. After all, they took all the risks.

But your arguement doesn't fly when owners are buying controlling interests in a team (and remember controlling interest does NOT have to be 51%) and then saying "oh we need a new stadium or zoning law changes or business tax breaks" As soon as the community has a financial stake in a club then said club STOPS becomming the sole property of the priniciple investor. In that case (and this encompasses 90% of pro sports franchises) the city and community DOES have the right to make claims of their own. One of those claims could be demanding a winner.

Just my opinion.

Lip

Corporations of all stripe routinely ask for a 'little help' from governments and communities in the form of tax breaks, zoning changes, bailouts, etc. They do this because they can, and (as the bay area voters proved) they can be denied. But even Magowan got help from the city of San Francisco to get Pac Bell built (a large chunk of the property was owned by the city, it all had to get rezoned, as well as indirect infrastructure improvements including building miles of streetcar track and replacing freeway ramps just to name a few). The fact is, you can't get something as big as a stadium built without some assistance from the local populace and government, be it money or otherwise.

Sports fans always have the right to demand more of their local team, but sports franchises are not community property, they are not charities, they are not held in public trust. They are privately owned businesses, no matter how much taxpayer money is thrown their way. And that's not an opinion, that's a legal fact.

voodoochile
10-06-2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
Corporations of all stripe routinely ask for a 'little help' from governments and communities in the form of tax breaks, zoning changes, bailouts, etc. They do this because they can, and (as the bay area voters proved) they can be denied. But even Magowan got help from the city of San Francisco to get Pac Bell built (a large chunk of the property was owned by the city, it all had to get rezoned, as well as indirect infrastructure improvements including building miles of streetcar track and replacing freeway ramps just to name a few). The fact is, you can't get something as big as a stadium built without some assistance from the local populace and government, be it money or otherwise.

Sports fans always have the right to demand more of their local team, but sports franchises are not community property, they are not charities, they are not held in public trust. They are privately owned businesses, no matter how much taxpayer money is thrown their way. And that's not an opinion, that's a legal fact.

You guys are talking about different issues, IMO.

Yes, a baseball team is a privately held business, but emotionally a city and it's citizens hang their civic pride on it and become entangled in the day to day operations in ways they never do with a grocery store, department store or radio station.

Have you ever heard of citizens protesting in the streets to stop a newspaper from leaving or a radio station changing it's formats? What about when the local grocery store decides to close? Yes, people care, but they don't wear their hearts on their sleeves about these topics. When JR has had enough there will be another owner for the Sox. Thus while JR and his fellow investors do indeed own the Sox, it is a temporary situation. Eventually they will be sold to someone else and almost every fan will go through several ownership changes in their lifetime.

The problem is that JR treats the Sox like a grocery store or any other business. That's why the fans are upset...

TDog
10-06-2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
...Yes, a baseball team is a privately held business, but emotionally a city and it's citizens hang their civic pride on it and become entangled in the day to day operations in ways they never do with a grocery store, department store or radio station....

Technically, a radio station is owned by the community. The Federal Communications Commission is charged with granting broadcast outlets licenses on the condition that they act in the public interest. A radio station that can have its license yanked. It is rare, but it is more likely the FCC will pressure it into selling.

Baseball has never acted primarily in the public interest. Before there was a commissioner, public interest wasn't an issue. If Landis acted in the public interest, it was only that public interest coincided with his own prejudice. I can only think of a couple of commissioners who (giving them the absolute benefit of doubt) attempted to act in the public interest. One, the owners fired, and the other, Pete Rose killed him.

I'm not saying I'm happy about it. I'm not defending Reinsdorf. But it is unrealistic to believe that any person, corporation or coalition who would ever buy the Sox would act primarily in the public interest.

Lip Man 1
10-06-2003, 10:38 PM
TDog:

That's a good post although I don't know of any radio stations who or ever have asked the community to build them a new facility and transmitter to the tune of 400 million dollars or so.

Lip

TDog
10-06-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
TDog:

That's a good post although I don't know of any radio stations who or ever have asked the community to build them a new facility and transmitter to the tune of 400 million dollars or so.

Lip

In the pre-cable saturation 1960s, the FCC-licensed owner of the only television in Yuma, Ariz., got the community to pay for the necessary infrastructure so that it could broadcast network television. I wasn't living there at time, but I talked with early broadcasters in the community who recalled, with laughter, how he went on the air saying things like, "Wouldn't you like to see the Word Series? We'd like to bring you the World Series, but we just can't afford it."

We're not talking about $400 million, but I'm sure the episode put the man in a position to sell his station at a profit.

MisterB
10-06-2003, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You guys are talking about different issues, IMO.

Not really. Lip stated his opinion that sports franchises shouldn't be profit-driven, and that public funding of stadia makes said franchises a quasi-public interest. I stated that sports franchises (even ones that spend what it takes to win) are still about profit, and that for-profit businesses get public funding too (though not necessarily to the same degree).

voodoochile
10-06-2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by TDog
Technically, a radio station is owned by the community. The Federal Communications Commission is charged with granting broadcast outlets licenses on the condition that they act in the public interest. A radio station that can have its license yanked. It is rare, but it is more likely the FCC will pressure it into selling.

Baseball has never acted primarily in the public interest. Before there was a commissioner, public interest wasn't an issue. If Landis acted in the public interest, it was only that public interest coincided with his own prejudice. I can only think of a couple of commissioners who (giving them the absolute benefit of doubt) attempted to act in the public interest. One, the owners fired, and the other, Pete Rose killed him.

I'm not saying I'm happy about it. I'm not defending Reinsdorf. But it is unrealistic to believe that any person, corporation or coalition who would ever buy the Sox would act primarily in the public interest.

Oh, I'm not expecting any owner to completely go broke winning public support, but again, there is an emotional commitment to professional sports teams by the customers that just isn't there in other businesses.

Yeah, people wear WXRT t-shirts and NBC caps, but you don't see them sitting around in bars celebrating a ratings bonanza and crying in their beers when their favorite station gets creamed by the latest FOX Michael Jackson Interview.

The owners of professional sports franchises do have a commitment to the fans - I will uphold your trust. I won't abuse your hearts. I will make an effort to put a winning product on the field. In addition I want to make a profit, but that is supposed to be the secondary motivation. At least it has become thus in the publics eyes. Why do you think JR is so widely hated? It's because he makes no bones about his first priority - money.

Fans don't give a crap about money. In addition, all of us are very aware that JR can put a huge profit in his pocket any time he wants it - by selling the franchise. He also can use the capital increase to borrow money to fund other business ventures.

Why do you think the Cleveland Browns fans hate Art Modell so much? Why do you think they insisted to the league that the records, team name and traditions all stay with the new franchise? You think anyone does that for the local Dominick's, Jewel, Ace Hardware, etc.?

TDog
10-07-2003, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
...
Why do you think the Cleveland Browns fans hate Art Modell so much? Why do you think they insisted to the league that the records, team name and traditions all stay with the new franchise? You think anyone does that for the local Dominick's, Jewel, Ace Hardware, etc.?

Perhaps. I once lived in a place where a parking lot grand opening was such a cause for community celebration that the local radio station did a live remote. But, really, we agree on the way things should be. Few people have more of an emotional attachment to the White Sox than I do. And the point about people's attachment to a sports team was pointed out in one of the best American novels of the last century. In "The Great Gatsby," Arnold Rothstein is pointed out to Nick Carraway as the man who fixed the 1919 World Series, and Nick ponders how one man could callously crush the hopes of so many people.

If you or I had George Steinbrenner or Donald Trump resources, I would trust we would share the idealism discussed here. But all I hear from baseball owners is the need to cut payroll. The Cubs aren't deep in the playoffs because their corporate ownership went out and paid for a winner. The Cubs are being led by two pitchers too young to be paid big bucks. l don't see idealism coming out of potential new ownership, particularly corporate ownership. I simply believe the Sox could do worse than Jerry Reinsdorf.

chisoxfan79
10-07-2003, 10:43 AM
DON'T FORGET IF HE HAD A MANANGER THIS YEAR THAT KNEW HOW TO HANDLE A PITCHING STAFF YOU COULD HAVE TAKEN AT LEAST FOUR LOSSES OFF OF HIS RECORD. Jerry Manuel left him out there way too long on many Occasions. Do you remember that Game against the Giants when JM brought him out for the ninth inning without anybody warming up in the pen and he ended up giving up five runs and was tagged with the loss.

Hangar18
10-07-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by kittle42
..... If winning occurred and money was still scarce (see 1997 Florida Marlins), they would salary dump with the best of 'em (well, maybe not Cuban!).

And the Cubs would be right there waiting, Mouths Open, Hat in Hand, hoping for the kindness of Strangers to build their bench, bullpen, infield ......etc etc

Paulwny
10-07-2003, 12:33 PM
One question which can never be answered, unless the books are open is where the money goes.

As an example, the rumor in my area is that the race horses owned are Ralph Wilson are assigned to the Buffalo Bills Enterprises. All monies needed for training, feeding, etc come out of the bills' gross revenue minus any horse winnings.

It's also rumored that part, amount unknown, of the salaries paid to employees in his insurance business come out of the Bills revenue since they may come across correspondence between Ralph and the Bills staff.

The salary paid to JR is an expenditure before profit/ loss are announced.

When JR sits in on contract negotiations do the sox pay him a consulting fee, as the yanks pay Steinbrenner?

So many ways to hide where the money goes when you own a sports team, a tax accountant's dream.

voodoochile
10-07-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
One question which can never be answered, unless the books are open is where the money goes.

As an example, the rumor in my area is that the race horses owned are Ralph Wilson are assigned to the Buffalo Bills Enterprises. All monies needed for training, feeding, etc come out of the bills' gross revenue minus any horse winnings.

It's also rumored that part, amount unknown, of the salaries paid to employees in his insurance business come out of the Bills revenue since they may come across correspondence between Ralph and the Bills staff.

The salary paid to JR is an expenditure before profit/ loss are announced.

When JR sits in on contract negotiations do the sox pay him a consulting fee, as the yanks pay Steinbrenner?

So many ways to hide where the money goes when you own a sports team, a tax accountant's dream.

AND it's a cash business in many ways. Parking money could be hidden very easily with the right guy running the system.