PDA

View Full Version : Colon no likey NYC


fledgedrallycap
11-25-2003, 09:02 AM
Article from the NY Post which goes on and on about the potential piching woes of the Yanks and whinning about the Schilling deal to Boston. This section was ripped out from the bottom that basically reconfirms many of the rumors about Bartolo not wanting to pitch for Georgie.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/yankees/43112.htm

"As for Bartolo Colon, word is circulating that he would rather not sign with the Yankees, where the glare of New York may be too much for him, and would be more comfortable going back to the White Sox. "

Gumshoe
11-25-2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by fledgedrallycap
Article from the NY Post which goes on and on about the potential piching woes of the Yanks and whinning about the Schilling deal to Boston. This section was ripped out from the bottom that basically reconfirms many of the rumors about Bartolo not wanting to pitch for Georgie.

http://www.nypost.com/sports/yankees/43112.htm

"As for Bartolo Colon, word is circulating that he would rather not sign with the Yankees, where the glare of New York may be too much for him, and would be more comfortable going back to the White Sox. "

I've been trying to tell you guys all along. Bartolo Colon will be backwith the Chicago White Sox. He's not going to get along with the atmosphere of other teams, and we offered him a good (but scheisty) deal. Book it.

Lip Man 1
11-25-2003, 01:04 PM
If Schilling goes to Boston, King George will raise to stakes to say 15-16 million per year to Bartolo in real money, not shell games.

I think Bartolo will learn to love NYC.

Lip

chisoxjk
11-25-2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
If Schilling goes to Boston, King George will raise to stakes to say 15-16 million per year to Bartolo in real money, not shell games.

I think Bartolo will learn to love NYC.

Lip

I think his agent will love NYC :D:

Whether or not that means Colon decides to change his mind is another thing.

Foulke You
11-25-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
If Schilling goes to Boston, King George will raise to stakes to say 15-16 million per year to Bartolo in real money, not shell games.

I think Bartolo will learn to love NYC.

Lip

I was thinking the same thing. Some people said that Boston getting Schilling increases our chances of Bartolo returning but I believe that will just cause Steinbrenner to open his wallet wide. Something about the Red Sox strikes a nerve in King George more than any other team. Whether it is the fan rivalry or the public feud between the two teams managements, George won't sit by and let Boston bring in a Cy Young calibur pitcher. Bartolo will take the money regardless of his city preferences.

washington
11-25-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
[B Bartolo will take the money regardless of his city preferences. [/B]

I agree totally. And if the Red Sox get Schilling and are able to trade for A-Rod, look for Steinbrenner to go nuts financially on the free agent market

Frank the Tank
11-25-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
. Whether it is the fan rivalry or the public feud between the two teams managements, George won't sit by and let Boston bring in a Cy Young calibur pitcher. Bartolo will take the money regardless of his city preferences.

I completely agree. Given that Colon rejected the 3yr/36 MM offer from the sox, he is obviously after money. The Yankees are the only team that will be willing to beat the sox offer. Bartolo will wear a I Love NY T-shirt when he sees how much George will pay him. Furthermore, I would be very surprised to see Bartolo back in Chicago. I don't think the 3yr/36 MM offer is still on the table and I'm sure Bartolo will not be willing to accept less. I think we should forget about Colon and move on.

chisoxjk
11-25-2003, 03:14 PM
While I would be surprised to see Bartolo in a Sox uniform next year, I don't think you can assume that he is after only money because he rejected the 3 yr/36M offer.

Any agent worth his cut would be foolish to accept a back-loaded deal without testing the market. I would agree if Bartolo shot down a normal offer, but in this case I don't think we can assume pure greed.

Frank the Tank
11-25-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by chisoxjk
While I would be surprised to see Bartolo in a Sox uniform next year, I don't think you can assume that he is after only money because he rejected the 3 yr/36M offer.

Any agent worth his cut would be foolish to accept a back-loaded deal without testing the market. I would agree if Bartolo shot down a normal offer, but in this case I don't think we can assume pure greed.

How can you not assume pure greed? $36 MM, no matter how it is paid, is a ton of money. When a baseball player turns down 12 MM a year, how is he not greedy? He turned it down because he wanted more money.
p.s. The agent works for Bartolo, it is not the agent's choice to accept or decline any offer.

hold2dibber
11-25-2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
How can you not assume pure greed? $36 MM, no matter how it is paid, is a ton of money. When a baseball player turns down 12 MM a year, how is he not greedy? He turned it down because he wanted more money.

