PDA

View Full Version : Sox 2005 Payroll Comment


Lip Man 1
10-29-2004, 10:13 AM
This came from Bob Foltman's story in the Tribune today. Submitted for discussion purposes:

"The deferred money could make it more palatable for the Sox, who are expected to have a payroll of approximately $65 million in 2005, about the same as 2004."

The deferred money is in reference to the deal Randy Johnson made with Arizona.

Lip

CubKilla
10-29-2004, 10:16 AM
:reinsy

"Deferred money? I LOVE deferred money!"

santo=dorf
10-29-2004, 10:18 AM
His contract gets paid in full if he is traded. There would be no defferred money if he is traded to the Sox. :mad:

:reinsy
"So don't get your hopes up Sox fans!"

Flight #24
10-29-2004, 10:32 AM
This came from Bob Foltman's story in the Tribune today. Submitted for discussion purposes:

"The deferred money could make it more palatable for the Sox, who are expected to have a payroll of approximately $65 million in 2005, about the same as 2004."

The deferred money is in reference to the deal Randy Johnson made with Arizona.

Lip
Interesting, since that directly contradicts earlier reports form the same paper about what Sox were "planning to do wiht the savings from not resigning Magglio & Valentin".

Lip Man 1
10-29-2004, 10:40 AM
Flight:

That's why it caught my eye. I especially remember comments from you and others about how you were sure the Sox were going to raise payroll (I think you said to 75 million) and that if they didn't it would cause you to have re-evaluate your views towards ownership.

We'll see...

Lip

hitlesswonder
10-29-2004, 11:23 AM
Wasn't attendance this year pretty much the same as last? And the Sox played most of this year over the payroll they stated they would have IIRC. I don't think it would be surprising if payroll stayed flat. I imagine that means if the Sox sign people like Vizquel and Milton that payroll with have to be cut elsewhere.

Hangar18
10-29-2004, 11:38 AM
Flight:

That's why it caught my eye. I especially remember comments from you and others about how you were sure the Sox were going to raise payroll (I think you said to 75 million) and that if they didn't it would cause you to have re-evaluate your views towards ownership.

We'll see...

Lip

:reinsy
" OH, remember the part where I said I was going to RAISE payroll if you
guys came out to the park? I was kidding by the way, sheeeesh"

Mickster
10-29-2004, 12:02 PM
This came from Bob Foltman's story in the Tribune today. Submitted for discussion purposes:

"The deferred money could make it more palatable for the Sox, who are expected to have a payroll of approximately $65 million in 2005, about the same as 2004."

The deferred money is in reference to the deal Randy Johnson made with Arizona.

Lip1. It is coming from the Trib......take it with a grain of salt.

2. Thank you for posting what Foltman expects our 2005 salary to be. I am glad you quoted someone who was in the "know"!

Lip,

As I am sure that you are aware, paper does not refuse ink. Foltman can write whatever he wants, and has in the past. It doesn't mean jack, nor is it based in fact. Show me some quotes by KW, JR or someone within the organization......

:bs:

GiveMeSox
10-29-2004, 01:14 PM
Wasn't attendance this year pretty much the same as last? And the Sox played most of this year over the payroll they stated they would have IIRC. I don't think it would be surprising if payroll stayed flat. I imagine that means if the Sox sign people Vizquel and Milton that payroll with have to be cut elsewhere.
Why would payroll have to but if we sign a milton and vizquel. Payroll for 2005 is on the book for something like 50 mil already. If we expect ot have an opening day payroll of 65 mil we should have some funds to spend in the offseason, no trades necissary. Usuallly the backload in our players contracts who will get raises next year is deffered so its an even payement per year in terms or net payroll.

oneil78
10-29-2004, 01:21 PM
Wasn't attendance this year pretty much the same as last? And the Sox played most of this year over the payroll they stated they would have IIRC. I don't think it would be surprising if payroll stayed flat. I imagine that means if the Sox sign people like Vizquel and Milton that payroll with have to be cut elsewhere.
Yes, just shy of 2million again. But with these new scout seats next year...

Wealz
10-29-2004, 01:27 PM
This came from Bob Foltman's story in the Tribune today. Submitted for discussion purposes:

"The deferred money could make it more palatable for the Sox, who are expected to have a payroll of approximately $65 million in 2005, about the same as 2004."

The deferred money is in reference to the deal Randy Johnson made with Arizona.

