PDA

View Full Version : Calculating JR's (& partners) PROFIT $$$


SouthSide_HitMen
11-20-2004, 01:56 AM
The Forbes 2004 Team Net Worth Info (they do this annually):

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0426/066tab.html

White Sox - (2003 Season) -
4/04 Net Worth $248 mil
2003 Revenue $128 mil
2003 Net Income $12.8 mil (About Albert Belle's average salary - Inflation adjusted).

Cubs -
4/04 Net Worth $358 mil
2003 Revenue $156 mil
2003 Net Income $8.3 mil

Net Income are EBITDA - Pretty much same as after IDA (pre tax).
EB = Earnings before
I = Interest (In 2001 the last numbers I was able to find, both the Cubs and White Sox are 7 of the 30 teams that have a net POSITIVE interest - they ahve little to no debt as their stadiums (and purchase price) are Paid in Full. Cubs earned $4.6 mil in interest, Sox $2.2 mil in interest in 2001. I would assume the cases are similar today (though less due to falling interest rates).
T = Taxes (article doesn't disclose info - my assumptions were pre tax).
DA = Depreciation & Amortization - Both teams should be fully depreciated / amortized (purchased in 1981 for $20 mil (Sox) $20.5 mil (Cubs) or $40 - $41 million in today's $s).

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/a...?articleid=1406 (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1406)

2001 Team Net worth:

White Sox = $219 mil
Cubs = $253 mil

I actually found a spreadsheet which lists the Forbes / Financial World Profit / Loss statements and net worth from 1990 - 2003.

http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/MLBRevProf.xls

Cubs were purchased for $20.5 million by the Tribune in 1981 (around $41 mil in today's $s)

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/chc/history/owners.jsp

White Sox were purchased by the Sunshine Boys for $20 million (around $40 mil intodays inflation adjusted dollars).

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/R/Reinsdorf_Jerry.stm


Profit Calculations: http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/MLBRevProf.xls

These come from the great former (died this year in his early 40s) baseball / baseball business writer Doug Pappas and his work with SABR (Society for American Baseball Research).

http://www.roadsidephotos.com/baseball/bbblog.htm Click downloadable data.


White Sox Pure Profit:
1990 $8.8 mil
1991 $18.0 mil
1992 $16.7 mil
1993 $10.7 mil
1994 ($5.8) mil (loss - maybe if they finished the season)
1995 ($8.0) mil (loss Post Strike Year 1)
1996 ($5.2) mil (loss)
1997 ($4.2) mil (loss) (Final year the CWS are worth MORE than Cubs)
1998 $0.2 mil
1999 $11.7 mil
2000 $17.8 mil
2001 ($3.8) mil (Loss)
2002 $1.2 mil
2003 $12.8 mil

TOTAL PROFIT - $70.7 mil (or over $5 million per - pretty close to my original guess). Last 13 1/2 (thank JR for 1994 & 1/2 season) seasons.

Chicago Cubs
1990 $9.2 mil
1991 $6.5 mil
1992 $5.1 mil
1993 $7.4 mil
1994 $3.7 mil
1995 $4.8 mil
1996 $18.3 mil
1997 $8.1 mil
1998 ($7.9) mil (Loss)
1999 ($1.6) mil (Loss)
2000 $9.1 mil
2001 $7.9 mil
2002 $11.9 mil
2003 $8.3 mil

TOTAL PROFIT - $90.8 million (or about $6.5 million per year).

2004 Season #s (and 2005 net worth) come out from Forbes sometime this Spring. I bet the Sunshine Boys can't wait.

PaulDrake
11-20-2004, 01:00 PM
Great links you have provided here. They take some time to read and evaluate, hopefully some here will do just that. I guess some FOJR will take issue with the "accuracy" of the financial info. My feeling is it's probably pretty close to the actual figures. JR is making money. He's always made money in all his business ventures. That's what a high profile businessman like him is supposed to do. I just wonder how much more money he could make if he used his position of leadership to demand long term excellence from his management team and gave them all the resources they needed to do it.

jabrch
11-20-2004, 01:07 PM
Great links you have provided here. They take some time to read and evaluate, hopefully some here will do just that. I guess some FOJR will take issue with the "accuracy" of the financial info. My feeling is it's probably pretty close to the actual figures. JR is making money. He's always made money in all his business ventures. That's what a high profile businessman like him is supposed to do. I just wonder how much more money he could make if he used his position of leadership to demand long term excellence from his management team and gave them all the resources they needed to do it.


TOTAL PROFIT - $70.7 mil (or over $5 million per - pretty close to my original guess).

So JR himself made....about 250,000 per year off of the team? That's a tidy profite I agree (250K per year on a 1mm investment...very nice) but by no means as obscene as some try to imply. He has doubled his payroll over the last ? years, right? again - not a long number - but I forget what it is. Short of spending money that they have yet to earn, what can they do to make much a difference? The 5mm that they made per year hardly amounts to a hill of beans. That's not even enough to get you a SP. That doesn't get you a top OF. That doesn't get you one of the big 3 SS. That doesn't get you Varitek. Sure - it is 5mm that can be added to what you have, likely getting you SOMETHING better. But I can't blame ownership for hoarding cash away and choking off the franchise. It just doesn't look like that is what is happening.

Other than spending unprojectable revenue streams, I am lost as to what can be done to improve things...

munchman33
11-20-2004, 01:18 PM
That 2003 season profit was because of the All-Star Game. I'd venture that they went back to very little profit last year (if not a loss).

ondafarm
11-20-2004, 01:19 PM
jabrch, I think you need to reconsider that $5 million per year profit and what raising the team salary could do. If they poured the money down a blackhole and got nothing for it, then I would say that JR was managing the team well. But if you bought Varitek for a multi-year deal at $5 million more per year than the current salaries then this would add value to the team. Win more games, win a division and your ticket sales and TV rights go up increasing your revenue stream. I believe the Sox could afford a $10 million per year increase in overall salaries, if they got value for it. (That is a BIG IF.) Win the division and revenue goes up $10 million. Win the pennant and $20 million is not out of the question. Win the WS and $25 million sounds reasonable.

Actually, the last time the Sox won the pennant, 1959, Veeck actually spent some more money, improved the ballpark (adding the exploding scoreboard) and improved(?) the team.

jabrch
11-20-2004, 01:39 PM
jabrch, I think you need to reconsider that $5 million per year profit and what raising the team salary could do. If they poured the money down a blackhole and got nothing for it, then I would say that JR was managing the team well. But if you bought Varitek for a multi-year deal at $5 million more per year than the current salaries then this would add value to the team. Win more games, win a division and your ticket sales and TV rights go up increasing your revenue stream. I believe the Sox could afford a $10 million per year increase in overall salaries, if they got value for it. (That is a BIG IF.) Win the division and revenue goes up $10 million. Win the pennant and $20 million is not out of the question. Win the WS and $25 million sounds reasonable.

Actually, the last time the Sox won the pennant, 1959, Veeck actually spent some more money, improved the ballpark (adding the exploding scoreboard) and improved(?) the team.

The Sox have been raising payroll every year - right? Take the 5mm - does that get us Varitek? He is asking for 5 years at 11mm per. Frankly, imho, that would be a poor use of any money we are spending - tying up 55mm into a 33 year old catcher who is a career .271/.347 hitter in one of the best hitters parks in the game. As I think about it more and more - that would be a really poor use of money. He had a good year this year, but he was .266/.332/.392 and .273/.351/.512 the years before. THat's more than we expect for Ben Davis/Jamie Burke, but is it enough to warrant a 5 year deal at say 9mm? (Boras isn't getting 11) By age 38, how many career catchers are walking, much less playing ball.

I hear ya - that spending money MAY result in making more money. But spendiing 5mm of the anticipated additional profit next year on the team, reducing the return to each 5% shareholder (like JR) by 250,000 really wouldn't be enough to guarantee us anything. Even taking 10mm - that still doesn't do it. Sure - it gives us a better chance - but that's not the only answer to the question. It's part money, it's part farm system, its part MLB talent evaluation, part trades, part execution on the field, part managing, part health/luck...there are so many factors in winning and in making more money. It drives me batty that so many people think they can blame one person JR or KW or...for all the Sox woes (woe be the team that finishes in second place almost every year, and hasn't had a really TERRIBLE season since 89)

I wish we were the Yanks. I wish we were going into every season as the favorite, making the playoffs every year, and competing for the WS every year, making it more often than any other team. But we aren't. The projectable revenues that this team has are not NEARLY close. So we have to build some other way.

If JR/KW thouht that our fans had the hearts and stomachs for it, I think they'd like to take a true shot at rebuilding. Do it the same way Oakland, Florid and Cleveland did - trading away veterans while they had value, letting them walk as FAs for draft pick compensation, and taking a few very miserable years but building a team that looks ready to compete with the Twins and us. (and the Kittys too) - The Indians went from drawing 3.5mm fans to drawing 1.7mm fans. That's a 50% reduction in gate. Do you think we'd be better or worse off in that department? My guess, % wise, we'd be about equal. If we go from drawing just under 2 to drawing just under 1mm and do that for 3-5 years - then what? 3-5 years of 60-75 win teams? 3-5 years of last place finishes? And that's overly optimistic since they had the luxury of lots of star veterans to trade and let go - we really don't have that. And our best ones - really have little value anymore anyhow (Maggs will likely get us nothing - and Thomas too...) Look at Oakland between 93 and 98. That's what it takes to rebuild a team. I'd be all for it - since I enjoy baseball even when we lose. But how many people here (who are not already perpetually miserable) wouldn't become more perpetiually miserable, more anti-JR, more anti-KW even if the Sox were doing the right thing to try and rebuild rather than to continue to retool?

