PDA

View Full Version : Jerry weekend quotes "Sox middle market"


Medford Bobby
01-19-2005, 03:59 PM
:angry: I heard this quote during lengthy interviews with Jerry Reinsdorf over the weekend saying that the Sox have a 95 million dollar payroll for a "middle market team".
I got angry:angry: inferring that a market with 8 to 10 million people would be a middle market area. Then I realized it's a pitch to the union that the Sox may have the biggest payroll in the AL Midwest, but are not a "major market franchise" that can support Yankmee like payrolls..............Now if I got a radio job in the Chicago area I would call that a major market job, but the White Sox who I guess would be a market "above" the Brewers who would have to be considered "small market franchise....." Does this tag bother you??? Are we a stuck forever with this mentality with this current ownership???????:whiner:


2005 White Sox baseball "The Falstaff will taste sweeter this year":gulp:

mjharrison72
01-19-2005, 04:01 PM
:angry: I heard this quote during lengthy interviews with Jerry Reinsdorf over the weekend saying that the Sox have a 95 million dollar payroll for a "middle market team".
I got angry:angry: inferring that a market with 8 to 10 million people would be a middle market area. Then I realized it's a pitch to the union that the Sox may have the biggest payroll in the AL Midwest, but are not a "major market franchise" that can support Yankmee like payrolls..............Now if I got a radio job in the Chicago area I would call that a major market job, but the White Sox who I guess would be a market "above" the Brewers who would have to be considered "small market franchise....." Does this tag bother you??? Are we a stuck forever with this mentality with this current ownership???????:whiner:


2005 White Sox baseball "The Falstaff will taste sweeter this year":gulp:
I'd be thrilled if our payroll were actually $95 million... isn't it closer to $70 million? We coulda got Beltran!

Palehose13
01-19-2005, 04:04 PM
Because of the attendance numbers, I would classify the Sox as "middle market" and it doesn't bother me. It's a big deal when the Sox sell out. I want that to change, and I hope it changes. I also believe that if the Sox were selling out at least half of their home games, JR would increase payroll. I'm sure that I am in the minority with this view, but it would be interesting to do a payroll/attendance correlation.

Hangar18
01-19-2005, 04:07 PM
Jerry Reinsdorf continues to FOOL NOONE but himself. We are a
Large Market. I even asked folks up in Minnesota. 100% said we
were the "large" market. The Census Bureau Statistics as of 2000
says were a "Large Market". Uncle Jerry is Stubborn isnt he?

jabrch
01-19-2005, 04:08 PM
70mm payroll today - and if history is any indicator, KW has room to make some additions as the season progresses. That just doesn't bother me much.

voodoochile
01-19-2005, 04:10 PM
:angry: I heard this quote during lengthy interviews with Jerry Reinsdorf over the weekend saying that the Sox have a 95 million dollar payroll for a "middle market team".
I got angry:angry: inferring that a market with 8 to 10 million people would be a middle market area. Then I realized it's a pitch to the union that the Sox may have the biggest payroll in the AL Midwest, but are not a "major market franchise" that can support Yankmee like payrolls..............Now if I got a radio job in the Chicago area I would call that a major market job, but the White Sox who I guess would be a market "above" the Brewers who would have to be considered "small market franchise....." Does this tag bother you??? Are we a stuck forever with this mentality with this current ownership???????:whiner:


2005 White Sox baseball "The Falstaff will taste sweeter this year":gulp:

Where was this interview? JR claimed the Sox had a 95M payroll?

Something's not jibing here...:?:

mjharrison72
01-19-2005, 04:11 PM
Because of the attendance numbers, I would classify the Sox as "middle market" and it doesn't bother me. It's a big deal when the Sox sell out. I want that to change, and I hope it changes. I also believe that if the Sox were selling out at least half of their home games, JR would increase payroll. I'm sure that I am in the minority with this view, but it would be interesting to do a payroll/attendance correlation.
I assume you're talking about comparing attendance and payroll for all MLB teams, but I would be interested to see figures for the Sox over the last 20 years or so, adjusted for inflation. I bet if they had a higher payroll, they would have an easier time filling the Cell. In theory, though, it's loser talk to call the Sox middle-market or small-market just because they share it with the Kubs. It's the mentality of our owner that makes it so.