I suppose that's true, but then any baseball player who ever turns down a deal is greedy.

fledgedrallycap
11-25-2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
How can you not assume pure greed? $36 MM, no matter how it is paid, is a ton of money. When a baseball player turns down 12 MM a year, how is he not greedy? He turned it down because he wanted more money.
p.s. The agent works for Bartolo, it is not the agent's choice to accept or decline any offer.

It is easy to stand back and ridicule Bartolo for not taking that contract, but the simple fact is if the Sox offer is heavily laden with incentivies and deferred money and you don't test the market to see what else is out there - well, you can call him greedy; but I also would call him a fool if he didn't.

Frank the Tank
11-25-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I suppose that's true, but then any baseball player who ever turns down a deal is greedy.

Baseball salaries are kind of a controversial subject. It is kind of foolish to complain about baseball payroll in United States because we live in a capitalistic society. The whole point of a capitalistic society is to make the most money possible. I can't think of too many people that wouldn't accept a pay raise. That being said, I have no fundamental problem with players wanting to get paid big money. However, I have a Moral conflict when a player turns down $13 MM because he wants $15 MM. How much money does a person really need? It bothers me that a lousy UD seat costs $20 and that I have to pay $13 to park. Player payrolls have a direct impact on ticket prices. Make no mistake, the owner doesn't lose money on increasing payroll. The burden is placed on the fans. JR is going to get his cut no matter what. I know I'm venting some deep thoughts and contradicting myself, but it really bites my #@! when a $12mm/yr player cries that he is being underpaid.

hold2dibber
11-25-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
Baseball salaries are kind of a controversial subject. It is kind of foolish to complain about baseball payroll in United States because we live in a capitalistic society. The whole point of a capitalistic society is to make the most money possible. I can't think of too many people that wouldn't accept a pay raise. That being said, I have no fundamental problem with players wanting to get paid big money. However, I have a Moral conflict when a player turns down $13 MM because he wants $15 MM. How much money does a person really need? It bothers me that a lousy UD seat costs $20 and that I have to pay $13 to park. Player payrolls have a direct impact on ticket prices. Make no mistake, the owner doesn't lose money on increasing payroll. The burden is placed on the fans. JR is going to get his cut no matter what. I know I'm venting some deep thoughts and contradicting myself, but it really bites my #@! when a $12mm/yr player cries that he is being underpaid.

I don't disagree, but I blame the owners as much as I blame the players. Nimrod owners who up the ante needlessly (see JR's signing of Belle and Hicks' signing of A-Rod for 2 notorious examploes) end up sticking it to the fans to pay for their absurd expenditures.

SoxOnTop
11-25-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
Baseball salaries are kind of a controversial subject. It is kind of foolish to complain about baseball payroll in United States because we live in a capitalistic society. The whole point of a capitalistic society is to make the most money possible. I can't think of too many people that wouldn't accept a pay raise. That being said, I have no fundamental problem with players wanting to get paid big money. However, I have a Moral conflict when a player turns down $13 MM because he wants $15 MM. How much money does a person really need? It bothers me that a lousy UD seat costs $20 and that I have to pay $13 to park. Player payrolls have a direct impact on ticket prices. Make no mistake, the owner doesn't lose money on increasing payroll. The burden is placed on the fans. JR is going to get his cut no matter what. I know I'm venting some deep thoughts and contradicting myself, but it really bites my #@! when a $12mm/yr player cries that he is being underpaid.

Actually, player salaries have very little to do with the price of admission. Ballclubs will charge what people are willing to pay regardless of what the players on the field cost. Supply and demand.

Plus, I don't see Bartolo crying about a $12 MIL deal. Why would you accept an offer from a team you play only one year with before at least checking free agency. Colon has no loyalty to the Sox and hasn't exactly had enough time to settle down in Chicago. So why shouldn't he see if someone esle is willing to pay him in "today money" for doing the same job that we were going pay in 5 years.

Do you think the owners got to their positions by not going after every dollar they could?

kempsted
11-25-2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by SoxOnTop
Actually, player salaries have very little to do with the price of admission. Ballclubs will charge what people are willing to pay regardless of what the players on the field cost. Supply and demand.

Plus, I don't see Bartolo crying about a $12 MIL deal. Why would you accept an offer from a team you play only one year with before at least checking free agency. Colon has no loyalty to the Sox and hasn't exactly had enough time to settle down in Chicago. So why shouldn't he see if someone esle is willing to pay him in "today money" for doing the same job that we were going pay in 5 years.