That's the problem - retooling is nearly impossible given our projectable revenues. Rebuilding would have a severe negative effect on those projecables - thus weakening our position to rebuild. It's a tough spot.

johnny_mostil
11-20-2004, 02:04 PM
Great links you have provided here. They take some time to read and evaluate, hopefully some here will do just that. I guess some FOJR will take issue with the "accuracy" of the financial info. My feeling is it's probably pretty close to the actual figures. JR is making money. He's always made money in all his business ventures. That's what a high profile businessman like him is supposed to do. I just wonder how much more money he could make if he used his position of leadership to demand long term excellence from his management team and gave them all the resources they needed to do it.
So on an investment of $250,000,000 the ROI is 5%, plus whatever capital gain the ownership group realizes. That is not out of line financial performance for a business. JR is not the sole owner, he is the managing partner. The other partners want their checks. As long as the attendance is only 2 million and the team has to practically give away seats one night a week, the business will continue to be run the way it is. I don't buy this crapola line about the fans expecting ownership to show commitment. The team was in contention the last two years until late and the fans still came in 21st in baseball.

ondafarm
11-20-2004, 02:19 PM
I was attempting to use Varitek as an example. After checking his career stats http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/players/5921/

I don't think he is worth $11 million a year or $9 million, possibly $5 million, but I'd be wary of a 5 year deal.

The point I was trying to make was that an increase in payroll could increase the franchise value and revenue.

The north-side minor league team makes $28 million more per year in revenues. Why? Not a better ballpark, not a better team, a better TV contract, but the Sox could emulate it (not that they will.) In the really weak AL Central, the White Sox should spend enough to win 2 of every 3 division titles. That would put the team in the WS maybe once a decade. JR is not smart enough, IMHO, to spend adequate money to maximize the value of his investment.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-20-2004, 02:27 PM
TOTAL PROFIT - $70.7 mil (or over $5 million per - pretty close to my original guess).

So JR himself made....about 250,000 per year off of the team? That's a tidy profite I agree (250K per year on a 1mm investment...very nice) Don't forget JR's $20 mil unrealized capital gain (Over $200 mil in appreciation total).

As well as the free ballpark paid for by taxpayers of Chicago / Iliinois & out of town guests.

Also, JR has received a salary for his role as managing partner - I would say at least $12 mil since he took over ($500 k / year between cash compensation and awarded additional ownership shares - and that is a low estimate).

My thread / post was created to provide the facts about the Chicago White Sox. If people read what I posted, I stated that JR and partners are entitled to a profit and the figures were what I expected and NOT OBSCENE in any way shape or form (with the exception of the public building stadiums which is a totally different subject).

What I conclude is that with better management, the Chicago White Sox & their owners could become more profitable (and for the fans, a more successful team on the field).

In seven years, the Cubs went from being worth slightly less than the White Sox to over $100 million more than the White Sox (granted some of this is due to the successful beer garden atmosphere and Sammy's steriods).

JRs biggest mistake was his hardline stance cancelling 1994. If the season (and playoffs) were played out , not only would he have made a profit (in 1994 & 1995 - 1997 - the only "loss" years) but the Sox had their best chance at a World Series Championship and I think that would have fundamentally changed the long term (greatly improved) position of the Chicago White Sox within our city and on the bottom line. I think most Sox fans would conclude that this has been JRs biggest failure in his tenure.

Since then, although he has recovered from the strike to obtain steady profits, I believe that with reinvesting some of the profits back into the team would have given JR the chance to increase market share / attendance which would impact both the year to year PL statement as well as their net worth (which is now $100 mil less than the Cubs).

I think most Chicago White Sox fans would agree that they would like to see JR earn even more $ - by winning a World Championship for Chicago and filling up the ballpark / making more TV / radio $.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-20-2004, 02:44 PM
But if you bought Varitek for a multi-year deal at $5 million more per year than the current salaries then this would add value to the team.
The Sox need a GM / Owner to engage in a long term plan. Varitek (5 year contract to a 34 - 39 year old catcher) is not the answer.

The Sox need to develop and keep (read Garcia trade) younger players and spend $ wisely on the 4 - 5 FAs they can afford (and make sense) to bring the team to the next level.

Here has been the "plan" (or lack thereof) since Ken Williams was hired:

2001 - After the division win the Sox almost double their payroll with older high priced FAs (D Wells, R Clayton, S Alomar).

2002 - The Sox decide the Twins are unbeatable and dump their overpriced veterans (R Durham, K Lofton, R Alomar, B. Howry, etc.) which I agreed with and which was smart if they STUCK WITH THE PLAN. They followed this by

2003 & 2004 - Grabbing overpricced veterans (Everett & Alomar TWICE each, S. Scheneweis, S. Sullivan) as well as a #2 # 2 1/2 starter (F Garcia) giving up a bunch of prospects / potential starters in the process.

What I believe the Sox need to do is to is to keep as many low priced young players (Rowand, Gload, Olivo, Reed, Uribe, Harris, etc.) and spend their FA $ wisely on younger (no Jurrasic Carl's, Alomar brothers, Contreras) players they can lock in for 3 - 4 years (I would have loved Garcia as a FA signing). Given their payroll budget, this is the only route the Sox can take to compete for a WS (or even a division) championship.

I hope that if KW stays a plan is formulated and stuck with or he is replaced by someone who can create and stick with a plan and not act like the Dutch Boy on the dike - plugging holes one by one.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-20-2004, 02:55 PM
The Sox have been raising payroll every year - right? Take the 5mm - does that get us Varitek? He is asking for 5 years at 11mm per. Frankly, imho, that would be a poor use of any money we are spending - tying up 55mm into a 33 year old catcher who is a career .271/.347 hitter in one of the best hitters parks in the game.
The payroll has been in the $60 - $65 mil range for 2001 - 2004 though I expect payroll to be in the $70 - $75 mil range this year.

I agree with pretty much everything else in your post. Varitek is the type of FA (i.e. overpriced / old) who the Sox CANNOT afford to sign - not just for the $ reasons but the fact that you don't want to be stuck with the contract in years 3-4-5.

I think the Sox have a big decision coming up. With the ticket price increases, they must make a serious attempt at competing for at minimum the division. I have been posting that they need to keep their young / low priced talent and spend their FA $ wisely. Hopefully they will start holding on to potential low priced starters (Olivo, Reed) and build a team that they can both afford and have a reasonable chance at competing year in and year out.

I don't think that any reasonable person would think this is an easy task. What many good Sox fans criticise, however, is that the people in charge (JR & KW) have had the time to make their mark and be judged on the results (JR over 23 years, KW starting his 5th). At some point people have to be accountable as I think both have been given the time to be. If the Sox don't at minimum capture the AL Central crown he should be replaced. I think JR should have been replaced decades ago (I just don't have the quarter billion to say "Your fired").

Signed, A lifelong Sox fan.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-20-2004, 02:59 PM
So on an investment of $250,000,000 the ROI is 5%, plus whatever capital gain the ownership group realizes. That is not out of line financial performance for a business. JR is not the sole owner, he is the managing partner. The other partners want their checks. As long as the attendance is only 2 million and the team has to practically give away seats one night a week, the business will continue to be run the way it is. I don't buy this crapola line about the fans expecting ownership to show commitment. The team was in contention the last two years until late and the fans still came in 21st in baseball.
The actual investment was $20 mil ($40 mil inflation adjusted). He was also given a $200 mil stadium from Illinois taxpayers. While I do not think the team's profit is obscene (except for the free stadium), I do think they should reinvest some of their profits (as do other businesses to grow their company & margins) and that both Sox fans (and ownership) would be happier (Sox fans - team wins, Ownership - more profit + unrealized capital gains).

jabrch
11-20-2004, 03:54 PM
Don't forget JR's $20 mil unrealized capital gain (Over $200 mil in appreciation total).

Agreed - but they are not taking on new partners and not taking on debt - that's not part of their operating mentality.


As well as the free ballpark paid for by taxpayers of Chicago / Iliinois & out of town guests.

That was the state/city's choice. I don't think they wouldn't have done it if it wasn't good business - and JR doesn't own the stadium. (some of the land around it - well that's another story


Also, JR has received a salary for his role as managing partner - I would say at least $12 mil since he took over ($500 k / year between cash compensation and awarded additional ownership shares - and that is a low estimate).

I'm not sure where that number comes from...

My thread / post was created to provide the facts about the Chicago White Sox. If people read what I posted, I stated that JR and partners are entitled to a profit (I am a capitalist / not a socialist / democrat) and the figures were what I expected and NOT OBSCENE in any way shape or form (with the exception of the public building stadiums which is a totally different subject).


