PDA

View Full Version : Hangar, Lip...please don't read. Uncle Jerry says "there will be money for KW."


SoxxoS
03-04-2005, 01:20 PM
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/col_rozner.asp?intid=38415212

Jerry Reinsdorf also told the Score on Thursday that there will be money available to White Sox GM Kenny Williams this summer if the South Siders need to add players down the stretch.

Step away from the ledge.

santo=dorf
03-04-2005, 01:23 PM
They'll probably complain "Why haven't they spent that money now?"

MIgrenade
03-04-2005, 01:24 PM
The problem with this comment is that if they don't spend more money he will be ripped for it.

Jjav829
03-04-2005, 01:25 PM
Well, naturally there will be money to spend during the season because they cut payroll during the offseason, right?

Not really a surprise. Jerry usually allows a certain amount of money for midseason acquisitions.

Kuzman
03-04-2005, 01:31 PM
Say Crede has an upside to the year? Where would we need really need a replacement? Uribe? I guess I should really be asking this question when we actually get to see how the mighty sox are doing this season and see who needs to be gone.

...but.....:bandance: :bandance: :bandance:

Soxzilla
03-04-2005, 01:57 PM
How else would kenny pay for Roberto?

DaleJRFan
03-04-2005, 02:34 PM
I'd wager that Contreras or El Duque will have issues; either with their pitching performance or with their health, which will require KW to make mid-season moves. I hope this not to be the cae nor am I predicting this will happen, rather I'm just sayin'... I'd be thrilled if El Duque throws 185 innings and Contreras can keep his ERA under 5.

In '04, the Sox rotation looked pretty decent with Loaiza, Buerhle, Garland, Schoeneweis, etc and Garcia/Contreras came over in mid-season trades after Loaiza reverted to old form and Schoeneweis went down.

Everyone on this forum has been vocal about their Sox question marks and areas of concern. I could rattle off a few myself... but, it is nice knowing that the Sox are willing to adjust the team and roster if things aren't working out with certain players.

We can bitch, moan and complain about the moves we don't like, or the lack of BIG free agent signings. But give Kenny Williams credit for doing the best he could with what he was given to work with.

The fact still remains that JR can hoot and hollar all spring about the money he has in reserve to backup any necessary moves... but... will he really spend it? Or is it window dressing?

Jabroni
03-04-2005, 02:39 PM
In '04, the Sox rotation looked pretty decent with Loaiza, Buerhle, Garland, Schoeneweis, etc and Garcia/Contreras came over in mid-season trades after Loaiza reverted to old form and Schoeneweis went down.I would disagree. The Sox opening day rotation at the beginning of last season was hardly impressive:

Buehrle
Loaiza
Garland
Schoeneweis
Wright

Of course, we all thought Loaiza was going to be a stud once again but he turned out to be a one-year-wonder. Garland as our #3? Blechhh. Schoeneweis and Wright to finish off our rotation? Double blechhh. This season's opening day rotation blows last year's away:

Buehrle
Garcia
Contreras
El Duque
Garland

Baby Fisk
03-04-2005, 02:42 PM
I would disagree. The Sox opening day rotation at the beginning of last season was hardly impressive:

Buehrle
Loaiza
Garland
Schoeneweis
Wright

Considering how well the Sox did despite starting with that rotation...2005 can only get better.

DaleJRFan
03-04-2005, 02:45 PM
I would disagree. The Sox opening day rotation at the beginning of last season was hardly impressive:

Buehrle
Loaiza
Garland
Schoeneweis
Wright

Of course, we all thought Loaiza was going to be a stud once again but he turned out to be a one-year-wonder. Garland as our #3? Blechhh. Schoeneweis and Wright to finish off our rotation? Double blechhh. This season's opening day rotation blows last year's away:

Buehrle
Garcia
Contreras
El Duque
Garland

Well, I agree in hindsight, but remember Garland's expectations from pre-04, Wright came off of a good year, Loaiza was coming off of a 21 win season. The rotation on paper was pretty good. But I agree with you, it was far less spectacular, once the season started! :mad:

mweflen
03-04-2005, 02:49 PM
money available midseason... perhaps another trade for Robbie is on the back burner? Carl is already here... can we trade for him again?

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 02:55 PM
money available midseason... perhaps another trade for Robbie is on the back burner? Carl is already here... can we trade for him again?We could, but we'd have to trade him away first.

Dan H
03-04-2005, 03:02 PM
If Reinsdorf backs up his words with action, that is fine. But first things first. Let's see if the starting pitching stays healthy and consisitent. Then we can talk about making aggressive moves.

mweflen
03-04-2005, 03:04 PM
We could, but we'd have to trade him away first.

Maybe KW can tack another PTBNL onto last year's Carl trade.

Baby Fisk
03-04-2005, 03:14 PM
:everett:

"Please...please stop..."

Lip Man 1
03-04-2005, 03:24 PM
I think that is great news...in another year or two at the rate the Sox are spending money they'll actually be at the major league average team payroll.

And no that should not be in teal.

It is worth noting that the Sox are now a lot closer to the league average then they were three or four years ago. The organization deserves kudos for realizing this.

Lip

DaleJRFan
03-04-2005, 03:25 PM
:o: wow.

Jabroni
03-04-2005, 03:29 PM
I think that is great news...in another year or two at the rate the Sox are spending money they'll actually be at the major league average team payroll.

And no that should not be in teal.

It is worth noting that the Sox are now a lot closer to the league average then they were three or four years ago. The organization deserves kudos for realizing this.

LipGasbag (and no, that should not be in teal)...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1778397

The Sox were right in the middle of the pack last season and payroll increased this year. :rolleyes:

Flight #24
03-04-2005, 03:35 PM
Gasbag (and no, that should not be in teal)...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1778397

The Sox were right in the middle of the pack last season.

