PDA

View Full Version : #1 Reason Sox will cut salary!!


GiveMeSox
10-05-2004, 08:27 PM
The extra cash on hand from the 03 all star game has been used and depleted. Remember all the talk this year in May and June when we were in 1st but just another pitcher or reliever away from winning it outright. All we kept hearing on the radio, bruce levine, and in the media is how JR has given approval to increase budget and "Go for it". Uhhhhh, not really. The $$ for all this came from on hand cash reserves. He wasn't taking a risk and hoping for reward like we want him too. The sox had an extra 5 to 10 mil from the All Star game and used it this year in acquiring Garcia, Contreras, and Everett and paying there salaries this year. They went for it yes, but with extra $$ already on hand. Its like using a Visa Check Card vs. using a regular Visa Credit Card. JR only "went for it" and gave the green light to increase payroll becuase the $$ was already there and everyone agreed this was the right situation to use it. This organaztion acts like on huge Visa Check Card. Its only spends when it has, or projects what it will have. No risk, no gamble, no anything for the World Series attitude. So since attendance was the same as 03 expect the same payroll of around 58 to 60 mil to be the # from the chariman. Kinda of interesting how they send out the season ticket forms very early and get the $$ from that early and then decide what they want to do on the FA market and decide their budget. Where there is no risk there is no reward. You either would do anything to win and win at all or you wouldn't, plain and simple. Funny how Art Moreno made a huge splash on FA market and then sold out his entire stadium for all 81 home games after that. Kinda of like a Credit Card instead of Check Card huh???

johnny bench
10-05-2004, 09:01 PM
The sox had an extra 5 to 10 mil from the All Star game
Where did you get this number from?

RKMeibalane
10-05-2004, 09:04 PM
Jerry Reinsdorf is the reason that the Sox will slash payroll.

jabrch
10-05-2004, 09:11 PM
Oh goody - another JR is cheap thread. I wonder what great content this whopper will be filled with...

Kogs35
10-05-2004, 09:19 PM
yawn

samram
10-05-2004, 09:21 PM
Oh goody - another JR is cheap thread. I wonder what great content this whopper will be filled with...
They're trading everyone on the team for a Volkswagen bug, and then bringing back Liu Rodriguez, cloning 24 more of him, and will have all of them get out of the bug on the mound right before the game starts while Nancy plays circus music.

PavanoBeltran'05
10-05-2004, 09:27 PM
They're trading everyone on the team for a Volkswagen bug, and then bringing back Liu Rodriguez, cloning 24 more of him, and will have all of them get out of the bug on the mound right before the game starts while Nancy plays circus music.Now, thanks to you and this quote, I have to change my pants.

Parrothead
10-05-2004, 10:30 PM
They're trading everyone on the team for a Volkswagen bug, and then bringing back Liu Rodriguez, cloning 24 more of him, and will have all of them get out of the bug on the mound right before the game starts while Nancy plays circus music.
But Liu is a grinder...

jordan23ventura
10-06-2004, 01:15 AM
The extra cash on hand from the 03 all star game has been used and depleted......The sox had an extra 5 to 10 mil from the All Star game and used it this year.....JR only "went for it" and gave the green light to increase payroll becuase the $$ was already there.....This organaztion acts like on huge Visa Check Card.....Kinda of like a Credit Card instead of Check Card huh???
Remind me to never let me select you as my financial consultant.

Let's take a quick stroll down Economics 001: it is never wise to spend money you don't have, especially when you are banking on profits coming from an area that you have no control over (i.e. baseball, where quick injuries and so forth can drive away fans and cause you to sink even deeper into debt).

It is not my place to question how much money JR has to spend on his team. Regardless of how much he has, that point is irrelevant.

If you buy a yacht on a Visa, it doesn't matter how much money you make waiting tables at Dennys. You are not actually buying anything, only assuming a debt and an obligation. The yacht is just temporarily yours, and if customers stop coming in, you still have that debt. And whether you pay it now or later doesn't matter, because it is still there.

For a more detailed look at this, check out your local Arizona Diamondbacks Discount Warehouse, where you can probably pick up Jerry Colangelo's head in a glass jar for about $15.00.

SOXSINCE'70
10-06-2004, 07:21 AM
Jerry Reinsdorf is the reason that the Sox will slash payroll.
AMEN!!!! :angry: :angry: :angry:

munchman33
10-06-2004, 08:04 AM
Remind me to never let me select you as my financial consultant.

Let's take a quick stroll down Economics 001: it is never wise to spend money you don't have, especially when you are banking on profits coming from an area that you have no control over (i.e. baseball, where quick injuries and so forth can drive away fans and cause you to sink even deeper into debt).

It is not my place to question how much money JR has to spend on his team. Regardless of how much he has, that point is irrelevant.

