PDA

View Full Version : Rogers On Brewers Trade / Chicago Salary Concerns


Lip Man 1
12-02-2003, 02:09 PM
I realize this is stating the obvious but because there have been some fans here at WSI who have posted in sincerity that they think a team has just as good a chance of winning championships with a small payroll as with a large one, that an informed, neutral opinion was needed. This excerpt is from Phil Rogers' column Tuesday in the Tribune on the recent Brewers - D'backs deal:

"White Sox fans might want to follow closely because the South Siders almost certainly will have to make a similar move in the next few weeks, either with four-time All-Star Magglio Ordonez, future All-Star Carlos Lee or 2002 All-Star Paul Konerko.

"Sometimes people don't realize that a lot of the principles that apply in other businesses also apply in baseball," said Sandy Alderson, Major League Baseball's executive vice president and a former GM of the Oakland Athletics. "One of those is that cash is king."

Teams that are positioned to take on some salary can fare well in the current market, largely because there are so few of them. It's why the Cubs were able to get Derrek Lee for Hee Seop Choi last week, not to mention how they got Eric Karros and Mark Grudzielanek for Todd Hundley a year ago.

It's why the Cubs are so much better positioned for success than the Sox. With a payroll in the range of $85 million to $90 million, GM Jim Hendry has the financial flexibility to seize the moment when somebody like Lee comes along. His Sox counterpart, Ken Williams, must find a way to make some subtractions before he has the resources for additions.

Currently, only two franchises operate as if they are immune from budget concerns. Those are the Yankees and Boston Red Sox, who continue to stockpile talent."

Lip

xil357
12-02-2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I realize this is stating the obvious but because there have been some fans here at WSI who have posted in sincerity that they think a team has just as good a chance of winning championships with a small payroll as with a large one, that an informed, neutral opinion was needed. This excerpt is from Phil Rogers' column Tuesday in the Tribune on the recent Brewers - D'backs deal

Lip, will you puh-leeze post links to the stories you reference in your posts?

That being said I for the most part agree with Rogers' assessment.

cheeses_h_rice
12-02-2003, 02:45 PM
In other news, the Cubs draw more fans than the Sox.

Shocking revelation, I know.

SoxxoS
12-02-2003, 02:58 PM
I can't believe Lip pasted an article about Chicago teams and their salaries. Shocking.

hold2dibber
12-02-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
I can't believe Lip pasted an article about Chicago teams and their salaries. Shocking.

Who cares who posted it - the points Rogers makes are, I think legit and I'm glad Lip brought it to my attention.

But Phil gave little detail about what I view to be the most important issue. The Brewers got (IIRC) 6 players who will make about $5.5 million next year for Sexson, who will make $8 million. None of the players they received are that good/promising, although I have heard that the prospect from the Red Sox is a pretty good (but not great) prospect. What does that say about what the Sox might expect to get in return for Magglio? He's better than Sexson, but not a ton better, and he will make nearly 2 times as much next year (the last year on his contract). What does it say about what the Sox could get for Konerko, who will make more than Sexson next year and, obviously, is not even close to being as good.

Yet more reason to think that the Sox will not be able to get much of anything in return if/when they trade their high salaried guys, if they're able to trade them at all.

Iwritecode
12-02-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
His Sox counterpart, Ken Williams, must find a way to make some subtractions before he has the resources for additions.[/I]


I just had a wild and crazy thought about what KW should do. It'll probably never happen under JR but it doesn't sound like a bad idea to me:

If a player comes along that would be a significant addtion to the team and KW can strike a deal, then just do it! Worry about making subtractions later if needed. They can always dump salary at midseason.

The good thing is that if the team is playing well enough and the management is showing a commitment to win, the attendance should be high enough to cover the addition made at the beginning of the season.

It's really sad to see the attendance rise the way it did last year with the potential of going even higher this year and still have to put up with an opening day payroll under 60 million.

Why not start the year with a higher payroll and then as the season progresses, the talent will either justify the money spent with higher attendance, or it can be traded away to teams that are actually in contention.

There are probably holes in this theory of mine so feel free to pick it apart...

doublem23
12-02-2003, 05:02 PM
My God! What sort of magic apparatus and/or concoction Phil Rogers is using that enables him to see that the Cubs, with a larger payroll, can be more flexible than the Sox, with a smaller one. I think I **** myself because of the pure and utter feeling of relevation that has come upon me.

Can't we just get a standard form Phil Rogers column so we don't have to read new ones? All the content you need is...

a) The White Sox are discussing cutting payroll and everyone down to the Kannapolis Intimidator's night-shift janitor is on the trading block

b) I jerk off to the Cubs on an hourly basis

c) More moneny means more flexibility in payroll.

There.

kermittheefrog
12-02-2003, 05:17 PM
My issue with this is it says we'll probably have to trade Ordonez or Lee or Konerko and everyone just assumes that means Maggs is gone. My guess is either Lee or Konerko will be traded and I don't think we'd miss either one all that much. Both contribute pretty mediocre production for guys who play their position. It's obvious if we lose Maggs we're screwed and the front office probably realizes that.

joecrede
12-02-2003, 05:55 PM
I think Lee will either get traded or non-tendered.

hold2dibber
12-02-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I think Lee will either get traded or non-tendered.

There is no way in hell they'd just non-tender him.

hold2dibber
12-02-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
My issue with this is it says we'll probably have to trade Ordonez or Lee or Konerko and everyone just assumes that means Maggs is gone. My guess is either Lee or Konerko will be traded and I don't think we'd miss either one all that much. Both contribute pretty mediocre production for guys who play their position. It's obvious if we lose Maggs we're screwed and the front office probably realizes that.

