PDA

View Full Version : Only the Sox offer deferred money...


gosox41
01-12-2005, 08:17 AM
Or not. I'd hate to ruin a perfectly good chance for JR bashers to bash the Sox but here are the facts on the contract Beltran just signed with the Mets:

2005- $10 mill salary
2006-2007 $12 mill in year year
2008-2111-$18.5 million of which $8.5 million per year is deferred.


That's right, $34 mill of Beltrans contract includes deferred money. That's 29 % of the total dollar value of his contract.

I don't know how long the money is deferred for, but it will accrue at a whopping 1.17% compund interest. May be competitive with today's rates, but in the short term interest rates more likely to go up.



Bob

samram
01-12-2005, 08:32 AM
Well, he will receive an $11 million signing bonus, with $7 million paid upon approval of the contract and $2 million in each of 2006 and 2007, so that probably makes up for a lot of the deferral. However, I agree with you that this idea that the Sox are the only team that defers money is silly.

Ol' No. 2
01-12-2005, 09:30 AM
Well, he will receive an $11 million signing bonus, with $7 million paid upon approval of the contract and $2 million in each of 2006 and 2007, so that probably makes up for a lot of the deferral. However, I agree with you that this idea that the Sox are the only team that defers money is silly.Players have to pay their agents their whole cut up front, which is why teams offer signing bonuses with big contracts. Boras will get all of that $11M.

:borass:Thanks, guys!

jackbrohamer
01-12-2005, 09:35 AM
The criticism of the Sox isn't that they offer deffered money, it's that the percentage they defer often appears to be a deal-breaker when it comes to big name players.

samram
01-12-2005, 09:43 AM
Players have to pay their agents their whole cut up front, which is why teams offer signing bonuses with big contracts. Boras will get all of that $11M.



:borass:Thanks, guys!
Yeah, I understand that. However, that $11M is around 10% of the deal (in nominal terms). I don't know of too many agents that get that big a cut- I don't know if they even get 5% anymore. I think NFLPA guidelines say the agent should get around 3-4%, IIRC. Maybe baseball player agents, or maybe just Boras, takes more.

Flight #24
01-12-2005, 09:55 AM
The criticism of the Sox isn't that they offer deffered money, it's that the percentage they defer often appears to be a deal-breaker when it comes to big name players.
IMO the problem isn't the deferral, it's the total dollar value. As has been widely reported, the various offers to Maggs with & without deferrals seem to indicate that he wanted to break the bank. Colon - similarly, he wanted the extra year & $$$ Anaheim offered.

On a side note, I guess this fully debunks the question of whether or not there are limits on the deferred $$. $8.5 of $18.5mil is way more than 20%.

Paulwny
01-12-2005, 10:14 AM
The big difference is that Houston was the only other team making a legit offer. Beltran took the best offer even if it included deferred money. He also has some good incentive money available.
Bonuses



MVP — $500,000

Second MVP — $1 million

Third MVP and all MVPs thereafter — $1.5 million

MVP 2nd through 5th place — $200,000

All-Star — $100,000

Most All-Star votes in league — $100,000

Postseason All-Star or player of the year — $100,000

World Series MVP — $250,000

League championship series MVP — $150,000

Gold Glove — $100,000

Silver Slugger — $100,000

Hank Aaron Award — $100,000

Best available 15-person luxury suite for all home games

soxfan26
01-12-2005, 12:02 PM
The big difference is that Houston was the only other team making a legit offer. Beltran took the best offer even if it included deferred money. He also has some good incentive money available.
Bonuses

MVP — $500,000

Second MVP — $1 million

Third MVP and all MVPs thereafter — $1.5 million

MVP 2nd through 5th place — $200,000

All-Star — $100,000

Most All-Star votes in league — $100,000

Postseason All-Star or player of the year — $100,000

World Series MVP — $250,000

League championship series MVP — $150,000

Gold Glove — $100,000

Silver Slugger — $100,000

Hank Aaron Award — $100,000

Best available 15-person luxury suite for all home games
Do you have a source that confirms all these incentives in Beltran's new contract?

gosox41
01-12-2005, 12:20 PM
Do you have a source that confirms all these incentives in Beltran's new contract?
Today's Tribune.



Bob

gosox41
01-12-2005, 12:26 PM
The big difference is that Houston was the only other team making a legit offer. Beltran took the best offer even if it included deferred money. He also has some good incentive money available.
Bonuses


I would be curious to know Houston's final offer. If they offered the $96 mill over 6 years and the fact that there is no state income tax in Texas and the deal may not have been far off in terms of the first 6 years of the contract. Of course the Mets still paid more overall but I don't think the difference was that great.

Meanwhile I thought Beltran said he left Houston because they wouldn't give him a no-trade clause, but it turns out it was about the money. I'm shocked.

Anyone know if the Mets put a no trade clause in his contract?

On a bit of a tangent, I think full no trade clauses are a joke. If Houston's winning they're not goin to trade him. If they suck or Carlos isn't happy, then Beltran's and Borass are going to be crying that they want to be on a winner and Beltran will beg out of town.

I can see having a no-trade clause that limits to certain teams, but what a lame excuse on Beltran's part. Just ome out and say it's all about the money, not about no-trade clauses and definitely not about winning.



Bob

Lip Man 1
01-12-2005, 12:38 PM
The Sporting News radio network yesterday was discussing in detail a story apparently out of Houston that said that Beltran was prepared to re-sign with the Astros...however Houston owner Drayton McClain refused to give him a no trade clause which ended discussion.

Personally I agree with the host who said that was insane. If the Astros are that bad then they are going to sell off everyone which means that Beltran would want to get out of town, therefore to do that he'd waive his 'no trade' clause. There is no risk to the Astros yet because of this they have severly weakened their club and pissed off their fans.

Bob...with respect, once again you fail to see the forrest through the trees. NO ONE is debating the issue of deferred money. The issue is WHY can't the Sox get anyone to agree to this?

My own opinion is because of their reputation and the fact that other clubs who do this (i.e. Yankees, D-backs, Braves just to name a few) have actually WON something. Plus there is a trust level between those organizations and the agents of said players that by deferring this money, the organization is then going to use it on getting ADDITIONAL players and not just stick the savings in a high interest account someplace.

I've stated this opinion at least three or four times without response from you yet you continue to trump 'deferred money' signings all the time. Again the question that's never answered is why can't the Sox get anybody to agree to this? Especially if they are a damn good player.

Lip

Flight #24
01-12-2005, 12:43 PM
Bob...with respect, once again you fail to see the forrest through the trees. NO ONE is debating the issue of deferred money. The issue is WHY can't the Sox get anyone to agree to this?

Lip
Got any examples of players taking it from other teams but not the Sox without the total dollar value also being greater? I don't believe that that's happened.

You can speculate about the Sox being a bad organization, lack of trust, all you want - but the simplest and IMO most likely explanation is this: Team A offers $X with deferrals, Team B offers $X+Y with deferrals and the player selects B.