If you buy a yacht on a Visa, it doesn't matter how much money you make waiting tables at Dennys. You are not actually buying anything, only assuming a debt and an obligation. The yacht is just temporarily yours, and if customers stop coming in, you still have that debt. And whether you pay it now or later doesn't matter, because it is still there.

For a more detailed look at this, check out your local Arizona Diamondbacks Discount Warehouse, where you can probably pick up Jerry Colangelo's head in a glass jar for about $15.00.
This is probably the most intelligent post I've seen on this board in months. Too bad no one here can get past their hatred of JR long enough to take it seriously.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-06-2004, 08:49 AM
The extra cash on hand from the 03 all star game has been used and depleted. Remember all the talk this year in May and June when we were in 1st but just another pitcher or reliever away from winning it outright. All we kept hearing on the radio, bruce levine, and in the media is how JR has given approval to increase budget and "Go for it". Uhhhhh, not really. The $$ for all this came from on hand cash reserves. He wasn't taking a risk and hoping for reward like we want him too. The sox had an extra 5 to 10 mil from the All Star game and used it this year in acquiring Garcia, Contreras, and Everett and paying there salaries this year. They went for it yes, but with extra $$ already on hand. Its like using a Visa Check Card vs. using a regular Visa Credit Card. JR only "went for it" and gave the green light to increase payroll becuase the $$ was already there and everyone agreed this was the right situation to use it. This organaztion acts like on huge Visa Check Card. Its only spends when it has, or projects what it will have. No risk, no gamble, no anything for the World Series attitude. So since attendance was the same as 03 expect the same payroll of around 58 to 60 mil to be the # from the chariman. Kinda of interesting how they send out the season ticket forms very early and get the $$ from that early and then decide what they want to do on the FA market and decide their budget. Where there is no risk there is no reward. You either would do anything to win and win at all or you wouldn't, plain and simple. Funny how Art Moreno made a huge splash on FA market and then sold out his entire stadium for all 81 home games after that. Kinda of like a Credit Card instead of Check Card huh???I love how people quote alot of numbers to make it look like they know what they're talking about. The accounting system of major league baseball teams are notoriously complicated but somehow this guy finds it very easy to count and spend other people's money. Unless you are a member of the board of the Chicago White Sox, you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.

The Minnesota Twins just beat the mighty Yankees last night with a lower payroll than the Sox.

Kilroy
10-06-2004, 09:11 AM
The Minnesota Twins just beat the mighty Yankees last night with a lower payroll than the Sox.
Don't try making sense with these people...

mweflen
10-06-2004, 09:23 AM
If you buy a yacht on a Visa, it doesn't matter how much money you make waiting tables at Dennys. You are not actually buying anything, only assuming a debt and an obligation. The yacht is just temporarily yours, and if customers stop coming in, you still have that debt. And whether you pay it now or later doesn't matter, because it is still there.

Jordan23Ventura,

I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, but I disagree with the above. The analogy is not sound: As opposed to a wealthy person assuming a debt for a yacht, investing in a baseball team is more akin to improving a restaurant in the hopes of increased business.

If you're drawing a certain demographic by offering butt steak, as an owner of a service or entertainment franchise you can make the calculated gamble that serving filet mignon might bring more people into your resraurant, at higher rates of pay.

Also, increasing the payroll of a team to the tune of 5 or 10 million sounds like a lot, but when considered against the overall revenue of a team, which approaches several hundreds of millions on average, it is a relatively small reallocation of funds. So again, it's not really like assuming a large "debt" to increase payroll by 5 or 10 percent. I don't think any of us (well, maybe some of us) are asking Satan to personally go into hock and pawn all his wife's jewelry, we're more asking that money is spent just a tad more freely on an impact free agent here and there.

Which, in '04, it seemed like it was happening, at least with Freddy Garcia (calling Everett and Alomar "impact" players is highly debatable, even before their individual performances confirmed this).

Hopefully the trend continues, and Satan tries in his meek little way to buy a championship before he kicks the bucket.

jordan23ventura
10-06-2004, 10:53 AM
Jordan23Ventura,

I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, but I disagree with the above. The analogy is not sound: As opposed to a wealthy person assuming a debt for a yacht, investing in a baseball team is more akin to improving a restaurant in the hopes of increased business.

If you're drawing a certain demographic by offering butt steak, as an owner of a service or entertainment franchise you can make the calculated gamble that serving filet mignon might bring more people into your resraurant, at higher rates of pay.

Also, increasing the payroll of a team to the tune of 5 or 10 million sounds like a lot, but when considered against the overall revenue of a team, which approaches several hundreds of millions on average, it is a relatively small reallocation of funds. So again, it's not really like assuming a large "debt" to increase payroll by 5 or 10 percent. I don't think any of us (well, maybe some of us) are asking Satan to personally go into hock and pawn all his wife's jewelry, we're more asking that money is spent just a tad more freely on an impact free agent here and there.