Palehose13
01-19-2005, 04:16 PM
I assume you're talking about comparing attendance and payroll for all MLB teams, but I would be interested to see figures for the Sox over the last 20 years or so, adjusted for inflation. I bet if they had a higher payroll, they would have an easier time filling the Cell. In theory, though, it's loser talk to call the Sox middle-market or small-market just because they share it with the Kubs. It's the mentality of our owner that makes it so.

I did a quick investigation. In 2004 the Sox ranked 17th in attendance, 15th in payroll. 2003 18th in attendance, 17th in payroll. 2002 23rd in attendance, 19th in payroll, and 2001 22nd in attendance and 16th in payroll.

I don't know if a higher payroll wil necessarily draw more fans. I think winning will, and winning does not necessarily mean higher payroll.

Rocky Soprano
01-19-2005, 04:16 PM
Jerry Reinsdorf continues to FOOL NOONE but himself. We are a
Large Market. I even asked folks up in Minnesota. 100% said we
were the "large" market. The Census Bureau Statistics as of 2000
says were a "Large Market". Uncle Jerry is Stubborn isnt he?

The city is a large market, doesnt mean the Sox are getting Large Market type revenue.

I agree if the Sox were selling out more home games, Im sure the payroll would be higher. I dont blame it on fans but its hard to compare us to the Yankees, Red Sox, and the Flubs when we dont draw as many fans as them.

Once we do and they still dont raise payroll then complain.

voodoochile
01-19-2005, 04:18 PM
The city is a large market, doesnt mean the Sox are getting Large Market type revenue.

I agree if the Sox were selling out more home games, Im sure the payroll would be higher. I dont blame it on fans but its hard to compare us to the Yankees, Red Sox, and the Flubs when we dont draw as many fans as them.

Once we do and they still dont raise payroll then complain.

They're getting large market media money for sure...

34 Inch Stick
01-19-2005, 04:18 PM
70 million to players

1 million to front office

24 million to shareholders

See, the Sox do have a 95 million dollar payroll.

kittle42
01-19-2005, 04:18 PM
Where was this interview? JR claimed the Sox had a 95M payroll?

Something's not jibing here...:?:

Perhaps he meant that their 70 mil payroll (as a mid-size market team) is akin to a 95 million payroll for a major market team.

Rocky Soprano
01-19-2005, 04:22 PM
They're getting large market media money for sure...

Well that might be true nonetheless we dont get as much revenue as the team up north and other "large market" teams.

Now again I dont blame the fans, if the team won Im sure the fans would show up and thats how it should be. Why show up to watch losing baseball.

Maybe if the team spent more money and they won then the fans would show up which would raise their revenue. Obviously the dont take that risk.

But just because we are in Chicago doesnt mean the Sox automatically should have a 95 MM payroll.

DumpJerry
01-19-2005, 04:25 PM
Big market, middle market, small market, supermarket, I don't care. The only thing that matters is winning. Really. Size does not mean a thing, winning gets you in the World Series. Winning gets you respect. Winning gives you that great feeling. Winning shuts up Cub fans.

The Flubs, BTW, act like a small town team by blowing up "cursed" baseballs, whining about dead goats and dancing to disco at the games.

Rocky Soprano
01-19-2005, 04:26 PM
Big market, middle market, small market, supermarket, I don't care. The only thing that matters is winning. Really. Size does not mean a thing, winning gets you in the World Series. Winning gets you respect. Winning gives you that great feeling. Winning shuts up Cub fans.

The Flubs, BTW, act like a small town team by blowing up "cursed" baseballs, whining about dead goats and dancing to disco at the games.

Amen! :bandance: Great post.

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 04:32 PM
This thread is as predictable as the sunrise. Does anyone seriously believe that if the Sox were the only team in town they'd be struggling to crack 2M in attendance? GMAB Tickets would be 25% more expensive and they'd sell out every game. Instead of removing seats they'd be trying to figure out how to shoehorn more in.

voodoochile
01-19-2005, 04:35 PM
This thread is as predictable as the sunrise. Does anyone seriously believe that if the Sox were the only team in town they'd be struggling to crack 2M in attendance? GMAB Tickets would be 25% more expensive and they'd sell out every game. Instead of removing seats they'd be trying to figure out how to shoehorn more in.