Lip likes to quote misleading stats like "average", which becomes increasingly less meaningful when you have a few significant outliers. But why do anything else when you have a perfectly good way to take potshots at the team?

This data also doesn't factor in that the Sox payroll increased by the end of the year to about $70mil. Neither does it incorporate anything about the corresponding revenue base that they're ultimately paying the payroll out of.

Jabroni
03-04-2005, 03:36 PM
Lip likes to quote misleading stats like "average", which becomes increasingly less meaningful when you have a few significant outliers. But why do anything else when you have a perfectly good way to take potshots at the team?

This data also doesn't factor in that the Sox payroll increased by the end of the year to about $70mil. Neither does it incorporate anything about the corresponding revenue base that they're ultimately paying the payroll out of.It's not like the Yankees and Red Sox screw the curve or anything.

JKryl
03-04-2005, 03:37 PM
If Reinsdorf backs up his words with action, that is fine. But first things first. Let's see if the starting pitching stays healthy and consisitent. Then we can talk about making aggressive moves.

Agreed. It's nice to be optimistic, but to talk about the stretch run is a little like counting your nuts before they're hatched.

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 03:40 PM
It's not like the Yankees and Red Sox screw the curve or anything.I'm glad you guys are handling this one. I'm just getting out of George's doghouse.:(:

Lip Man 1
03-04-2005, 03:44 PM
Jabroni:

The Yanks and Red Sox are still part of MLB aren't they? Last I saw there were six MLB teams around 100 million in payroll last season so you can't just single them out. Even if you wanted to you can't simply take out whomever you wish to support a point. (Must be a new way for stat geeks and fantasy G.M's to figure things out. :?: )

According to The Sporting News print magazine which printed a comparison break down of the four major sports last season, the 'average' MLB team payroll was a shade over 71 million dollars last year. The Sox payroll even given Flight's numbers (by the way Happy Birthday) wasn't 'a shade over 71 million' last year was it?

Last I looked even with the new stat geeks math, 70 million is less then 71 million isn't it?

My comment stands, the Sox are much closer to the average but they are not there yet.

If you have a beef with the payroll numbers direct your comments to The Sporting News.

Lip

anewman35
03-04-2005, 03:44 PM
It's not like the Yankees and Red Sox screw the curve or anything.

Chicago is a bigger city than Boston, so the White Sox should have a HIGHER payroll than the Red Sox!

Jabroni
03-04-2005, 03:50 PM
Jabroni:

The Yanks and Red Sox are still part of MLB aren't they? Last I saw there were six MLB teams around 100 million in payroll last season so you can't just single them out. Even if you wanted to you can't simply take out whomever you wish to support a point. (Must be a new way for stat geeks and fantasy G.M's to figure things out. :?: )

According to The Sporting News print magazine which printed a comparison break down of the four major sports last season, the 'average' MLB team payroll was a shade over 71 million dollars last year. The Sox payroll even given Flight's numbers (by the way Happy Birthday) wasn't 'a shade over 71 million' last year was it?

Last I looked even with the new stat geeks math, 70 million is less then 71 million isn't it?

My comment stands, the Sox are much closer to the average but they are not there yet.

If you have a beef with the payroll numbers direct your comments to The Sporting News.

LipIf you don't think that the Yankees' payroll (which no other team is even CLOSE to) completely skews the MLB average payroll, you're nuts. Also, are you forgetting about how attendance factors into payroll? Maybe if you flew in from Chubbuck, Idaho and came to see a Sox game instead of taking pot-shots at Reinsdorf and company all day long, you would help attendance and thus, payroll would increase.

anewman35
03-04-2005, 03:52 PM
Also, are you forgetting about how attendance factors into payroll? Maybe if you flew in from Chubbuck, Idaho and came to see a Sox game instead of taking pot-shots at Reinsdorf and company all day long, you would help attendance and therefore payroll would increase.

Reinsdorf should be willing to spend $100 million NOW, and then the fans will come and he'll make it back. And, if something goes wrong, and the fans don't come, it's ok, because he's really rich, and he should be willing to go tens of millions of dollars into debt just to make ungrateful people here happy.

Lip Man 1
03-04-2005, 03:55 PM
Jabroni:

As No. 2 stated, I'll let you discuss this with PHG. He shot down that 'arguement' pretty quickly and completely.

Please feel free to return to your stats, Bill James' books, and very cute graphics 'pleading' with the Sox to sign whomever your favorite player of the day is at anytime.

:smile:

Lip

Flight #24
03-04-2005, 03:57 PM
Jabroni:

The Yanks and Red Sox are still part of MLB aren't they? Last I saw there were six MLB teams around 100 million in payroll last season so you can't just single them out. Even if you wanted to you can't simply take out whomever you wish to support a point. (Must be a new way for stat geeks and fantasy G.M's to figure things out. :?: )

According to The Sporting News print magazine which printed a comparison break down of the four major sports last season, the 'average' MLB team payroll was a shade over 71 million dollars last year. The Sox payroll even given Flight's numbers (by the way Happy Birthday) wasn't 'a shade over 71 million' last year was it?

Last I looked even with the new stat geeks math, 70 million is less then 71 million isn't it?

My comment stands, the Sox are much closer to the average but they are not there yet.

If you have a beef with the payroll numbers direct your comments to The Sporting News.

Lip

Thanks!:cool:

Back on point, you are, of course technically correct that the Sox payroll is less than average. But if you're trying to use that to imply that the Sox have a payroll that's in the bottom half of MLB teams, you're flat wrong.

As has been stated before, average is inherently skewed by outliers like the Yankees having a payroll that is approximately 150% as large as the next highest team. If you're trying to make a comparison of a single datapoint to a group with an outlier or 2, a much better statistical tool is median, i.e. the point at which 50% of the group is above and 50% below. That generally better reflects what people are usually trying to say when they use "average".

FWIW - Median 2004 MLB payroll was $62.2mil, a number the Sox easily beat.