Which, in '04, it seemed like it was happening, at least with Freddy Garcia (calling Everett and Alomar "impact" players is highly debatable, even before their individual performances confirmed this).

Hopefully the trend continues, and Satan tries in his meek little way to buy a championship before he kicks the bucket.
You're missing the point. The point is that no matter who you are, you do not spend more money than you have. It's easy for you, a total outsider, to say "JR can easily add another 5-10% of the payroll" because you have no idea what he has to work with. Besides, given a 60-70mil payroll or so, 5-10% of that is only $3-7mil, which is almost exactly the price of a top FA pitcher for one year. Has there been any indication given as of yet that this will not be done?

Once again, I'm not saying that I know how much money he has to work with, because I don't. I'm only saying that it is not wise buisness practice to spend more than you have. And as far as the ordinary person buying a yacht analogy, I think it applies very well considering the fact that you want to see "impact players" instead of Alomar and Everett. Well, to do this there would have to be a payroll on par with NY and Boston, and that is something that YOU DO NOT DO if you can't pay for it.

batmanZoSo
10-06-2004, 11:00 AM
The extra cash on hand from the 03 all star game has been used and depleted. Remember all the talk this year in May and June when we were in 1st but just another pitcher or reliever away from winning it outright. All we kept hearing on the radio, bruce levine, and in the media is how JR has given approval to increase budget and "Go for it". Uhhhhh, not really. The $$ for all this came from on hand cash reserves. He wasn't taking a risk and hoping for reward like we want him too. The sox had an extra 5 to 10 mil from the All Star game and used it this year in acquiring Garcia, Contreras, and Everett and paying there salaries this year. They went for it yes, but with extra $$ already on hand. Its like using a Visa Check Card vs. using a regular Visa Credit Card. JR only "went for it" and gave the green light to increase payroll becuase the $$ was already there and everyone agreed this was the right situation to use it. This organaztion acts like on huge Visa Check Card. Its only spends when it has, or projects what it will have. No risk, no gamble, no anything for the World Series attitude. So since attendance was the same as 03 expect the same payroll of around 58 to 60 mil to be the # from the chariman. Kinda of interesting how they send out the season ticket forms very early and get the $$ from that early and then decide what they want to do on the FA market and decide their budget. Where there is no risk there is no reward. You either would do anything to win and win at all or you wouldn't, plain and simple. Funny how Art Moreno made a huge splash on FA market and then sold out his entire stadium for all 81 home games after that. Kinda of like a Credit Card instead of Check Card huh???

That's a good analogy. And for that reason, the sox have no credit.

mweflen
10-06-2004, 11:07 AM
You're missing the point. The point is that no matter who you are, you do not spend more money than you have. It's easy for you, a total outsider, to say "JR can easily add another 5-10% of the payroll" because you have no idea what he has to work with. Besides, given a 60-70mil payroll or so, 5-10% of that is only $3-7mil, which is almost exactly the price of a top FA pitcher for one year. Has there been any indication given as of yet that this will not be done?

Once again, I'm not saying that I know how much money he has to work with, because I don't. I'm only saying that it is not wise buisness practice to spend more than you have. And as far as the ordinary person buying a yacht analogy, I think it applies very well considering the fact that you want to see "impact players" instead of Alomar and Everett. Well, to do this there would have to be a payroll on par with NY and Boston, and that is something that YOU DO NOT DO if you can't pay for it.I may be missing your point, but you're also missing mine. a $70m payroll only accounts for a portion of the operating funds of a ballclub - much more than $70m is necessary to run the park, pay other employees, pay for marketing, etc. Since most clubs sell in the $200-$300 million range, we can definitely assume that a club's break even point is NOT their payroll.

Therefore, shifting $7m from one area of expenditure to another is not that big a deal. I would gladly go without new scoreboard programming, landscaping around the park, or better commercials for a year if it meant a top-flight starter could be acquired. I'm not advocating spending into debt. I'm advocating spending on different things.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-06-2004, 11:30 AM
You're missing the point. The point is that no matter who you are, you do not spend more money than you have. It's easy for you, a total outsider, to say "JR can easily add another 5-10% of the payroll" because you have no idea what he has to work with. Besides, given a 60-70mil payroll or so, 5-10% of that is only $3-7mil, which is almost exactly the price of a top FA pitcher for one year. Has there been any indication given as of yet that this will not be done?