Lip
Am I wrong or does this read like pure speculation from Foltman? Where are his sources?

samram
10-29-2004, 01:52 PM
Am I wrong or does this read like pure speculation from Foltman? Where are his sources?
I think he and Doug Padilla decided to hold a contest to see which of them could write the most speculative stories this offseason. I think Padilla wrote two a few weeks ago, so he's in the lead right now, but never count Foltman out, he's a grinder.

wdelaney72
10-29-2004, 02:02 PM
http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/
According to Dugout Dollars, here Sox Contracts for 2005. Keep in mind, it doesn't include arbitration and league minimum players:

Konerko $8.75 million
Politte $1.3 million
Takatsu $2.5 million
Marte $1.5 million
Thomas $8 million
Lee $8 million
Everett $4 million
Buehrle $5.75 million
Contreras $6 million (plus he gets $3 million more from the Yanks)
Garcia $8 million

Gload, Harris, Crede, Adkins, Cotts, Burke, Davis, Rowand, Borchard, Perez and Uribe are all making less than 1 million each. I think their salaries are TBD. That adds up to $53.8 million. Garland is going to get close to $4 million in arbitration. The others will vary, but will probably average out to $1 million or less each. That brings the total to $68 million.

I'm thinking (and hoping) payroll goes up to at least $80 million. Yes I want them to spend more, but I'm more concerned them spending WISELY.

Rex Hudler
10-29-2004, 02:07 PM
http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/
According to Dugout Dollars, here Sox Contracts for 2005. Keep in mind, it doesn't include arbitration and league minimum players:

Konerko $8.75 million
Politte $1.3 million
Takatsu $2.5 million
Marte $1.5 million
Thomas $8 million
Lee $8 million
Everett $4 million
Buehrle $5.75 million
Contreras $6 million (plus he gets $3 million more from the Yanks)
Garcia $8 million

Gload, Harris, Crede, Adkins, Cotts, Burke, Davis, Rowand, Borchard, Perez and Uribe are all making less than 1 million each. I think their salaries are TBD. That adds up to $53.8 million. Garland is going to get close to $4 million in arbitration. The others will vary, but will probably average out to $1 million or less each. That brings the total to $68 million.

I'm thinking (and hoping) payroll goes up to at least $80 million. Yes I want them to spend more, but I'm more concerned them spending WISELY.
The numbers are arguable, but reasonable. As of now, without any trades or FA signings, the Sox will be out somewhere around $61 million for 20-21 players. They'll need to add 4-5 to get to a full roster. I would hope that payroll will be in the upper 60's to low 70's. If it stays at $65 million, someone will likely have to be moved. (Lee or Konerko)

Ol' No. 2
10-29-2004, 03:15 PM
http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/
According to Dugout Dollars, here Sox Contracts for 2005. Keep in mind, it doesn't include arbitration and league minimum players:

Konerko $8.75 million
Politte $1.3 million
Takatsu $2.5 million
Marte $1.5 million
Thomas $8 million
Lee $8 million
Everett $4 million
Buehrle $5.75 million
Contreras $6 million (plus he gets $3 million more from the Yanks)
Garcia $8 million

Gload, Harris, Crede, Adkins, Cotts, Burke, Davis, Rowand, Borchard, Perez and Uribe are all making less than 1 million each. I think their salaries are TBD. That adds up to $53.8 million. Garland is going to get close to $4 million in arbitration. The others will vary, but will probably average out to $1 million or less each. That brings the total to $68 million.

I'm thinking (and hoping) payroll goes up to at least $80 million. Yes I want them to spend more, but I'm more concerned them spending WISELY.You didn't say, but if you're counting Gload, Harris, Crede, Adkins, Cotts, Burke, Davis, Rowand, Borchard, Perez and Uribe and "the others" for a million each, you're probably high by a factor of two, at least. Most players who aren't arbitration eligible are going to be closer to the minimum than to $1M. Perez and Davis are probably the only ones over $500K.

gosox41
10-29-2004, 03:50 PM
This came from Bob Foltman's story in the Tribune today. Submitted for discussion purposes:

"The deferred money could make it more palatable for the Sox, who are expected to have a payroll of approximately $65 million in 2005, about the same as 2004."

The deferred money is in reference to the deal Randy Johnson made with Arizona.

Lip
Lip,

I read the same thing too. And two things to remember. First, go back and see what Trib. writers (and others) were saying last off season. They expected payroll to be about the same and it increased by 20%. Also, there was no quotes from anyone within the organization to say that. Sounds like pure speculation.

Personally, I think Bob is off about that number. From what I hear it will be more then $65 mill. Don't know how much more, but we'll have to wait and see.



Bob

Lip Man 1
10-29-2004, 07:31 PM
Bob:

Just wondering..when you say it went up 20% are you talking from the end of the 2003 season to the start of the 2004 season or are you saying it went up 20% after Garcia, Everett etc were added in July?