It's the money, not the deferrals.

Lip Man 1
01-12-2005, 12:47 PM
Flight:

Either way it's an indictment of the current ownership / organization isn't it? Especially given their track record of 25 years.

Lip

gosox41
01-12-2005, 12:50 PM
The Sporting News radio network yesterday was discussing in detail a story apparently out of Houston that said that Beltran was prepared to re-sign with the Astros...however Houston owner Drayton McClain refused to give him a no trade clause which ended discussion.

Personally I agree with the host who said that was insane. If the Astros are that bad then they are going to sell off everyone which means that Beltran would want to get out of town, therefore to do that he'd waive his 'no trade' clause. There is no risk to the Astros yet because of this they have severly weakened their club and pissed off their fans.

Bob...with respect, once again you fail to see the forrest through the trees. NO ONE is debating the issue of deferred money. The issue is WHY can't the Sox get anyone to agree to this?

My own opinion is because of their reputation and the fact that other clubs who do this (i.e. Yankees, D-backs, Braves just to name a few) have actually WON something. Plus there is a trust level between those organizations and the agents of said players that by deferring this money, the organization is then going to use it on getting ADDITIONAL players and not just stick the savings in a high interest account someplace.

I've stated this opinion at least three or four times without response from you yet you continue to trump 'deferred money' signings all the time. Again the question that's never answered is why can't the Sox get anybody to agree to this? Especially if they are a damn good player.

Lip
Lip,
These deferred money threads started by many originally came off as: The Sox are the only team that offers deferred money.

It came out as recently as when Magglio was in contract negotiations.

As to why other players don't buy into it, I have no idea. It would be a lot of speculation. I mean players want to play for the Cubs and what have they won?

This off season, the only big name FA the Sox seriously pursued was Clement, at least according to what I've heard. They were never in the Beltran derby and never hinted that they were.

As for Magglio or whoever else, I have no idea why. Maybe it is JR. Maybe it's the crappy winter weather in Chicago. But outside of Magglio and Clement who was the last big name FA that the Sox pursued? That may answer the question but brings up a different debate. Keep in mind that Magglio wasn't even a FA and reports have said he was offered a 5 year deal worth $14 mill with zero deferred money.


Bob

gosox41
01-12-2005, 12:51 PM
Flight:

Either way it's an indictment of the current ownership / organization isn't it? Especially given their track record of 25 years.

Lip
In your discussion with Flight, you're arguing 2 seperate issues. Lack of trust in mangement and not offering enough money are 2 different issues. They may produce the same result, but which one is the bigger problem?


Bob

Flight #24
01-12-2005, 12:52 PM
Flight:

Either way it's an indictment of the current ownership / organization isn't it? Especially given their track record of 25 years.

Lip
Only if you don't believe in budgets. When no one else offers more than a 3-year deal to Colon and he gets 4 at ahigher salary than anyone offers - is that a good move? Sure it is short term, but we'll see how they feel about it over the next year or 2. If previous big$$$ contracts are any example, they may well be trying to get out of it by then.

jackbrohamer
01-12-2005, 01:03 PM
It's the money, not the deferrals.
I don't see it as much of a difference. Money today is worth more than the same amount of money 5 years from now. I haven't catalogued how many players who have turned down Sox contract offers solely because of what the Sox wanted to defer, but that was widely reported as an issue in the Colon and Ordonez negotiations, and was an issue with Thomas' "diminished skills" contract.

Paulwny
01-12-2005, 01:19 PM
I would be curious to know Houston's final offer. If they offered the $96 mill over 6 years and the fact that there is no state income tax in Texas and the deal may not have been far off in terms of the first 6 years of the contract. Of course the Mets still paid more overall but I don't think the difference was that great.
Bob


From what I've read, Boras has quite an organization.
I'm sure his team has calculated the expected endorsement money Beltran will earn in NY vs Houston.
It's another factor many of us really don't consider.

Lip Man 1
01-12-2005, 01:26 PM
Flight:

With respect...I have often categorized you as one of the charter members of the Friends Of Uncle Jerry fan club and you are the individual who posted with seriousness, that 83 wins should be considered 'above average,' when in fact 83 wins is a mere two games above perfect mediocrity. With that in mind, I am not at all surprised by your comments.

Your retort will probably be along the lines of who am I to talk, I hate Uncle Jerry. Which also would be wrong.

I do not hate Uncle Jerry. I hate his 'business first, bottom line' mentality in sports ownership. Big difference.

The name of the game is winning...that's why they play the games, that's why they keep score.

What no one can dispute is the fact that Uncle Jerry is the longest tenured owner in MLB. This will be his 25th year of stewardship of one of the charter members of the American League.

In almost 25 seasons he has zero championships. He has zero World Series appearances.

He is an unmitigated failure in the most important reason to own a sports franchise.

Talk to me about 'fiscal responsibility' after he has brought to White Sox fans what the overwhelming majority are dying for...a title.

Until that time all the talk of budgets and fiscal responsibility are nothing more then pompous foolishhness.

If he can't play the game under the current rules of supply and demand, then get out and let someone who can have a chance.

Uncle Jerry isn't going to go hungry if one time he takes a sizable financial risk, especially considering the fact that the state and city gave him a new stadium and he has an incredibly one sided lease agreement.

Just my opinion.

"A lot of people say athletes don't deserve to get the money they get, but the one law of economics that has never been repealed is the law of supply and demand. There is a very small supply of athletes who have the ability to play at the major league level in any sport--and the demand is great enough that they command these salaries because that's the law of economics." – Jerry Reinsdorf to the Chicago Sun - Times’ Terry Savage. July 30, 2000.

Lip

Flight #24
01-12-2005, 01:29 PM
I don't see it as much of a difference. Money today is worth more than the same amount of money 5 years from now. I haven't catalogued how many players who have turned down Sox contract offers solely because of what the Sox wanted to defer, but that was widely reported as an issue in the Colon and Ordonez negotiations, and was an issue with Thomas' "diminished skills" contract.
That's the point. It's not that players refuse to take the Sox deferred money but take the Angels (or whoever's) deferred money, it's that they take the deal with the largest total dollar value including deferrals. Not because they don't trust the Sox or any such BS.

Colon got more money and more years. Maggs wanted the same (my interpretation based on reports of the various offers they made him). Frank signed his deal and then didn't like the terms because Giambi cheated him out of his MVP. Again - it's not like the Sox are a)deferring significantly more money than others, or b)that players say "I won't take the Sox $5 deferral, but I will take the Angels $5 deferral".

SoxxoS
01-12-2005, 01:29 PM
They is a pretty good rebuttal to all the FO UJ (I can't write those 4 letter together for some reason) people on here...I am not a "hater" but if he sold the team, I definitely wouldn't be shedding a tear...


Actually, I'd probably do a :dtroll:

Dadawg_77
01-12-2005, 01:32 PM
Got any examples of players taking it from other teams but not the Sox without the total dollar value also being greater? I don't believe that that's happened.

You can speculate about the Sox being a bad organization, lack of trust, all you want - but the simplest and IMO most likely explanation is this: Team A offers $X with deferrals, Team B offers $X+Y with deferrals and the player selects B.

It's the money, not the deferrals. You know I think the Sox use of deferral money is that they can leak the total dollar value of the contract to be similar or more then the other offers, but the NPV of the contract is significantly lower then other offers out there. This way they can play the good guy, "We tried to sign Player M but he just wouldn't come," which defuses any negative PR they would have received for not signing Player M and may even turn fans against Player M.

Lip Man 1
01-12-2005, 01:42 PM
Dadawg:

I know others here at WSI and in the Chicago media have said much of what you posted in the past. Bottom line, the top players do NOT sign with the Sox.

The 'why' isn't important...only the results.

The name of the game is getting as much talent as possible for any and all sources. The Sox simply do not do this.

Lip

Mickster
01-12-2005, 01:45 PM
You know I think the Sox use of deferral money is that they can leak the total dollar value of the contract to be similar or more then the other offers, but the NPV of the contract is significantly lower then other offers out there. This way they can play the good guy, "We tried to sign Player M but he just wouldn't come," which defuses any negative PR they would have received for not signing Player M and may even turn fans against Player M.
Please give us some examples of this...

Flight #24
01-12-2005, 01:45 PM
Flight:

With respect...I have often categorized you as one of the charter members of the Friends Of Uncle Jerry fan club and you are the individual who posted with seriousness, that 83 wins should be considered 'above average,' when in fact 83 wins is a mere two games above perfect mediocrity. With that in mind, I am not at all surprised by your comments.

Your retort will probably be along the lines of who am I to talk, I hate Uncle Jerry. Which also would be wrong.

I do not hate Uncle Jerry. I hate his 'business first, bottom line' mentality in sports ownership. Big difference.

The name of the game is winning...that's why they play the games, that's why they keep score.

What no one can dispute is the fact that Uncle Jerry is the longest tenured owner in MLB. This will be his 25th year of stewardship of one of the charter members of the American League.

In almost 25 seasons he has zero championships. He has zero World Series appearances.

He is an unmitigated failure in the most important reason to own a sports franchise.

Talk to me about 'fiscal responsibility' after he has brought to White Sox fans what the overwhelming majority are dying for...a title.

Until that time all the talk of budgets and fiscal responsibility are nothing more then pompous foolishhness.

If he can't play the game under the current rules of supply and demand, then get out and let someone who can have a chance.

Uncle Jerry isn't going to go hungry if one time he takes a sizable financial risk, especially considering the fact that the state and city gave him a new stadium and he has an incredibly one sided lease agreement.

Just my opinion.

Lip
Re: 83 wins - When you average more wins than about 10 teams in MLB (out of 30), that is by definition, above average (ok, technically it's above median, but average would be 81). Your complaint seems to be more that they haven't made the playoffs, but because this is more pithy, you use this point inaccurately.

Re: Uncle jerry's business first approach - I'm not a huge fan of it either, I'd prefer a guy who says "I'll spend out of my own pocket to win a title, even if it drives me bankrupt". The big difference between us is that I recognize that you can't EXPECT that. IMO it's reasonable to expect an owner to operate a team in a cash-flow neutral manner, and invest (i.e. operate in the red) prudently when the team has a shot where the investment can have some impact (and thereby have a higher chance of return). IMO there are NO owners who operate in the manner you're describing. There are just owners with larger revenue bases either because of location/history (NY, Boston, LA, Cubs) or because they fell into a team that had just won (Anaheim).

Re: The stadium. 1)JR doesn't own it. If Springsteen plays there, he doesn't get the gate, ISFA does. The UC is something that he does own, and guess what - he makes money off of it for all the events there. 2)Almost all stadiums are publicly funded, so it's not like JR is getting some benefit over and above what other teams get.

Re: JR being rich - So what! This is America, rich people aren't required to lose money just so that the masses can have some entertainment. That's like saying Bill Gates should donate his money to provide free software for schools. Sure - it would be nice if he did, but simply being rich doesn't require him to do that.

Mickster
01-12-2005, 01:47 PM
Dadawg:

I know others here at WSI and in the Chicago media have said much of what you posted in the past. Bottom line, the top players do NOT sign with the Sox.

The 'why' isn't important...only the results.

The name of the game is getting as much talent as possible for any and all sources. The Sox simply do not do this.

Lip
What top FA players have signed with the Cubs, for example?

Iwritecode
01-12-2005, 01:47 PM
Uncle Jerry isn't going to go hungry if one time he takes a sizable financial risk, especially considering the fact that the state and city gave him a new stadium and he has an incredibly one sided lease agreement.

True. He just has to convince all the OTHER investors to take that same financial risk.

Don't forget, JR is just the mouthpiece for a group of investors. They're the ones that don't want to spend their money...

Mickster
01-12-2005, 01:49 PM
True. He just has to convince all the OTHER investors to take that same financial risk.

Don't forget, JR is just the mouthpiece for a group of investors. They're the ones that don't want to spend their money...
There you go using logic again.... :D:

jackbrohamer
01-12-2005, 02:00 PM
Don't forget, JR is just the mouthpiece for a group of investors. They're the ones that don't want to spend their money...
He's much more than a mouthpiece, he's the managing partner for the investors. While he has to answer to the other investors at the end of the day he still is directly responsible for how the organization is run.

jackbrohamer
01-12-2005, 02:01 PM
Uh, I shouldn't be picky, especially with Lip, but the longest tenured owner in
MLB is George Steinbrenner. :cower:
He's the longest tenured owner who's team has never won a playoff series

Mohoney
01-12-2005, 02:13 PM
True. He just has to convince all the OTHER investors to take that same financial risk.

Don't forget, JR is just the mouthpiece for a group of investors. They're the ones that don't want to spend their money...
Iwritecode hit the nail on the head with this post. Reinsdorf IS the managing partner, but owns less than 5% of the team, right?

Ol' No. 2
01-12-2005, 02:34 PM
Iwritecode hit the nail on the head with this post. Reinsdorf IS the managing partner, but owns less than 5% of the team, right?But that really doesn't change the argument. Maybe it's unfair to blame Reinsdorf personally, but if you just substitute "the ownership group" for Reinsdorf, the argument stays the same.

But IMO, Flight's point is the most significant. How many other owners (or groups) do what Lip is suggesting, which is to spend their own money to increase payroll in the hopes of winning? None that I know of. Big payroll teams are not operating in the red. They just have bigger revenue bases.

Paulwny
01-12-2005, 02:53 PM
[QUOTE=Flight #24]
Re: The stadium. 1)JR doesn't own it. If Springsteen plays there, he doesn't get the gate, ISFA does. The UC is something that he does own, and guess what - he makes money off of it for all the events there. 2)Almost all stadiums are publicly funded, so it's not like JR is getting some benefit over and above what other teams get.
QUOTE]

I agree that stadiums are built with tax payer money, it's the agreement (sweetest deal in major league sports) he has with the state that puts him in a different driver's seat than other owners. It took me awhile to find this old article, the reds negotiating for a stadium deal.
from the link: Cincinnati Post


(The Cincinnati Reds, at an impasse with Hamilton County over a new stadium lease, no doubt would gladly accept the lavishly generous deal that Illinois officials gave Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf in the late 1980s.
When the White Sox threatened to move to St. Petersburg, Fla., panicked Illinois legislators responded with the sweetest deal in major-league sports, agreeing to pay the entire $137 million cost of a new Comiskey Park and to allow the team to keep nearly all stadium-related dollars.)

http://www.cincypost.com/news/1997/stad100897.html

Iwritecode
01-12-2005, 02:54 PM
But that really doesn't change the argument. Maybe it's unfair to blame Reinsdorf personally, but if you just substitute "the ownership group" for Reinsdorf, the argument stays the same.

It's a nitpicky detail but true. We have to remember that when JR is gone, the organizational philosphy of not spending money may not change. At least until the rest of the investors are gone...


But IMO, Flight's point is the most significant. How many other owners (or groups) do what Lip is suggesting, which is to spend their own money to increase payroll in the hopes of winning? None that I know of. Big payroll teams are not operating in the red. They just have bigger revenue bases.

The Sox have a large revenue base, they just haven't reached the full potential of it yet. There's no reason both the Sox and the Cubs couldn't draw 2.5 million plus every year. It's just a matter of getting fans to show up. Then you have the never-ending circle:

fans show up when the team wins
the team wins when they have good players
good players show up when the team spends money
the team spends money when the fans show up
and on and on...

Flight #24
01-12-2005, 03:01 PM
The Sox have a large revenue base, they just haven't reached the full potential of it yet. There's no reason both the Sox and the Cubs couldn't draw 2.5 million plus every year. It's just a matter of getting fans to show up. Then you have the never-ending circle:

fans show up when the team wins
the team wins when they have good players
good players show up when the team spends money
the team spends money when the fans show up
and on and on...Which, IMO is one reason that KW takes some more chances than some would like. He knows that if he can get one to pan out, he can turn things from a middle-market situation to a large market situation.

That said, even if you split the city 50-50, it's a smaller base for the Sox than other multi-team cities, and than some single-team, smaller cities. I vaguely recall 50% of Chicago beinga bout the size of Houston/Toronto.

Ol' No. 2
01-12-2005, 03:04 PM
The Sox have a large revenue base, they just haven't reached the full potential of it yet. There's no reason both the Sox and the Cubs couldn't draw 2.5 million plus every year.We've been through this before, but if you assume half the Chicago market, it works out to about the size of Houston, who, I might point out, have never been to the WS. And as long as the Cubs have the media gushing over their every move, it would be very difficult for the Sox to get even half the market. Remember that the Cubs dominance emerged during a period when the Sox were consistently the better team on the field. Sadly, it has a lot more to do with marketing than the quality of the product on the field, and the Cubs have beaten the Sox pants off. Maybe Boyer can do a better job.

StillMissOzzie
01-12-2005, 03:05 PM
I can see having a no-trade clause that limits to certain teams, but what a lame excuse on Beltran's part. Just come out and say it's all about the money, not about no-trade clauses and definitely not about winning.

Bob


IMHO, no-trade clauses are a method of extorting a contract extension in order to waive the clause. Like Shawn Green, for example.

SMO
:gulp:

jackbrohamer
01-12-2005, 03:06 PM
How many other owners (or groups) do what Lip is suggesting, which is to spend their own money to increase payroll in the hopes of winning? None that I know of. Big payroll teams are not operating in the red. They just have bigger revenue bases.
How is it even possible to trace dollars spent on players' salaries to specific owners' wallets?

Iwritecode
01-12-2005, 03:16 PM
We've been through this before, but if you assume half the Chicago market, it works out to about the size of Houston, who, I might point out, have never been to the WS. And as long as the Cubs have the media gushing over their every move, it would be very difficult for the Sox to get even half the market. Remember that the Cubs dominance emerged during a period when the Sox were consistently the better team on the field. Sadly, it has a lot more to do with marketing than the quality of the product on the field, and the Cubs have beaten the Sox pants off. Maybe Boyer can do a better job.

A good point about market size. :wink:

As far as having to do more with marketing than the quality of the team on the field, I think the Cubs are the only team in the world that can pull this off. It's unfair to compare the Sox to them. Any other team in any other sport has to have a winning team before the fans will show up in numbers.

This entire city is just dying for a Championship team in any sport. If the Sox could be the team to bring it home, and then continue to be competitive in the following years, they would have no problem drawing fans, small market size or not.

Ol' No. 2
01-12-2005, 03:17 PM
How is it even possible to trace dollars spent on players' salaries to specific owners' wallets?What I meant was that there are no teams that I know of whose owners spend their own money to increase payroll.

Dadawg_77
01-12-2005, 03:20 PM
Please give us some examples of this...
I don't have inside info. But how many times after a player isn't resigned, they are stories which state how much the Sox offered Player M leaked to the press. Then you hear the agent leak there was too much deferred money in contract, not that there was never an offer. Why, because both sides are playing the PR game. On this site, people are calling Mags a traitor and not saying JR/Kenny should have ponied up for him, just based on leaked reports to the media.

Ol' No. 2
01-12-2005, 03:25 PM
As far as having to do more with marketing than the quality of the team on the field, I think the Cubs are the only team in the world that can pull this off. It's unfair to compare the Sox to them. Any other team in any other sport has to have a winning team before the fans will show up in numbers.I agree that the Cubs may be the only team able to pull this off. But it's relevant to the Sox because it's the Cubs with whom the Sox compete for market share. I believe it can be reversed, but it's not going to happen overnight, barring something as extreme as a WS win. Remember the Cubs outdrew the Sox in both of the Sox' last two division-winning seasons. It's going to take multiple consecutive playoff seasons to win over the fan base in the face of the relentless media campaign of the Cubs/Tribune.

IMO, you don't do that by suddenly throwing $10M around. That's not enough money to make a real difference. You do it year-by-year, by building good teams and gradually increasing payroll and attendance together. I think the Sox are on the right track, although as a fan, of course I wish it could go faster.

champagne030
01-12-2005, 03:29 PM
What I meant was that there are no teams that I know of whose owners spend their own money to increase payroll.Redskins, Seahawks, Blazers, Mavs, Orioles, D-Backs, Marlins (1st WS team).....

Iwritecode
01-12-2005, 03:33 PM
I agree that the Cubs may be the only team able to pull this off. But it's relevant to the Sox because it's the Cubs with whom the Sox compete for market share. I believe it can be reversed, but it's not going to happen overnight, barring something as extreme as a WS win. Remember the Cubs outdrew the Sox in both of the Sox' last two division-winning seasons. It's going to take multiple consecutive playoff seasons to win over the fan base in the face of the relentless media campaign of the Cubs/Tribune.