Once again, I'm not saying that I know how much money he has to work with, because I don't. I'm only saying that it is not wise buisness practice to spend more than you have. And as far as the ordinary person buying a yacht analogy, I think it applies very well considering the fact that you want to see "impact players" instead of Alomar and Everett. Well, to do this there would have to be a payroll on par with NY and Boston, and that is something that YOU DO NOT DO if you can't pay for it.If you honestly believe what you've written here, you're 100 percent qualified to be a business news analyst or reporter at the NY Times or CNN. None of them have a clue either. Probably got their "business credentials" with a diploma in journalism. They wouldn't know the difference between a put from a putt.
:cool:

The fact is the value of the White Sox franchise has experienced 25 years of unbroken organic growth. This is an asset that SCREAMS for investment capital to further grow its net value. It's going UP in value, jordan, not down.

Your "pay as you go" strategy leaves the asset strangling for lack of capital. Even if Reinsdorf plays it conservatively (as you're suggesting), his competitors are experiencing the same organic growth in their franchise value and are reinvesting to bury the White Sox in the marketplace <cough!>CUBUNE!<cough!>.

Yours is a loser's investment strategy in general, but especially a loser's strategy for building equity in an asset that is appreciating in value -- like baseball franchises have the last 40+ years.

Great thinking. You should be the next Sox owner. Nothing but losers for the last 87 years.
:cool:

mweflen
10-06-2004, 11:39 AM
Good point PaleHoseGeorge... and this is not even to mention the FREE $200 million facility that the taxpayers gave to Uncle Jerry as a gift out of the goodness of our hearts (and not because he threatened to move the team to Tampa Bay...)

Lip Man 1
10-06-2004, 11:41 AM
Joirdan/Ventura says: "For a more detailed look at this, check out your local Arizona Diamondbacks Discount Warehouse, where you can probably pick up Jerry Colangelo's head in a glass jar for about $15.00."

Just wondering...is his head displayed right next to the World Series trophy Arizona won in 2001? Funny I didn't see or read anything about the other investors complaining then did I? Wonder why?????

PHG has it spot on and who knows, aggresive constructive decisions to increase fan attendance might do something that appears to be revolutionary to some of the closet economists, actually cause the Sox investors to make even more money. Wow! Think of the possibilities.

Lip

Flight #24
10-06-2004, 11:50 AM
PHG has it spot on and who knows, aggresive constructive decisions to increase fan attendance might do something that appears to be revolutionary to some of the closet economists, actually cause the Sox investors to make even more money. Wow! Think of the possibilities.

Lip
Just as it might cause them to LOSE money, see the NY Mets as exhibit A.

Lip Man 1
10-06-2004, 12:25 PM
Flight:

If the Sox start winning the chances of that happening are slim and none.

The issue with some of you (and I honestly don't mean that personally) is that you want a 100% guarantee that if the Sox start spending big money they are going to win a title. That only happens in fantasy geek's minds.

As Mike Ditka was fond of saying 'in life,' there are no guarantees but what we DO know is that the way the organization is being run currently has resulted in NO titles, a loss of market share and severe media criticism or worse flat out being ignored.

Since you constantly stress the 'sound business,' style let me ask you diectly 'is that the right way to run a business?' one that is resulting with dropping further and further behind in your own city?

Lip

Flight #24
10-06-2004, 12:44 PM
Flight:

If the Sox start winning the chances of that happening are slim and none.

The issue with some of you (and I honestly don't mean that personally) is that you want a 100% guarantee that if the Sox start spending big money they are going to win a title. That only happens in fantasy geek's minds.

As Mike Ditka was fond of saying 'in life,' there are no guarantees but what we DO know is that the way the organization is being run currently has resulted in NO titles, a loss of market share and severe media criticism or worse flat out being ignored.

Since you constantly stress the 'sound business,' style let me ask you diectly 'is that the right way to run a business?' one that is resulting with dropping further and further behind in your own city?

Lip
The point is, that while you consistently make comments that imply that if they spend, they'll win and fans will come, that is simply not true. Example: Had they spent $$$ on Colon in the offseason, resulting in a season-opening payroll of around 75mil, then acquired Garcia, (boosting payroll over $80mil) - they still likely wouldn't have won because of the injuries to Frank & Maggs. At which point, all we'd hear is "another season wasted because Sox management wouldn't spend the extra $$$ it took to back up their star players", and end of season attendance would suffer.

Management put together a very strong team this year. They upped payroll from last year, they made a big acquisition during the season and further upped payroll. They had some bad luck with injuries, and were then killed at the gate in terms of attendance (similar attendance as last year, but no ASG revenues and a payroll higher than last year). Did the fans care that management went out and made moves including spending $$$? No.

That is why while it may not be my personal style, it is entirely reasonable for an investor to say "I'm not going to dig into my personal pocket to fund it".

Thus endeth the lesson.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-06-2004, 01:09 PM
....

Thus endeth the lesson.
The White Sox didn't do jack. Stop trying to tell us they did.

Players get old. Players break down. Rookies don't pan out. A WINNING organization knows all of these things occur naturally and has contingencies for all of them.

The White Sox NEVER make such plans and that's why they are LOSERS.