PS: If you're acknowledging that while the average payroll is skewed by the Yanks such that the Sox can be in the top half and still be below average, then I'd agree with you.....but I'm guessing that wasn't your point.:smile:

Hangar18
03-04-2005, 03:59 PM
This data also doesn't factor in that the Sox payroll increased by the end of the year to about $70mil.

An increase from $68 Million to $70 Million isnt all that much of an increase.
Granted, it is an increase, and its NOT a Decrease sure i'll take it.
HOWEVER, lets not get fooled here. Certain players were due Bigtime
Raises, and had a Magglio Ordonez and Carlos Lee still been on this team,
the payroll wouldve been in the $90 Million range or so .......IIRC.

This team got rid of those 2 $$$$$$$$$$ players, and used the money
to get cheaper players, and it worked out that these new players
all filled holes on the team (Holes which the SOX themselves created ironically)

So ......... did the SOX really increase payroll? thats an Ideological
discussion at best. For now, I'll take what we've got ........
Lets see what happens April 4th.

Jabroni
03-04-2005, 04:03 PM
Jabroni:

As No. 2 stated, I'll let you discuss this with PHG. He shot down that 'arguement' pretty quickly and completely.

Please feel free to return to your stats, Bill James' books, and very cute graphics 'pleading' with the Sox to sign whomever your favorite player of the day is at anytime.

:smile:

LipI am far from a stat-head. In fact, I despise them.

Once again, if you want the Sox payroll to increase why don't you go to a Sox game and help attendance instead of taking pot-shots at Reinsdorf and company from Chubbuck, Idaho. When attendance increases, payroll increases. Wow, what a concept!

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 04:05 PM
Jabroni:

The Yanks and Red Sox are still part of MLB aren't they? Last I saw there were six MLB teams around 100 million in payroll last season so you can't just single them out. Even if you wanted to you can't simply take out whomever you wish to support a point. (Must be a new way for stat geeks and fantasy G.M's to figure things out. :?: )

According to The Sporting News print magazine which printed a comparison break down of the four major sports last season, the 'average' MLB team payroll was a shade over 71 million dollars last year. The Sox payroll even given Flight's numbers (by the way Happy Birthday) wasn't 'a shade over 71 million' last year was it?

Last I looked even with the new stat geeks math, 70 million is less then 71 million isn't it?

My comment stands, the Sox are much closer to the average but they are not there yet.

If you have a beef with the payroll numbers direct your comments to The Sporting News.

Lip**biting tongue till it's bloody**

Actually, the MEDIAN opening day payroll was $62.2M. The MEAN was $68.5M. The Sox opening day payroll was $65.2M, which puts them below the MEAN but above the MEDIAN (actually, they were 14th). These numbers are from AP.

Hangar18
03-04-2005, 04:07 PM
Agreed. It's nice to be optimistic, but to talk about the stretch run is a little like counting your nuts before they're hatched.


Great POINT! this sums up the thread quite nicely. Sure, its nice to hear
him say that he'll spend the Money if we need it in August and September,
but that statement isnt much different from his infamous "Come to the park and I'll spend money" statement of a couple years ago now is it?

If the Sox are good this year, he will spend $$$$$$.
If the Sox arent good this year, (note how he doesnt DEFINE what "need" is)
he wont spend the money is all he said. I'll believe it when I see it.

Uncle Jerry got my money by signing Iguchi, because that filled most
of our holes .........

TommyJohn
03-04-2005, 04:08 PM
**biting tongue till it's bloody**


Yeeee-owch.

FightingBillini
03-04-2005, 04:08 PM
An increase from $68 Million to $70 Million isnt all that much of an increase.
Granted, it is an increase, and its NOT a Decrease sure i'll take it.
HOWEVER, lets not get fooled here. Certain players were due Bigtime
Raises, and had a Magglio Ordonez and Carlos Lee still been on this team,
the payroll wouldve been in the $90 Million range or so .......IIRC.

This team got rid of those 2 $$$$$$$$$$ players, and used the money
to get cheaper players, and it worked out that these new players
all filled holes on the team (Holes which the SOX themselves created ironically)

So ......... did the SOX really increase payroll? thats an Ideological
discussion at best. For now, I'll take what we've got ........
Lets see what happens April 4th.

Payroll for opening day 2004 was $63 million, not $68. It went up to $68 when they acquired Everett and Contreras. Yes, payroll was increased, because they "projected" payroll we heard about during the offseason was were it ended last year- $68mil. The Sox got to that number after they signed El Duque, and then they increased payroll by adding AJ and Iguchi. We may not be the biggest spenders, but we did increase payroll $10mil from last year. if we take on $5mil in July, and $5mil more in the offseason, will you still find some way to say payroll didnt really go up?

Hangar18
03-04-2005, 04:12 PM
Payroll for opening day 2004 was $63 million, not $68. It went up to $68 when they acquired Everett and Contreras. Yes, payroll was increased, because they "projected" payroll we heard about during the offseason was were it ended last year- $68mil. The Sox got to that number after they signed El Duque, and then they increased payroll by adding AJ and Iguchi. We may not be the biggest spenders, but we did increase payroll $10mil from last year. if we take on $5mil in July, and $5mil more in the offseason, will you still find some way to say payroll didnt really go up?

thanks for pointing this out. NO, I will not say Payroll "didnt" go up
if they add $5Million more midseason (which is really 2.5 million, half a season)
I'll freely acknowledge this. My point is, if we kept Maggs and Carlos,
our Payroll wouldve SOARED higher than it is now. The SOX payroll
would NOT have stayed at 90Million. there wouldve been a firesale
to get it back to 70million .......

FightingBillini
03-04-2005, 04:15 PM
Great POINT! this sums up the thread quite nicely. Sure, its nice to hear
him say that he'll spend the Money if we need it in August and September,
but that statement isnt much different from his infamous "Come to the park and I'll spend money" statement of a couple years ago now is it?