Also how much of that 20% was because of acquired talent and not having to pay current players arbitration guaranteed raises ect.

Lip

Flight #24
10-29-2004, 09:07 PM
Bob:

Just wondering..when you say it went up 20% are you talking from the end of the 2003 season to the start of the 2004 season or are you saying it went up 20% after Garcia, Everett etc were added in July?

Also how much of that 20% was because of acquired talent and not having to pay current players arbitration guaranteed raises ect.

LipIIRC, opening day 2003 was 55mil, opening day 2004 was 65mil (so that doesn't factor in Garcia & Everett). That's the 20% increase. As for the breakdown, it doesn't really matter since had they wanted to, they could have traded guys like Maggs in the offseason or not picked up Jose's option to meet a lower budgetary limit.

I'll assume that the majority of the raise was to guys they already had since the acquisitions: Shoney, Uribe, Shingo, Timo weren't big money guys.

PINWHEELS
10-30-2004, 05:23 PM
:reinsy What Raise Payroll? First of all YOU have to fill in my new $200 per seat Scout Area! Then and only then Will I consider raising payroll and bringing back the Alomar's for that playoff Stretch.

MisterB
10-31-2004, 03:33 AM
IIRC, opening day 2003 was 55mil, opening day 2004 was 65mil (so that doesn't factor in Garcia & Everett). That's the 20% increase. As for the breakdown, it doesn't really matter since had they wanted to, they could have traded guys like Maggs in the offseason or not picked up Jose's option to meet a lower budgetary limit.

I'll assume that the majority of the raise was to guys they already had since the acquisitions: Shoney, Uribe, Shingo, Timo weren't big money guys.
Significant raises (> $.5M or so) to players already under contract was in excess of $21M. The difference between that and the payroll increase was made up mostly by letting Colon and Gordon walk (combined around $10M).

gosox41
10-31-2004, 08:30 AM
Bob:

Just wondering..when you say it went up 20% are you talking from the end of the 2003 season to the start of the 2004 season or are you saying it went up 20% after Garcia, Everett etc were added in July?

Also how much of that 20% was because of acquired talent and not having to pay current players arbitration guaranteed raises ect.

Lip
The 2003 Sox payroll at the end of the season was roughly $53 mill. This includes money only that they paid to players and doesn't include Roberto Alomar or Everett since they didn't pay them anything. The 2004 Opening Day payroll wsas $65.5 mill according to this link:

http://www.onestopbaseball.com/TeamPayroll.asp

So 20% of $53 mill is $10.6 mill. $10.6 mill+ 53 mill. is $63.6 mill. The Sox technically increased their payroll mroe then 20%

Adding Garcia raised the payroll to abut $68 mill since they owed him half a years salary.

But I was looking at end of 2003 vs. Opening Day 2004.
I haven't done the research to see what went into acquiring talent vs. arbitration eligible cases. All I know is what the payroll was. How the money was spent is an issue that KW deals with but if I have time, I'll try to do some research. If memory serves correct, a lot of that was due to guaranteed contracts. Magglio had a $5 mill raise to $14 mill vs. 2003. PK is still under that horrible contract that overpaid him. The Sox stupidly picked up an option for $5 mill. on Valentin. Obviously having a lot of money tied up the Sox didn't do much in the offseason int erms of bringing in new talent. But part of that reason is the Sox were stuck with a few immovable contracts due to overvaluation of assets that limited their flexibility.


Bob

Lip Man 1
10-31-2004, 11:39 AM
Bob:

Thanks. The point that I was questioning was the contention (and I'm not ripping on anybody) that 'well the Sox raised payroll, they are trying.'

To me there is a difference between raising the payroll and improving the team by bringing in more talent and raising the payroll because in essence they had to because of the CBA regarding guaranteed arbitration raises.

I'm just curious how much of the 20% was because they had to.

Lip

Man Soo Lee
11-01-2004, 10:24 PM
From the Sox (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20041030&content_id=908442&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp) site:
White Sox general manager Ken Williams told me last week that the payroll for 2005 figures to check in around the same point it was when 2004 concluded. That total should be somewhere between $63 million and $65 million.

hitlesswonder
11-01-2004, 10:58 PM
Well, that's depressing news. If true, doesn't that mean that any move beyond signing Vizquel will require a trade to dump existing salary?

Lip Man 1
11-02-2004, 11:59 AM
Man Soo:

Thank you for confirming Foltman's comments.

Any apologies yet folks?