Blame the customers... only an imbecile would believe it.

Justafan
10-06-2004, 01:17 PM
The White Sox NEVER make such plans and that's why they are LOSERS.

Are we then as fans, "losers", in that we support a "losing" team?

Flight #24
10-06-2004, 01:19 PM
The White Sox didn't do jack. Stop trying to tell us they did.

Players get old. Players break down. Rookies don't pan out. A WINNING organization knows all of these things occur naturally and has contingencies for all of them.

The White Sox NEVER make such plans and that's why they are LOSERS.

Blame the customers... only an imbecile would believe it.
Well PHG, we'll have to disagree on a key point, which is what the team did or didn't do, especially from a financial perspective (which is the primary complaint of Lip's that I was referring to). They didn't cut payroll from 03-04, in fact thay increased it. They also added to it during the season. They also had a deal in place to take on a huge amount of salary, which was rejected by the player. Doesn't seem like an organization that's not willing to spend $$$ to take a "good risk".

And for the record, I'm not blaming Sox fans, I'm merely stating that the attitude towards investing that's prevalent among management isn't as ridiculously stupid as many here would make it out to be. At this point, Sox fans have every right to be cynical. However, given that as a fact, it's understandable that Sox management would be averse to taking risks.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-06-2004, 01:22 PM
Are we then as fans, "losers", in that we support a "losing" team?
Yes, if you believe (as Reinsdorf and gosox41 tell us to believe) that no investment will be made without you coughing up the money first, then you most definitely are the loser for supporting a loser's team (i.e. Reinsdorf).

I'm not an owner. My equity interest in the White Sox is precisely zero dollars and zero cents. If Reinsdorf want to sell me a piece of the Chicago White Sox in return for my "investment capital," I'm all ears to hear it.

Reinsdorf isn't offering, and neither am I.

Justafan
10-06-2004, 01:27 PM
Yes, if you believe (as Reinsdorf and gosox41 tell us to believe) that no investment will be made without you coughing up the money first, then you most definitely are the loser for supporting a loser's team (i.e. Reinsdorf).

I'm not an owner. My equity interest in the White Sox is precisely zero dollars and zero cents. If Reinsdorf want to sell me a piece of the Chicago White Sox in return for my "investment capital," I'm all ears to hear it.

Reinsdorf isn't offering, and neither am I.
Than for those who spend ONE DIME on this team then they are a loser? Going to the cell makes you a loser? I'm not sure If I agree.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-06-2004, 01:35 PM
Than for those who spend ONE DIME on this team then they are a loser? Going to the cell makes you a loser? I'm not sure If I agree.
Trying reading what I wrote before you reply.

IF YOU BELIEVE IT'S YOUR FAULT, then it most definitely is your fault and you are a loser, same as Reinsdorf.

I DON'T OWN THE CHICAGO WHITE SOX. I could spend a million dollars in tickets, parking, beer, churros, and souvenirs and my equity interest would be still be ZERO. It's not my fault and I'm no loser, just one more paying customer buying products and services for fair market value.

Stop trying to accept ownership responsibility when NONE is being offered. If you're dumb enough to accept it anyway... not only are you a loser, you're pretty stupid, too.

:cool:

Justafan
10-06-2004, 01:46 PM
Trying reading what I wrote before you reply.

IF YOU BELIEVE IT'S YOUR FAULT, then it most definitely is your fault and you are a loser, same as Reinsdorf.

I DON'T OWN THE CHICAGO WHITE SOX. I could spend a million dollars in tickets, parking, beer, churros, and souvenirs and my equity interest would be still be ZERO. It's not my fault and I'm no loser, just one more paying customer buying products and services for fair market value.

Stop trying to accept ownership responsibility when NONE is being offered. If you're dumb enough to accept it anyway... not only are you a loser, you're pretty stupid, too.

:cool:

Never said it was my fault, nor would I ever say it was.

If you are saying "I'm no loser" if I spend "millions" of dollars on a "loser" franchise, then you are saying you/we are suckers at best? Not such a great tag IMO.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-06-2004, 02:34 PM
Never said it was my fault, nor would I ever say it was.

If you are saying "I'm no loser" if I spend "millions" of dollars on a "loser" franchise, then you are saying you/we are suckers at best? Not such a great tag IMO.
LOL! Point taken. Any Sox Fan spending $1 million in tickets, parking, beer, churros, and souvenirs is definitely a SUCKER. Any Sox Fan doing the same and expecting his "investment" in the team to translate into a championship is a sucker and a loser, too.
:cool:

:reinsy
"Suckers are my second-favorite kind of fan -- almost as good as my losing apologists like gosox41."

Justafan
10-06-2004, 03:28 PM
Palehose, you are still making me feel as if that spending money on a failing franchise is dumb, yet we all do it. That money goes right in the pocket of the owner. Are we supposed to flip the bird to them, or support the team?