Ok, Hangar, I will take your bait. Who should the Sox have signed this offseason? Who could they have realistically spent money on that would improve the team much more than a possible big hitting 3B or a stud reliever they could acquire in July? Which free agents should the Sox have signed? Would you rather have had Jeff Kent than Iguchi? Cory Koskie to replace Crede? Matt Clement instead of El Duque? Who could they have signed of the available free agents for a few mil more that would greatly improve the team?

I am probably just blowing smoke. Nobody good will be available in July. If they were any good, their teams would win more.

Jabroni
03-04-2005, 04:16 PM
thanks for pointing this out. NO, I will not say Payroll "didnt" go up
if they add $5Million more midseason (which is really 2.5 million, half a season)
I'll freely acknowledge this. My point is, if we kept Maggs and Carlos,
our Payroll wouldve SOARED higher than it is now. The SOX payroll
would NOT have stayed at 90Million. there wouldve been a firesale
to get it back to 70million .......But at least you realize that when you buy tickets, payroll will have a chance to increase. I don't think Lip realizes this.

Unfortunately, it's alot easier to sit on the sidelines, not support the Sox, and still rip Reinsdorf and Co.

FightingBillini
03-04-2005, 04:18 PM
thanks for pointing this out. NO, I will not say Payroll "didnt" go up
if they add $5Million more midseason (which is really 2.5 million, half a season)
I'll freely acknowledge this. My point is, if we kept Maggs and Carlos,
our Payroll wouldve SOARED higher than it is now. The SOX payroll
would NOT have stayed at 90Million. there wouldve been a firesale
to get it back to 70million .......

If they ad $5mil more at midseason, its $5mil more, not $2.5mil. It would be $10mil more if they added it in the offseason, but They ended up paying $5mil for the rest of the year of Everett and Contreras.

FightingBillini
03-04-2005, 04:18 PM
Unfortunately, it's alot easier to sit on the sidelines, not support the Sox, and still rip Reinsdorf and Co.

And fun, too!

WikdChiSoxFan
03-04-2005, 04:29 PM
After the Xmas gift I got from Uncle Jerry, i didn't think he would have anything left for the team...(hand delivered by Hanger, apparently Jerry didn't want to spend any money on stamps)


On a slightly more serious note...cool beans...but I'm not gonna cream my jeans until it happens...in fact, as i type this sentence, he's probably just jerkin us around...sell more tickets, create more hype.

voodoochile
03-04-2005, 04:50 PM
Back to the start of this thread...

WOOHOO!

Money is available to improve the team...:supernana::)

thepaulbowski
03-04-2005, 04:55 PM
Back to the start of this thread...

WOOHOO!

Money is available to improve the team...:supernana::)

Amen to that. :bandance:

steff
03-04-2005, 05:11 PM
thanks for pointing this out. NO, I will not say Payroll "didnt" go up
if they add $5Million more midseason (which is really 2.5 million, half a season)
I'll freely acknowledge this. My point is, if we kept Maggs and Carlos,
our Payroll wouldve SOARED higher than it is now. The SOX payroll
would NOT have stayed at 90Million. there wouldve been a firesale
to get it back to 70million .......


Why wouldn't you say that.. you've been consistantly saying that - even though it's been bull**** - for the past 4 years.

If they add $5 million.. it's $5 million. You expect players to play for half..??

"there would have been a firesale".. :cleo :rolleyes:




This should be your sig rather than the jersey.

:whoflungpoo

And a few of these for good measure.. :whiner: :whiner:

Mohoney
03-04-2005, 05:15 PM
Say Crede has an upside to the year? Where would we need really need a replacement?

:jon

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 05:18 PM
If they add $5 million.. it's $5 million. You expect players to play for half..?? I think what he meant was that if you add a player in the middle of the season you're only paying him for half the season. The previous team has already paid the other half. In fact, the trading deadline is closer to 2/3 of the way through the season.

Jabroni
03-04-2005, 05:21 PM
I think what he meant was that if you add a player in the middle of the season you're only paying him for half the season. The previous team has already paid the other half. In fact, the trading deadline is closer to 2/3 of the way through the season.That's the way I read it as well.

Lip Man 1
03-04-2005, 07:02 PM
A few points:

Flight...I am not saying nor implying that the Sox are in the 'bottom half' of payroll. They are closer to the middle then to the bottom. I'm just saying that they are still below the 'average.'

Jabroni:

Here's my address...4641 Tahoe Place, Chubbuck, Idaho 83202. You send me a check for airfair from Pocatello to Chicago via Salt Lake City (the part from Pocatello to Salt Lake is what drives up the cost) and I'll be more then happy to come home, visit my mom and sister and take in a game. Unlike you seem to be, I'm not made of money. I'm simply a poor reporter for the AP and the Idaho State Journal.

Oh by the way the Angels payroll last year was about 110 million, better take them out of your equation, they skew it...LOL

I guess I don't understand people. Some of you complain that yours truly, Hangar, Cub Killer and others rip on good ol' Uncle Jerry to much. Yet when I try to give an honest compliment to the organization, it still isn't good enough.

Consider the lesson learned. I promise you I won't repeat the mistake. You obviously can't please some folks and no good deed ever goes unpunished.

Lip

BridgePortNative
03-04-2005, 07:16 PM
The payroll now is about 72 - 75 million dollars. Thats a lot better than "average"

Lip Man 1
03-04-2005, 07:20 PM
Bridge:

Based on last year's 71 million average payroll (again according to The Sporting News) yes the Sox are ahead of the game.

But who knows what the average will be for 2005. We won't know until the figures come out after this year.

You are comparing this year's payroll to last year's figures.

Lip

Jabroni
03-04-2005, 07:20 PM
I guess I don't understand people. Some of you complain that yours truly, Hangar, Cub Killer and others rip on good ol' Uncle Jerry to much. Yet when I try to give an honest compliment to the organization, it still isn't good enough.