They shouldn't be struggling now. Even if you accept the fact that they only get to call 1/2 of the city theirs, it's still 1.5M inside the city limits and over 3.5M metro. That's before you factor in NE Indiana or other decent sized citys within a short drive of Chicago.

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 04:38 PM
They shouldn't be struggling now. Even if you accept the fact that they only get to call 1/2 of the city theirs, it's still 1.5M inside the city limits and over 3.5M metro. That's before you factor in NE Indiana or other decent sized citys within a short drive of Chicago.We've been here before. Half of the Chicago market is about the same size as Houston or Toronto. No $100M payrolls there.

mjharrison72
01-19-2005, 04:40 PM
I did a quick investigation. In 2004 the Sox ranked 17th in attendance, 15th in payroll. 2003 18th in attendance, 17th in payroll. 2002 23rd in attendance, 19th in payroll, and 2001 22nd in attendance and 16th in payroll.

I don't know if a higher payroll wil necessarily draw more fans. I think winning will, and winning does not necessarily mean higher payroll.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. And the last thing I want management to do is bring in a big name and overpaying him just because he will be a fan draw. But at the same time, it's like everything else... you gotta spend money to make money.

infohawk
01-19-2005, 04:50 PM
Where was this interview? JR claimed the Sox had a 95M payroll?

Something's not jibing here...:?:

It sounds like he is setting up three tiers of teams, large market, mid-market and small market. He is then placing the White Sox in the mid-market tier, but claiming that our $70-75 million payroll is at the upper end of mid-market. In his estimation, our beginning 2005 payroll is therefore equivilent to a $95 million payroll for a large market team. It's a "we're pretty good for what we are" argument.

Whether one accepts the premises of such a comparison or not, a very good team can be constructed within the parameters of our budget. A team like the Sox simply cannot make and overcome personnel/contractual mistakes like some of the higher payroll teams can. For example, when the Yankees traded for Loaiza and he wasn't pitching well for them in the rotation, they just threw him in the bullpen and went on to win the A.L. Pennant anyway. If the Sox traded/signed a starter and the starter performed poorly, the Sox are probably done. A Loaiza-type trade is somewhat of a luxury for the Yankees, but a critical move for the Sox. More money essentially gives you more room for error.

I mean, can you imagine what it would do to the Sox if Freddy Garcia suddenly became a very mediocre pitcher into the 2005 season? The Sox would be stuck with his poor performance, and what was essentially a good contract for a pitcher of Garcia's talent could suddenly become an albatross that would prohibit the Sox from making other moves to improve the team at the trade deadline. If it were to happen with the Yankees, Steinbrenner would just dig deeper yet to come up with the money to get whatever the Yankees would need to replace the underperforming player.

C-Dawg
01-19-2005, 04:58 PM
The Flubs, BTW, act like a small town team by blowing up "cursed" baseballs, whining about dead goats and dancing to disco at the games.

Unfortunately, they also draw a large number of tourists who come just to see the "architecturally significant" Wrigley Field, and they are currently attracting a lot of bandwagon-jumpers who are just caught up in the hype that is everything Cubbie blue.

At the present time the Sox aren't attracting either group, and the difference is measured at the box office.

eshunn2001
01-19-2005, 05:27 PM
Well that might be true nonetheless we dont get as much revenue as the team up north and other "large market" teams.

Now again I dont blame the fans, if the team won Im sure the fans would show up and thats how it should be. Why show up to watch losing baseball.

Maybe if the team spent more money and they won then the fans would show up which would raise their revenue. Obviously the dont take that risk.

But just because we are in Chicago doesnt mean the Sox automatically should have a 95 MM payroll.

I agree with you whole post............... EXCEPT.
"Now again I dont blame the fans, if the team won Im sure the fans would show up and thats how it should be. Why show up to watch losing baseball."

We are not on the west coast but Sox fans seem to be just as fair weather as West coast fans are. Sad but true. The Sox could go 2-160 or 160-2 And I would go to just as many games no matter what. And Some fans feel the same way I do, but not nearly enough.