Dan H
10-06-2004, 04:46 PM
I have some simple comments to add to this debate. If an business doesn't invest in its product, that product won't be any good. If you're a business doesn't have the funds to invest, maybe you should be in another business.

Since the group headed up by Reinsdorf and Einhorn purchased the Sox in January 1981, the team has won three post season games. That is a bottom line that no one can dispute. Not to mention a series of PR disasters that helped chase fans away for good.

Right now I have one question for the Sox: Do you want to go to the World Series or is winning 83 games appealing to you?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-06-2004, 05:03 PM
Palehose, you are still making me feel as if that spending money on a failing franchise is dumb, yet we all do it. That money goes right in the pocket of the owner. Are we supposed to flip the bird to them, or support the team?
Please don't be confused. My point is simple.

Support the White Sox as much as you can. I wouldn't have started this website nearly 6 years ago if I didn't believe it was important for all Sox Fans to feel like I do.

However, like any other fan, don't be foolish enough to think their success or failure depends on YOUR MONETARY spending. It doesn't, and only a sucker (like the $1 million fan) or a loser (like gosox41) would think otherwise.

"Let's Go Go Go White Sox, Chicago's Proud of You!" (http://whitesoxinteractive.com//LetsGoGoWhiteSox.rm) has absolutely nothing to do with how much money Jerry Reinsdorf makes off you and me and all the other rabid Sox Fans. Being a fan means a whole lot more than your empty wallet... in spite of what Reinsdorf (and gosox41) would have you believe.

ewokpelts
10-06-2004, 05:44 PM
Please don't be confused. My point is simple.

Support the White Sox as much as you can. I wouldn't have started this website nearly 6 years ago if I didn't believe it was important for all Sox Fans to feel like I do.

However, like any other fan, don't be foolish enough to think their success or failure depends on YOUR MONETARY spending. It doesn't, and only a sucker (like the $1 million fan) or a loser (like gosox41) would think otherwise.

"Let's Go Go Go White Sox, Chicago's Proud of You!" (http://whitesoxinteractive.com//LetsGoGoWhiteSox.rm) has absolutely nothing to do with how much money Jerry Reinsdorf makes off you and me and all the other rabid Sox Fans. Being a fan means a whole lot more than your empty wallet... in spite of what Reinsdorf (and gosox41) would have you believe.Amen. We need to stop buying the line"if you spend, we'll come and play Good".
Gene

owensmouth
10-06-2004, 06:56 PM
What about the team management that spends more than 100 million dollars and still doesn't get into the World Series. Are they too cheap, are they losers?

Lip Man 1
10-06-2004, 09:53 PM
You mean like the Angels say? Well they drew three million fans off that spending, have impacted the Southern California market and translated that spending into a division title in the toughest division in baseball.

Pretty good return for a 120 million dollar payroll don't you think?

Again Owens you sound like the fans I was talking about in an earlier post. 'We can't guarantee a World Series if we spend 100 million so we won't do anything.'

Sure the Sox can luck their way to the World Series instead.

Being in business means sometimes you have to take risks, if this group isn't willing to do this as PHG explained, then maybe they should be in another business that guarantees the owners a certain return on their investments every year, say mutual funds. Sports doesn't work like the stock market or an investment portfolio.

Lip

ewokpelts
10-07-2004, 09:47 AM
Sports doesn't work like the stock market or an investment portfolio.

Lipit can if we(the real fools) keep throwing money back at jerry. i'm sick of it. i'm not renewing(statement subject to change, but probably not).
Gene

bigfoot
10-07-2004, 10:02 AM
MLB enjoys advantages that few other businesses have ever had. The Anti-Trust Exemption that Congress has bestowed upon MLB is remarkable. combine that with the ability of an owner to depreciate the value of a player over a period of time for taxation purposes as one might a piece of machinery, the willingness of the public to finance the construction of stadiums, well..... one would have to stiff your tax attorney not to be able make a good buck or two. Exceptions, sure, the monetary exchange in Canada makes things tougher, but I don't hear the Blue Jay ownership crying.

~If JR wants to cry "Poor Me and my small market town", don't expect me to buy into it.
~You bought a team on the cheap, JR. Time to invest in your product line!

Justafan
10-07-2004, 10:06 AM
Using the Cubs as an example, they spent about 100M on payroll this year. They ran a full page ad yesterday in the Tribune that thanked them for 3M in attendance and that it would be put BACK IN THE TEAM. Would Reinsdorf do the same? Hell no!