There's no question in my mind that of the three, Lee is the most tradeable. Maggs simply makes way too much and PK makes too much and isn't very good at the baseball playing. Lee is unlikely to make even as much as Konerko next year, and while he is in the last year before free agency, he just had a break out year and is still young. Thus, I think he is the most likely one to go. My guess is they'll deal him to LA, Baltimore, or possibly San Diego for pitching and let Reed take a crack at LF.

joecrede
12-02-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
There is no way in hell they'd just non-tender him.

Then they will have settled for far less in a trade than what he is worth which is better than just non-tendering him of course. I just don't see him being on the roster next year.

gosox41
12-02-2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
My issue with this is it says we'll probably have to trade Ordonez or Lee or Konerko and everyone just assumes that means Maggs is gone. My guess is either Lee or Konerko will be traded and I don't think we'd miss either one all that much. Both contribute pretty mediocre production for guys who play their position. It's obvious if we lose Maggs we're screwed and the front office probably realizes that.

Losing PK isn't a bad thing, but it gives some a chance to complain that the Sox cut payroll.

Bob :D: :D:

gosox41
12-02-2003, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I realize this is stating the obvious but because there have been some fans here at WSI who have posted in sincerity that they think a team has just as good a chance of winning championships with a small payroll as with a large one, that an informed, neutral opinion was needed. This excerpt is from Phil Rogers' column Tuesday in the Tribune on the recent Brewers - D'backs deal:
"

Lip [/B]

Lip,
Was it you who was paraphrasing Dan McNeil when he said that listening is a skill?

Most (including me) have said that it owuld be a lot easier for a team to win that spends money, but it can still be done without a huge payroll. Where does that translate to "as good a chance?"

Sure it's harder to do, but it can still be done. It was done the last 2 years by teams that weren't in the top 10 in payroll when the won.

Bob

HITMEN OF 77
12-02-2003, 09:02 PM
So for sure one of the 3 PK, MO or CL is going to be traded? And this means Everett is gone too? Why not get rid of Rowand sign Everett and worry about cutting back later?

MHOUSE
12-02-2003, 10:09 PM
Lee is supposedly just reaching his potential and is a younger, cheaper, player than Maggs. Lee puts up good numbers and plays left field well enough. I'd welcome him back, even for good money. I like C. Lee, but in reality he's the most tradeable guy and most likely gone. Maggs and Konerko make way too much. We gotta hope PK comes back to form and Maggs resigns for a better deal next time.

RichH55
12-03-2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Who cares who posted it - the points Rogers makes are, I think legit and I'm glad Lip brought it to my attention.

But Phil gave little detail about what I view to be the most important issue. The Brewers got (IIRC) 6 players who will make about $5.5 million next year for Sexson, who will make $8 million. None of the players they received are that good/promising, although I have heard that the prospect from the Red Sox is a pretty good (but not great) prospect. What does that say about what the Sox might expect to get in return for Magglio? He's better than Sexson, but not a ton better, and he will make nearly 2 times as much next year (the last year on his contract). What does it say about what the Sox could get for Konerko, who will make more than Sexson next year and, obviously, is not even close to being as good.

Yet more reason to think that the Sox will not be able to get much of anything in return if/when they trade their high salaried guys, if they're able to trade them at all.

Look...calm down

Houston got good return on Wagner and took on very very little salary in return, and they aren't a "great" organization either.....the Brewers just happen to be terrible...maybe the worst organization out there, so I really really don't think its fair to say "As the Brewers Go, so goes the market"

RichH55
12-03-2003, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Losing PK isn't a bad thing, but it gives some a chance to complain that the Sox cut payroll.

Bob :D: :D:

My favorite was when people complained when Herbert Perry was dealt:)

PK to LA still looks viable to me

hsnterprize
12-03-2003, 07:24 AM
As much as I hate to admit it, the Cubs are really raking in the talent this offseason. Now, there's plenty of time between now and Spring Training. And, money spent on players doesn't guarantee W.S. success. However, the Cubs' acquisition of Hawkins and Lee, along with any other significant deals, will energize their fan base and draw more people to the Urinal whether we like it or not. And with more butts in those crappy seats, there's more money for the sCrUBS to spend on players. The Tribune can add their own millions to the equation, but the bottom line is the Cubs have more money to fool around with than the Sox. Let's face it...our team's payroll either needs a serious boost, or some massive trimming.

If I'd rather see anyone from the Sox gone, it's PK. Nothing against him personally, but I think Lee, Thomas, and Maggs are more valuable than PK. Paulie's hit into too many DP's this year (not that any other players haven't), but I can live with Konerko in another uniform.

MarqSox
12-03-2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by hsnterprize
As much as I hate to admit it, the Cubs are really raking in the talent this offseason. Now, there's plenty of time between now and Spring Training. And, money spent on players doesn't guarantee W.S. success. However, the Cubs' acquisition of Hawkins and Lee, along with any other significant deals, will energize their fan base and draw more people to the Urinal whether we like it or not.
Lee and Hawkins were nice pickups. I would hardly go so far as to say they're raking in talent ...

As for fan support -- those two probably accounted for an average attendance boost of what, 200 fans over the course of the year? They were gonna sell out June through August anyway, and I'll be astonished if you can find me 5 Cubs fans who will actually go to more games now that LaTroy freegin Hawkins is throwing along the sidelines in the seventh inning.