JRs biggest mistake was his hardline stance cancelling 1994. If the season (and playoffs) were played out , not only would he have made a profit (in 1994 & 1995 - 1997 - the only "loss" years) but the Sox had their best chance at a World Series Championship and I think that would have fundamentally changed the long term (greatly improved) position of the Chicago White Sox within our city and on the bottom line. I think most Sox fans would conclude that this has been JRs biggest failure in his tenure.


Well - had the owners succeeded in breaking the union's back and getting a hard salary cap/salary floor that might have changed things also by not enabling the incredulous spending of 3-4 teams that made it imporssible for mid/upper mid tier market teams like us from being as competitive as possible in bidding for FAs.

I think most Chicago White Sox fans would agree that they would like to see JR earn even more $ - by winning a World Championship for Chicago and filling up the ballpark / making more TV / radio $.

Agreed - but we think about different ways to get there. I don't see throwing all of last year's operating profit into this year as being the answer. An extra 5-7mm or whatever they earned last year wouldn't make a difference. We'd still not be ranked any higher than 7th or 8th overall and would be a longshot either way. And I don't think that spending money that you don't have is a reasonable route. That bankrupts franchises or puts them in financial peril that is often unrecoverable without drastic ownership change. If those suggesting we overspend on the prayer that it gets us a championship have a secret agenda in doing that to break JR - he isn't going to fall for that one.... He's a better businessman than that.

johnny_mostil
11-20-2004, 04:31 PM
The actual investment was $20 mil ($40 mil inflation adjusted). He was also given a $200 mil stadium from Illinois taxpayers. While I do not think the team's profit is obscene (except for the free stadium), I do think they should reinvest some of their profits (as do other businesses to grow their company & margins) and that both Sox fans (and ownership) would be happier (Sox fans - team wins, Ownership - more profit + unrealized capital gains).What matters is the return on the current value to the investors. And the White Sox fan support record wouldn't encourage me to invest on the hope that "if you spend it, they will come" because in the past, when they did go after a premier FA, they didn't come, they sat at home and whined about how cold it was and how much they hated JR for provoking the strike (which, if you paid attention to what was going on in 1994 is just a bit of a distortion) and how steep the upper deck is (I've been to Petco and Ameriquest, both are worse, but nobody complains).

I want the Sox spending money as much as anyone, but I've lost faith that the Chicago area will provide support at a lever higher that 'barely disguised apathy' for anything short of a guaranteed champion. Since you can't actually buy a guaranteed champion, the bar is unreasonable, and the only way to be profitable in Chicago in baseball is to market your team as an upscale yuppie gathering place or to hope for overachievement on a budget. Since the former is already locked up, the latter is the only course. The alternative is not success, it's bankruptcy. The Chicago White Sox fan base credit rating is basically zero and has been for forty years, since the fans failed to show up in adequate numbers in the 1960s for superior teams that almost won the pennant, and the ownership skirted bankruptcy a year after almost winning a pennant because nobody went to the games. Tell everybody you know to go to the games, get the attendance up, and the money will get spent. But as long as every year is 1.9 million regardless of what they do, the ownership cannot afford to do anything that will make any difference, so we all need to stop whining and just face the facts: we are getting what we deserve because we (collectively) suck as supporters.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-20-2004, 04:58 PM
But as long as every year is 1.9 million regardless of what they do, the ownership cannot afford to do anything that will make any difference, so we all need to stop whining and just face the facts: we are getting what we deserve because we (collectively) suck as supporters.Over 1/2 of MLB, including the Twins who whup us year in and year out, have less revenue to work with than the Chicago White Sox. Some of these teams even win World Series.

Without Michael Jordan, JR would have a combined over 40 years of failure. I guess you will be happy when the Sox turn to the Bulls marketing campaign (to save $ of course) of Thick and Thin.

If you were in charge of marketing, it would be - Sox fans "collectively suck" - you get what you deserve.

I don't know which one is worse.

johnny_mostil
11-20-2004, 05:31 PM
Over 1/2 of MLB, including the Twins who whup us year in and year out, have less revenue to work with than the Chicago White Sox. Some of these teams even win World Series.

Without Michael Jordan, JR would have a combined over 40 years of failure. I guess you will be happy when the Sox turn to the Bulls marketing campaign (to save $ of course) of Thick and Thin.

If you were in charge of marketing, it would be - Sox fans "collectively suck" - you get what you deserve.

I don't know which one is worse.
Nah, my marketing pitch would be in Spanish.

The White Sox don't draft well, don't develop players well, and the few they do develop they usually trade for old geezers like Roberto or Carl. They lose to the Twins because the Twins are smarter than they are. Give Terry Ryan $70,000,000 and he'll win the World Series.

Yeah, I should be more patient; most of the time I have been frustrated was the Age of Rob Gallas, the marketing wizard who could alienate anybody. Maybe Brooks is better, we'll see. But it ain't all marketing.

jabrch
11-20-2004, 05:50 PM
He was also given a $200 mil stadium from Illinois taxpayers.

No - he wasn't GIVEN a stadium. He plays in a stadium owned by the ISFA under terms of an argeement they made. That is not being "given a 200 mil stdium."

SouthSide_HitMen
11-20-2004, 06:03 PM
No - he wasn't GIVEN a stadium. He plays in a stadium owned by the ISFA under terms of an argeement they made. That is not being "given a 200 mil stdium."Bill Veeck (as in Wreck) would have loved to have that sweet deal - who cares who technically "owns" the stadium - JR (if alive) will want a replacement one built in 10 more years stating "We cannot compete in this stadium .. blah blah blah." The stadium is worth nothing after the Sox move / demand another new stadium. Someone who knows the details of the deal please post when the Sox are free from the lease.

All I know is that for the few years Veeck owned the team (stint in late 50s and saving the team from Seattle in 12/75) he created a American League champion and vastly improved interest in the team and attendance both times he bought the team with far less $ at his disposal than the sunshine boys.

Edward DeBartolo proved his management skills with the 49ers domination under his ownership for well over a decade (with and without Joe Montana). The fact that MLB owners didn't want an Italian in their exclusive club has doomed this team til at minimum JR dies / passes off control / sells the team.

JR defenders say "Sox fans deserve this". I think not.

Daver
11-20-2004, 06:10 PM
Edward DeBartolo proved his management skills with the 49ers domination under his ownership for well over a decade (with and without Joe Montana). The fact that MLB owners didn't want an Italian in their exclusive club has doomed this team til at minimum JR dies / passes off control / sells the team.

JR defenders say "Sox fans deserve this". I think not.
The Eddie Debartolo that tried to buy the Sox was not the same Eddie Debartolo that owned the 49ers. Debartolo Sr. tried to buy the Sox, Eddie jr. owned the 49ers.

jabrch
11-20-2004, 06:15 PM
Edward DeBartolo proved his management skills with the 49ers domination under his ownership for well over a decade (with and without Joe Montana). The fact that MLB owners didn't want an Italian in their exclusive club has doomed this team til at minimum JR dies / passes off control / sells the team.



Wrong Debartolo... Sr. vs Jr.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-20-2004, 06:54 PM
Wrong Debartolo... Sr. vs Jr.
Ok - Both DeBartolos seem like winners to me.

The rest of my posts were all facts and either Debartolo would be 100% better than the sunshine boys.

I am just praying a Reinsdorf Jr. doesn't emerge from the sewers. I know he has at least 1 daughter (the one who slept with Doug Collins forcing him out of town in the late 1980s).

Daver
11-20-2004, 06:56 PM
Ok - Both DeBartolos seem like winners to me.

The rest of my posts were all facts and either Debartolo would be 100% better than the sunshine boys.

I am just praying a Reinsdorf Jr. doesn't emerge from the sewers. I know he has at least 1 daughter (the one who slept with Doug Collins forcing him out of town in the late 1980s).
Eddie Jr. was forced out of his ownership by the NFL for hiding his investments in casinos.

JR has a son named Chris IIRC.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-20-2004, 07:23 PM
Eddie Jr. was forced out of his ownership by the NFL for hiding his investments in casinos.

JR has a son named Chris IIRC.
Actually he was forced out due to giving contributions under the table to Louisiana politicians for his Casino ambitions (done everyday in Chicago / Springfield).

After 4 Super Bowl Championships (or 4 World Series Championships), he still is beloved by 49er fans. Look at what the team turned to after he left (reminds you of the Chicago Bulls).

As far as a possible male heir to the Reinsdorf throne, let us all pray that unlike the Wirtz empire these children are not around to ruin generations of Sox fans.

Daver
11-20-2004, 07:28 PM
Actually he was forced out due to giving contributions under the table to Louisiana politicians for his Casino ambitions (done everyday in Chicago / Springfield).
.
He also concealed ownership in several offshore casinos, including one in San Juan Puerto Rico.

PaulDrake
11-20-2004, 09:08 PM
Don't forget JR's $20 mil unrealized capital gain (Over $200 mil in appreciation total).

As well as the free ballpark paid for by taxpayers of Chicago / Iliinois & out of town guests.

Also, JR has received a salary for his role as managing partner - I would say at least $12 mil since he took over ($500 k / year between cash compensation and awarded additional ownership shares - and that is a low estimate).