Consider the lesson learned. I promise you I won't repeat the mistake. You obviously can't please some folks and no good deed ever goes unpunished.

LipDo you think anyone really gives a crap about your opinion? :rolleyes:

Lip Man 1
03-04-2005, 07:22 PM
The same comment can be applied to your opinion couldn't it?

By the way when can I expect the check?

Lip

Jabroni
03-04-2005, 07:24 PM
The same comment can be applied to your opinion couldn't it?

By the way when can I expect the check?

LipIndeed, but you're the one acting like your opinion is so valued here.

Do you think I would actually want to run into a troll like you at the Cell? You would probably bring an "I HATE REINSDORF" sign to the game. Keep in mind that I'm not made of money either but I did purchase a Minnie Plan. I damn sure wouldn't cry about the Sox payroll when I'm not even contributing to them by going to games.

voodoochile
03-04-2005, 07:29 PM
How come no one ever wants to take out the statistical outliers on the low end of the payroll spectrum?

Accroding to this site (http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_dugoutdollars_archive.html) there are more teams with payrolls less than 50% of league average than there are with payrolls 100% higher than league average for the 2004 season.

Yes, I realize that doesn't average out to average, but if we are going to get in an argument about outliers, we need to drop both the highest and the lowest. Based on those numbers, the average is $76.93M. This is actually, not a bad way to look at things as the lowest team is over 10% below the next lowest and the Yankees are 50% higher than the second place team.

For all 30 teams, the Sox rank 17th out of 30 this season and the average payroll is $79.93M.

I'm not going to comment further, because I am not going to get worked up about this issue, but if you simply HAVE to manipulate the data, at least TRY to be fair about it.

MRKARNO
03-04-2005, 07:29 PM
Well I think this comment is in line with the MO that the White Sox have been employing since 2003. Actually in 2003 they got the other teams to pay for the players received, but in 2004 we added Contreras, Everett and Garcia in the middle of the year while only giving up Loaiza's 4 million dollar contract (in terms of money). I think Jerry Reinsdorf now prefers the following approach: Spend enough to account for the payroll if attendence is at about 1.8 million and the White Sox are playing .500 ball, but if they start to win and attendence shoots up to 2 million+, then it's worth it to add players because more money is coming in. He is really trying to put all of the money he can back into the ballclub at this point and if more fans come out to the games, then the mid-season additions will reflect that.

Lip Man 1
03-04-2005, 07:30 PM
Jabroni:

Never said that it did mean more then anyone else's. I can't control what you infer... all I can do is to try to make some contributions to the web site. Contributions that require a little more work then five minutes at a time on a message board.

What exactly is a troll by the way? Someone who disagrees with your opinion? Someone who looks at the world realistically? Just wondering...like I said if I cause you that much consternation then by all means place me on your ignore list.

Is the check in the mail yet? :smile:

Lip

Lip Man 1
03-04-2005, 07:32 PM
Voodoo:

That seems a very reasonable way to look at the situation. Does that mean the Sox payroll under your system is actually farther away from the average then the way TSN was figuring? (i.e. 71 million is average, the Sox at 70, a million difference)

Lip

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 08:38 PM
How come no one ever wants to take out the statistical outliers on the low end of the payroll spectrum?

Accroding to this site (http://dugoutdollars.blogspot.com/2003_06_08_dugoutdollars_archive.html) there are more teams with payrolls less than 50% of league average than there are with payrolls 100% higher than league average for the 2004 season.

Yes, I realize that doesn't average out to average, but if we are going to get in an argument about outliers, we need to drop both the highest and the lowest. Based on those numbers, the average is $76.93M. This is actually, not a bad way to look at things as the lowest team is over 10% below the next lowest and the Yankees are 50% higher than the second place team.

For all 30 teams, the Sox rank 17th out of 30 this season and the average payroll is $79.93M.

I'm not going to comment further, because I am not going to get worked up about this issue, but if you simply HAVE to manipulate the data, at least TRY to be fair about it.The issue here is not outliers. One can be correct in saying that the Sox 2004 payroll was below the mean. One can also note that they were above the median, and, in fact, ranked 14th out of 30 teams. The difference is caused by the fact that the Yankees' payroll is so high that it skews the distribution so that the mean is significantly higher than the median. These distinctions are the stuff pissing matches are made of.

If one means to make a rational comparison and look at all the data, it's easy to see that there are a large number of teams bunched in the middle, and making a distinction between being slightly above the mean or slightly below the mean is pointless. Is anyone going to argue that a $2M difference in payroll will have any measurable effect on performance?

Lip just likes to polemicise, so he selects the numbers he likes and ignores the rest.

MRKARNO
03-04-2005, 08:42 PM
Seriously, what's the difference between a million here and a million there? The fact is that the White Sox are pretty much squarely in the middle tier of payrolls in terms of where they rank and the comparison of their payroll to the man.

Fake Chet Lemon
03-04-2005, 08:43 PM
The Sox payroll is up this year in great part because of increased revenues from the new Comcast deal and the Scout Seats behind home plate. I believe we have been the top spender in the division the last few years, and what did that get us? Even so, we've been on the cheap side overall but trending up. Brooks will help increase revenues as well. If the Sox are close each year by the trading deadline I have confidence that KW will harass Reinsdorf to the point of abuse and to Reinsdorf's credit he will give Kenny another mil or two.

voodoochile
03-04-2005, 09:08 PM
The issue here is not outliers. One can be correct in saying that the Sox 2004 payroll was below the mean. One can also note that they were above the median, and, in fact, ranked 14th out of 30 teams. The difference is caused by the fact that the Yankees' payroll is so high that it skews the distribution so that the mean is significantly higher than the median. These distinctions are the stuff pissing matches are made of.