Flight, have you begun re-evaluating your ownership views yet? I mean the comments came from the horse's mouth (i.e. Williams himself).

Lip

Iwritecode
11-02-2004, 12:07 PM
Man Soo:

Thank you for confirming Foltman's comments.

Any apologies yet folks?

Flight, have you begun re-evaluating your ownership views yet? I mean the comments came from the horse's mouth (i.e. Williams himself).

Lip

JR himself said last year that opening day payroll (in 2003) would not exceed $60 million.

Guess even those "in the know" can be wrong...

gosox41
11-02-2004, 12:14 PM
Man Soo:

Thank you for confirming Foltman's comments.

Any apologies yet folks?

Flight, have you begun re-evaluating your ownership views yet? I mean the comments came from the horse's mouth (i.e. Williams himself).

Lip
Lip,
Just wait and see. It doesn't matter what Bob Foltman or Scott Merkin says. It matters what happens.

And for the record, Merkin had it wrong in his article. This is what he says:

White Sox general manager Ken Williams told me last week that the payroll for 2005 figures to check in around the same point it was when 2004 concluded. That total should be somewhere between $63 million and $65 million.

Now refresh my memory. The Sox opened up with a payroll of $65.5 mill. They traded Olivo (who made the minium) and picked up Garcia and the remainder of his salary (about $3.5 mill). Even if they got Alomar and Everett for free of salary (I don't recall) like they did Contreras, they only lost about $1 mill. or so in salary by trading Esteban.

So 65.5+3.5-1.0=$68 mill.

Unless there's something I'm missing, that is the approximate payroll of the Sox at the end of the season.


Bob

Wealz
11-02-2004, 12:14 PM
Man Soo:

Thank you for confirming Foltman's comments.

Any apologies yet folks?

Flight, have you begun re-evaluating your ownership views yet? I mean the comments came from the horse's mouth (i.e. Williams himself).

Lip
Ever occur to you that Williams is setting it up so that a 10-15% increase won't be met with jeers? About this time last year, they said the 2004 payroll would be the same as 2003, yet it ended up being increased.

Lip Man 1
11-02-2004, 12:24 PM
Wealz:

Kenny Williams has always been in my opinion a straight shooter, much to the chagrin of some others. I don't think he plays games that way but we'll see.

Lip

Hangar18
11-02-2004, 01:05 PM
:reinsy

" Kenny!! DUMP ANYONE that is due a Raise this year, because were NOT raising payroll. Got it? Now get Selig on the line and tell him to change my
order to a Pastrami on Rye instead."

Flight #24
11-02-2004, 01:19 PM
Lip,
Just wait and see. It doesn't matter what Bob Foltman or Scott Merkin says. It matters what happens.

And for the record, Merkin had it wrong in his article. This is what he says:

White Sox general manager Ken Williams told me last week that the payroll for 2005 figures to check in around the same point it was when 2004 concluded. That total should be somewhere between $63 million and $65 million.

Now refresh my memory. The Sox opened up with a payroll of $65.5 mill. They traded Olivo (who made the minium) and picked up Garcia and the remainder of his salary (about $3.5 mill). Even if they got Alomar and Everett for free of salary (I don't recall) like they did Contreras, they only lost about $1 mill. or so in salary by trading Esteban.

So 65.5+3.5-1.0=$68 mill.

Unless there's something I'm missing, that is the approximate payroll of the Sox at the end of the season.


Bob
There's also the question of what he means by payroll. Technically, the Sox monthly payroll at the nd of the year included a pro-rated share of Contreras' $9mil. But in reality they received cash of $3mil from NY. If PAYROLL is to be the same as at end of 2004, then you would basically factor in raises due players against contractual losses to get the "available".

IIRC, raises to players on the roster at the beginning of 2004 totaled about 10mil. Add in Garcia's raise from '03 to '04 of 1.125mil and you have 11.125. Now factor in the reduction in payroll from saving Maggs $14, Valentin's 5, and about 3.5mil from losing Shoney, Jackson, & the Alomar brothers. That would leave room for $11mil of spending (or a 17% increase)

That is very different from saying that payroll will be flat from opening day 2004 to opening day 2005.

Wealz
11-02-2004, 01:26 PM
Wealz:

Kenny Williams has always been in my opinion a straight shooter, much to the chagrin of some others. I don't think he plays games that way but we'll see.

Lip
Lip,

Certainly you recognize that it's bad form to announce you're going to "raise payroll" unequivically.

If they can acquire one player or a group of players they may raise it 10%, another player or group of players it may be 15-20%, barring those players being available they may not raise it at all.