My thread / post was created to provide the facts about the Chicago White Sox. If people read what I posted, I stated that JR and partners are entitled to a profit and the figures were what I expected and NOT OBSCENE in any way shape or form (with the exception of the public building stadiums which is a totally different subject).

What I conclude is that with better management, the Chicago White Sox & their owners could become more profitable (and for the fans, a more successful team on the field).

In seven years, the Cubs went from being worth slightly less than the White Sox to over $100 million more than the White Sox (granted some of this is due to the successful beer garden atmosphere and Sammy's steriods).

JRs biggest mistake was his hardline stance cancelling 1994. If the season (and playoffs) were played out , not only would he have made a profit (in 1994 & 1995 - 1997 - the only "loss" years) but the Sox had their best chance at a World Series Championship and I think that would have fundamentally changed the long term (greatly improved) position of the Chicago White Sox within our city and on the bottom line. I think most Sox fans would conclude that this has been JRs biggest failure in his tenure.

Since then, although he has recovered from the strike to obtain steady profits, I believe that with reinvesting some of the profits back into the team would have given JR the chance to increase market share / attendance which would impact both the year to year PL statement as well as their net worth (which is now $100 mil less than the Cubs).

I think most Chicago White Sox fans would agree that they would like to see JR earn even more $ - by winning a World Championship for Chicago and filling up the ballpark / making more TV / radio $. Thank you. That's basically what I was trying to say and more. JR and his team are playing not to lose. Money that is. That is apparently their first and foremost goal. If in doing so they luck or fall into a championship then fine. If not, then that's just as fine. They are not going to have an all out top to bottom commitment to winning.

ewokpelts
11-20-2004, 09:23 PM
That 2003 season profit was because of the All-Star Game. I'd venture that they went back to very little profit last year (if not a loss).yeah...those cubs games really put them in the red......
Gene

Rex Hudler
11-21-2004, 01:30 AM
The thing I noticed most about the year by year numbers is that since 1994 the Sox have lost money in half of the years, and only made what could be considered a sizable amount in three years. If you look at those three years, it is pretty easy to see 2003 and realize that increased profits came from the All-Star Game.

The other two years they made good money were 1999 and 2000, which followed four consecutive years of losing money. Yet after the 2000 season, they more than doubled payroll, increasing it by roughly $34 million, which is more than the combined profits of the previous two years. And what was their reward?? Losing close to $4 million the following season.

To me those numbers show the Sox manage their budgets pretty well and are putting more than a fair amount into the club. They are not making profits, raking them in and laughing all the way to the Carribbean while neglecting the club.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-21-2004, 08:22 AM
The thing I noticed most about the year by year numbers is that since 1994 the Sox have lost money in half of the years, and only made what could be considered a sizable amount in three years. If you look at those three years, it is pretty easy to see 2003 and realize that increased profits came from the All-Star Game.
I don't know if you can remember 10 years back but baseball fans in general and White Sox fans, who lost their best chance at a World Series Championship since Bill Veeck's first team in 1959 (along with Montreal Expos fans) in particular were very bitter after Jerry's strike year (1994 - lost 60 games + playoffs and the next few years). It wasn't until steriods were en vogue before baseball in general regained its footing.

voodoochile
11-21-2004, 10:36 AM
The thing I noticed most about the year by year numbers is that since 1994 the Sox have lost money in half of the years, and only made what could be considered a sizable amount in three years. If you look at those three years, it is pretty easy to see 2003 and realize that increased profits came from the All-Star Game.

The other two years they made good money were 1999 and 2000, which followed four consecutive years of losing money. Yet after the 2000 season, they more than doubled payroll, increasing it by roughly $34 million, which is more than the combined profits of the previous two years. And what was their reward?? Losing close to $4 million the following season.

To me those numbers show the Sox manage their budgets pretty well and are putting more than a fair amount into the club. They are not making profits, raking them in and laughing all the way to the Carribbean while neglecting the club.
Well, it does put the lie to the concept that the team always plows the profit money back into the payroll - witness the profits from the early 90's. The 1999 and 2000 teams made money because payroll was obscenely low those years. JR reduced it dramatically after 1998 when Belle left and caught lightning in a bottle in 2000.

This years profit may not be as high as last year, because JR had a higher payroll this year than last year, but since this year's payroll was supported by this year's ticket sales, media revenue, etc. that still implies last years money was indeed pure profit. Ticket sales were comparable last year and this year, so revenue should be comparable also.

I've said my thoughts on what increased payroll would do for long term revenue so many times I won't repeat it again. Suffice it to say that a couple of big name acquisitions would drive season ticket sales this year, IMO and that would decrease ticket supply and cause even more tickets to get sold down the road as people were forced to think ahead. JR has his single baseball town now - the flubbies are sold out. He's the only game in town. Time to crap or get off the pot...

zach074
11-21-2004, 10:56 AM
I dont know if anyone posted this yet, but dont you think they realize why they made so much money in 2000? So you would think they would spend more to get a good product on the field and then they would make more money. Instead they expect the opposite hmm....:angry:

Rex Hudler
11-21-2004, 07:05 PM
I dont know if anyone posted this yet, but dont you think they realize why they made so much money in 2000? So you would think they would spend more to get a good product on the field and then they would make more money. Instead they expect the opposite hmm....:angry:
After 2000, they more than doubled payroll and and lost money. Seems to me they tried to do exactly what you are asking them to do now and it did not work then. Why should it work now?

johnny_mostil
11-21-2004, 08:10 PM
I dont know if anyone posted this yet, but dont you think they realize why they made so much money in 2000? So you would think they would spend more to get a good product on the field and then they would make more money. Instead they expect the opposite hmm....:angry:
Now I am completely lost by this argument. What is it you want/wanted the White Sox to do?

Pay a player who just missed three quarters of the season fourteen million dollars a year for a half decade to slowly decline from his 30-homer, .310-hitting days, when you can't see he medical records?
Pay a pitcher fifty-two million dollars to drink beer and get fat and post five-something ERAs?
I don't see it. I look back at the "cheap" decisions the White Sox have made over the last decade and I can't identify one or two that, had they been generous, would have made any difference, other than spending a boatload of money. Well, I see one, that being keeping Keith Foulke, but Jerry Manuel had made a mopup man out of him anyway.

Durham hasn't remotely justified his contract. Colon was terrible last year. Ventura didn't play well for three of his four years in his deal with the Mets. Without playing 20-20 hindsight, where are the missed opportunities again?

Yeah, they're cheap. But the root problem isn't that they are cheap, it's that the farm system doesn't produce enough talent. That would be Duane Shaffer's fault, right?

Lip Man 1
11-21-2004, 08:33 PM
Johnny:

I think gosox 41 brought up the point that before he was named G.M. Williams was in charge of the minor league operations so some of the 'blame' would have to fall on his shoulders as well.

Lip

gosox41
11-22-2004, 10:14 AM
I dont know if anyone posted this yet, but dont you think they realize why they made so much money in 2000? So you would think they would spend more to get a good product on the field and then they would make more money. Instead they expect the opposite hmm....:angry:

Sox Opening Day payroll in 2001: $64 Mill. according to this website:

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2001

I wouldn't advise ignoring facts or else next thing you'll do is twisting people's words around, personally insulting them, and singing whenever backed into a corner.


Bob

gosox41
11-22-2004, 10:20 AM
Johnny:

I think gosox 41 brought up the point that before he was named G.M. Williams was in charge of the minor league operations so some of the 'blame' would have to fall on his shoulders as well.

Lip

Exactly. Williams has a lot to do with the Sox situation right now.

Lip,

You mentioned the Astros in an earlier post. I believed I mentioned yet another solution to you about hiring Gerry Hunsicker as a GM. You never acknowledged it. Just wanted to repeat it in case there's any confusion next time I rip on KW. Add him to a list that includes Riccardi, DePodesta, Beane and Stone (to namne a few) as guys I've suggest should replace KW over the last couple of seasons.

Also, caught your statement on how you wish the Sox were like the Astros. Fine with me. But before this year, I could have said the 'Talk to me when they win a playoff series' quote to you. The irony of you wanting the Sox to be like a team that hasn't gone anywhere in the playoffs (until 2004).


Bob

Lip Man 1
11-22-2004, 01:54 PM
Bob:

But at least Houston has been making the playoffs in a good division on a regular basis. Plus even before this season when they got Clemens and Pettitte they always seemed to have a good group of 'name-type' players. That's why I suggested them as a possible franchise to emulate.

Lip

southsider17
11-22-2004, 02:23 PM
Bob:

But at least Houston has been making the playoffs in a good division on a regular basis. Plus even before this season when they got Clemens and Pettitte they always seemed to have a good group of 'name-type' players. That's why I suggested them as a possible franchise to emulate.

Lip"good division"? Decent maybe, depending on the year. This year was their best year since 1999 and usually they're no better than the AL Central.

Flight #24
11-22-2004, 02:33 PM
Bob:

But at least Houston has been making the playoffs in a good division on a regular basis. Plus even before this season when they got Clemens and Pettitte they always seemed to have a good group of 'name-type' players. That's why I suggested them as a possible franchise to emulate.

Lip
That would be the same Houston Astros who have averaged 83wins/season since 1990 as compared to the Sox...83wins/season?