What amazes me is that if you own a hotdog stand and someone else builds a hotdog stand across the street, you had better have a better product then the guy across the street. Same thing applies in this situation. The Cubs are not going to stand pat and probably increase payroll again, while Reinsdorf stays middle of the pack. You would think this would make Reinsdorf fume, but noooooooooo, he just says the Cubs are a giant and we can't worry about them. Well, Jerry, you had better do just that.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2004, 11:48 AM
Rick Sutcliffe had a comment last night during the Angels/Red Sox game that was dead on about Arte Moreno. I'm paraphrasing here but it went along the lines of, the biggest difference Moreno made was that he allowed his organization to go out and sign free agents. They didn't have to trade any of their better minor league players, they didn't have to trade guys off the big league roster creating more holes. He said that by doing this the Angels not only will be good today but very good in the future.


That's something that Hangar has spoken off in the past with the Sox and it's true. What good does it do to acquire say a pitcher if you have to trade your second baseman to do it? That's not adding anything, that's spinning your wheels (which the Sox do extremely well...)

Lip

gosox41
10-07-2004, 12:03 PM
MLB enjoys advantages that few other businesses have ever had. The Anti-Trust Exemption that Congress has bestowed upon MLB is remarkable. combine that with the ability of an owner to depreciate the value of a player over a period of time for taxation purposes as one might a piece of machinery, the willingness of the public to finance the construction of stadiums, well..... one would have to stiff your tax attorney not to be able make a good buck or two. Exceptions, sure, the monetary exchange in Canada makes things tougher, but I don't hear the Blue Jay ownership crying.

~If JR wants to cry "Poor Me and my small market town", don't expect me to buy into it.
~You bought a team on the cheap, JR. Time to invest in your product line!
I think the practice of depreciating a player for taxes was stopped by the IRS in the mid-1990's. Don't know for sure as I an not a tax accountant.


Bob

DaveGusinSeattle
10-07-2004, 03:02 PM
Check out what the Mariners are doing in a so-called small market to compete against those Angels and A's.

"Editor's note: P-I sports columnist Art Thiel interviewed Mariners CEO Howard Lincoln yesterday in his office. After expressing his disappointment over the season, a chastened Lincoln vowed that Mariners fans would not be subject to a long-term turnaround project. He said the club would maintain a top-10 payroll and, for the first time since the 1999 opening of Safeco Field, would budget for an annual operating loss "in the many millions" to subsidize the fix."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/193932_lincoln06.html :cool:

I'd like to see the latest attendence figures, but to be fair, the Mariners are near the top. :gulp:

Flight #24
10-07-2004, 03:05 PM
Check out what the Mariners are doing in a so-called small market to compete against those Angels and A's.

"Editor's note: P-I sports columnist Art Thiel interviewed Mariners CEO Howard Lincoln yesterday in his office. After expressing his disappointment over the season, a chastened Lincoln vowed that Mariners fans would not be subject to a long-term turnaround project. He said the club would maintain a top-10 payroll and, for the first time since the 1999 opening of Safeco Field, would budget for an annual operating loss "in the many millions" to subsidize the fix."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/193932_lincoln06.html :cool:

I'd like to see the latest attendence figures, but to be fair, the Mariners are near the top. :gulp:
I can't remember if apparel sales, etc are kept by the team or shared, but I do know that they also make a nice chunk of change from merchandising and TV broadcasting over in Japan (another reason why Ichiro will never play anywhere but Seattle).

Lip Man 1
10-07-2004, 08:28 PM
Merchandising revenue is shared equally to all teams under MLB under MLB properties. That was started by peter ueberroth in the mi 80's (i.e. everyone tosses their money in a pot and it's divided equally) I don't know about televising games overseas.

Lip

Daver
10-07-2004, 08:32 PM
Merchandising revenue is shared equally to all teams under MLB under MLB properties. That was started by peter ueberroth in the mi 80's (i.e. everyone tosses their money in a pot and it's divided equally) I don't know about televising games overseas.

LipGames televised overseas are the same as national games in the U.S., that money is shared revenue. It is distributed as the Commisioner sees fit, it is not distributed in equal shares. The same goes for all luxury tax monies.

Wealz
10-07-2004, 08:51 PM
I'm all for increasing the payroll, but first start clean with a new GM and a new scouting department.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2004, 09:52 PM
Great idea. To bad that costs money and well you know...


Lip

Flight #24
10-07-2004, 10:14 PM
Great idea. To bad that costs money and well you know...


Lip
Lip:

I'll hazard a guess that over 75% of GMs of recent playoff teams are doing it for the team they "came up with". I don't believe Hunsicker, Jocketty, Stoneman, Ryan, Cashman, DePodesta, Epstein were ever GMs anywhere else. The fact is that it's quite rare for successful GMs to leave their teams. It's the ones that suck that end up being available (hello Gord Ash!).

I guess all those playoff teams are just as cheap, huh?

Lip Man 1
10-08-2004, 12:21 PM
Flight:

If you want a Beene, a Jocketty, a Scherholz bad enough...

'I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse...'