Do you think the owners got to their positions by not going after every dollar they could?

This is a vast oversimplification. The fact is the rise in players salaries were what drove the prices up. The price increases are almost directly statistically correlated with price rise. This is not supply and demand by itself. If material costs go up you raise your price. If people keep paying for it great. Eventually you may get price increase not associated with salary but the really reason sports tickets are so much more expensive is because the players salaries kept rising (due to owners willing to pay them to be sure).

The fact is very few owners today own a sports team as a business venture. It is a horrible one as the Disney company found out. They own the team because they want to own a team. Most just don't want to lose their shirts over it and yes it would be great to make a profit, but I don't think you can apply the same principles that you would to an owner of a grocery store chain.

maurice
11-25-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
The fact is the rise in players salaries were what drove the prices up. The price increases are almost directly statistically correlated with price rise.

Correlation does not imply causation. Increased prices also correlates with increased demand in MLB. Notwithstanding soaring ticket prices, league-wide attendence is very strong. There's no proof that the owners would have charged less if the players were paid less. This implies that a team which cuts payroll significantly necessarily would also cut ticket prices, but that doesn't appear to be the case. For a team with an unusually stupid fan base like the cubs, costs are nearly irrellevant, since they will draw about 3 million next year, whether their payroll is $50 million or $250 million.

I don't think you can apply the same principles that you would to an owner of a grocery store chain.

I agree, which is why the notion that costs and prices are inextricably tied together cannot be applied to MLB.

nasox
11-26-2003, 02:44 AM
the type of economic system and structure the MLB has currently is so full of statements generally taken to be true by most but which are very incorrect, and all full of crap. Unless someone has a solution on how they think the economy of MLB can be fixed, discussing it is pointless because of the amount of crap we assume is true. I will say this: The owners in baseball have a great scheme going: They are getting richer and richer while the enitre public believes that they are getting swidled by the players and their skyrocketing salaries. In reality, they (and the players, in turn) are getting rich of off the fan's hard-earned money. If an owner isn't getting filthy rich off of baseball (in a way like JR is) then it is because of their own stupidity (like Disney).

Gumshoe
11-26-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by nasox
the type of economic system and structure the MLB has currently is so full of statements generally taken to be true by most but which are very incorrect, and all full of crap. Unless someone has a solution on how they think the economy of MLB can be fixed, discussing it is pointless because of the amount of crap we assume is true. I will say this: The owners in baseball have a great scheme going: They are getting richer and richer while the enitre public believes that they are getting swidled by the players and their skyrocketing salaries. In reality, they (and the players, in turn) are getting rich of off the fan's hard-earned money. If an owner isn't getting filthy rich off of baseball (in a way like JR is) then it is because of their own stupidity (like Disney).

Great post. If you remember, the post of hold2dibber explained a lot. He compared the Twins to the White Sox. It was brutally evident that Pohlad (who is also one of the cheapest owners in the game) was spending as much as JR and taking in less IN ALL FACETS. He is making money, oh yes, big money. These guys are swindling the fan. Not only is JR cheap, he is a LIAR and a LOSER.

Gumshoe

Frank the Tank
11-26-2003, 12:25 PM
I am not going to shed any tears for the baseball owners, but I think it is a stretch to assume they are making a "killing" on baseball. It is common knowledge that very few baseball teams are profitable. Make no mistake, the MAIN factor in the ticket price increase is the increase in player salaries. Anyone who thinks owners would be able to get away with raising ticket prices for the "hell of it" is crazy. If the average payroll in the MLB was $10 MM, I guarantee ticket prices would be much cheaper. Applying economic theories to baseball is not practical. The fact is: Players and Owners are abusing the love fans have for baseball.

Tekijawa
11-26-2003, 12:38 PM
If Enron can do it as a public company I think the baseball owners are capeable of doing the same, I think that there is a reason that they remain Private, to keep their books closed... I think it would be interesting to see how much each team is losing and how much the B.O.D. and front office takes in Payroll? If this is such a money eating business than why are people banging down the doors to get in? For the love of the game they don't have once they start paying the players?

What I would like is for every ticket increase that there be a financial statement included to Justify it... the WHITE SOX may not be "making money", but I'd love to see what Reinsdorf is getting paid as a Director? or Einhorn? Or the rest of the owners? I think it's amazing that the Cubs are one of the few teams that are profitable and they are part of a public Company!