Or the Houston Astros who have averaged 85.6wins/season since 2000 as compared to the Sox......85.6wins/season?

Or maybe the Astros who haven't been to a World Series since JR took over the Sox?

jabrch
11-22-2004, 02:48 PM
That would be the same Houston Astros who have averaged 83wins/season since 1990 as compared to the Sox...83wins/season?

Or the Houston Astros who have averaged 85.6wins/season since 2000 as compared to the Sox......85.6wins/season?

Or maybe the Astros who haven't been to a World Series since JR took over the Sox?
Flight, please don't confuse guttoral hate for JR by throwing any sort or facts into this. It is an endless dance that you know by now will continue to go in circles. The Astros - gimme a break.

gosox41
11-22-2004, 03:58 PM
Bob:

But at least Houston has been making the playoffs in a good division on a regular basis. Plus even before this season when they got Clemens and Pettitte they always seemed to have a good group of 'name-type' players. That's why I suggested them as a possible franchise to emulate.

LipI agree with you. They're kind of like Oakland in that regard. The Sox are the middle child in regards to payroll without the success of either team while playing in a watered down division.

I would like to see the Sox emulate either team.



Bob

Lip Man 1
11-22-2004, 07:18 PM
To all ****:

How many times have the Astors been in the playoffs the last ten years?

How many times have the Sox been?

The Sox can't even win the A.L. Comedy Central and some of you are putting down the N.L. Central disregarding the fact that the Astros at least won it to make the post season.

To friggin' funny.

Keep rooting for Uncle Jerry's wallet gang. You are the kind of fans he salivates over.

Lip

anewman35
11-22-2004, 09:32 PM
To all ****:

How many times have the Astors been in the playoffs the last ten years?

How many times have the Sox been?

The Sox can't even win the A.L. Comedy Central and some of you are putting down the N.L. Central disregarding the fact that the Astros at least won it to make the post season.

To friggin' funny.

Keep rooting for Uncle Jerry's wallet gang. You are the kind of fans he salivates over.

Lip
Have I mentioned lately how much it helps your argument when you make fun of people who disagree with you? It shows that you're clearly more intelligent than we are, so you clearly have the right opinion. How could I have ever been so stupid? It's all so clear now!

southsider17
11-23-2004, 07:19 AM
To all ****:

How many times have the Astors been in the playoffs the last ten years?

How many times have the Sox been?

The Sox can't even win the A.L. Comedy Central and some of you are putting down the N.L. Central disregarding the fact that the Astros at least won it to make the post season.

To friggin' funny.

Keep rooting for Uncle Jerry's wallet gang. You are the kind of fans he salivates over.

Lip
So the Astros, with an identical winning percentage over a set period of time as the White Sox, win more division titles in a supposedly "good division" (better than the "Comedy Central", according to you). I wonder how an identical team (record-wise) like the Astros would have done in the Comedy Central. This may be a stretch ..... but maybe just like the White Sox.

And what does the Astros division titles have to do with the quality of the NL Central? SOMEBODY has to win the division. So I guess your saying that people who put down the AL Central are disregarding the fact that the Twins at least won it to make the post season?

Both teams are blessed with being in relatively weak divisions. The Astros have simply taken better advantage of this.

PaulDrake
11-23-2004, 09:12 AM
After 2000, they more than doubled payroll and and lost money. Seems to me they tried to do exactly what you are asking them to do now and it did not work then. Why should it work now? So what. Spend a little money one year and then go back on the cheap when you don't win the WS? That's no plan. Everything the Sox do is fly by the seat of the pants management style. There is no short range plan. There is no long range plan. They don't seem to scout, draft or trade particularly well. They sure as hell don't qualify as anything close to big spenders. Like I've said so many times before they have to catch lightning in a bottle in a year that the sun, moon and stars are configurated just right. Not the way to build a consistent winner.

voodoochile
11-23-2004, 09:49 AM
So what. Spend a little money one year and then go back on the cheap when you don't win the WS? That's no plan. Everything the Sox do is fly by the seat of the pants management style. There is no short range plan. There is no long range plan. They don't seem to scout, draft or trade particularly well. They sure as hell don't qualify as anything close to big spenders. Like I've said so many times before they have to catch lightning in a bottle in a year that the sun, moon and stars are configurated just right. Not the way to build a consistent winner.
Or a consistent fan base.

You are 100% correct.

Maximo
11-23-2004, 10:24 AM
So what. Spend a little money one year and then go back on the cheap when you don't win the WS? That's no plan. Everything the Sox do is fly by the seat of the pants management style. There is no short range plan. There is no long range plan. They don't seem to scout, draft or trade particularly well. They sure as hell don't qualify as anything close to big spenders. Like I've said so many times before they have to catch lightning in a bottle in a year that the sun, moon and stars are configurated just right. Not the way to build a consistent winner.Actually Paul, what you are saying is that this ownership group lacks a "mission statement". Either that, or the one they have is not in concert with a good percentage of their fan base.

Either JR and his "partners" do not continuously ask themselves, "why are we doing this"......or they do and they come up with answers that are not satisfactory to a lot of fans.

IMO....it's not a question of whether JR has the resources to take this organization to a higher level.......it's whether he really wants to.

Despite his occasional "I want to win a World Series really bad" posture, his actions tell me he's been pretty much satisfied with the status quo.

Rex Hudler
11-23-2004, 10:44 AM
So what. Spend a little money one year and then go back on the cheap when you don't win the WS? That's no plan. Everything the Sox do is fly by the seat of the pants management style. There is no short range plan. There is no long range plan. They don't seem to scout, draft or trade particularly well. They sure as hell don't qualify as anything close to big spenders. Like I've said so many times before they have to catch lightning in a bottle in a year that the sun, moon and stars are configurated just right. Not the way to build a consistent winner.So you suggest spending at a level higher than their revenue streams would otherwise dictate when recent history has shown that just throwing money at the problem is not a guarantee of increased revenues? That doesn't sound too fiscally responsible to me.

Everybody says "spend the money, put a winner on the field and they will come". Well lots of teams "spend the money" each year and don't win. What guarantees that the Sox would win if they spent more? There is no guarantee.

The Sox spend on payroll on a level consistent with their revenue streams. They have increased payroll in recent years, yet other than last year's All-Star game, there has been no indication of increased revenues on a large level. The Sox have had teams within striking distance of first place late in the season the past few seasons, yet attendance has stayed pretty consistent. It spikes during the summer as it always does. Sure some of that has to do with the team winning or playing decent ball, but it always drops off when school starts, like clockwork.

I just don't see any evidence that proves adding another $20 million to the payroll will be justified by increased revenues. I know it is not fun looking at it from a business perspective when you are a fan, but that is reality.

Whether fans like it or not, the fact remains that the Sox will spend consistently with their level of revenues. They will put a competitive team on the field, and may occasionally win a division title. Unless revenue levels pick up, this will not change.

Hangar18
11-23-2004, 11:04 AM
In seven years, the Cubs went from being worth slightly less than the White Sox to over $100 million more than the White Sox (granted some of this is due to the successful beer garden atmosphere and Sammy's steriods).

JRs biggest mistake was his hardline stance cancelling 1994. If the season (and playoffs) were played out , not only would he have made a profit (in 1994 & 1995 - 1997 - the only "loss" years) but the Sox had their best chance at a World Series Championship and I think that would have fundamentally changed the long term (greatly improved) position of the Chicago White Sox within our city and on the bottom line. I think most Sox fans would conclude that this has been JRs biggest failure in his tenure.

(which is now $100 mil less than the Cubs).


Those 2 facts ALONE, are what Jerry Rein$dorf is going to be Infamous for.
He will blame others, and say it was always that way, or that its our fault
for not showing up, but the bottom line, is he STRENGHTHENED his Competitor by WEAKENING his own product. Any CEO or President who presided over such a collapse would be Fired in a heartbeat. People
will say "how can it be all his fault?", but those same people can also
say How Can it NOT be? Eventually, when the Emperor passes on
to the big Skybox in the sky (no pun intended), these will be the only
things he'll be known for in Chicago.

voodoochile
11-23-2004, 11:13 AM
So you suggest spending at a level higher than their revenue streams would otherwise dictate when recent history has shown that just throwing money at the problem is not a guarantee of increased revenues? That doesn't sound too fiscally responsible to me.

Everybody says "spend the money, put a winner on the field and they will come". Well lots of teams "spend the money" each year and don't win. What guarantees that the Sox would win if they spent more? There is no guarantee.

The Sox spend on payroll on a level consistent with their revenue streams. They have increased payroll in recent years, yet other than last year's All-Star game, there has been no indication of increased revenues on a large level. The Sox have had teams within striking distance of first place late in the season the past few seasons, yet attendance has stayed pretty consistent. It spikes during the summer as it always does. Sure some of that has to do with the team winning or playing decent ball, but it always drops off when school starts, like clockwork.

I just don't see any evidence that proves adding another $20 million to the payroll will be justified by increased revenues. I know it is not fun looking at it from a business perspective when you are a fan, but that is reality.