EVERYTHING is negotiable it all depends of what you are willing to give up.

Lip

Flight #24
10-08-2004, 12:49 PM
Flight:

If you want a Beene, a Jocketty, a Scherholz bad enough...

'I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse...'

EVERYTHING is negotiable it all depends of what you are willing to give up.

Lip
I don't think I've ever seen that in baseball. And I highly doubt that a highly successful organization is going to give up their architect unless you give them something extremely valuable in return. How do you think fans would react if the Sox were to say "trade" Mark Buehrle for Billy Beane? It wouldn't be pretty.

Lip Man 1
10-08-2004, 05:35 PM
Let's talk about your hypothetical. First there have been managers traded so some precedent has taken place. Second given Beene's (or insert an established winning G.M.'s name here) track record and the fact that the Sox have not re-signed most of their free agents especially pitchers, it's logical to think Buehrle's out of here in two years or so anyway.

Under those circumstances what is there to lose? In the short term (barring a fluke year like 2000) the Sox aren't going anywhere anyway so why not take the risk to provide a winning foundation for the long term.

Lip

Daver
10-08-2004, 06:43 PM
Let's talk about your hypothetical. First there have been managers traded so some precedent has taken place. Second given Beene's (or insert an established winning G.M.'s name here) track record

Billy Beane has never won anything.

Wealz
10-08-2004, 07:24 PM
Billy Beane has never won anything.
He'd be an upgrade over Williams though . . .

Daver
10-08-2004, 07:42 PM
He'd be an upgrade over Williams though . . .
I think not.

Wealz
10-08-2004, 07:47 PM
I think not.
Williams' record speaks for itself.

batmanZoSo
10-08-2004, 07:48 PM
Rick Sutcliffe had a comment last night during the Angels/Red Sox game that was dead on about Arte Moreno. I'm paraphrasing here but it went along the lines of, the biggest difference Moreno made was that he allowed his organization to go out and sign free agents. They didn't have to trade any of their better minor league players, they didn't have to trade guys off the big league roster creating more holes. He said that by doing this the Angels not only will be good today but very good in the future.


That's something that Hangar has spoken off in the past with the Sox and it's true. What good does it do to acquire say a pitcher if you have to trade your second baseman to do it? That's not adding anything, that's spinning your wheels (which the Sox do extremely well...)

Lip


I never understood why we can never be a FA player, but we can always add huge contracts in trades (Colon, Garcia). We always have to give up great prospects to get a great player. I guess it goes along with everything true about being Sox fans--even when we win we lose.

Daver
10-08-2004, 07:48 PM
Williams' record speaks for itself.
And his methods tell the story of why his teams have never won a damn thing.

Wealz
10-08-2004, 07:55 PM
And his methods tell the story of why his teams have never won a damn thing.
All Williams has proven is that he knows how to finish in second place in the American League Central.

OEO Magglio
10-08-2004, 08:01 PM
All Williams has proven is that he knows how to finish in second place in the American League Central.
Wealz, have you made one post on this site that didn't involve ripping on Kenny Williams or praising Billy Beane??

Wealz
10-08-2004, 08:06 PM
Wealz, have you made one post on this site that didn't involve ripping on Kenny Williams or praising Billy Beane??
Kenny Williams is part of the problem with this organization.

OEO Magglio
10-08-2004, 08:07 PM
Kenny Williams is part of the problem with this organization.
LOL, I rest my case.

Wealz
10-08-2004, 08:09 PM
LOL, I rest my case.
I don't understand why constant criticism of Kenny Williams troubles you so much.

santo=dorf
10-08-2004, 08:09 PM
Wealz, have you made one post on this site that didn't involve ripping on Kenny Williams or praising Billy Beane??If you don't count ripping into minor leaguers as KW bashing, then yes.

Wealz
10-08-2004, 08:10 PM
If you don't count ripping into minor leaguers as KW bashing, then yes.
They are really the same thing.

OEO Magglio
10-08-2004, 08:11 PM
I don't understand why constant criticism of Kenny Williams troubles you so much.
Because it's the same constant bs in everything you post. I know your feelings on KW, everybody on this board knows your feelings towards kenny, however when you constantly post the same crap it gets rather repetitive and annoying.

santo=dorf
10-08-2004, 08:12 PM
They are really the same thing.
Which is why I said "If."

Wealz, what was your favorite Sox-era?

Wealz
10-08-2004, 08:14 PM
Because it's the same constant bs in everything you post. I know your feelings on KW, everybody on this board knows your feelings towards kenny, however when you constantly post the same crap it gets rather repetitive and annoying.
Your replies to my posts are repetitive as well.

Lip Man 1
10-09-2004, 12:08 AM
Daver:

I used Beene's name purely as an example. You know I don't care much for 'baseball by the numbers.'

:smile:

Lip