TornLabrum
01-19-2005, 05:59 PM
Of course as recently as 1993, the Sox were drawing over 2.5 million. Uncle Jer wasn't calling the Sox a middle market team then. Of course he then led the fight to bust the MLBPA. Sp what Uncle Jer isn't telling you is that fan resentment of this and other actions by him made the Sox a middle market team.

Lip Man 1
01-19-2005, 06:18 PM
Palehose 13 says: "I think winning will, and winning does not necessarily mean higher payroll."

Nothing is guaranteed except death, taxes and the Cubs not making a World Series, but spending large amounts of money sure as hell helps.

Six of the top ten spending teams made the playoffs just last season.

Do I need to break out yet again, Bud Selig's numbers from May 2002?

Lip

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 06:22 PM
Palehose 13 says: "I think winning will, and winning does not necessarily mean higher payroll."

Nothing is guaranteed except death, taxes and the Cubs not making a World Series, but spending large amounts of money sure as hell helps.

Six of the top ten spending teams made the playoffs just last season.

Do I need to break out yet again, Bud Selig's numbers from May 2002?

LipTell me something, Lip. I don't think you'd believe Bud Selig if he said the earth was round. So why do you keep wanting to trot out Buddy's bogus congressional testimony figures?

GiveMeSox
01-19-2005, 06:22 PM
Jerry Reinsdorf continues to FOOL NOONE but himself. We are a
Large Market. I even asked folks up in Minnesota. 100% said we
were the "large" market. The Census Bureau Statistics as of 2000
says were a "Large Market". Uncle Jerry is Stubborn isnt he?

Hangar there is another side to your statement. Yes the census states there are about 8 mil people in the metro area, 3.5 in the city alone. However no one ever condiered the cubs a major market team until the last few years. The ability to draw a crowd does not make you a major market unless you spend major market like. Now that the cubs are both drawing and winning and thus spending on the open market they are now a big market team. The cubs have outdrawn the sox since 1992 to present, sometimes drawing 2.5 mil fans, like in 2002 when they lost 95 games. But the cubs were not large market players until say the last 3-5 years, and no one considered them to be either. Look at STL for example that city has got maybe 2.5 mil people metro, probably less than 1 mil in the city. They are able to draw good crowds and consistent 2 mil + attendance, and they inturn spend on the open market and are always a player. It doens't matter how many people are in the area, it matters how many of them buy tickets and follow your team, almost like a popularity contest.

SoxFan48
01-19-2005, 06:27 PM
MLB when figuring payroll costs adds a 30% benefit factor (yes, those rich pensions have to be paid somewhere) to the base salary. These figures are used for both revenue sharing and the luxury tax.

Thus a 70 million salary payout is a payroll of $91 million as caclucated by Major League Baseball.

Nick@Nite
01-19-2005, 06:33 PM
I did a quick investigation. In 2004 the Sox ranked 17th in attendance, 15th in payroll. 2003 18th in attendance, 17th in payroll. 2002 23rd in attendance, 19th in payroll, and 2001 22nd in attendance and 16th in payroll.


Thanks for the info, Ph13...

... does the above info say that JR has figured out a way of spending just enough payroll to match attendance? Does that sound plausible?

Too me, yes and yes.

Lip Man 1
01-19-2005, 06:37 PM
Ol No. 2:

I referring to this quote...nothing 'bogus' about it. Check for yourself who won and who lost playoff games in this time period and how much they were spending.

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 in favor of the high payroll teams"

This comment by the way was not made before congress. For every Twins or Marlins team that claims a playoff spot, I can show you ten claimed by teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Indians (from the 90's), Cardinals and Angels.

Co-incidence?

I think not.

Lip

JoseCanseco6969
01-19-2005, 07:25 PM
For example, when the Yankees traded for Loaiza and he wasn't pitching well for them in the rotation, they just threw him in the bullpen and went on to win the A.L. Pennant anyway.

I dont mean to be a nitpicker, but last time i checked, the Red Sox won the pennant this past season. I may be wrong though.

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 08:40 PM
Ol No. 2:

I referring to this quote...nothing 'bogus' about it. Check for yourself who won and who lost playoff games in this time period and how much they were spending.