Whether fans like it or not, the fact remains that the Sox will spend consistently with their level of revenues. They will put a competitive team on the field, and may occasionally win a division title. Unless revenue levels pick up, this will not change.
I think it's been pretty well shown that teams that outspend their competition consistently (this being the key word) do win more games and make the playoffs more often.

It's the one and done philosophy that leads nowhere.

How do you expect to increase those revenue streams?

How do any of the fiscal conservatives on this board suggest the Sox dig out of this rut they are in?

Should they just continue doing the same old thing and hope to catch lightning in a bottle once every 5 years and make a run at the ALC?

Is that enough to change the fortunes of the team?

Maybe we need more Us V Them marketing - you know, dazzle us with bull**** and hope for the best...

I read a LOT of "How can we afford to do that?" from posters on these forums and I am constantly saying, "How can we NOT afford to do it?"

It feels like I am butting my head against the wall, so, since I and others like me have made our presentation for why upping money spent will come back to the Sox over time, none of the FC folks have said what they think should be done. Some of them think firing KW will solve the problem - okay, what next?

This is your moment in the sun, RH, Bob, anewman, etc. What should the Sox do to dig out of this mess of their own making?

Flight #24
11-23-2004, 11:28 AM
I think it's been pretty well shown that teams that outspend their competition consistently (this being the key word) do win more games and make the playoffs more often.

It's the one and done philosophy that leads nowhere.

How do you expect to increase those revenue streams?

How do any of the fiscal conservatives on this board suggest the Sox dig out of this rut they are in?

Should they just continue doing the same old thing and hope to catch lightning in a bottle once every 5 years and make a run at the ALC?

Is that enough to change the fortunes of the team?

Maybe we need more Us V Them marketing - you know, dazzle us with bull**** and hope for the best...

I read a LOT of "How can we afford to do that?" from posters on these forums and I am constantly saying, "How can we NOT afford to do it?"

It feels like I am butting my head against the wall, so, since I and others like me have made our presentation for why upping money spent will come back to the Sox over time, none of the FC folks have said what they think should be done. Some of them think firing KW will solve the problem - okay, what next?

This is your moment in the sun, RH, Bob, anewman, etc. What should the Sox do to dig out of this mess of their own making?Personally, I think there's 1 of 2 things to be done. Either go through a REAL rebuilding (i.e. don't even worry about competing for 3-4 years, just focus on accumulating as much young talent as possible), or make a sizeable payroll bump, say to 85mil, and include a bigname FA splash (or trade for a high salaried player and take on the contract rather than sending over prospects).

Problem with option 1 is that you run the risk of the franchise being marginalized into "bolivian". Especially if by some freak chance, the Chubs win a WS.

Of course, the problem with option 2 is that if your bigname FA signing gets hurt or for whatever reason you don't win, you won't get any slack from fans. In fact, I'd guess that if you raise payroll to 85mil, don't win, and then simply maintain at $85mil, there'd be calls that management isn't "serious" because they didn't raise payroll further.

Personally, I'd be in favor of the route that Lip outlined once in an article: announce a set payroll target of 80-85mil for 3-5 years, along with a statement that if that can't win fans over, then the Sox truly are a small market team and will behave as such with a Brewers-like payroll. Then you make JD Drew a 5-yr/55mil offer, trade Garland+Konerko for RJ and assume all of his deal, and sign a couple of veteran 5th starter/releiver types.

Of course, if it were my money, I can't say that I'd do any of these things.....

jabrch
11-23-2004, 11:49 AM
Personally, I think there's 1 of 2 things to be done. Either go through a REAL rebuilding (i.e. don't even worry about competing for 3-4 years, just focus on accumulating as much young talent as possible), or make a sizeable payroll bump, say to 85mil, and include a bigname FA splash (or trade for a high salaried player and take on the contract rather than sending over prospects).

Problem with option 1 is that you run the risk of the franchise being marginalized into "bolivian". Especially if by some freak chance, the Chubs win a WS.

Of course, the problem with option 2 is that if your bigname FA signing gets hurt or for whatever reason you don't win, you won't get any slack from fans. In fact, I'd guess that if you raise payroll to 85mil, don't win, and then simply maintain at $85mil, there'd be calls that management isn't "serious" because they didn't raise payroll further.

Personally, I'd be in favor of the route that Lip outlined once in an article: announce a set payroll target of 80-85mil for 3-5 years, along with a statement that if that can't win fans over, then the Sox truly are a small market team and will behave as such with a Brewers-like payroll. Then you make JD Drew a 5-yr/55mil offer, trade Garland+Konerko for RJ and assume all of his deal, and sign a couple of veteran 5th starter/releiver types.

Of course, if it were my money, I can't say that I'd do any of these things.....
Rebuild - from the core... Target 2009 as the next shot at being competitive. Unload any veteran of value for prospects. Get rid of everyone. Lets see how many real Sox fans are out there. Bye Frank. Bye Magglio. Bye Bye Buehrle. Freddy - nice to know ya. Sayonara Shingo. Adios Damaso. Aaron - you got value - and you'll be gone by 2008, so lets wait and maximize what we can get for you.

Run this team into the bottom of the league for 3 years. Draft in the top 3-5 and get the kind of players who can come in and play. Not risky guys

It sucks - but an 85mm payroll won't do it. A 95mm payroll won't do it. If you are trying to buy a championship, not develop one, you have to spend a lot more than that. That's unreasonable given this teams projectable revenue models. So lets have at it. Lets do what other teams have done to rebuild - Florida, Oakland, etc....go bottom of the barrell - and build up from there.

I imagine straight jackets sales here should go up - and the collective suicide watch would be at code red.

Ol' No. 2
11-23-2004, 11:49 AM
I think it's been pretty well shown that teams that outspend their competition consistently (this being the key word) do win more games and make the playoffs more often.The trouble with this statement is that there really aren't enough teams that have been consistent high spenders to make a statistically significant sample. It's basically the Yankees and that's it. So the truth of this statement rests entirely on one team's extreme results, and there's no indication that it's generally true. Who else besides the Yankees has even been to the WS multiple times over the last 10 years? If you take the Yankees out of the sample you find that of the remaining teams, even the biggest spenders only win their division about 30-35% of the time. For comparison, the White Sox have won their division 3 times over the last 12 years (25%). Do you think an increase in frequency from 25% to 35% will result in a huge increase in attendance?

Furthermore, the Cubs-Sox comparison actually indicates the opposite...the Cubs have been much more successful at the box office and much less successful on the field. IMO, the difference between the two teams comes down to marketing. The Cubs have a huge built-in advantage, and they use it at every opportunity. The Sox have been pathetically bad at marketing the team. How Rob Gallas held on to his job as long as he did is beyond me. It's really too early to tell, but so far it looks like Brooks Boyer is doing a much better job.

PaulDrake
11-23-2004, 11:51 AM
So you suggest spending at a level higher than their revenue streams would otherwise dictate when recent history has shown that just throwing money at the problem is not a guarantee of increased revenues? That doesn't sound too fiscally responsible to me.

Everybody says "spend the money, put a winner on the field and they will come". Well lots of teams "spend the money" each year and don't win. What guarantees that the Sox would win if they spent more? There is no guarantee.

The Sox spend on payroll on a level consistent with their revenue streams. They have increased payroll in recent years, yet other than last year's All-Star game, there has been no indication of increased revenues on a large level. The Sox have had teams within striking distance of first place late in the season the past few seasons, yet attendance has stayed pretty consistent. It spikes during the summer as it always does. Sure some of that has to do with the team winning or playing decent ball, but it always drops off when school starts, like clockwork.

I just don't see any evidence that proves adding another $20 million to the payroll will be justified by increased revenues. I know it is not fun looking at it from a business perspective when you are a fan, but that is reality.

Whether fans like it or not, the fact remains that the Sox will spend consistently with their level of revenues. They will put a competitive team on the field, and may occasionally win a division title. Unless revenue levels pick up, this will not change. If you read my post you'd see that money is only one aspect of my overall critique of JR and co. In any case, if you think little of my views, check out Maximo's response to my post. That poster really hit the bullseye IMHO.

Wealz
11-23-2004, 11:53 AM
I'd like to see the White Sox spend money when it can have the greatest impact. To be a World Series contender they need to first find their Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Williams, and Pettitte.

voodoochile
11-23-2004, 12:25 PM
The trouble with this statement is that there really aren't enough teams that have been consistent high spenders to make a statistically significant sample. It's basically the Yankees and that's it. So the truth of this statement rests entirely on one team's extreme results, and there's no indication that it's generally true. Who else besides the Yankees has even been to the WS multiple times over the last 10 years? If you take the Yankees out of the sample you find that of the remaining teams, even the biggest spenders only win their division about 30-35% of the time. For comparison, the White Sox have won their division 3 times over the last 12 years (25%). Do you think an increase in frequency from 25% to 35% will result in a huge increase in attendance?

Furthermore, the Cubs-Sox comparison actually indicates the opposite...the Cubs have been much more successful at the box office and much less successful on the field. IMO, the difference between the two teams comes down to marketing. The Cubs have a huge built-in advantage, and they use it at every opportunity. The Sox have been pathetically bad at marketing the team. How Rob Gallas held on to his job as long as he did is beyond me. It's really too early to tell, but so far it looks like Brooks Boyer is doing a much better job.
I only count 1993 and 2000 as division wins. No division winners were awarded for 1994 and the Sox onlyled Clevelan by .5 games or something when the players went on strike - so no guarantees - certainly the lack of playoffs that years makes it at best a hollow victory.