If one means to make a rational comparison and look at all the data, it's easy to see that there are a large number of teams bunched in the middle, and making a distinction between being slightly above the mean or slightly below the mean is pointless. Is anyone going to argue that a $2M difference in payroll will have any measurable effect on performance?

Lip just likes to polemicise, so he selects the numbers he likes and ignores the rest.

I agree with you about small amounts of money having neglible effect on overall performance.

Just to be picky, I think you meant 2003. For 2004 the Sox stand at 17/30 so they are below the middle for both the mean and the median at present - at least according to that link I posted. I'd have to go back and tear it down team by team to see the actual numbers because that site adds in payroll from contracts that are dead or where guys are owed back end money after they retire or get traded.

Once you knock the Yankees off the block at the top of the stack, the rest of the teams pretty much flow evenly down the ladder or maybe it just looks that way because the Yankees are so far out in front of the pack.

But the Yankees are the ONLY team with a payroll over 100% higher than the mean payroll (with or without calculating them into it).

Still, I am not disappointed with the Sox off-season and barring a HUGE increase in payroll from the current level, I think they spent their money wisely and built the team they wanted.

And again, it is extra nice to hear there is money to make an acquisition should someone falter or should an incredibly outrageous deal fall in the team's lap.

Lip:
No knocking out the high and low brings the middle down to the Sox because the average of those two payrolls is still well above the current mean. The Yankees are increasing the mean team salary by roughly $4M all by themselves as they are $120M ABOVE the current mean with 30 teams.

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 09:20 PM
I agree with you about small amounts of money having neglible effect on overall performance.

Just to be picky, I think you meant 2003. For 2004 the Sox stand at 17/30 so they are below the middle for both the mean and the median at present - at least according to that link I posted. I'd have to go back and tear it down team by team to see the actual numbers because that site adds in payroll from contracts that are dead or where guys are owed back end money after they retire or get traded.

Once you knock the Yankees off the block at the top of the stack, the rest of the teams pretty much flow evenly down the ladder or maybe it just looks that way because the Yankees are so far out in front of the pack.

But the Yankees are the ONLY team with a payroll over 100% higher than the mean payroll (with or without calculating them into it).

Still, I am not disappointed with the Sox off-season and barring a HUGE increase in payroll from the current level, I think they spent their money wisely and built the team they wanted.

And again, it is extra nice to hear there is money to make an acquisition should someone falter or should an incredibly outrageous deal fall in the team's lap.

Lip:
No knocking out the high and low brings the middle down to the Sox because the average of those two payrolls is still well above the current mean. The Yankees are increasing the mean team salary by roughly $4M all by themselves as they are $120M ABOVE the current mean with 30 teams.It depends on which numbers you use. I'm not sure where Sporting news gets their data and when they take it. If it's Sept 1 data it's skewed by late-season acqusitions. There's also the issue of bonuses which further complicates things. There are a number of different sets of payroll numbers you can find - all different. I have found opening day payrolls to be more reasonable and consistent and I used the 2004 AP numbers. Based on that, the Sox 2004 OD payroll was $65.2M, the mean was $68.5M and the median $62.2M.

You're correct that once you take out the Yankees the distribution looks pretty normal. The 2003 and 2004 Yankees are the only teams ever with a payroll more than twice the average.

balke
03-04-2005, 09:52 PM
Maybe when we trade for someone w/ power this time around, they'll sign off on their no trade clauses (Delgado/Walker). I think we'll be begging for a solid avg./power guy (3b?) if we are in contention. Or perhaps a solid bullpen instead, hopefully Shingo does well enough that we won't have to worry about that. From the looks (actually sound) of Marte, he isn't going to be our 2003 set-up man this year either :( .

(My way too early to think about such things post).

steff
03-04-2005, 11:12 PM
I think what he meant was that if you add a player in the middle of the season you're only paying him for half the season. The previous team has already paid the other half. In fact, the trading deadline is closer to 2/3 of the way through the season.



But if they add $5 million.. they add $5 million. If they wanted to only spend $2.5, they would only spend $2.5

Cubbiesuck13
03-05-2005, 03:27 AM
The Sox payroll is up this year in great part because of increased revenues from the new Comcast deal and the Scout Seats behind home plate. I believe we have been the top spender in the division the last few years, and what did that get us? Even so, we've been on the cheap side overall but trending up. Brooks will help increase revenues as well. If the Sox are close each year by the trading deadline I have confidence that KW will harass Reinsdorf to the point of abuse and to Reinsdorf's credit he will give Kenny another mil or two.

Did they not also increase ticket prices? That should be added in as well. It seems to me that people here are splitting hairs. The sox have a pretty mediocre payroll. On ESPN.com they are ranked 15th with a $68 mil payroll. If you want to massage the numbers so they make your point then fine but you can't argue the results. They have been a pretty mediocr team. For the past couple years they have been in the same spot among the rest of the teams when it comes to payroll. They also have been pretty much in the same spot for the last couple of years when it comes to standings.

IMO, KW is a good GM because he has spent the money available very wisely. It is easier for Jim Hendry to be a good GM because of the more money he is able to spend (that should also make him out to be a very dumb GM considering the off season they had). I like KW's ability to get players mid-seaason and I think it is smart to think ahead and put away money for the inevitable trade after someone dissapoints or gets hurt.

I will believe JR when he does it. The man is a buisnessman at heart and a fan second; he has to be because he isn't the "owner" but the "chairman" of a group that owns the team.

fquaye149
03-05-2005, 06:22 AM
Did they not also increase ticket prices? That should be added in as well. It seems to me that people here are splitting hairs. The sox have a pretty mediocre payroll. On ESPN.com they are ranked 15th with a $68 mil payroll. If you want to massage the numbers so they make your point then fine but you can't argue the results. They have been a pretty mediocr team. For the past couple years they have been in the same spot among the rest of the teams when it comes to payroll. They also have been pretty much in the same spot for the last couple of years when it comes to standings.

IMO, KW is a good GM because he has spent the money available very wisely. It is easier for Jim Hendry to be a good GM because of the more money he is able to spend (that should also make him out to be a very dumb GM considering the off season they had). I like KW's ability to get players mid-seaason and I think it is smart to think ahead and put away money for the inevitable trade after someone dissapoints or gets hurt.

I will believe JR when he does it. The man is a buisnessman at heart and a fan second; he has to be because he isn't the "owner" but the "chairman" of a group that owns the team.


sorry but based on the fact we are splitting a city with a team that is currently much more popular than we are means we are probably population-wise in the middle of the pack for popularity and attendance. Obviously much of the blame here has traditionally been assigned to JR for letting the Cubs eclipse us (and he certainly hasn't done much to wrest the title back and is probably responsible for the widening popularity gap. However the fact that we are moving above average in payroll while still around the average in attendance is heartening.

I'm no JR apologist a ridiculous claim which is certainly going to be leveled against me as usual (what reason in the world would I have to be a "Friend of JR"? Do I look up to him like the FOBB's? No...it's preposterous) I am merely giving credit where credit is due - our payroll is up significantly from last year no matter what Hangar says and we used the money wisely (i.e. not on Magglio, Kris Benson, or any other "star" being "overpaid" this year) That is to say, had we stood pat (resigned Magglio, retained Lee and Valentin) our payroll probably would have increased just as much, but with smart spending I feel a lot more confident with our team this year with the added fifth starter, bullpen help, and what looks like a deeper outfield with fewer injury question marks than if we kept Magglio.

Therefore, I will applaud JR for raising payroll finally, and not only that, but at least in theory giving KW the financial freedom to make some acquisitions if our offseason moves end up keeping us in the hunt come midseason. Of course he gets no credit for that until we make the acquisition.

$.02



edit: sorry...didn't realize the Friend Of applied to JR was regulated now.

Cubbiesuck13
03-05-2005, 06:35 AM
fquaye149, I agree that the money alloted was well spent. However, the payroll has been increasing over the last few years so this isn't the first time he ok'd an increase. IIRC, it just didn't increase that much. It sounds like you agree with JR that to increase the payroll fans should come out first. I am of the opinion that if you field a team that goes deep into the playoffs that team will be more popular. Imagine if the Sox were to go into the ALCS this year and the WS in the next three years. Even if most of the people in the seats were mindnumbingly stupid, they would be there en mass. Winning is the best attraction-even to people who don't seem to care about it. Spending money first and reap the reward later. It's a risk with a big reward.

Hitmen77
03-05-2005, 08:58 AM
Wow, JR made a statement on a radio show! I guess that proves Lip, Hangar, etc. wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. No need to wait and see what happens this season!!!

I think all of you JR apologists should at least wait to see what really happens before declaring victory. But, then again, these are the same people who are happy with the Sox endless string of 82-win seasons.

:reinsy Heh, heh, I can still sell them snake oil!

fquaye149
03-05-2005, 09:42 AM
fquaye149, I agree that the money alloted was well spent. However, the payroll has been increasing over the last few years so this isn't the first time he ok'd an increase. IIRC, it just didn't increase that much. It sounds like you agree with JR that to increase the payroll fans should come out first. I am of the opinion that if you field a team that goes deep into the playoffs that team will be more popular. Imagine if the Sox were to go into the ALCS this year and the WS in the next three years. Even if most of the people in the seats were mindnumbingly stupid, they would be there en mass. Winning is the best attraction-even to people who don't seem to care about it. Spending money first and reap the reward later. It's a risk with a big reward.

I agree that people will come to see a winner. However, increasing payroll doesn't assure a winner and since we already know people won't come if we're not winning, we could spend money on albatrosses (wells, koch, ritchie...some might say magglio) who won't help the team win and won't help attendance either.

so besides the initial spike from a big free agent signing, a large increase in payroll could very well cause attendance to increase negligibly or not at all. Therefore the smart thing to do (in my opinion) from a business standpoint is to spend money as wisely as possible. Don't get bogged down in huge contracts (see Carlos Beltran). If we had signed Beltre, Sexson, Delgado, or Beltran this offseason it wouldn't have assured us a playoff berth. Lacking pitching (which I think we acquired as well as possible) we're not going anywhere. And the pitchers we acquired were relative values to the offseason (garcia and el duque), which allowed us to get other players to fill other holes (AJ, Iguchi, Dye). I just don't see where spending 23 Million on Magglio and Lee and adding no pitching, etc. would have made us more competitive and therefore better attended than spending a similar amount of money on the six or seven players we acquired this offseason.

That's why I don't believe JR is wrong not to spike payroll - it's a huge risk, and nothing would have angered me more than seeing us sign Beltran and then ending up like the Rangers for six years, burdened by a great player with an unmanagable contract, not any better attended for it, with no hope of improvement.

Dan H
03-05-2005, 12:01 PM
But at least you realize that when you buy tickets, payroll will have a chance to increase. I don't think Lip realizes this.

Unfortunately, it's alot easier to sit on the sidelines, not support the Sox, and still rip Reinsdorf and Co.

I don't buy this naive argument one bit. There is absolutely no guarantee that Reinsdorf will spend more if attendance increases. It would help if Reindorf put a championship team on the field, maybe attendance will truly increase and keep building for years to come. And remember, this organization has done plenty to chase fans away.

Finally, how do you know that the Sox don't like it this way? Low payroll and attendance near 2 million could be making them a ton of money. One thing about sitting on the sidelines: it is tough to watch the Sox fail to make the World Series decade after decade. We're fans, not suckers.

CubKilla
03-05-2005, 12:41 PM
How else would kenny pay for Roberto?

Bingo! And the sarcasm is lost on me.

CubKilla
03-05-2005, 12:43 PM
Wow, JR made a statement on a radio show! I guess that proves Lip, Hangar, etc. wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. No need to wait and see what happens this season!!!