The needs to be a Fan union established and have the teams run like public companies, because when it comes down to it we're the ones getting screwed!

brewcrew/chisox
11-26-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Tekijawa
If Enron can do it as a public company I think the baseball owners are capeable of doing the same, I think that there is a reason that they remain Private, to keep their books closed... I think it would be interesting to see how much each team is losing and how much the B.O.D. and front office takes in Payroll? If this is such a money eating business than why are people banging down the doors to get in? For the love of the game they don't have once they start paying the players?

What I would like is for every ticket increase that there be a financial statement included to Justify it... the WHITE SOX may not be "making money", but I'd love to see what Reinsdorf is getting paid as a Director? or Einhorn? Or the rest of the owners? I think it's amazing that the Cubs are one of the few teams that are profitable and they are part of a public Company!

The needs to be a Fan union established and have the teams run like public companies, because when it comes down to it we're the ones getting screwed!

I think what is happening in Milwaukee is a perfect example of this. The Brewcrew slashes its payroll to 30 million, fires its President, and will trade the only two players (Jenkins and Sexton) who are worth anything to the team. All of this only a few years after the state's taxpayers shelled out a ton of money for a new stadium. Now--and I really hope this happens--the state's legistators want the Brewers to open their books to a government audit. It would be interesting to see how ole Wendy/Bud and the board of morans over there are spending/stealing the people's money.

As far as Colon goes, I think if he does decide to go to NY, it will be a complete and utter disaster.....ala the Weaver fiasco. Colon's production was very inconsistant last year, and IMO the media was not as tough on him as they probably should have. I'm sure Robbie Alomar had a few nice stories to tell about the pressure and welcome he received over in NY as time went on. I don't think the NY media/fanbase will be as kind to Colon, particularly if gets shelled a couple of games (as he did with the WS).

And we all know how smitten George is with underachieving, overweight, pitchers (Ibrau, Wells).

Fat toad anyone?

SoxOnTop
11-26-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
This is a vast oversimplification. The fact is the rise in players salaries were what drove the prices up. The price increases are almost directly statistically correlated with price rise. This is not supply and demand by itself. If material costs go up you raise your price. If people keep paying for it great. Eventually you may get price increase not associated with salary but the really reason sports tickets are so much more expensive is because the players salaries kept rising (due to owners willing to pay them to be sure).

The fact is very few owners today own a sports team as a business venture. It is a horrible one as the Disney company found out. They own the team because they want to own a team. Most just don't want to lose their shirts over it and yes it would be great to make a profit, but I don't think you can apply the same principles that you would to an owner of a grocery store chain.


Oversimplification? Yes. Inaccurate? No.

I do agree that most owners don't get into baseball as a business venture, but they do get into it as an investment. An investment that will appreciate quite well over time. Profits in baseball are like dividends. Do owners need profits to reinvest in new emerging baseball technologies or build better baseball factories? No. It goes straight into their pockets. People get into baseball for a good return on investment, profits are an added bonus. Putting down the money for a solid product on the field is akin to putting a nice patio onto your house. It costs money, but it adds value to your house.


For all you out there drinking the MLB Kool-Ade, please show me some sort of proof that "most" teams are losing money. Just becuase Bud Selig says it several times a day, does not mean that it is true. Baseball owners are shrewd businessmen who run orgainzations to make money. Since we don't get to see their books, I find it to be a bad idea to take their word for it. The only reason they scream that they are losing money is to try to get public support/leverage over the players union.

As for the ticket price/payroll corelation, the Sox are raising ticket prices this year. Does that mean that the payroll will go up accordingly? I doubt it.

jortafan
11-26-2003, 12:59 PM
It's like Bill Veeck wrote in his book, Veeck as in Wreck.

Owners don't make money operating their teams -- they make their profit when they sell the ballclub for significantly more than they paid for it. That's why Veeck himself was in and out of baseball constantly, owning the Indians, Browns and White Sox (twice), along with minor league teams in Milwaukee and Miami.

Frank the Tank
11-26-2003, 01:06 PM
I think it would be a great idea for baseball owners to make their financial statements public. I have a gut feeling JR is going to exceed the $58 payroll. He has to. If he doesn't, KW is going to have to trade away the team. This would be a PR disaster. Not a way to increase fan attendance, especially in the UD.

Lip Man 1
11-26-2003, 01:56 PM
Frank:

What you say is certainly possible but wouldn't it make more sense from a PR / ticket selling / revenue generating stand point to publicly state that the payroll is going up?

Why keep it a secret and constantly state (through circumstancial evidence) that the payroll may go up slightly but only into the high 50's?

Just like the owner keeps stating that he doesn't care what the Cubs do, I think you can believe him when his associates keep hinting at a tight budget and not a significant payroll increase.

Lip

soxruleEP
11-26-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Frank:

What you say is certainly possible but wouldn't it make more sense from a PR / ticket selling / revenue generating stand point to publicly state that the payroll is going up?

Why keep it a secret and constantly state (through circumstancial evidence) that the payroll may go up slightly but only into the high 50's?

Lip

It may not make sense from a PR / ticket selling / revenue generating standpoint but it does make sense if you are considering the negotitating with free agents and your own players.

Why announce that you have [let's say] $80 million to spend on players? That's means you will have to spend that money no matter what players you get.

One in four major players is going to be a FA in ten days--there are going to be a lot of solid ball players availablef or less money than expected. The big guys will still get big money, but the solid middle-of-the-road guys will not be getting obscene salaries.

nasox
11-26-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by jortafan
Owners don't make money operating their teams -- they make their profit when they sell the ballclub for significantly more than they paid for it. That's why Veeck himself was in and out of baseball constantly, owning the Indians, Browns and White Sox (twice), along with minor league teams in Milwaukee and Miami.

While owners do make huge profits selling their team for significantly more than they paid for it, i think Veeck didn't buy and sell constantly because of this. he was always on a shoestring budget, and was forced out of baseball at least twice to my memory-maybe more. His funds dried out quickly and he was denied to relocate teams at least 3 times.

Gumshoe
11-26-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by SoxOnTop
Oversimplification? Yes. Inaccurate? No.

I do agree that most owners don't get into baseball as a business venture, but they do get into it as an investment. An investment that will appreciate quite well over time. Profits in baseball are like dividends. Do owners need profits to reinvest in new emerging baseball technologies or build better baseball factories? No. It goes straight into their pockets. People get into baseball for a good return on investment, profits are an added bonus. Putting down the money for a solid product on the field is akin to putting a nice patio onto your house. It costs money, but it adds value to your house.


For all you out there drinking the MLB Kool-Ade, please show me some sort of proof that "most" teams are losing money. Just becuase Bud Selig says it several times a day, does not mean that it is true. Baseball owners are shrewd businessmen who run orgainzations to make money. Since we don't get to see their books, I find it to be a bad idea to take their word for it. The only reason they scream that they are losing money is to try to get public support/leverage over the players union.

As for the ticket price/payroll corelation, the Sox are raising ticket prices this year. Does that mean that the payroll will go up accordingly? I doubt it.

These are great points. The union/owner debacles of the past 3 decades show you that you shouldn't trust either of the groups, and ESPECIALLY not the owners. I know for a fact that JR makes money, that he makes a LOT of money, period. They are all making money. I really hope MIL opens up those books; it is ridiculous that the owners reap the benefits of these stadium deals and then they pull chicken crap manuevers like Selig and his good friend Reinsdorf have (lawyers giving the profession a bad name again, freakin' scheisters).

As for Veeck, I hate seeing him be eulogized all the time. The guy was a marketing madman ... fine. But he was just another in the long line of terrible Sox owners and he should never be forgiven for trading all those young players after we won the pennant. Any of those 59 guys knew we had a great crop coming up. Whatever it is, the White Sox have been cursed not by bad LUCK, but by owners who are the WORST. That is our problem. You would think we'd try to take advantage (like a certain team on the north side), and go for the jugular when the division is ripe for the taking!

Gumshoe

Frank the Tank
11-26-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Frank:

What you say is certainly possible but wouldn't it make more sense from a PR / ticket selling / revenue generating stand point to publicly state that the payroll is going up?

Why keep it a secret and constantly state (through circumstancial evidence) that the payroll may go up slightly but only into the high 50's?


Lip

I really do have a hunch the sox will have a competitive team next year. I have absolutely nothing to base this hunch on (given what JR has done in the past). I would be shocked (as well as disappointed) if we kept the 58 MM payroll and relied on Rowand, Harris, and Reed to fill the holes. I think KW is going to do 1 of 2 things.

1. Increase the payroll: keeping Mags, both Alomars, and signing a quality pitcher like Ponson. Maybe signing an everyday CF

2. Put a completely different team on the field next year. Get rid of Mags, Lee, Konerko, etc... and bring in 3-4 other well known players. In short, a huge, blockbuster trade of some sort.