Atlanta has won 13 straight division crowns as a big market payroll team.

Boston has consistently been in the thick of every playoff hunt going back for a long time and they have to compete with the Yankees. They too spend money. It took them a LONG time to break through, but they finally did and had only 2 home grown players on the roster when it happened and still underspent the Yankees by $40M or so this year.

Seattle went up the charts when they started spending. Here is a classic example of what spending money to gain fanbase and increase national attention can do for a team.

Now the Sox are competing in the worst division in baseball. The fact that the Twins are in the middle of a 5-year cheap and good window not withstanding - the same can be said for the A's at present, but they too are starting to feel the pinch of watching their big name home grown FA's leave - Seattle too suffered that fate, but they at least added money to try and get over the top.

There are no guarantees in life - just as there are no guarantees that the Sox can get somewhere by going cheap and young. No guarantee that our "Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Williams, and Pettitte" will actually be drafted, stay healthy and develop into All-Star caliber players.

Still, none of these ideas so far address my question about how to increase revenue streams.

Do you folks really believe that a young 90 loss team for 4 straight years is going to build a fan base? The Sox will be right back to where they were in 1998-99, looking to climb the ladder and only capable of doing it IF their young kids turn into "Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Williams, and Pettitte" AND then they are willing to add "Clemens, Giambi, Matsui, etc." and increase payroll to $85M minimum (unless people think some genie is going to appear and drastically reduce salarys for FA AS caliber players over the next 5 years instead of the exact opposite).

This is the exact same rut the Sox are currently in, or am I missing something here?

Wealz
11-23-2004, 12:32 PM
I only count 1993 and 2000 as division wins. No division winners were awarded for 1994 and the Sox onlyled Clevelan by .5 games or something when the players went on strike - so no guarantees - certainly the lack of playoffs that years makes it at best a hollow victory.

Atlanta has won 13 straight division crowns as a big market payroll team.

Boston has consistently been in the thick of every playoff hunt going back for a long time and they have to compete with the Yankees. They too spend money. It took them a LONG time to break through, but they finally did and had only 2 home grown players on the roster when it happened and still underspent the Yankees by $40M or so this year.

Seattle went up the charts when they started spending. Here is a classic example of what spending money to gain fanbase and increase national attention can do for a team.

Now the Sox are competing in the worst division in baseball. The fact that the Twins are in the middle of a 5-year cheap and good window not withstanding - the same can be said for the A's at present, but they too are starting to feel the pinch of watching their big name home grown FA's leave - Seattle too suffered that fate, but they at least added money to try and get over the top.

There are no guarantees in life - just as there are no guarantees that the Sox can get somewhere by going cheap and young. No guarantee that our "Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Williams, and Pettitte" will actually be drafted, stay healthy and develop into All-Star caliber players.

Still, none of these ideas so far address my question about how to increase revenue streams.

Do you folks really believe that a young 90 loss team for 4 straight years is going to build a fan base? The Sox will be right back to where they were in 1998-99, looking to climb the ladder and only capable of doing it IF their young kids turn into "Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Williams, and Pettitte" AND then they are willing to add "Clemens, Giambi, Matsui, etc." and increase payroll to $85M minimum (unless people think some genie is going to appear and drastically reduce salarys for FA AS caliber players over the next 5 years instead of the exact opposite).

This is the exact same rut the Sox are currently in, or am I missing something here?
How man fans do you think a White Sox team with a payroll of $85M would draw in 2005?

jabrch
11-23-2004, 12:32 PM
Still, none of these ideas so far address my question about how to increase revenue streams.

Do you folks really believe that a young 90 loss team for 4 straight years is going to build a fan base? The Sox will be right back to where they were in 1998-99, looking to climb the ladder and only capable of doing it IF their young kids turn into "Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Williams, and Pettitte" AND then they are willing to add "Clemens, Giambi, Matsui, etc." and increase payroll to $85M minimum (unless people think some genie is going to appear and drastically reduce salarys for FA AS caliber players over the next 5 years instead of the exact opposite).

This is the exact same rut the Sox are currently in, or am I missing something here?
VC - I don't think we have the slightest chance of building a team competitive with what you are painting. We have no shot at building a NYY team. That requires an unrealistic level of spending given our revenue models. There is no spending we can make that will spur on Yankee-like attendance or revenues. Do you? Why compare us to the Yanks?

jabrch
11-23-2004, 12:38 PM
How man fans do you think a White Sox team with a payroll of $85M would draw in 2005?
it all depends on how it plays... I don't think that the PAYROLL dictates attendance. I think the play does. If we are between 81-87 wins, attendance will be no difference than in the past 5 years. If we win 95 games and make the playoffs, then who knows? But $85m doesn't guarantee us 95 or playoffs.

The fans here cry and bitch about payroll, but most don't get it. It isn't payroll. Teams with less payroll can win more. Teams with more payroll can win less.

The team needs to stop finishing in 2nd place. someone's sig says it best - the only thing worse than finishing in last - is being in 2nd. And we gotta stop this second place nonsense. I hope we do it... I can deal with losing - I've never seen much else. a few more losses won't ruin my days much at all. Like i said - the co-branded WhiteSox/WSI striaght jackets will make PHG a fortune.

Flight #24
11-23-2004, 12:38 PM
Still, none of these ideas so far address my question about how to increase revenue streams.

Do you folks really believe that a young 90 loss team for 4 straight years is going to build a fan base? The Sox will be right back to where they were in 1998-99, looking to climb the ladder and only capable of doing it IF their young kids turn into "Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Williams, and Pettitte" AND then they are willing to add "Clemens, Giambi, Matsui, etc." and increase payroll to $85M minimum (unless people think some genie is going to appear and drastically reduce salarys for FA AS caliber players over the next 5 years instead of the exact opposite).

This is the exact same rut the Sox are currently in, or am I missing something here?
Well, I think the rebuilding in the late 90s was shortcircuited to some extent by the 2000 fluke. I also think that season-ending injuries to arguably the 2 most important players on the team happening 2/4 years (2001, 2004) is a pretty unlikely thing to have happen. So I don't think that a real rebuilding is as much of a chance as you seem to.

While attendance would drop dramatically during the rebuilding, isn't the contention that a couple of years of winning would rebuild the fan base? Young & cheap talent + expensive FAs is a winning combination and can be done at a reasonable payroll.

voodoochile
11-23-2004, 12:44 PM
How man fans do you think a White Sox team with a payroll of $85M would draw in 2005?
Well, if they put the money in NOW acquiring 2-3 big names, season ticket sales would jump dramatically, IMO.

Depending on how they finish, I would see them drawing 2.2-2.5M people because of ticket scarcity on the north side, decreased supply at SoxPark and increased hype and expectations.

If they won the division and were able to bring the same team back or improve on it, those numbers should go higher in 2006.

voodoochile
11-23-2004, 12:47 PM
VC - I don't think we have the slightest chance of building a team competitive with what you are painting. We have no shot at building a NYY team. That requires an unrealistic level of spending given our revenue models. There is no spending we can make that will spur on Yankee-like attendance or revenues. Do you? Why compare us to the Yanks? Wasn't my example. I was merely running with it.

If you prefer, you can change those names to Zito, Mulder, Hudson and Giambi or Griffey, Arod, Garcia or Smoltz, Glavine... um have the Braves developed anyone else, or Prior, Wood, Patterson and Zambrano or...

The point is that even if/when you build your young core, you still have to add enough big money veteran talent to take it over the top, it's just that simple.

southsider17
11-23-2004, 12:48 PM
Rebuild - from the core... Target 2009 as the next shot at being competitive. Unload any veteran of value for prospects. Get rid of everyone. Lets see how many real Sox fans are out there. Bye Frank. Bye Magglio. Bye Bye Buehrle. Freddy - nice to know ya. Sayonara Shingo. Adios Damaso. Aaron - you got value - and you'll be gone by 2008, so lets wait and maximize what we can get for you.

Run this team into the bottom of the league for 3 years. Draft in the top 3-5 and get the kind of players who can come in and play. Not risky guys

It sucks - but an 85mm payroll won't do it. A 95mm payroll won't do it. If you are trying to buy a championship, not develop one, you have to spend a lot more than that. That's unreasonable given this teams projectable revenue models. So lets have at it. Lets do what other teams have done to rebuild - Florida, Oakland, etc....go bottom of the barrell - and build up from there.

I imagine straight jackets sales here should go up - and the collective suicide watch would be at code red.
I don't know if the White Sox fan base would be able to put up with that plan, though it has been shown to work. Our cross town rivals help keep the pressure on.

But before the Sox even consider a plan like that they need to put people in place who have the ability to competently evaluate talent, an area where I have little confidence in the current regime.

:(:

voodoochile
11-23-2004, 12:50 PM
Well, I think the rebuilding in the late 90s was shortcircuited to some extent by the 2000 fluke. I also think that season-ending injuries to arguably the 2 most important players on the team happening 2/4 years (2001, 2004) is a pretty unlikely thing to have happen. So I don't think that a real rebuilding is as much of a chance as you seem to.

While attendance would drop dramatically during the rebuilding, isn't the contention that a couple of years of winning would rebuild the fan base? Young & cheap talent + expensive FAs is a winning combination and can be done at a reasonable payroll.
That depends on what your goal is. If you want to win the division then Boomer Wells or Bartolo Colon is enough. If your goal is to go further in the playoffs, win a pennant or even a WS crown, you need more big acquistions. There is just no time to develop that many good young players and hold on to all of them long enough to win it all with only one or two additions anymore, IMO.

voodoochile
11-23-2004, 12:51 PM
I don't know if the White Sox fan base would be able to put up with that plan, though it has been shown to work. Our cross town rivals help keep the pressure on.

But before the Sox even consider a plan like that they need to put people in place who have the ability to competently evaluate talent, an area where I have little confidence in the current regime.

:(:
Another good point.

The Sox need to spend more money in the front office to become competitive, or maybe again they will (or have) caught lightning in a bottle...

Wealz
11-23-2004, 12:52 PM
Well, if they put the money in NOW acquiring 2-3 big names, season ticket sales would jump dramatically, IMO.

Depending on how they finish, I would see them drawing 2.2-2.5M people because of ticket scarcity on the north side, decreased supply at SoxPark and increased hype and expectations.

If they won the division and were able to bring the same team back or improve on it, those numbers should go higher in 2006.
Who are these 2-3 big names?

It's my opinion that short of a World Series winning team the Sox won't see 2.5M in attendance simply because the division they reside in provides zero marquee match-ups.

voodoochile
11-23-2004, 12:59 PM
Who are these 2-3 big names?

It's my opinion that short of a World Series winning team the Sox won't see 2.5M in attendance simply because the division they reside in provides zero marquee match-ups.
You are only looking at one aspect of what drives ticket sales. Winning, ticket scarcity for the flubbies (and for the Sox if they actually looked like a winner), corporate interest (because again, the flubbies are expensive and sold out), the status of the economy, weather in April, September and really the rest of the season - all play parts in deciding how many tickets get sold.

I don't have an answer for you on the big 3 names, merely saying that money spent would come back in some form to the team, IMO. I am not a GM and wasn't asking for exact answers from the other posters in this tread either, merely saying it's doable and now is a good time to do it with as good a starting 4 as the Sox have had in a long time...

I do like the idea of trading for Johnson if the Sox can throw in Konerko or Lee's contract (preferably Konerko). I then think they should acquire an OF/1B or a catcher who can get on base a bit. Beltran would be nice, but it probably won't happen and with the acquisition of RJ it would probably blow the budget. I tend to leave that stuff to the guys who run the show, merely saying that they should run it like a big market team and not like some podunk team in Kansas...

SouthSide_HitMen
11-23-2004, 01:14 PM
Maybe we need more Us V Them marketing - you know, dazzle us with bull**** and hope for the best...We have seen the marketing from the genius JR braintrust at his other failing organization - Fans must stick through a terrible product "Through Thick & Thin, Thick & Thin".

Ol' No. 2
11-23-2004, 01:40 PM
I only count 1993 and 2000 as division wins. No division winners were awarded for 1994 and the Sox onlyled Clevelan by .5 games or something when the players went on strike - so no guarantees - certainly the lack of playoffs that years makes it at best a hollow victory.

Atlanta has won 13 straight division crowns as a big market payroll team.

Boston has consistently been in the thick of every playoff hunt going back for a long time and they have to compete with the Yankees. They too spend money. It took them a LONG time to break through, but they finally did and had only 2 home grown players on the roster when it happened and still underspent the Yankees by $40M or so this year.

Seattle went up the charts when they started spending. Here is a classic example of what spending money to gain fanbase and increase national attention can do for a team.

Now the Sox are competing in the worst division in baseball. The fact that the Twins are in the middle of a 5-year cheap and good window not withstanding - the same can be said for the A's at present, but they too are starting to feel the pinch of watching their big name home grown FA's leave - Seattle too suffered that fate, but they at least added money to try and get over the top.

There are no guarantees in life - just as there are no guarantees that the Sox can get somewhere by going cheap and young. No guarantee that our "Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Williams, and Pettitte" will actually be drafted, stay healthy and develop into All-Star caliber players.

Still, none of these ideas so far address my question about how to increase revenue streams.

Do you folks really believe that a young 90 loss team for 4 straight years is going to build a fan base? The Sox will be right back to where they were in 1998-99, looking to climb the ladder and only capable of doing it IF their young kids turn into "Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Williams, and Pettitte" AND then they are willing to add "Clemens, Giambi, Matsui, etc." and increase payroll to $85M minimum (unless people think some genie is going to appear and drastically reduce salarys for FA AS caliber players over the next 5 years instead of the exact opposite).

This is the exact same rut the Sox are currently in, or am I missing something here?The problem I have is with the supposed connection:

spending -> winning -> attendance

I've pretty much beaten the first part of this to death. The connection between spending and winning isn't nearly as strong as most people suppose it is. It's the second part of that chain I want to discuss.

Comparison with the Cubs is pretty telling. The Cubs built up a huge fan base over the last 20 years or so. Did they do it by winning? Not hardly. Until this year they've been unable to put together back-to-back winning seasons for 30 years. Winning certainly helps, but you can't ignore the effect of marketing, and the Sox have been getting their butts kicked in marketing ever since the Tribune bought the Cubs. That's not going to be reversed overnight.

You asked what I would do to improve the Sox lot? I would approach it pretty much the way the Sox are now. Fire Rob Gallas and get someone who can market the team. The Sox attendance went up by 260k in 2003 and they were well on their way to a similar increase in 2004 when the bottom fell out. Tough break. If you figure $30 in net revenue for every ticket sold, that 260k translates to $7.8M in increased revenue, not to mention the price increases. Continue that for a few years (the attendance, not the price increases) and you've now got a lot more money to spend on the team. All indications are that JR is putting all or at least nearly all the extra revenue back into the team. (I know I'm going to get a lot of crap for this, but if you want to argue this point, let's see some numbers that say otherwise.) There are no quick fixes. Build it up year by year.

One other point. Spending money does not guarantee success. In fact, the connection is pretty weak. But if you look at the data long enough, what you see is that how you spend the money is key, and the teams that are successful spend their money on pitching. The Braves are a good example. They WERE a big spending team, but they're not anymore. Was their run of consecutive division championships a result of spending money or of spending it on one of the best pitching staffs in baseball? Teams that spend big money on sluggers generally are much less successful.

jabrch
11-23-2004, 02:48 PM
I don't know if the White Sox fan base would be able to put up with that plan, though it has been shown to work. Our cross town rivals help keep the pressure on.

But before the Sox even consider a plan like that they need to put people in place who have the ability to competently evaluate talent, an area where I have little confidence in the current regime.

:(:
They wouldn't - that's why striaghtjacket sales would go up so damn high...

southsider17
11-23-2004, 03:15 PM
They wouldn't - that's why striaghtjacket sales would go up so damn high...
I can't argue that! :whiner:

Rex Hudler
11-23-2004, 11:37 PM
I think it's been pretty well shown that teams that outspend their competition consistently (this being the key word) do win more games and make the playoffs more often.

It's the one and done philosophy that leads nowhere.

How do you expect to increase those revenue streams?

How do any of the fiscal conservatives on this board suggest the Sox dig out of this rut they are in?

Should they just continue doing the same old thing and hope to catch lightning in a bottle once every 5 years and make a run at the ALC?

Is that enough to change the fortunes of the team?

Maybe we need more Us V Them marketing - you know, dazzle us with bull**** and hope for the best...

I read a LOT of "How can we afford to do that?" from posters on these forums and I am constantly saying, "How can we NOT afford to do it?"

It feels like I am butting my head against the wall, so, since I and others like me have made our presentation for why upping money spent will come back to the Sox over time, none of the FC folks have said what they think should be done. Some of them think firing KW will solve the problem - okay, what next?

This is your moment in the sun, RH, Bob, anewman, etc. What should the Sox do to dig out of this mess of their own making?VC, I think there are a ton of things wrong with the Sox organization. I don't want to get into a point for point battle on this because I don't profess to have all of the answers, nor do I have full information on everything White Sox because I am not in Chicago.

Between what I have gathered from others and what I do know about the organization it seems reasonable to say that they could use help with a better focus on customer service, marketing, player personnel decisions and the farm system.

I just don't think that throwing money at 2-3 name free agents is any better of a guarantee they will become and stay more competitive than they are now. Look back 4 years or so and think about what things would be like today if the Sox signed Mike Hampton or Chan Ho Park, for example. Those were names as big as the Carl Pavano's and Derek Lowe's today.

I think how they spend the money they have is most important. If payroll was raised to $85 million this year, and the team flopped or injuries once again killed their playoff chances, fans would be screaming to raise it to $100 million the next year, even if attendance stayed around the 2+ million mark.

I guess my point is, that no one fix will solve the problem long term, and no fix is as easy as buying a player or three. There are other problems to solve as well (i.e. continuing to raise ticket prices without an increase in demand), but we have had all of those arguments too.