I think all of you JR apologists should at least wait to see what really happens before declaring victory. But, then again, these are the same people who are happy with the Sox endless string of 82-win seasons.

:reinsy Heh, heh, I can still sell them snake oil!


Welcome to reality Hitmen77. It's pretty lonely for me, Lip, and the Hangar's of the WSI world.

santo=dorf
03-05-2005, 12:46 PM
Well, I agree in hindsight, but remember Garland's expectations from pre-04, Wright came off of a good year, Loaiza was coming off of a 21 win season. The rotation on paper was pretty good. But I agree with you, it was far less spectacular, once the season started! :mad:

Danny Wrong was atrocious in 2003. 1-7, 6.15 ERA

Lip Man 1
03-05-2005, 12:58 PM
Dan:

Some would say that the Sox will spend much more if attendence gets to the 2.5 or 3 million mark because 'Jerry Reinsdorf said so.'

Maybe....of course and you and I know Uncle Jerry has said a number of things over the past 25 years including demanding a new stadium or he was moving the team, saying he was a dove until they strike and of course the infamous anyone who thinks this team can catch Cleveland is crazy.

Your statement is completely on the money (as usual.) Just for the record Carlton Fisk made the same basic statement as you did during the April 1993 documentary 'The Trouble With Baseball,' that aired on Frontline (PBS.)

In generalities he said what ownership wants is for a team to be in contention, draw well but finish in second place. That way the organization then doesn't have to reward the players with raises and such after a championship, yet at the same time they get tremendous revenue from fan attendance.

Surprisingly Uncle Jerry himself made a statement along these lines in the same documentary. He said he didn't realize how much winning something equated to in terms of increased cost and salaries and that the 1983 division title brought this point home.

I have no idea if there is a connection or not but history records that almost immediately after 1983 the Sox stopped their 'free spending' ways which marked the first three years of the new ownership. Those three years showed a dramatic increase of performance on the field and in people in the stands.

Lip

jabrch
03-05-2005, 01:48 PM
1) Opening Day Payroll is up over last year's #.

2) JR had made money available to KW every season for the last few to make acquisitions

3) The team has no glaring holes (not in the SP, the Bullpen, the starters, or the bench) and will only get stronger when Frank Thomas comes back - so it SHOULD be in contention all season.

I see no reason to believe that JR will not make money available to KW to make an addition during the season if the need/opportunity arises. Now if you are looking for reasons to believe it won't happen, you can surely find them. But nothing in the past 5 years leads me to believe that if this team is not in contention, and that if JR/KW realistically believe we have a move to make that will make us better, that something won't get done.

There is always an opportunity to find something negative if you look hard enough. In this case, I think that is silly. Look at what we have today. Look at how we are positioned in the near term future. I see no reason to believe KW/JR haven't put this team in good position and that there isn't monetary flexibility if the situation calls for it.

Cubbiesuck13
03-05-2005, 05:05 PM
Lip, everytime I hear about comments made by the Sox brass I get angered. I am starting to think I was only half right when I said JR was a buisnessman first and fan second. When I hear things like that I doubt that he is a fan at all. JR's blackmailing the state of Illinois to get a new stadium is nothing new is it? Doesn't Selig do it every 3-5 years to different teams? Contracting the Expos unless they move, contracting the Twins unless they move or get a new stadium and I don't know about this latest deal concerining the Marlins but I think Selig had a hand in strong-arming the state of Florida and the city of Miami unless they got a stadium deal.



fquaye149, don't get me wrong I never wanted an albatrose of a contract. This year's FA group got some sweet deals, it was surely a players market and not a good time to go after anyone. I do think they did good with the pitching, AJ and the Gooch. I wish they would have held on to Lee and were able to aquire a leadoff man another way instead of having to salary dump to bring in the guys they did. I'm not sure there were any FA that are comparable to Pods though. The point is, they gave up two of their best, most consistant hitters. I don't mind seeing Maggs gone (it has been growing on me) but I do mind Lee. If Dye doesn't come through in a big way then that money JR is willing to spend will be spent on a power hitter for the number 5 hole. Like I said before, KW did great with what money Uncle Jerry did give him and made some creative moves this offseason to get a more balanced team. I like this team more than the one last year because of the true leadoff man and a deep rotation.

Lip Man 1
03-05-2005, 09:14 PM
Cubbie:

You may be interested in these comments / observations:

"For all his interest in what happened between the first- and third-base lines, or between the sidelines and the endlines, he never wavered in his commitment to the bottom line."–From the book ‘The Jordan Rules’ by Sam Smith. Pg. 49. Published 1991.

"There is no valid, convincing or logical reason to start dismantling the Bulls. But Reinsdorf is a businessman. He’s looking down the road."– ‘The Sporting News.’ June 25, 1997. Pg. 14.

"What went on between Jerry Krause, Jerry Reinsdorf, and me during the 1985 - 86 season was something I never got over. It gave me a very clear view of Krause and Reinsdorf. And they didn’t have a true appreciation for the game. They made business decisions and basketball just happened to be the business. They were businessmen. They were not sportsmen. – Michael Jordan to Mark Vancil. From the book ‘For The Love Of The Game’ by Michael Jordan, Edited by Mark Vancil. Pg. 28.Published 1998.

"The money never had anything to do with me playing basketball. But money always had a way of becoming an issue for someone, and it was always an issue for Jerry Reinsdorf..– Michael Jordan to Mark Vancil. From the book ‘For The Love Of The Game’ by Michael Jordan, Edited by Mark Vancil. Pg. 146. Published 1998.

Lip

Cubbiesuck13
03-05-2005, 09:45 PM
Lip, I'm not sure I want to know any more about JR. I liked it better when I was not aware of owners, but only knew the players. It makes me wonder about what Bill Wirtz has said. I shudder to think...