IMO, you don't do that by suddenly throwing $10M around. That's not enough money to make a real difference. You do it year-by-year, by building good teams and gradually increasing payroll and attendance together. I think the Sox are on the right track, although as a fan, of course I wish it could go faster.

Agreed. :D:

Ol' No. 2
01-12-2005, 03:37 PM
Redskins, Seahawks, Blazers, Mavs, Orioles, D-Backs, Marlins (1st WS team).....Let's limit it to baseball. Of the teams you mentioned, none of the owners used their own money to finance the debt. All committed to big payrolls on the assumption that on-the-field success would lead to sufficient increased revenues to pay those committments. All were wrong. In all three cases, the revenues never materialized. (Is there a lesson here?) They went deeply into debt and had to gut the team to try to get costs in line with revenues.

Dadawg_77
01-12-2005, 03:38 PM
What I meant was that there are no teams that I know of whose owners spend their own money to increase payroll.
Well if you believe the number MLB has shown to the public, 25 teams are losing money. If true then the owners of those teams are spending their own money to support current payroll of the team.

Also D'Backs had a couple of capital calls which help support the team payroll during its championship run.

Mickster
01-12-2005, 04:03 PM
I don't have inside info. But how many times after a player isn't resigned, they are stories which state how much the Sox offered Player M leaked to the press. Then you hear the agent leak there was too much deferred money in contract, not that there was never an offer. Why, because both sides are playing the PR game. On this site, people are calling Mags a traitor and not saying JR/Kenny should have ponied up for him, just based on leaked reports to the media.I am not calling Maggs a traitor regarding $$. Players are entitled to what they can get. Hell, if I were a ML player, I'd probably want Boras as my agent.

My problem is the release of medical records. Maggs didn't re-sign with the Sox due to the Sox proposal being backloaded and filled with deferred compensation payments.

Maggs is certainly not a good example of your arguement. Neither is Bartolo Colon.

Lip Man 1
01-12-2005, 06:57 PM
Folks:

Many of you are operating under what may be an incorrect assumption. (Notice I said 'may be.') Many of you are basing your comments on the 'fact' that if the Sox were to invest a large chunk of money on upgrading players they would be handing money out of their own pockets.

Who knows if that's true? Do any of you have access to the Sox operating budgets and all income revenue figures?

Didn't think so.

You are assuming this to be the case. As has been debated often by a large number of people here at WSI, including if I remember correctly, a great financial story by Daver, that MAY NOT be the case.

There are just as many people here at WSI and in the Chicago media who feel Uncle Jerry and his gang of bandits are making tons of money...hand over foot.

Lee Stern's recent 'letter to the editor' stating that he never made more then 300,000 in any season with the Sox is so ludicrous it defies comment.

Just as Eddie Einhorn's comment to the Southtown's Phil Arvia from February 4, 2004..."We haven't paid a dividend in 24 years."

Why do I feel the Sox are making a lot of money? The best examples I can give are what was stated so nicely by the Sun - Times Greg Couch in his column from December 23, 2004. "The Sox have 2 million fans, an unbelievable stadium deal, a great radio deal, ownership in a TV station, a city full of corporate sponsorship possibilities, and an immensely successful and savvy owner in Reinsdorf."

I think those who feel the Sox are losing all this money are delusional. Uncle Jerry wouldn't have stuck around for almost 25 years if he did.

"The lease Reinsdorf got from the Illinois Sports Authority deserved immediate induction into the Sweetheart-Deal Hall Of Fame. The White Sox would get the new Comiskey Park rent free up to 1.2 million in attendance each year. Above that, the Illinois Sports Authority got $2.50 a ticket. The White Sox would also give the authority 35 percent of its broadcast and advertising revenues over $10 million. But the White Sox got back $5 million a year for upkeep, repairs and insurance. After the first ten years of the twenty-year lease, the authority would buy 300,000 tickets if attendance fell below 1.5 million."– From the book ‘The Lords of The Realm’ by John Helyar. Pg. 483. Published 1994.


Lip

Dadawg_77
01-12-2005, 07:26 PM
I am not calling Maggs a traitor regarding $$. Players are entitled to what they can get. Hell, if I were a ML player, I'd probably want Boras as my agent.

My problem is the release of medical records. Maggs didn't re-sign with the Sox due to the Sox proposal being backloaded and filled with deferred compensation payments.

Maggs is certainly not a good example of your arguement. Neither is Bartolo Colon.
You might not be but some are. I don't think you are naive enough to believe both sides aren't playing PR game while talking about contracts. Teams what lower fans expectations, agents want the public to clammer for a player. The media happily serves as the conduit for this game since fans buy their product to read about it.

Also Mags said the Sox had the records. So while it looks like the Sox won the PR game, who knows the truth?

gosox41
01-13-2005, 08:36 AM
IMHO, no-trade clauses are a method of extorting a contract extension in order to waive the clause. Like Shawn Green, for example.

SMO
:gulp:

Good point.


Bob

gosox41
01-13-2005, 08:47 AM
Folks:

Many of you are operating under what may be an incorrect assumption. (Notice I said 'may be.') Many of you are basing your comments on the 'fact' that if the Sox were to invest a large chunk of money on upgrading players they would be handing money out of their own pockets.

Who knows if that's true? Do any of you have access to the Sox operating budgets and all income revenue figures?

Didn't think so.

You are assuming this to be the case. As has been debated often by a large number of people here at WSI, including if I remember correctly, a great financial story by Daver, that MAY NOT be the case.

There are just as many people here at WSI and in the Chicago media who feel Uncle Jerry and his gang of bandits are making tons of money...hand over foot.

Lee Stern's recent 'letter to the editor' stating that he never made more then 300,000 in any season with the Sox is so ludicrous it defies comment.

Just as Eddie Einhorn's comment to the Southtown's Phil Arvia from February 4, 2004..."We haven't paid a dividend in 24 years."

Why do I feel the Sox are making a lot of money? The best examples I can give are what was stated so nicely by the Sun - Times Greg Couch in his column from December 23, 2004. "The Sox have 2 million fans, an unbelievable stadium deal, a great radio deal, ownership in a TV station, a city full of corporate sponsorship possibilities, and an immensely successful and savvy owner in Reinsdorf."

I think those who feel the Sox are losing all this money are delusional. Uncle Jerry wouldn't have stuck around for almost 25 years if he did.

"The lease Reinsdorf got from the Illinois Sports Authority deserved immediate induction into the Sweetheart-Deal Hall Of Fame. The White Sox would get the new Comiskey Park rent free up to 1.2 million in attendance each year. Above that, the Illinois Sports Authority got $2.50 a ticket. The White Sox would also give the authority 35 percent of its broadcast and advertising revenues over $10 million. But the White Sox got back $5 million a year for upkeep, repairs and insurance. After the first ten years of the twenty-year lease, the authority would buy 300,000 tickets if attendance fell below 1.5 million."– From the book ‘The Lords of The Realm’ by John Helyar. Pg. 483. Published 1994.