Either way, I think we are going to have high hopes going into next season. KW doesn't like to sit on his hands.

gosox41
11-26-2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Tekijawa
If Enron can do it as a public company I think the baseball owners are capeable of doing the same, I think that there is a reason that they remain Private, to keep their books closed... I think it would be interesting to see how much each team is losing and how much the B.O.D. and front office takes in Payroll? If this is such a money eating business than why are people banging down the doors to get in? For the love of the game they don't have once they start paying the players?

What I would like is for every ticket increase that there be a financial statement included to Justify it... the WHITE SOX may not be "making money", but I'd love to see what Reinsdorf is getting paid as a Director? or Einhorn? Or the rest of the owners? I think it's amazing that the Cubs are one of the few teams that are profitable and they are part of a public Company!

The needs to be a Fan union established and have the teams run like public companies, because when it comes down to it we're the ones getting screwed!

Books are private because it's none of our business. Go read the Disney annual report if you want an update on the Angels or the Tribune annual report for the Cubs or the Fox annual report for the Dodgers (berfore all these owners sell) or go back and read the Cleveland Indians financial statements when they were a public co.


I wish every White Sox fan that complained about ticket prices would let me see their finances so I can recommend some lifestyle changes so they can shut up and go to mroe games.

Bob

gosox41
11-26-2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
These are great points. The union/owner debacles of the past 3 decades show you that you shouldn't trust either of the groups, and ESPECIALLY not the owners. I know for a fact that JR makes money, that he makes a LOT of money, period.

Gumshoe

Share with the class Gumshoe. How do you know for a fact that JR makes a lot of money? Is this true for the White Sox holdings or just in general? How about some #'s?

Bob

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Books are private because it's none of our business.

So you just believe what they tell you, right? Nevermind that it is a well-known fact the franchise is worth 10-times to the new owner over what JR paid?

That's a very unconvincing argument.

:tool
"I've got a used car I want to sell you!"

:reinsy
"Not till I'm done with him!"

gosox41
11-26-2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
So you just believe what they tell you, right? Nevermind that it is a well-known fact the franchise is worth 10-times to the new owner over what JR paid?

That's a very unconvincing argument.

:tool
"I've got a used car I want to sell you!"

:reinsy
"Not till I'm done with him!"

I hear both sides of the argument, but logic tells me to believe JR's argument more then fans who don't know the business.

Bob

PaleHoseGeorge
11-26-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I hear both sides of the argument, but logic tells me to believe JR's argument more then fans who don't know the business.

Bob

I don't need to know the first thing about the baseball business to know that any business that is worth 10-times more today than what the current owner bought it for is *NOT* losing money except inside the fairytale world of generally accepted accounting principles.

I worked for a company whose shares trade for $0.50 per share, less than half what they were worth a year ago. That's broke.

The White Sox aren't broke. To the contrary, they're looking for suckers. Count me out.

:tool
"Now about that used car... low miles... driven only on Sunday..."

dugwood31
11-26-2003, 08:20 PM
There's an excellent book on this subject, broadly defined, called "Baseball and Billinoins" by econ Professor Andrew Zimbalist. I'm sure many of you have read it. MLB's teams do more tricks than circus clowns with the books to make it seem like teams are losing money. And NO player contract has ever been signed without the consent of both parties.

Baseball owners: the only capitalists in the history of the world to publicly disparage their product.

I think their history suggests we should look skeptically at everything they say. I know one thing: JR would sell or move the team before he lost money. That's a fact.

MarkEdward
11-26-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Books are private because it's none of our business.

You're right. It is none of our business... until the owners themselves start making it our business. By complaining about monetary "loses" and asking the public to build stadia, the owners are making the club's funds a public issue.

You can't say "I'm losing money!" then continue to keep your books private. Nobody will believe any story you try to tell.

Lip Man 1
11-26-2003, 11:04 PM
GoSox:

Just wondering, can you provide some of the details from your friends whom who spoke with about Uncle Jerry.

That seems fair considering you are asking us non believers for information proving he does make money.

You may have the ability to convince us non believers.

Lip

hold2dibber
11-27-2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
You're right. It is none of our business... until the owners themselves start making it our business. By complaining about monetary "loses" and asking the public to build stadia, the owners are making the club's funds a public issue.

You can't say "I'm losing money!" then continue to keep your books private. Nobody will believe any story you try to tell.

Actually, and surprisingly, it seems like some people are believing the story they're telling (many examples in this thread alone).

gosox41
11-27-2003, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
GoSox:

Just wondering, can you provide some of the details from your friends whom who spoke with about Uncle Jerry.

That seems fair considering you are asking us non believers for information proving he does make money.

You may have the ability to convince us non believers.