Man Soo Lee
11-02-2004, 05:48 PM
IIRC, raises to players on the roster at the beginning of 2004 totaled about 10mil. Add in Garcia's raise from '03 to '04 of 1.125mil and you have 11.125. Now factor in the reduction in payroll from saving Maggs $14, Valentin's 5, and about 3.5mil from losing Shoney, Jackson, & the Alomar brothers. That would leave room for $11mil of spending (or a 17% increase)Don't Contreras and Everett account for about $10 mil of the $11 mil in "spending" money you mentioned above?

Also, the Sox only paid about half of Garcia's salary last year so his increase is more than $1.125 mil from '04 to '05. More like $4+ mil.

Daver
11-02-2004, 06:10 PM
Bob:

Thanks. The point that I was questioning was the contention (and I'm not ripping on anybody) that 'well the Sox raised payroll, they are trying.'

To me there is a difference between raising the payroll and improving the team by bringing in more talent and raising the payroll because in essence they had to because of the CBA regarding guaranteed arbitration raises.

I'm just curious how much of the 20% was because they had to.

Lip
There is no language in the CBA that guarantees a raise due to arbitration. If a player decides to go to the arbitror it is at his own risk payroll wise.

Ask Mark Buerhle, he lost money twice by going to arbitration as opposed to accepting the Sox offer.

Ol' No. 2
11-02-2004, 06:16 PM
Ask Mark Buerhle, he lost money twice by going to arbitration as opposed to accepting the Sox offer.Not quite. Buehrle was not eligible for arbitration at the time. For players not yet eligible for arbitration, the team can tender an offer for any amount it chooses, as long as it's above the minimum. The player has two choices: take it or leave it. But if he leaves it, he can't play anywhere else, either.

Flight #24
11-02-2004, 08:57 PM
Don't Contreras and Everett account for about $10 mil of the $11 mil in "spending" money you mentioned above?

Also, the Sox only paid about half of Garcia's salary last year so his increase is more than $1.125 mil from '04 to '05. More like $4+ mil.
That depends. If you interpret the comment as payroll would be flat from opening day 04 to opening day 05, you're right. If you interpret it as flat from season end 04 to opening day 05, then you were already paying Contreras & Everett, so you'd only be on the hook for any increase in their salaries from 04 to 05. IIRC, Everett gets 1mil and Jose 0.

Same goes for Garcia - is he saying "total salary expense from 2004" is flat to 2005? Then you'd have to include Koch's $$$ in the bucket. If he's saying the salary from the end of the year, then you'd be using the Garcia 2004 salary and the increase off of that.

If he's referring to the monthly salary level they were paying out at the end of the year being the level that they pay in 2005, then you do have Maggs $$$ available. If he's saying total salary expense, then you'd be right but you need to factor in anyone they dealt and the salary they had on the books (IIRC just Koch and his $6.75mil).

gosox41
11-03-2004, 09:21 AM
There's also the question of what he means by payroll. Technically, the Sox monthly payroll at the nd of the year included a pro-rated share of Contreras' $9mil. But in reality they received cash of $3mil from NY. If PAYROLL is to be the same as at end of 2004, then you would basically factor in raises due players against contractual losses to get the "available".

IIRC, raises to players on the roster at the beginning of 2004 totaled about 10mil. Add in Garcia's raise from '03 to '04 of 1.125mil and you have 11.125. Now factor in the reduction in payroll from saving Maggs $14, Valentin's 5, and about 3.5mil from losing Shoney, Jackson, & the Alomar brothers. That would leave room for $11mil of spending (or a 17% increase)

That is very different from saying that payroll will be flat from opening day 2004 to opening day 2005.
But Foltman and Merkin said payroll is going to be the same and they know so much.


Bob

gosox41
11-03-2004, 09:25 AM
Bob:

Thanks. The point that I was questioning was the contention (and I'm not ripping on anybody) that 'well the Sox raised payroll, they are trying.'

To me there is a difference between raising the payroll and improving the team by bringing in more talent and raising the payroll because in essence they had to because of the CBA regarding guaranteed arbitration raises.

I'm just curious how much of the 20% was because they had to.

Lip
Then you're issue belongs with KW. Who decides if a player is worth a long term contract and at what price (see PK for example on overpaying)? WHo is able to trade for talent? Who has the opportunity to draft/develop players?

It's all KW. If there's a problem with a team not winning and arbitration eligible players hogging up to much payroll maybe the issues are these guys aren't that good or they are overpaid.

JR gives KW money to work with. How KW spends it is up to him. JR may have some say on the bigger financial deals (like redoing Frank's contract) but has little to do with the day to day operations.



Bob