PDA

View Full Version : Cubune now saying Sox payroll COULD be $70 million+


santo=dorf
11-04-2004, 02:05 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-041103sox,1,3657646.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

By the time they are over general manager Kenny Williams hopes to have a salary budget for next season, one that could rise to more than $70 million.
Even if the Sox go to $75 million, it leaves them far from the big spenders in baseball. The Cubs are likely to have a payroll in the mid-$90 million range. World Series champion Boston had a payroll of nearly $130 million, but Williams says $75 million is a workable figure to be more than competitive. Where was that money back in the 2003 offseason? :?: And does this mean Reinsy has been providing a payroll in recent years just to be "competitive?" Shocking.

soltrain21
11-04-2004, 02:12 AM
Boy I sure hope so. Sure its not a heck of a lot, but atleast we will get to see some movement in the off season for sure.

Unregistered
11-04-2004, 02:29 AM
Isn't the payroll ALREADY at like $65 mil with all the player increases? That gives KW a whole $5m to "play around" with... :(:

MUsoxfan
11-04-2004, 03:22 AM
Payroll does not win championships. It helps. Look at the Marlins of 2003. $75mil is a good number and I feel it's a sufficient number to make the Sox real contender, although it's nothing without fundamentals.

FightingBillini
11-04-2004, 03:31 AM
Payroll does not win championships. It helps. Look at the Marlins of 2003. $75mil is a good number and I feel it's a sufficient number to make the Sox real contender, although it's nothing without fundamentals.I know, thats Jerry put in the fundamentals area in left. $75mil is a solid payroll. Once again, money doenst always win championships. The Sox need to spend more than other teams in order to have a chance because they dont have the best farm system. Minnesota and Oakland can bring up great young players, and trade them when they get too expensive for more good prospects. Since the Sox cant do that, they need to pick up free agents.
I do agree though, if the payroll goes up to $75mil, I will be doing friggin' cartwheels. Unless KW puts all his eggs in one basket, he should be able to use the extra money to pick up the necessary pieces to build a winner.

samram
11-04-2004, 08:19 AM
It seems like the payroll estimates change every week, even in KW's mind. I think one reason payroll could go up is, as some have mentioned, the state of the farm system. If the team sees they can't fill holes from there (finally), they may decide to have better answers at the major league level. Final payroll prediction: $1,000,000,000.

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 09:01 AM
If nothing else, can we cut the talk/complaining about potential payroll cuts? Seems like any "cut" is only mentioned in conjunction with freeing up $$$ to add different players. In other words, it's not a cut so much as a reallocation.

Still I guess the by the "new math" that says a payroll higher than the year before doesn't equate to an increase, trading a player and then signing one with a higher salary could qualify as a cut too!

samram
11-04-2004, 09:14 AM
If nothing else, can we cut the talk/complaining about potential payroll cuts? Seems like any "cut" is only mentioned in conjunction with freeing up $$$ to add different players. In other words, it's not a cut so much as a reallocation.

Still I guess the by the "new math" that says a payroll higher than the year before doesn't equate to an increase, trading a player and then signing one with a higher salary could qualify as a cut too!
I'm with you on this one. Reallocation seems to be the route they're taking. If trading one guy means someone better can be brought in (for example, trading Konerko to free up money for Beltran), then I've got no problem with that.

TRL
11-04-2004, 09:17 AM
Let's just hope some of that money goes into pitching.

jabrch
11-04-2004, 09:18 AM
If nothing else, can we cut the talk/complaining about potential payroll cuts? Seems like any "cut" is only mentioned in conjunction with freeing up $$$ to add different players. In other words, it's not a cut so much as a reallocation.

Still I guess the by the "new math" that says a payroll higher than the year before doesn't equate to an increase, trading a player and then signing one with a higher salary could qualify as a cut too!I still don't know what part of this you don't get Flight. Despite raising the payroll most years, signing FAs, not breaking up the core nucleus of the team, and again being poised to raise the payroll despite what the army of media douchebags were saying last week, JR is still cheap, KW is still stupid. The Tribune is still the root of all evils. JR ruined the Sox. We have no hope. Who ever we bring in is going to suck. Nobody good would want to come here. We won't pay top money to top talent. blah blah blah blah...

As you said, must be the new math. (condescending arrogant fans who know so much more than you and I and are such better fans, merely cuz they are older or louder...gotta love it)

SSN721
11-04-2004, 09:22 AM
Well I dont see how anyone can complain about this news unless it is just to say that we can afford more. I think 75-80 mil is definitely competitive and I think that KW can put together a real winner with the payroll in that are. Plus after seeing proof of this payroll, who knows, might get a few more season tickets sold.

cornball
11-04-2004, 09:35 AM
Payroll does not win championships. It helps. Look at the Marlins of 2003. $75mil is a good number and I feel it's a sufficient number to make the Sox real contender, although it's nothing without fundamentals.
Your theory only holds true if you have several players who are young enough to get top perfomances of players before they are eligible for large salaries, like the Marlins had.

The difference is our team is experienced overall, hence much of the budget is tied up with 10 or so players. There is no help from the farm this year or in the past few years. Therefore in order to improve the current state of the team and to have a chance ....... additional payroll is needed for this season.

JKryl
11-04-2004, 09:37 AM
Isn't the payroll ALREADY at like $65 mil with all the player increases? That gives KW a whole $5m to "play around" with... :(:
Don't forget, he'll have Alomar's and Mag's money to play with too.

gosox41
11-04-2004, 09:41 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-041103sox,1,3657646.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


Where was that money back in the 2003 offseason? :?: And does this mean Reinsy has been providing a payroll in recent years just to be "competitive?" Shocking.

It's still not enough. What's an extra $5 mill to JR. He needs to be a big spender. And besides is this really a payroll raise if all they do is put some of the money into keeping their current players. That's not payroll.



Bob

JKryl
11-04-2004, 09:41 AM
Come on guys, it doesn't matter. The Sox could have 100 million and waste it on a bunch of mopes, or could have 50 million, and end up with a contender. Their problem now is that they're relying on KW, and he's shown that he's only hit or miss. Can anybody say Billy Koch, or how about Royce Clayton? Until they get someone who knows how to evaluate talent, and has the authority to follow up on his choices, the Sox will remain in the second tier.

1917
11-04-2004, 09:58 AM
So far the Off Season talks have been nothing but confusing.....1st there was talk about getting a top line pitcher, now we are talking about Beltran, first it was Lee going, now Paulie....the only thing that appears to be in the bag is Omar at SS......Looking into my crystal ball I see the Sox not getting Beltran, I give them an E for effort, but in the end the money will talk and the Sox will walk. IF the Sox use Konerko as bait, they need to replace his bat....Gload is unproven, Everett has to prove he is back, Maggs is gone, and Frank is going to be out of shape. I would like to see the Sox go get a couple of Braves, Russ Ortiz and JD Drew.

SoxFanTillDeath
11-04-2004, 10:05 AM
Hate to sound pessimistic, but I'll believe it when I see it...

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 10:15 AM
Well I dont see how anyone can complain about this news unless it is just to say that we can afford more. I think 75-80 mil is definitely competitive and I think that KW can put together a real winner with the payroll in that are. Plus after seeing proof of this payroll, who knows, might get a few more season tickets sold.

Wait. The Cubune says payroll "could" be raised to $70 million ( +5 Million).
Some of us are pushing the limit to 75-80 Million. $70 Million is a start ....
but again too little too late. Where was this 2 yrs ago? The window on
2002 season slammed shut, as did the window on the 2003 season.
Needless to say, 2004 is done for too. We can raise payroll to 90 Million.
We can easily fill our holes and make some noise in the playoffs with a payroll
in the 90's ........... Dont get me wrong, the extra 5 Million will help ...
a little bit.

kittle42
11-04-2004, 10:24 AM
Anyone happy that this team is indicating it will be "competitive" must be thrilled with the results over the past 4 seasons!

Ol' No. 2
11-04-2004, 10:53 AM
All this hot stove talk is confusing. Kenny should just come out and announce which players he's targeting and how much he's willing to spend.

GiveMeSox
11-04-2004, 11:03 AM
If nothing else, can we cut the talk/complaining about potential payroll cuts? Seems like any "cut" is only mentioned in conjunction with freeing up $$$ to add different players. In other words, it's not a cut so much as a reallocation.

Still I guess the by the "new math" that says a payroll higher than the year before doesn't equate to an increase, trading a player and then signing one with a higher salary could qualify as a cut too!
Hey a payroll of 75 mil in the offseason is better than 58 like last year. What players what to go play for a team when they hear they are handicapping payroll at below average #'s. 75 at least gives us something to talk about, unlike 58 from last year.

wdelaney72
11-04-2004, 11:17 AM
In another thread, I posted the current Sox payroll stituation.

The Sox are already committed to approximately 60-65 million next year, which includes subtracting contracts for Maggs, Jose, Koch, and anyone else that is gone.

I personally think (and this is just a guess) the Sox will a payroll in the $75-80 million range.

How they spend that money is up for debate. What this tells us is that any big name signings will result in the moving of an existing contract (PK, C. Lee).

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 11:39 AM
In another thread, I posted the current Sox payroll stituation.

The Sox are already committed to approximately 60-65 million next year, which includes subtracting contracts for Maggs, Jose, Koch, and anyone else that is gone.

I personally think (and this is just a guess) the Sox will a payroll in the $75-80 million range.

How they spend that money is up for debate. What this tells us is that any big name signings will result in the moving of an existing contract (PK, C. Lee).
Which coincidentally is exactly what the Trib & Southtown seem to say today. 5-10mil in payroll "bump" + 8 saved from Koney/Lee = 13-18mil, which equals one bigname acquisition or a medium name (JD Drew-esque) and a couple of smaller names.

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 12:07 PM
Which coincidentally is exactly what the Trib & Southtown seem to say today. 5-10mil in payroll "bump" + 8 saved from Koney/Lee = 13-18mil, which equals one bigname acquisition or a medium name (JD Drew-esque) and a couple of smaller names.
So the SOX arent really "Upping" payroll, as much as they are simply
dumping salary to take on salary? Someone here suggested this as
"re-allocating".

anewman35
11-04-2004, 12:16 PM
So the SOX arent really "Upping" payroll, as much as they are simply
dumping salary to take on salary? Someone here suggested this as
"re-allocating".
Dammit, yes they are. The word "Payroll" in no way indicates who is getting the only, only that they are getting money. If the Sox spend $75 million on players, that is upping payroll, even if they traded away some players to do it. In a simliar fashion, if the Sox didn't add a single player, just gave every player they had big raises, that would also be upping payroll. Maybe not in the way you like, but if JR is spending more on players, yes, he's upped the payroll.

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 12:18 PM
So the SOX arent really "Upping" payroll, as much as they are simply
dumping salary to take on salary? Someone here suggested this as
"re-allocating".
Hangar - they take on more salary than they save. Therefore the net is an INCREASE in payroll. It's reallocation of existing resources COMBINED with a payroll increase.

Using your logic, if they don't resign Shoney (saving 1.7mil) but they then sign Beltran, that would not count as a payroll increase.:?:

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 12:25 PM
Hangar - they take on more salary than they save. Therefore the net is an INCREASE in payroll. It's reallocation of existing resources COMBINED with a payroll increase.

Using your logic, if they don't resign Shoney (saving 1.7mil) but they then sign Beltran, that would not count as a payroll increase.:?:

I gotcha now. Im getting confused because some think that we'll simply
be getting rid of 3 high salaries for 1 Very High salary (thereby increasing
the payroll a bit). I guess a payroll increase is a payroll increase.
that said .......... Lets go for broke ......

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 12:41 PM
Folks:

I find it interesting that some people are more then willing to take the word of Dave van Dyke, a reporter, that the Sox are going to raise payroll....but these same people WERE NOT willing to take the words of reporters Bob Foltman and Scott Merkin, on the Sox own 'official' web site, that the payroll was going to remain flat.

In fact the generalities of the comments went along the lines of...'they're just reporters, they haven't spoken with anyone, they don't know squat.'

Perhaps someone can explain the difference to me outside of the fact that van Dyke supports their position (gasp!)

Nothing would please me more then a large payroll increase, it's a documented FACT the more you spend, the better your chances. (In fact in the Sun-Times today Carol Slezak has a story, not a column on this, saying that big spending teams are good for baseball and quotes people in baseball on this, along with team payroll numbers)

But before anyone starts pointing figures let's wait and see what happens (as was advised by certain individuals last week...)

Lip

Paulwny
11-04-2004, 12:45 PM
Which coincidentally is exactly what the Trib & Southtown seem to say today. 5-10mil in payroll "bump" + 8 saved from Koney/Lee = 13-18mil, which equals one bigname acquisition or a medium name (JD Drew-esque) and a couple of smaller names.
Ah, since this is something you like to read, the Trib is reliable. In the Pavano thread in "Talking Baseball", Newsday is unreliable because their owned by the Trib.
Which is it, they are or aren't a reliable source, or only reliable when its something you like to read?

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 12:50 PM
Folks:

I find it interesting that some people are more then willing to take the word of Dave van Dyke, a reporter, that the Sox are going to raise payroll....but these same people WERE NOT willing to take the words of reporters Bob Foltman and Scott Merkin, on the Sox own 'official' web site, that the payroll was going to remain flat.

In fact the generalities of the comments went along the lines of...'they're just reporters, they haven't spoken with anyone, they don't know squat.'

Perhaps someone can explain the difference to me outside of the fact that van Dyke supports their position (gasp!)

Nothing would please me more then a large payroll increase, it's a documented FACT the more you spend, the better your chances. (In fact in the Sun-Times today Carol Slezak has a story, not a column on this, saying that big spending teams are good for baseball and quotes people in baseball on this, along with team payroll numbers)

But before anyone starts pointing figures let's wait and see what happens (as was advised by certain individuals last week...)

Lip
I think looking at the overall set of comments from reporters, KW, etc along with all the variouos rumored plans, it seems clear that payroll will increase from the 2004 season-opening level. The comments from Foltman, etc said payroll would remain flat from the END of the season, which, given the departures of Maggs, Jose, Shoney would still allow for some FA $$ to be spent. I can't speak for everyone, but my only issue with Foltman's comments was that they were being interpreted as payroll remaining flat from April-04 to April-05, which IMO is not what was quoted from KW.

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 12:52 PM
Ah, since this is something you like to read, the Trib is reliable. In the Pavano thread in "Talking Baseball", Newsday is unreliable because their owned by the Trib.
Which is it, they are or aren't a reliable source, or only reliable when its something you like to read?
Well, I never said the Trib was unreliable, I think you're confusing me with someone else. I don't think they incorrectly report things, but I do think that they slant things in the way they report them to favor the Cubs over the Sox. But that's a different story.

My point is that looking across the various reports & rumors, a payroll bump into the 70-75mil range seems likely. Everything you read says that they're either going after Beltran, RJ, or a "front-end SP", along with Vizquel. There's no way to do any of those AND keep payroll flat, even if you deal Koney.

1917
11-04-2004, 01:02 PM
If we get Beltran I'm buying at Jimbos on the day they ink the deal....No lie!! 1 hour only though! :gulp:

Mickster
11-04-2004, 01:07 PM
Folks:

I find it interesting that some people are more then willing to take the word of Dave van Dyke, a reporter, that the Sox are going to raise payroll....but these same people WERE NOT willing to take the words of reporters Bob Foltman and Scott Merkin, on the Sox own 'official' web site, that the payroll was going to remain flat.

In fact the generalities of the comments went along the lines of...'they're just reporters, they haven't spoken with anyone, they don't know squat.'

Perhaps someone can explain the difference to me outside of the fact that van Dyke supports their position (gasp!)

Nothing would please me more then a large payroll increase, it's a documented FACT the more you spend, the better your chances. (In fact in the Sun-Times today Carol Slezak has a story, not a column on this, saying that big spending teams are good for baseball and quotes people in baseball on this, along with team payroll numbers)

But before anyone starts pointing figures let's wait and see what happens (as was advised by certain individuals last week...)

LipLip,

1. van Dykes article states:

Even if the Sox go to $75 million, it leaves them far from the big spenders in baseball. The Cubs are likely to have a payroll in the mid-$90 million range. World Series champion Boston had a payroll of nearly $130 million, but Williams says $75 million is a workable figure to be more than competitive. 2. Foltman did not indicate anywhere in his column that he spoke with anyone on the Sox in any position of authority before making his allegations that payroll would remain flat. It is all speculation.

Can you tell the difference between speaking with KW at the winter meetings specifically on the payroll issue and Foltman's speculation? Being in your line of work, I sure hope so!

gosox41
11-04-2004, 01:10 PM
Hangar - they take on more salary than they save. Therefore the net is an INCREASE in payroll. It's reallocation of existing resources COMBINED with a payroll increase.

Using your logic, if they don't resign Shoney (saving 1.7mil) but they then sign Beltran, that would not count as a payroll increase.:?:
It's amazing how this topic keeps coming up over and over. It's always seems to be the people that don't have as much finance experince who keep harping raise the payrolls at all cost and then redefining what a raise in payroll is.

If there is an issue with player personnel and where money is spent, they need to take that up with KW. If there is an issue with actual payroll it's JR that is to blame.

Now people are blaming JR for not having better talent. The only thing he has to do with that is by keeping KW on board.


Bob

TRL
11-04-2004, 01:10 PM
So far the Off Season talks have been nothing but confusing.....1st there was talk about getting a top line pitcher, now we are talking about Beltran, first it was Lee going, now Paulie....the only thing that appears to be in the bag is Omar at SS......Looking into my crystal ball I see the Sox not getting Beltran, I give them an E for effort, but in the end the money will talk and the Sox will walk. IF the Sox use Konerko as bait, they need to replace his bat....Gload is unproven, Everett has to prove he is back, Maggs is gone, and Frank is going to be out of shape. I would like to see the Sox go get a couple of Braves, Russ Ortiz and JD Drew.
How about sign Omar, sign Beltran, sign a pitcher, trade Konerko, paly Everett at 1st, Rowand in right.

gosox41
11-04-2004, 01:12 PM
Folks:

I find it interesting that some people are more then willing to take the word of Dave van Dyke, a reporter, that the Sox are going to raise payroll....but these same people WERE NOT willing to take the words of reporters Bob Foltman and Scott Merkin, on the Sox own 'official' web site, that the payroll was going to remain flat.

In fact the generalities of the comments went along the lines of...'they're just reporters, they haven't spoken with anyone, they don't know squat.'

Perhaps someone can explain the difference to me outside of the fact that van Dyke supports their position (gasp!)

Nothing would please me more then a large payroll increase, it's a documented FACT the more you spend, the better your chances. (In fact in the Sun-Times today Carol Slezak has a story, not a column on this, saying that big spending teams are good for baseball and quotes people in baseball on this, along with team payroll numbers)

But before anyone starts pointing figures let's wait and see what happens (as was advised by certain individuals last week...)

Lip
Lip,
It's not just Dave Van Dyke's story. Everything I've heard form my source indicates an increase in payroll. I've been saying that since the end of the season. The fact that columns were written last week before the team had their organizational meetings where KW would be told this information further adds to why I don't believe what they say.