Lip

There are 2 reasons I don't write an article as you requested I do:

1. I was told information in confidence. After reading what I read here with all the bellyaching I felt the need to say something. I gave general information. This person is really close to me and while I do have a little bit of other information, I'm not going to violate our relationship to provide it.

2. I've already seen the responses I'd get if I were actually lucky enough to see the #'s. When I first posted about my source seeing the books with her own eyes, immeidately Hal said it must have been the doctored books. Others agreed. If I did post what little numerical information I know, it would just be met with the same reaction.

I can see where it's easy to believe your side, but it doesn't always make the most sense.

You believe in a great JR conspiracy to not draw too many people because then he'd have to pay rent. So he is purposely trying to keep attendence down. Don't you think there are better ways to do it.

Business transactions tend to measured in risk/reward. How much does one risk to make X profit. Now if JR were as ruthless and cunning as you believe isn't there anyother obvious way he canmake a ton of money.

The Sox signed a new cable and radio contract in the late '90's guaranteeing him revenue (this info. I got from the papers.) Now if I'm evil-JR like you make him out to be, and all I care about is the all mighty $$$$, I would just cut my payroll to $9 mill. per year by playing all rookies. I'd cease spending money on the minor leagues and signing first round picks, etc. This would guarantee me a team that is awful. It would also guarantee few fans show up to support the team., thus saving even more money the huge expense of having to pay rent. Then I ccan sit back, collect my $32 mill. or so from local TV revenues, make pure profti from the 500K fans that actually show up to the games, plus the take in the national TV contact. I save $45 mill. in payroll, $12-15 mill. in running a minor league system, $2-3 mill. in rent, and $4 mill that I'd be paying out as a tema in the top half in revenues. Heck I might even get a revenue sharing check!!!!

This way would guarantee evil-JR a profit of $40 mill. All taht for the risk of $9 mill and other fixed expenses (ie insurnace for players,worken's comp, etc.) Risk $9 mill to make $40 mill. or riske $54 mill to make a the million or so Lip claims they make. Which is a better business decision for a heartless, lying, ruthless, cunning owner (are those the correct adjectives Lip)

If I do this for one year I make double what I paid for the team. I do it for two I make quadruple.

This is what JR would do if he really wanted to max. profit from a pure short term business only POV.

Or maybe it's possible JR maxes out the payroll, while trying to limit his losses and hoping to make a small profit every few years, while he tries to build a winner. Maybe he knows that no matter how much the Sox spend, if the team falls on it's face, the fans stop coming out and he's left eating the losses. Sure some of this is due to JR being an idiot. But look at Cub fans. They don't exactly get treated like royalty, and for however idiotic they are,at least there out there supporting their team. In a bad year the Cubs draw 2.3-2.4 million. Keeping in mind the Cubs in general have higher ticket prices and they also have no 1/2 price nights once a week let alone twice. During the Sox bad years (1997-1998) they're good to draw 1.3 mill.. But I wouldn't consider Cubs ownership the best in treating their fans well.

Bob

dickallen15
11-27-2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
There are 2 reasons I don't write an article as you requested I do:

1. I was told information in confidence. After reading what I read here with all the bellyaching I felt the need to say something. I gave general information. This person is really close to me and while I do have a little bit of other information, I'm not going to violate our relationship to provide it.

2. I've already seen the responses I'd get if I were actually lucky enough to see the #'s. When I first posted about my source seeing the books with her own eyes, immeidately Hal said it must have been the doctored books. Others agreed. If I did post what little numerical information I know, it would just be met with the same reaction.

I can see where it's easy to believe your side, but it doesn't always make the most sense.

You believe in a great JR conspiracy to not draw too many people because then he'd have to pay rent. So he is purposely trying to keep attendence down. Don't you think there are better ways to do it.

Business transactions tend to measured in risk/reward. How much does one risk to make X profit. Now if JR were as ruthless and cunning as you believe isn't there anyother obvious way he canmake a ton of money.

The Sox signed a new cable and radio contract in the late '90's guaranteeing him revenue (this info. I got from the papers.) Now if I'm evil-JR like you make him out to be, and all I care about is the all mighty $$$$, I would just cut my payroll to $9 mill. per year by playing all rookies. I'd cease spending money on the minor leagues and signing first round picks, etc. This would guarantee me a team that is awful. It would also guarantee few fans show up to support the team., thus saving even more money the huge expense of having to pay rent. Then I ccan sit back, collect my $32 mill. or so from local TV revenues, make pure profti from the 500K fans that actually show up to the games, plus the take in the national TV contact. I save $45 mill. in payroll, $12-15 mill. in running a minor league system, $2-3 mill. in rent, and $4 mill that I'd be paying out as a tema in the top half in revenues. Heck I might even get a revenue sharing check!!!!

This way would guarantee evil-JR a profit of $40 mill. All taht for the risk of $9 mill and other fixed expenses (ie insurnace for players,worken's comp, etc.) Risk $9 mill to make $40 mill. or riske $54 mill to make a the million or so Lip claims they make. Which is a better business decision for a heartless, lying, ruthless, cunning owner (are those the correct adjectives Lip)

If I do this for one year I make double what I paid for the team. I do it for two I make quadruple.

This is what JR would do if he really wanted to max. profit from a pure short term business only POV.

Or maybe it's possible JR maxes out the payroll, while trying to limit his losses and hoping to make a small profit every few years, while he tries to build a winner. Maybe he knows that no matter how much the Sox spend, if the team falls on it's face, the fans stop coming out and he's left eating the losses. Sure some of this is due to JR being an idiot. But look at Cub fans. They don't exactly get treated like royalty, and for however idiotic they are,at least there out there supporting their team. In a bad year the Cubs draw 2.3-2.4 million. Keeping in mind the Cubs in general have higher ticket prices and they also have no 1/2 price nights once a week let alone twice. During the Sox bad years (1997-1998) they're good to draw 1.3 mill.. But I wouldn't consider Cubs ownership the best in treating their fans well.

Bob

You are very wise, I agree 100%. The point about maximizing profit is excellent. He could pull a Brewers act and make a lot of money,but he doesn't. I sit in the Club level and look into Reinsdorf's box during the games. If he doesn't want to win, they should give him an honorary Academy Award for his "acting" during games. When the White Sox screw up, he has his hands on his head, he's pacing. I guarantee you one thing, if Reinsdorf owned the Cubs, and had the same fan support they do, their payroll would be a lot higher than what it is now.

gosox41
11-27-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
You are very wise, I agree 100%. The point about maximizing profit is excellent. He could pull a Brewers act and make a lot of money,but he doesn't. I sit in the Club level and look into Reinsdorf's box during the games. If he doesn't want to win, they should give him an honorary Academy Award for his "acting" during games. When the White Sox screw up, he has his hands on his head, he's pacing. I guarantee you one thing, if Reinsdorf owned the Cubs, and had the same fan support they do, their payroll would be a lot higher than what it is now.


Thank you. Someone who uses some logic. To call JR ruthless, cunning, lying, money hungry etc. and then to see JR spend $$$ whe he could take the easier, more profitable, less risky way out is ridiculous.

And heaven forbid JR should actually turn a profit once in awhile (which is what I'm told it amounts too.) It is a business and JR doesn't owe it to us to spend a ton of money on the team unless the fans feel the need to come out in droves to support a team because it has a higher payroll.

Keep in mind I think JR is an idiot when it comes to running the team, but more because he highers the wrong people and not for his lack of spending. JR has proven he'd spend. He kept the Bulls together all those years. I know some complain about the one more season, but that wasn't entirely his fault (more Krause, Jordan, and Jackson).

Bob

Gumshoe
11-29-2003, 10:46 AM
Bob, I respect your posts in general. I think you are just way out of line here. Your analogy or hypothetical of JR just going to the point of being abusive and slashing everything for a short term profit is totally preposterous. He was the beneficiary of a great stadium deal, he abused the fact that Chicago politicians are White Sox fans, etc. and all these reasons are reasons why he wouldn't just make money in the short run. He'd rather connive and kill us softly over years, thereby hazing our ability to see what he really does.

As in my other post, please understand this (you too, DickAllen):

He might act distraught when the Sox mess up and be disappointed, but the point is, he cares so much more about his own gains than the Sox winning. If he truly wanted to win, he would have done it, or he would show the fans that he truly is ACTING on that as an end . He doesn't.

Mark Edward made the great point that when the owners in baseball (as dugwood put are the only capitalists to disparage their product -- very adept) complain about things like attendance and not making money as excuses for what they do they make it OUR business. I know he makes money, because I know businessmen in our country, and these same guys are those who built our country. Unfortunately, baseball is:

The only "business" exempt from anti trust laws

So, we can't control anything they do. All I'm saying is, Jerry,

"You already abuse us, please don't lie to us straight to our faces"

That is unforgivable, and for that reason, we'll never win with him as the owner.

Gumshoe