Lip

Lip,
Everything is speculation. That's why it these arguments get old. You're assuming without proof that the Sox havemade money hand over fist because and others are assuming that's not the case. It's going to go back and forth like this.

As for Daver's "great" article, do you have a link? Was it only great because it supports your view or was it great because it has proof that JR is making money hand over fist? Was it the article about ticket prices that I rebutted? I remember that one.

Also, do you have access to the Lee Stern letter? I don't remember him mentioning any numbers let alone $300,000. I have heard things more in line with Einhorn's comment.

Lastly, I'm not mistaken the Sox signed a new lease when the announced the naming rights. DO you have any info on the new lease. 'Lord of the Realms' is 11 years outdated. I remember after certain people read that book they immediately assumed JR was keepign attendance down on purpose to avoid paying rent. This is something I remember specifially getting into with people here and proving them wrong once again (not that hard to do when you do the math.)


Bob

Flight #24
01-13-2005, 09:41 AM
Lip,
Everything is speculation. That's why it these arguments get old. You're assuming without proof that the Sox havemade money hand over fist because and others are assuming that's not the case. It's going to go back and forth like this.

As for Daver's "great" article, do you have a link? Was it only great because it supports your view or was it great because it has proof that JR is making money hand over fist? Was it the article about ticket prices that I rebutted? I remember that one.

Also, do you have access to the Lee Stern letter? I don't remember him mentioning any numbers let alone $300,000. I have heard things more in line with Einhorn's comment.

Lastly, I'm not mistaken the Sox signed a new lease when the announced the naming rights. DO you have any info on the new lease. 'Lord of the Realms' is 11 years outdated. I remember after certain people read that book they immediately assumed JR was keepign attendance down on purpose to avoid paying rent. This is something I remember specifially getting into with people here and proving them wrong once again (not that hard to do when you do the math.)


Bob
Well said. I don't think anyone would dispute that if the owners are skimming money, that that's wrong and should be put towards the on-field product. If the debate is "are they or aren't they", then it's being fought with the wrong arguments since no one's addressing that.

However, Lip - you when you make comments like (paraphrasing) "Uncle Jerry can afford to spend his own cash to increase payroll, he's not going to go hungry", you're actually agreeing with those who believe the team puts available resources to the field. Underlying that comment is that JR would be dipping into his own pocket, not using cash generated from the franchise. That's where the argument that's been discussed in this thread comes in.

Mickster
01-13-2005, 10:01 AM
Also Mags said the Sox had the records. So while it looks like the Sox won the PR game, who knows the truth?The proof is in the pudding. Maggs was supposed to showcase his skills to all MLB clubs at the winter meetings in Anaheim, which conveniently happened to be past the arbitration deadline. Two months later..... I believe KW more than Maggs. Sorry.

AZChiSoxFan
01-13-2005, 10:34 AM
Got any examples of players taking it from other teams but not the Sox without the total dollar value also being greater? I don't believe that that's happened.

You can speculate about the Sox being a bad organization, lack of trust, all you want - but the simplest and IMO most likely explanation is this: Team A offers $X with deferrals, Team B offers $X+Y with deferrals and the player selects B.

It's the money, not the deferrals.Say what you will about JR and the Sox organization, but I for one believe they are smart for not signing a player like Beltran. The last team to have the highest paid player in the game and win the WS in the same season was the '86 Mets when Gary Carter was the highest paid player in baseball. I realize that Beltran is not the highest paid player, but the principle is still the same. "Teams" win, not individual players. My guess is that Atlanta will once again win the NL East, just as they do every year. I'm not quite sure how spending all that money on a guy who hit .267 last year is going to vault the Mets into first place in the NL East. I would have expected that after the Angels in 2002 and the Marlins in 2003, people would have realized that the "team" concept is still vital in baseball.

Ol' No. 2
01-13-2005, 10:41 AM
Folks:

Many of you are operating under what may be an incorrect assumption. (Notice I said 'may be.') Many of you are basing your comments on the 'fact' that if the Sox were to invest a large chunk of money on upgrading players they would be handing money out of their own pockets.

Who knows if that's true? Do any of you have access to the Sox operating budgets and all income revenue figures?

Didn't think so.

You are assuming this to be the case. As has been debated often by a large number of people here at WSI, including if I remember correctly, a great financial story by Daver, that MAY NOT be the case.

There are just as many people here at WSI and in the Chicago media who feel Uncle Jerry and his gang of bandits are making tons of money...hand over foot.

Lee Stern's recent 'letter to the editor' stating that he never made more then 300,000 in any season with the Sox is so ludicrous it defies comment.

Just as Eddie Einhorn's comment to the Southtown's Phil Arvia from February 4, 2004..."We haven't paid a dividend in 24 years."

Why do I feel the Sox are making a lot of money? The best examples I can give are what was stated so nicely by the Sun - Times Greg Couch in his column from December 23, 2004. "The Sox have 2 million fans, an unbelievable stadium deal, a great radio deal, ownership in a TV station, a city full of corporate sponsorship possibilities, and an immensely successful and savvy owner in Reinsdorf."

I think those who feel the Sox are losing all this money are delusional. Uncle Jerry wouldn't have stuck around for almost 25 years if he did.

"The lease Reinsdorf got from the Illinois Sports Authority deserved immediate induction into the Sweetheart-Deal Hall Of Fame. The White Sox would get the new Comiskey Park rent free up to 1.2 million in attendance each year. Above that, the Illinois Sports Authority got $2.50 a ticket. The White Sox would also give the authority 35 percent of its broadcast and advertising revenues over $10 million. But the White Sox got back $5 million a year for upkeep, repairs and insurance. After the first ten years of the twenty-year lease, the authority would buy 300,000 tickets if attendance fell below 1.5 million."– From the book ‘The Lords of The Realm’ by John Helyar. Pg. 483. Published 1994.


LipSo why is YOUR speculation that the Sox are making tons of money any better than others' speculation that they are not? Probably the best numbers available are the Forbes' numbers, and they show the Sox making a little money, but I wouldn't call a 5% return on investment raking it in. Most corporate CEO's would be canned for turning in that kind of return.

Dadawg_77
01-13-2005, 12:16 PM
So why is YOUR speculation that the Sox are making tons of money any better than others' speculation that they are not? Probably the best numbers available are the Forbes' numbers, and they show the Sox making a little money, but I wouldn't call a 5% return on investment raking it in. Most corporate CEO's would be canned for turning in that kind of return.
The Sox were bought in 82? for about 10-20 million. Sorry to young to recall the exact figures. If sold today they could probally fetch 150-200 million easily. That isn't 5% ROI.

gosox41
01-13-2005, 12:23 PM
So why is YOUR speculation that the Sox are making tons of money any better than others' speculation that they are not?
I've always wondered that about a select few. And it's definitely not just Lip, there's others who come off sounding like what they say is gospel. I wonder if I came in here from the beginning and said the Sox were making money hand over fist and that I heard it form my source how that would be considered credible by some.

But because what I hear from my source is the opposite I deal in speculation and am clearly wrong because it's not wha they want to hear. It's funny. Whether people believe me or not doesn't matter, beause from everything I've read here, my source provides a ton more credibility then anyone here.

I don't agree with the way some things are done with the running of the Sox but it is what it is.


Bob

Ol' No. 2
01-13-2005, 12:31 PM
The Sox were bought in 82? for about 10-20 million. Sorry to young to recall the exact figures. If sold today they could probally fetch 150-200 million easily. That isn't 5% ROI.The 5% is the profit returned, not the appreciation. The Sox were bought for $20M. Their current value works out to about a 10% per year appreciation. If you had invested the same amount in a Dow Jones Index Fund at the same time, you would have been slightly better off with less risk.

Steelrod
01-13-2005, 12:38 PM
I don't see it as much of a difference. Money today is worth more than the same amount of money 5 years from now. I haven't catalogued how many players who have turned down Sox contract offers solely because of what the Sox wanted to defer, but that was widely reported as an issue in the Colon and Ordonez negotiations, and was an issue with Thomas' "diminished skills" contract.

I really don't understand the problem with deferred contracts. It seems to me that I would WANT deferred money paid to me after my career was over, when the tax bite would be less than when I was making a big league salary. Not to mention an ongoing income after career is over!
M.O.P.

anewman35
01-13-2005, 12:42 PM
Why do I feel the Sox are making a lot of money? The best examples I can give are what was stated so nicely by the Sun - Times Greg Couch in his column from December 23, 2004. "The Sox have 2 million fans, an unbelievable stadium deal, a great radio deal, ownership in a TV station, a city full of corporate sponsorship possibilities, and an immensely successful and savvy owner in Reinsdorf."

You're right, those factors probably add up to a LOT of money. But, without studying every number in depth, there's no way to know if that's $60 million or $80 million or $100 million or whatever. The arguement that "they must be making a lot of money!" is silly - of course they are making a lot of money. They are spending a lot, too. And unless a person has all the books, they have no way to tell what the net is.

Steelrod
01-13-2005, 12:46 PM
That's the point. It's not that players refuse to take the Sox deferred money but take the Angels (or whoever's) deferred money, it's that they take the deal with the largest total dollar value including deferrals. Not because they don't trust the Sox or any such BS.

Colon got more money and more years. Maggs wanted the same (my interpretation based on reports of the various offers they made him). Frank signed his deal and then didn't like the terms because Giambi cheated him out of his MVP. Again - it's not like the Sox are a)deferring significantly more money than others, or b)that players say "I won't take the Sox $5 deferral, but I will take the Angels $5 deferral".
Maggs got bad advice from Boras, who was not even his agent at the time. He bought into the Boras B.S. and is going to suffer because of it! Much is said about Boras sucesses, BUT LITTLE IS SAID ABOUT HIS FAILURES!!! I guess the players involved get to shoulder that! I always liked Mags and feel sorry for him. I am sure Boras promised him the moon! Hit him where he was most vulnerable, his greed!

Dadawg_77
01-13-2005, 12:51 PM
The 5% is the profit returned, not the appreciation. The Sox were bought for $20M. Their current value works out to about a 10% per year appreciation. If you had invested the same amount in a Dow Jones Index Fund at the same time, you would have been slightly better off with less risk.
Well you said ROI, not margin. Also where did you get your 10%, it is more like 11%. Plus, I think a Major League Franchise has lot less risk then the equity market. Taken into account any profits made and sizable tax benefits, Jr and partners greatly out preformed the equity market by investing in a Major League team.

Ol' No. 2
01-13-2005, 01:05 PM
Well you said ROI, not margin. Also where did you get your 10%, it is more like 11%. Plus, I think a Major League Franchise has lot less risk then the equity market. Taken into account any profits made and sizable tax benefits, Jr and partners greatly out preformed the equity market by investing in a Major League team.It's somewhere between 10-11%, depending on just what you assume is the current value. But the current value is just a guess, anyway. The risk on a single stock might be higher, but if you're comparing it to a broad-based index fund like the DJI or S&P500, the risk of those is pretty low. You can quibble over details, but the point is, by most investment standards, they're not making huge profits and they're not seeing skyrocketing appreciation in value compared with other investments that are available to people with that amount of money to invest. Remember Reinsdorf made his money in real estate. I'm sure from a strictly financial perspective he could have done a lot better putting his money there than in buying 5% of the White Sox.

Lip Man 1
01-13-2005, 01:16 PM
Folks:

It is just as unreasonable to assume the Sox ARE NOT making money as it is to assume that they are.

I just feel it's just as wrong to make post about how they are not making money when you or I don't have the facts.

The question was asked 'prove they are making money...' It's just as fair for me to then ask you 'prove to me they are NOT.'

Bob, I believe there is a thread here at WSI regarding Stern's letter that was printed in the Sun - Times. As I recall reading what was posted I recall seeing the figure 300,000. Perhaps a search will turn it up. I distinctly recall PHG's scathing comments about Stern due to the fact that he stupidly blew a lot of money on a sport that very few Chicagoans even care about...soccer.

And yes I'm referring to Davers story that you feel you debunked although I also recall there was some real questioning of your comments because you didn't include such things as 'parking revenue' and such.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
01-13-2005, 01:19 PM
Folks:

It is just as unreasonable to assume the Sox ARE NOT making money as it is to assume that they are.

I just feel it's just as wrong to make post about how they are not making money when you or I don't have the facts.

The question was asked 'prove they are making money...' It's just as fair for me to then ask you 'prove to me they are NOT.'

Bob, I believe there is a thread here at WSI regarding Stern's letter that was printed in the Sun - Times. As I recall reading what was posted I recall seeing the figure 300,000. Perhaps a search will turn it up. I distinctly recall PHG's scathing comments about Stern due to the fact that he stupidly blew a lot of money on a sport that very few Chicagoans even care about...soccer.

And yes I'm referring to Davers story that you feel you debunked although I also recall there was some real questioning of your comments because you didn't include such things as 'parking revenue' and such.

LipThe best data available is the Forbes' data, and that shows them making relatively small profits. I guarantee if Reinsdorf was interested only in making money he'd keep his money in real estate where he'd be doing a lot better.

AZChiSoxFan
01-13-2005, 01:57 PM
Also where did you get your 10%, it is more like 11%.
Yes, of course, those two numbers are worlds apart.

gosox41
01-13-2005, 02:07 PM
Folks:

It is just as unreasonable to assume the Sox ARE NOT making money as it is to assume that they are.

I just feel it's just as wrong to make post about how they are not making money when you or I don't have the facts.

The question was asked 'prove they are making money...' It's just as fair for me to then ask you 'prove to me they are NOT.'

Bob, I believe there is a thread here at WSI regarding Stern's letter that was printed in the Sun - Times. As I recall reading what was posted I recall seeing the figure 300,000. Perhaps a search will turn it up. I distinctly recall PHG's scathing comments about Stern due to the fact that he stupidly blew a lot of money on a sport that very few Chicagoans even care about...soccer.

And yes I'm referring to Davers story that you feel you debunked although I also recall there was some real questioning of your comments because you didn't include such things as 'parking revenue' and such.

Lip
Lip,

I'll see if I can find the Stern thing. As for my article, it was solely about ticket revenues. I didn't write the title or intro part. Daver wrote about all the revenues. I just loked into ticket revenue because it was the easiest to break down. I learned a couple of important things from my writing experience here.

Here is a sentence from my first paragraph:

I consider myself a numbers guy. So I took the one area that fans can access the most numerical information on and tried to calculate what the White Sox 2003 ticket revenues were. Here is my analysis.

I'm not a journalist like you but that first paragraph sums up what I was going to discuss. Again, I learned a couple of lessons from writing here.

My whole point of the article was to debunk Daver's speculation on ticket revenue. It wasn't too look at everything, just the thing that was easiest to measure.

Here's a link for those who want to read it. Again, I (stupidly) didn't write the title or intro because if I did there'd be a lot less confusion:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2421


As for whether the Sox are making money or not, people can believe what they want. I'll beleive my source who has more access then anyone I've read here. It may not be proof enough to you and that's fine. But what I'm told (in some detail) beats all of the speculation.


Bob

Dadawg_77
01-13-2005, 02:22 PM
Yes, of course, those two numbers are worlds apart.
Over the course of 20, 1% means millions dollars at these vaules.

Iwritecode
01-13-2005, 02:23 PM
The best data available is the Forbes' data, and that shows them making relatively small profits. I guarantee if Reinsdorf was interested only in making money he'd keep his money in real estate where he'd be doing a lot better.

Considering the team was bought for $20 million (IIRC) and JR only has a 5%
share, he only put in about $1 million. That's a drop in the bucket for someone like him.

Sure he probably could have made more if he invested that money elsewhere but I think he looks at the Sox as a hobby and he's enjoying himself to much to sell...

Dadawg_77
01-13-2005, 02:39 PM
Lip,

I'll see if I can find the Stern thing. As for my article, it was solely about ticket revenues. I didn't write the title or intro part. Daver wrote about all the revenues. I just loked into ticket revenue because it was the easiest to break down. I learned a couple of important things from my writing experience here.

Here is a sentence from my first paragraph:

I consider myself a numbers guy. So I took the one area that fans can access the most numerical information on and tried to calculate what the White Sox 2003 ticket revenues were. Here is my analysis.

I'm not a journalist like you but that first paragraph sums up what I was going to discuss. Again, I learned a couple of lessons from writing here.

My whole point of the article was to debunk Daver's speculation on ticket revenue. It wasn't too look at everything, just the thing that was easiest to measure.

Here's a link for those who want to read it. Again, I (stupidly) didn't write the title or intro because if I did there'd be a lot less confusion:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2421


As for whether the Sox are making money or not, people can believe what they want. I'll beleive my source who has more access then anyone I've read here. It may not be proof enough to you and that's fine. But what I'm told (in some detail) beats all of the speculation.


Bob
The Forbes stated Sox broadcasting revenue were about 30 million in 2001 With the new cable station, you can expect broadcasting revenue to go up. So if Sox pull in 45 million in ticket revenue and assume 30 million in broadcasting revenue, you have enough revenue to cover players salaries. So then revenue from boxes, advertising, concession sales and other sources, need to cover overhead of the team and produce the profit. Also in your article you forgot to mention any money given to visiting teams. I think traveling teams get 20% of the gate. So if true the Sox lose 20% of their gate but gain 20% from other teams. Probally comes close to cancelling each other out, something to think about.

The Brewers just sold today for $223 million dollars. So how much do you believe the Sox could be sold for?

FarWestChicago
01-13-2005, 03:07 PM
The Brewers just sold today for $223 million dollars.Really? Lew Wolff is supposed to be getting your beloved A's for about $170M. He's getting a deal if he pulls that off.

Dadawg_77
01-13-2005, 03:34 PM
Really? Lew Wolff is supposed to be getting your beloved A's for about $170M. He's getting a deal if he pulls that off. West don't forget about Miller Park vs Nothing. If the A's had Miller Park, they would be worth a lot more.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1966198

FarWestChicago
01-13-2005, 04:04 PM
West don't forget about Miller Park vs Nothing. If the A's had Miller Park, they would be worth a lot more.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1966198Good point.

gosox41
01-14-2005, 07:56 AM
The Forbes stated Sox broadcasting revenue were about 30 million in 2001 With the new cable station, you can expect broadcasting revenue to go up. So if Sox pull in 45 million in ticket revenue and assume 30 million in broadcasting revenue, you have enough revenue to cover players salaries. So then revenue from boxes, advertising, concession sales and other sources, need to cover overhead of the team and produce the profit. Also in your article you forgot to mention any money given to visiting teams. I think traveling teams get 20% of the gate. So if true the Sox lose 20% of their gate but gain 20% from other teams. Probally comes close to cancelling each other out, something to think about.

The Brewers just sold today for $223 million dollars. So how much do you believe the Sox could be sold for?

That's a tough question. The Sox are in a bigger market then Milwaukee and all the renovations to the Cell should enhance value of the team. I assume more then the Brewers, but have no idea right now how to put a number on it.


Bob

WhiteSoxFan84
01-14-2005, 11:28 AM
The big difference is that Houston was the only other team making a legit offer. Beltran took the best offer even if it included deferred money. He also has some good incentive money available.
Bonuses



MVP — $500,000 (1)

Second MVP — $1 million

Third MVP and all MVPs thereafter — $1.5 million

MVP 2nd through 5th place — $200,000 (4)

All-Star — $100,000 (7)

Most All-Star votes in league — $100,000 (5)

Postseason All-Star or player of the year — $100,000

World Series MVP — $250,000

League championship series MVP — $150,000

Gold Glove — $100,000 (5)

Silver Slugger — $100,000 (6)

Hank Aaron Award — $100,000 (2)

Best available 15-person luxury suite for all home games
In () is how many times I think those bonuses will be reached during his 7 year deal. If I'm right, he will make $3.8 mill in bonuses. Not too shabby.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-14-2005, 11:30 AM
That's a tough question. The Sox are in a bigger market then Milwaukee and all the renovations to the Cell should enhance value of the team. I assume more then the Brewers, but have no idea right now how to put a number on it.


Bob
You're forgetting that the Brewers have one thing we don't have; Miller Park. State of the Art park which seems to be attracting fans just by it's looks.

jabrch
01-17-2005, 06:40 PM
From Rotoworld.com

"$22 million of the $119 million Carlos Beltran is owed under the terms of the deal with his Mets will be deferred and paid from 2012-2019."

Discuss