Bob

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 01:19 PM
Bob:

With respect you pull your 'friend' out of the deck like he's a gun usually when he or she says something that supports one of your positions. How about using them when they don't?

I'd be curious for example to see you post as closely as possible what was said by your friend concerning payroll. Since no names will be used, no violations of confidence will take place.

Mickster:

Can you tell the difference between the winter meetings and the Sox in house organizational meetings?

Lip

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 01:22 PM
From Scott Merkin's story on the White Sox 'official' web 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.

He DID speak with Williams....now can that comment change over time?... certainly but to say he didn't speak with anyone in the Sox organization therefore he has no creedence is flat wrong.

Lip

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 01:23 PM
Folks:

I find it interesting that some people are more then willing to take the word of Dave van Dyke, a reporter, that the Sox are going to raise payroll....but these same people WERE NOT willing to take the words of reporters Bob Foltman and Scott Merkin, on the Sox own 'official' web site, that the payroll was going to remain flat.



Lip
The exact quote from Merkin is "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" (emphasis added).

That's a far cry from it being flat from season-opening payroll, and is actually in line with the van Dyke report.

Paulwny
11-04-2004, 01:24 PM
It's amazing how this topic keeps coming up over and over. It's always seems to be the people that don't have as much finance experince who keep harping raise the payrolls at all cost and then redefining what a raise in payroll is.BobThis has very little to do with financial expertise, there are 3 camps:
1) those who believe that JR spends all that he possibly can.
2) those who believe the books are cooked and JR has much more money available
3) undecided

These arguments (camps) will never end until the books (the ones the IRS looks at) are opened and this will never happen and these arguments will continue.

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 01:27 PM
From Scott Merkin's story on the White Sox 'official' web 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.

He DID speak with Williams....now can that comment change over time?... certainly but to say he didn't speak with anyone in the Sox organization therefore he has no creedence is flat wrong.

Lip
Williams comment is based on season-ending salary. Season beginning salary was, IIRC 63mil. They ADDED to that during the season via Garcia, Contreras, Everett (subtracting Koch). Merkin's guesstimate of 63-65mil as season ending salary appears to be the issue here. It doesn't look like that's a # he got from KW.

gosox41
11-04-2004, 01:32 PM
Bob:

With respect you pull your 'friend' out of the deck like he's a gun usually when he or she says something that supports one of your positions. How about using them when they don't?

I'd be curious for example to see you post as closely as possible what was said by your friend concerning payroll. Since no names will be used, no violations of confidence will take place.



Lip

Lip,

Truthfully a lot of my positions in regards to the business side of baseball come from talking to my friend. I trust this person completely and she has zero reason to lie to me. I used to be closer to your side on this issue (and if you read soem of my posts, I've always said JR should take out some debt and build a winner jsut not at all costs).

If she is pulling the wool over my eyes, then I guess I'm a sucker. But she's been right on about a lot of issues and has a history of being upfront and honest. Compared to some of the conspiracy theories on these boards (ie JR taking a $15 mill, salary, or a hiding parking money, or JR trying to keep attendance down) with no proof I'll choose to believe my friend. There are things she obviously tells me that won't get posted here because I won't breach her confidence.


As for our conversation. I won't mention numbers. She gave me a range. And to be honest, if the numbers fall on the low end of that range or even slightly below I don't want to hear about it from posters here. So numbers will not be brought up. But if you look at some of my previous threads, when I said something like "I expect payroll to be increased next year, I just don't know how much." I expect it because that is what I was told by her.

In truth I don't know the exact amount and neither does she. When she first mentioned this to me it was just rumblings for setting things up for the 2005 season.

So believe me or not. But like I said, but a lot of what I say regarding the financial side of baseball I get from doing a little research and talking to her. If she ever told me JR was making huge profits and not reinvesting them in the team I would not be a season ticket holder.


Bob

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 05:15 PM
Bob:

Fair enough. I can understand your reservations especially if as you say the final results come in as something different from what your friend told you.

No question you'd get badly burned over it.

Lip