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 in favor of the high payroll teams"

This comment by the way was not made before congress. For every Twins or Marlins team that claims a playoff spot, I can show you ten claimed by teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Indians (from the 90's), Cardinals and Angels.

Co-incidence?

I think not.

LipThe insidious part about lying with statistics is that the statement is strictly true, but is used to imply something else that is not. Here's what's bogus about it. He says that the overwhelming number of playoff games were won by teams in the top half of the payroll. Strictly interpreted, his statement does not mean that the #1 payroll team had any greater success in winning games than the #15 team. And strictly interpreted, it does not say that the #15 team would enjoy any greater success by increasing payroll. Of course, it's meant to IMPLY that high payroll teams are winning all the games, but that's not what it says. A skeptic might ask, if that's true, then why does he not quote the statistics to prove it rather than trying to imply it in a roundabout way?

infohawk
01-19-2005, 09:53 PM
I dont mean to be a nitpicker, but last time i checked, the Red Sox won the pennant this past season. I may be wrong though.



Oooops! I meant to say played in the pennant series. I guess I'm so used to the Yankees seemingly winning the pennant every year that I erred. :redface: But then again, the Red Sox couldn't have won the pennant or World Series because of that curse.

OG4LIFE
01-19-2005, 10:19 PM
It sounds like he is setting up three tiers of teams, large market, mid-market and small market. He is then placing the White Sox in the mid-market tier, but claiming that our $70-75 million payroll is at the upper end of mid-market. In his estimation, our beginning 2005 payroll is therefore equivilent to a $95 million payroll for a large market team. It's a "we're pretty good for what we are" argument.

Whether one accepts the premises of such a comparison or not, a very good team can be constructed within the parameters of our budget. A team like the Sox simply cannot make and overcome personnel/contractual mistakes like some of the higher payroll teams can. For example, when the Yankees traded for Loaiza and he wasn't pitching well for them in the rotation, they just threw him in the bullpen and went on to win the A.L. Pennant anyway. If the Sox traded/signed a starter and the starter performed poorly, the Sox are probably done. A Loaiza-type trade is somewhat of a luxury for the Yankees, but a critical move for the Sox. More money essentially gives you more room for error.

I mean, can you imagine what it would do to the Sox if Freddy Garcia suddenly became a very mediocre pitcher into the 2005 season? The Sox would be stuck with his poor performance, and what was essentially a good contract for a pitcher of Garcia's talent could suddenly become an albatross that would prohibit the Sox from making other moves to improve the team at the trade deadline. If it were to happen with the Yankees, Steinbrenner would just dig deeper yet to come up with the money to get whatever the Yankees would need to replace the underperforming player.

great, great post. in today's market, teams DO win with a 70mil payroll, and less (see twinkies, A's, and indians will be competitive this year with a small payroll). they are much wiser in the draft, and as we all know players with less than 3 yrs experience make the minimum. A few bad drafts, and 2,3 years down the road you will have to choose between paying big for free agents to fill holes, or accept a rebuilding phase...

i hope our next crop of guys (sweeney, anderson, fields, mccarthy, cotts, adkins) will at least contribute for the next 3 seasons or so... the bad news is, we currently have our OF signed for the at least the next 2 years, so methinks either sweeney and or anderson, or rowand/pods/dye will be moved within the next two years... same goes for fields/crede.

OG4LIFE
01-19-2005, 10:22 PM
Oooops! I meant to say played in the pennant series. I guess I'm so used to the Yankees seemingly winning the pennant every year that I erred. :redface: But then again, the Red Sox couldn't have won the pennant or World Series because of that curse.

:tealpolice:

Medford Bobby
01-20-2005, 09:24 PM
:o: I now remember where this quote is from. I taped the Sunday 9:40 WGN sports and Rich King interviewed Jerry. So if you taped it thats where you'll find the "middle market" quote. I listen Sunday also to the WMVP Soxfest activities and they replayed their big Jerry interview as well. Now it's possible I heard the $95 million dollar quote from this replay???!!

Never the less this "middle market" mentality traps this franchise from "acting" like the big market Yankee's. I'd rather see them spend big money on the right people of course, but at least act like your a "major market" player....

"2005 Bridgeport White Sox at Chicago" (ala LA Angels):whiner: