PDA

View Full Version : 2005 MLB Payrolls are in, Sox 13th (75 Mil)


GiveMeSox
04-06-2005, 06:25 PM
Here is the link http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/baseball/mlb/wires/04/06/2014.ap.bbo.baseball.payrolls.list.0337/index.html

We are ranked 13th out of 30 teams for highest opening day payroll. The exact amount is 75,228,000 and that translated to an average player salary of 2,786,222. Not all that bad for us, we just eeked a haed of Baltimore by pocket change so in essence we could be 13th or 14th by the end of the year. So we are right dab in the middle of league basically. Not too bad, sends a pretty good message to players and free agents that although we draw 1.9 or 2 mil fans we still spend a whole lot on our team.

One thing I find intriguing is that all the teams above us are definate 2+ mil fans more like 2.5+ mil fans. We drew 1.9 mil last year and are spending the highest of all teams that drew right around that same mark. Sweeeet!

BeerHandle
04-06-2005, 06:31 PM
Here is the link http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/baseball/mlb/wires/04/06/2014.ap.bbo.baseball.payrolls.list.0337/index.html

We are ranked 13th out of 30 teams for highest opening day payroll. The exact amount is 75,228,000 and that translated to an average player salary of 2,786,222. Not all that bad for us, we just eeked a haed of Baltimore by pocket change so in essence we could be 13th or 14th by the end of the year. So we are right dab in the middle of league basically. Not too bad, sends a pretty good message to players and free agents that although we draw 1.9 or 2 mil fans we still spend a whole lot on our team.

One thing I find intriguing is that all the teams above us are definate 2+ mil fans more like 2.5+ mil fans. We drew 1.9 mil last year and are spending the highest of all teams that drew right around that same mark. Sweeeet!

Lets stop complaining about Payrolls and lets just focus on supporting the team!

FightingBillini
04-06-2005, 06:36 PM
Good points. My beef with Reinsdorf is more his actions than his spending. Hangar and Lip will argue that payroll should be over $100mil because the team is in the 3rd biggest city. However, when you look at the fans the team draws, JR regularly spends more than teams that draw more people. Why does the team draw so little when it doesnt win? Well, thats where it comes back to the decisions ownership has made.

JR isn't that dumb. The Sox will be in it this year, and he will loosen up the purse strings come July. I experienced a renaissance of White Sox baseball last year. Before everyone got injured, the fans were getting back into it. Weekday games and non half priced games sold out for the first time in years, and people thought the Sox might actually make a dent that year. I think the fans have finally forgotten about or forgiven Reinsy for the strike. Management picked up on that. If the team wins this year, it will draw more than 2.5mil.

Lip Man 1
04-06-2005, 09:39 PM
Billini:

I never said the Sox payroll should be 100 million but for many years it was below the league average which was totally unacceptable for the nation's 3rd largest market.

According to The Sporting News they were still short of the league average based on last year's figures. They were much closer however then three or four years ago.

We'll see where they end up next off season when the 2005 numbers come out.

I never set a payroll number because to me it's always been the more the better. Plus history has shown (although No.2 strongly disagress) that the more you spend translates into more playoff appearances and more World Series titles.

The Sox haven't been to the series in the entire time current ownership has handled the show. Perhaps payroll size is one of the reasons. Payroll size normally translates into talent. The more you spend, the more talent you have and the more talent you can get to overcome slumps, injuries and freak occurances.

Lip

Rocky Soprano
04-07-2005, 09:49 AM
Plus history has shown (although No.2 strongly disagress) that the more you spend translates into more playoff appearances and more World Series titles.

Lip

So that's why the Cubs win all the time!

Ol' No. 2
04-07-2005, 09:50 AM
Billini:

I never said the Sox payroll should be 100 million but for many years it was below the league average which was totally unacceptable for the nation's 3rd largest market.

According to The Sporting News they were still short of the league average based on last year's figures. They were much closer however then three or four years ago.

We'll see where they end up next off season when the 2005 numbers come out.

I never set a payroll number because to me it's always been the more the better. Plus history has shown (although No.2 strongly disagress) that the more you spend translates into more playoff appearances and more World Series titles.

The Sox haven't been to the series in the entire time current ownership has handled the show. Perhaps payroll size is one of the reasons. Payroll size normally translates into talent. The more you spend, the more talent you have and the more talent you can get to overcome slumps, injuries and freak occurances.

LipActually, I've consistently said the opposite, but why be picky about facts?

mweflen
04-07-2005, 11:30 AM
This is about where it should be. Encouraging. Now let's see if our team success starts to resemble that of the Braves, Astros and Dodgers.

Banix12
04-07-2005, 11:58 AM
According to The Sporting News they were still short of the league average based on last year's figures. They were much closer however then three or four years ago.

We'll see where they end up next off season when the 2005 numbers come out.

I wonder how much having the $200 million behemoth that is the Yankees Payroll and the equally large Boston payroll affects league average, pulling it higher. Of course I guess you could say the same thing about the Rays and their incredible shrinking payroll pulling it down. I guess I'm wondering how good is league average as an indicator of where your payroll should be?

As I understand it the Sox are still the fifth highest payroll in the AL, behind NY, Bos, LAA, and Seattle. NY and LA are bigger markets, Boston is just crazy and can make money on nostalgia alone, Seattle gets a lot of extra revenue from Japan because of Ichiro. I think we're around where we should be and I think, looking around at the teams around us in payroll, we seem to have spent a bit wiser than most. Whether that translates to wins, we'll see about that.

jabrch
04-07-2005, 12:01 PM
Weren't there a bunch of people saying that there was no way our payroll would be over 70mm by OD? I hope they enjoy the taste of steamed crow.

Payroll was raised, again. We pay competitively to the large majority of the teams in the game with similar revenues to us. This consistent JR bashing over payroll is a joke. Those who want him to spend more than the team brings in probably don't own their own businesses and don't get it. JR spends a large portion of what he takes in. He isn't (and doesn't need to) get wealthy on the revenue the sox generate. Short of taking on debt to the franchise (not a wise idea - and not one that investors would/should like) or having an investor cash-call he is doing just about everything he can.

Ol' No. 2
04-07-2005, 12:04 PM
I wonder how much having the $200 million behemoth that is the Yankees Payroll and the equally large Boston payroll affects league average, pulling it higher. Of course I guess you could say the same thing about the Rays and their incredible shrinking payroll pulling it down. I guess I'm wondering how good is league average as an indicator of where your payroll should be?

As I understand it the Sox are still the fifth highest payroll in the AL, behind NY, Bos, LAA, and Seattle. NY and LA are bigger markets, Boston is just crazy and can make money on nostalgia alone, Seattle gets a lot of extra revenue from Japan because of Ichiro. I think we're around where we should be and I think, looking around at the teams around us in payroll, we seem to have spent a bit wiser than most. Whether that translates to wins, we'll see about that.That's why MEDIAN is a better indicator than MEAN.

Hitmen77
04-07-2005, 12:09 PM
We may have an average payroll, but our farm system has produced very little major league talent in the last few years. Therefore, we are stuck in an endless cycle of .500 seasons and 2nd or 3rd place finishes. Other teams like the Twins, Indians, A's and Marlins can win with average to below-average payrolls, but they have more productive farm systems.

And another thing, our payroll is consistent with a team that only draws 1.9 mil fans a year. But, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation if current Sox ownership didn't spend years driving away Sox fans with brilliant moves such as the White Flag trade, building a generic stadium when everyone else was building retro stadiums, putting the Sox on pay TV, etc. Only in the last couple of years have the Sox, in my opinion, finally turned the corner PR-wise and started making moves to bring people back to the ballpark and not the other way around. The ballpark renovations and the hiring of Brooks Boyer and the moves he's made are finally a step in the right direction. But, now that JR and company have handed over most of the Chicago fan base to the Cubs, it's going to be an uphill struggle to undo 20+ years of driving fans away.

Hitmen77
04-07-2005, 12:13 PM
Weren't there a bunch of people saying that there was no way our payroll would be over 70mm by OD? I hope they enjoy the taste of steamed crow.

I wouldn't be shoving crow down anyone's throat until there is a Sox championship to go along with it.

MeanFish
04-07-2005, 12:16 PM
This is a definite sign that things are heading in the right direction. If we can keep on improving, fans will keep showing up and our payroll will blow up. It's hard to get the boulder moving, but once you've got it in motion, keeping it moving isn't nearly as difficult. Hopefully we don't invent any stopping points in the boulder's path.

kaufsox
04-07-2005, 12:20 PM
I am encouraged by the Sox being 13, but I do think that with market size, attendance, etc. that the Sox should be in the top ten. If I were a Cubs fan though, I'd be demanding that payroll be higher. For all the money that they rake in, they should be comparable to the Red Sox/Yankees within the NL. The Cubs should be playoff contenders every year, and yet many people are not even picking them for the WC. God what a joke. Another reason to be a Sox fan. My question since someone brought up TB. In the last CBA talks the owners floated the idea of a minimum payroll which the Union declined. I don't get why they would decline this. Any insight would be most appreciated. Feel free to send it private if no one else is interested.

Johnny Mostil
04-07-2005, 12:26 PM
I am encouraged by the Sox being 13, but I do think that with market size, attendance, etc. that the Sox should be in the top ten. If I were a Cubs fan though, I'd be demanding that payroll be higher. For all the money that they rake in, they should be comparable to the Red Sox/Yankees within the NL. The Cubs should be playoff contenders every year, and yet many people are not even picking them for the WC. God what a joke. Another reason to be a Sox fan. My question since someone brought up TB. In the last CBA talks the owners floated the idea of a minimum payroll which the Union declined. I don't get why they would decline this. Any insight would be most appreciated. Feel free to send it private if no one else is interested.

Do the Sox have the attendance to support a top ten payroll? FWIW, I thought the team was right about where it should be, given market size, attendance, etc., though I won't claim the insight or knowledge on these boards may have.

Didn't the minimum payroll come with a cap as well? I assume that would cause the union to reject the floor, but I may not be recalling this correctly.

gosox41
04-07-2005, 12:53 PM
I wonder how much having the $200 million behemoth that is the Yankees Payroll and the equally large Boston payroll affects league average, pulling it higher. Of course I guess you could say the same thing about the Rays and their incredible shrinking payroll pulling it down. I guess I'm wondering how good is league average as an indicator of where your payroll should be?

As I understand it the Sox are still the fifth highest payroll in the AL, behind NY, Bos, LAA, and Seattle. NY and LA are bigger markets, Boston is just crazy and can make money on nostalgia alone, Seattle gets a lot of extra revenue from Japan because of Ichiro. I think we're around where we should be and I think, looking around at the teams around us in payroll, we seem to have spent a bit wiser than most. Whether that translates to wins, we'll see about that.

So based on Lips' theory of having more noney to get more talent, the Sox should be favored to win the AL Central since they spent more money.

And the Mariners should make be the WC team this year.


Bob

gosox41
04-07-2005, 12:58 PM
We may have an average payroll, but our farm system has produced very little major league talent in the last few years. Therefore, we are stuck in an endless cycle of .500 seasons and 2nd or 3rd place finishes. Other teams like the Twins, Indians, A's and Marlins can win with average to below-average payrolls, but they have more productive farm systems.

And another thing, our payroll is consistent with a team that only draws 1.9 mil fans a year. But, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation if current Sox ownership didn't spend years driving away Sox fans with brilliant moves such as the White Flag trade, building a generic stadium when everyone else was building retro stadiums, putting the Sox on pay TV, etc. Only in the last couple of years have the Sox, in my opinion, finally turned the corner PR-wise and started making moves to bring people back to the ballpark and not the other way around. The ballpark renovations and the hiring of Brooks Boyer and the moves he's made are finally a step in the right direction. But, now that JR and company have handed over most of the Chicago fan base to the Cubs, it's going to be an uphill struggle to undo 20+ years of driving fans away.

On the flipside, maybe it's time to let bygones be bygones and support the team.

The Bulls have had 6 terrible years in a row. They're also owned by JR who some allege broke up a dynasty. Attendence was in the top 5 in the league dirng the 6 years of losing even though ticket prices were among the highest and everyone knew the team wasn't going anywhere.

This year the Bulls broke out and fans are back to jumping on the bandwagon left and right. Ticket prices will be hiked next season and I guarantee they'll be towards the tp of the league in attendance and also in ticket prices.

The only differnce between the 2 teams was the Bulls have won. But even though the Bulls were broken up I don't see many fans upset at the organization or JR to the point where they don't go.


Bob

Lip Man 1
04-07-2005, 01:11 PM
Bob:

White Sox fans do support their team however many of them do it from their couch or listening to the team over the radio, or the internet, because of the very good points brought out by Hitmen.

As someone who is apparently a business person and who supports ownership to the ultimate degree, regardless if they are wrong or not, you obviously have heard of the axiom 'to make money, you spend money...'

As to you comment about the Mariners winning because they spent the most money, if you and the other Friends Of Uncle Jerry are looking for a 100%, absolute, iron clad guarantee that if you spend the most money you'll win, you're in the wrong business.

Spending money doesn't guarantee squat but it sure as hell increases your chances of winning. That's just common sense. A team of All Stars being paid an All Star salary is going to have more and better chances to win then a team composed of minor league retreads. As history has shown for every fluke Marlins there are ten Braves and Yankees. That's the way it is. If you want that absolute guarantee then Uncle Jerry should get out and invest his money in T-bills or other solid investments.

and to the person who mentioned the Cubs making the playoffs (in teal). Just last year for example of the top ten payrolls in MLB, nine had winning seasons, six went to the playoffs and one claimed the World Series title.

Need more proof?

and when No. 2 stops trying to manipulate numbers to prove his point I'll stop glossing over 'so-called' facts. Remember I'm not the only one who brought that point to his attention. I recall a very thorough point by point discussion from PHG on the same topic. :smile:

Lip

hawkjt
04-07-2005, 01:24 PM
These payroll numbers do not include cash sent in a trade which for the cubs means an additional 13 million to the O's on the Sosa trade. That puts the cubs at 100mil . Do not think the sox sent cash to milwaukee on the Carlos trade.

I am surprised the sox are that high considering the 25 million that went away with maggs,carlos and jose. Where did all the payroll go?

Freddy,Contreras,el duque and a raise to rowand ,Iguess.

Ol' No. 2
04-07-2005, 01:31 PM
Bob:

White Sox fans do support their team however many of them do it from their couch or listening to the team over the radio, or the internet, because of the very good points brought out by Hitmen.

As someone who is apparently a business person and who supports ownership to the ultimate degree, regardless if they are wrong or not, you obviously have heard of the axiom 'to make money, you spend money...'

As to you comment about the Mariners winning because they spent the most money, if you and the other Friends Of Uncle Jerry are looking for a 100%, absolute, iron clad guarantee that if you spend the most money you'll win, you're in the wrong business.

Spending money doesn't guarantee squat but it sure as hell increases your chances of winning. That's just common sense. A team of All Stars being paid an All Star salary is going to have more and better chances to win then a team composed of minor league retreads. As history has shown for every fluke Marlins there are ten Braves and Yankees. That's the way it is. If you want that absolute guarantee then Uncle Jerry should get out and invest his money in T-bills or other solid investments.

and to the person who mentioned the Cubs making the playoffs (in teal). Just last year for example of the top ten payrolls in MLB, nine had winning seasons, six went to the playoffs and one claimed the World Series title.

Need more proof?

and when No. 2 stops trying to manipulate numbers to prove his point I'll stop glossing over 'so-called' facts. Remember I'm not the only one who brought that point to his attention. I recall a very thorough point by point discussion from PHG on the same topic. :smile:

LipI've learned there's no point in presenting facts to you, Lip. The earth is flat and the sun and stars revolve around it.

gosox41
04-07-2005, 02:30 PM
Bob:

White Sox fans do support their team however many of them do it from their couch or listening to the team over the radio, or the internet, because of the very good points brought out by Hitmen.

As someone who is apparently a business person and who supports ownership to the ultimate degree, regardless if they are wrong or not, you obviously have heard of the axiom 'to make money, you spend money...'

As to you comment about the Mariners winning because they spent the most money, if you and the other Friends Of Uncle Jerry are looking for a 100%, absolute, iron clad guarantee that if you spend the most money you'll win, you're in the wrong business.

Spending money doesn't guarantee squat but it sure as hell increases your chances of winning. That's just common sense. A team of All Stars being paid an All Star salary is going to have more and better chances to win then a team composed of minor league retreads. As history has shown for every fluke Marlins there are ten Braves and Yankees. That's the way it is. If you want that absolute guarantee then Uncle Jerry should get out and invest his money in T-bills or other solid investments.

and to the person who mentioned the Cubs making the playoffs (in teal). Just last year for example of the top ten payrolls in MLB, nine had winning seasons, six went to the playoffs and one claimed the World Series title.

Need more proof?

and when No. 2 stops trying to manipulate numbers to prove his point I'll stop glossing over 'so-called' facts. Remember I'm not the only one who brought that point to his attention. I recall a very thorough point by point discussion from PHG on the same topic. :smile:

Lip

Lip,

I've heard lots of axioms in business about how to make money. The one you keep repeating isn't 100% foolproof but you fail to look at that side in your argument.

I'm also guessing you haven't taken many statistics classes in your day. There's a reason why there's 3 different ways to calculate an 'average'. And the fact is when a smaller sample size exists it's somewhat common for the hgihest and lowest numbers to be lopped off when calculating a mean average.

Or let's take it one step further. My pledge class had 15 guys. One of the guys in my class hit it big the last couple of years running a hedge fund and has been estimated to make around $15 mill as recently as 2003. Now me and the other 13 guys in my class come anywhere close to making that money.

But even if you disregard the other 14 salaries, that means the average salary in our pledge class was $1 mill. per person. Let me tell you, I'm not making anywhere near $1 mill let alone $15 mill. And I'm betting if I took that figures into my realtor and asked to buy a house worth $2.5 million (the experts say you should buy a house about 2.5 times your salary) does that mean I'm going to get approved by any bank in the world? I can come up with ample proof that the average salary of my pledge class is $1 mill per year so I can easily get that house, right?

Or maybe not because if you break it down even further like looking at my individual finances you'd see there's zero chance of that happening. But that one big number skewed everything.


Bob

voodoochile
04-07-2005, 02:43 PM
On the flipside, maybe it's time to let bygones be bygones and support the team.

The Bulls have had 6 terrible years in a row. They're also owned by JR who some allege broke up a dynasty. Attendence was in the top 5 in the league dirng the 6 years of losing even though ticket prices were among the highest and everyone knew the team wasn't going anywhere.

This year the Bulls broke out and fans are back to jumping on the bandwagon left and right. Ticket prices will be hiked next season and I guarantee they'll be towards the tp of the league in attendance and also in ticket prices.

The only differnce between the 2 teams was the Bulls have won. But even though the Bulls were broken up I don't see many fans upset at the organization or JR to the point where they don't go.


Bob

Apples and Oranges, Bob.

You are preaching to the choir on these forums. Most of the posters here go to as many games as time and money permit.

You cannot undo 20 year of bad PR by telling the old fans to come back. It simply isn't enough. You have lost 20 years worth of time to build the fanbase while actively losing fans. Even if every single one of those fans comes back, you still are out the 20 years worth of new fans (an entire generation) and that means their kids are more likely to grow up fans of the other team too.

Yes, ownership is doing a lot to change the perception of their desires and the direction the team is headed in, but it's just simplistic to say, "let bygones be bygones" and expect it to magically get better. The front office has to prove they want to maintain and build the fanbase. They have a golden opportunity here with the flubbies sold out to start their second consecutive seasons, the bar district neighborhood starting to deteriorate (as they always do), a new marketing strategy which includes an anti-fan element that has been missing until recently, a restructured stadium and better ticket selling policies, but they have to continue to build on that and find a way to win - be that higher salary structure, better farm system development or what have you. They have a moment. Will they continue to grab it?

jabrch
04-07-2005, 02:47 PM
I wouldn't be shoving crow down anyone's throat until there is a Sox championship to go along with it.

Hitmen - there were people who said that they don't think the payroll would be over ____ amount. We weren't talking about a WS. That's a totally different crow there. I'd love to serve that one also some day - but in the meantime the only one on the menu is for those who called JR cheap and said he wouln't spend more this year than last, that he wouldn't spend over 65, 70 or 75.

I do have a fine recipie to make WS Winning Crow Stew that has been in my family since Great-Great-Great Grandpa Jabrch last made it in 1917...I hope to get to use it soon.

jabrch
04-07-2005, 02:52 PM
I am encouraged by the Sox being 13, but I do think that with market size, attendance, etc. that the Sox should be in the top ten.

FWIW - the difference between 13 and 10 is 10mm. That would get us to the Seattle/Atlanta payroll level. IMHO, we are a better team right now than those two who are spending 10mm more than us. That has to be proven out over the course of the season. History says the Braves will win the division - they always do.

I agree - it would be nice to be in that top 10. Although that is an arbitrarily selected number (10) it would mean an extra 10mm in payroll. That's the difference between signing El Duque and a legit front of the rotation starter.

soxfanreggie
04-07-2005, 03:27 PM
I think one major reason that our payroll isn't bloated to $100 mil is that we have a lot of talented guys that we don't have to pay $15-$20 million a year to. We have Frank Thomas at $6 mil or so. When he's healthy, he produces like someone who would make $13-14 mil. Buerhle gets more wins making $6 mil than a lot of 12-15 mil a year picthers do. Posednik who is going to be a solid leadoff man is probably still making $300-400k. Aaron Rowand is probably going to see some all-star games sooner or later and is making $2 mil. We have Jermaine Dye making $5 mil a year and he's looking like he could produce like a $10 mil a year player. Iguchi's making almost $2.5 million. These players in a few years could command more, but we have some of them locked up at lower salaries for a while. Once these contracts expire, it might cost us over $100 million to keep them, but it's because of longer term contracts and beginning major league contracts that we're able to have this team at the $75 million level.

Lip Man 1
04-07-2005, 06:41 PM
Voodoo:

Very well said.

Bob:

Isn't it funny how the teams that spend the most usually take the majority of playoff spots and win the World Series. Pray explain that one away if you can. The numbers show that very clearly, they can't be twisted around either pro or con.

Lip

Hangar18
04-07-2005, 07:29 PM
These payroll numbers do not include cash sent in a trade which for the cubs means an additional 13 million to the O's on the Sosa trade. That puts the cubs at 100mil . Do not think the sox sent cash to milwaukee on the Carlos trade.

I am surprised the sox are that high considering the 25 million that went away with maggs,carlos and jose. Where did all the payroll go?

Freddy,Contreras,el duque and a raise to rowand ,Iguess.


I just got a bad feeling about Carlos Lee ......... he'll be a FA next year,
and a certain team up north has a ton of money and a love for ex-SOX players

Fenway
04-07-2005, 08:07 PM
For those that complain about the Red Sox being Yankees II

The Yankees are on the books for 84 Million more than Boston which is more than 20 teams spend in total. Yes the red Sox spend but what choice do they have?

santo=dorf
04-07-2005, 08:07 PM
I just got a bad feeling about Carlos Lee ......... he'll be a FA next year,
and a certain team up north has a ton of money and a love for ex-SOX players

The Brewers have a team option. :rolleyes:

FedEx227
04-08-2005, 09:47 AM
Isn't it funny how the teams that spend the most usually take the majority of playoff spots and win the World Series. Pray explain that one away if you can. The numbers show that very clearly, they can't be twisted around either pro or con.

..2003 Marlins, 2002 Angels?

The last 5 years of the Mets, Texas Rangers

....the Oakland As, Minnesota Twins

Philadelphia Philles

gosox41
04-08-2005, 11:18 AM
Apples and Oranges, Bob.

You are preaching to the choir on these forums. Most of the posters here go to as many games as time and money permit.

You cannot undo 20 year of bad PR by telling the old fans to come back. It simply isn't enough. You have lost 20 years worth of time to build the fanbase while actively losing fans. Even if every single one of those fans comes back, you still are out the 20 years worth of new fans (an entire generation) and that means their kids are more likely to grow up fans of the other team too.

Yes, ownership is doing a lot to change the perception of their desires and the direction the team is headed in, but it's just simplistic to say, "let bygones be bygones" and expect it to magically get better. The front office has to prove they want to maintain and build the fanbase. They have a golden opportunity here with the flubbies sold out to start their second consecutive seasons, the bar district neighborhood starting to deteriorate (as they always do), a new marketing strategy which includes an anti-fan element that has been missing until recently, a restructured stadium and better ticket selling policies, but they have to continue to build on that and find a way to win - be that higher salary structure, better farm system development or what have you. They have a moment. Will they continue to grab it?

I think they'll grab it. There's been a lot of positve about this team the last couple of years and it's increasing. It's time for fans to realize that a change is in order and to move on IMHO. If this positive isn't being recognized or is going to keep getting compared to events of 15-20 years ago, then shame on those people. I'd have to question what kind of fans they were anyway.


Bob

gosox41
04-08-2005, 11:22 AM
Voodoo:

Very well said.

Bob:

Isn't it funny how the teams that spend the most usually take the majority of playoff spots and win the World Series. Pray explain that one away if you can. The numbers show that very clearly, they can't be twisted around either pro or con.

Lip

Actually Lip, I can twist numbers around as well as you.

Here's one. The team that has increased payroll to the point where they spend 50% more then the next highest team and more then the 5 bottom feeder teams combined hasn't won a World Series in 4 years. Sure they've been in the playoffs, but you allege that just being in the playoffs isn't good enough, that it's about the ultimate prize. And sure the Yankees have more championships in their history, but according to you isn't it more about the 'What have you done for me lately?" question, or does that only work when you can find something that supports your belief?

Just out of curiotisty, do you consider the Yankees of the last 4 years a well run organization?


Bob

Lip Man 1
04-08-2005, 01:37 PM
Bob:

Yep they seem to win more then 83 games a season, they seem to always be in the playoffs and at least they seem to have a shot at the series.

I'd kill to be able to say 'it's been four years since the Sox won a series.'

But why just focus on the Yankees Bob, seems like an obsession to me?

I see the Red Sox having a ton of success, the Braves, the Cardinals, the Astros, the Giants. All teams that spend a lot of money.

There can only be one champion every season, I'd at least like the CHANCE to be that team. It'll never happen when you can't seem to be able to get the talent needed to win more then 83 games or hire quality people to manage the talent you have to win more then 83 games.

Like I said, you want a guarantee that if you spend a ton of money that you'll win....baseball doesn't work that way Bob, neither does business. You take your chances, you roll the dice. But by not doing anything you're guaranteed no chance to succeed.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
04-08-2005, 01:49 PM
Bob:

Yep they seem to win more then 83 games a season, they seem to always be in the playoffs and at least they seem to have a shot at the series.

I'd kill to be able to say 'it's been four years since the Sox won a series.'

But why just focus on the Yankees Bob, seems like an obsession to me?

I see the Red Sox having a ton of success, the Braves, the Cardinals, the Astros, the Giants. All teams that spend a lot of money.

There can only be one champion every season, I'd at least like the CHANCE to be that team. It'll never happen when you can't seem to be able to get the talent needed to win more then 83 games or hire quality people to manage the talent you have to win more then 83 games.

Like I said, you want a guarantee that if you spend a ton of money that you'll win....baseball doesn't work that way Bob, neither does business. You take your chances, you roll the dice. But by not doing anything you're guaranteed no chance to succeed.

LipYou just love to keep focussing on the Yankees, but they're only one team out of 30. So just for a change of pace, why don't we look at the highest payroll team OTHER than the Yankees? They spend a lot of money, too, so they should be pretty successful, right?

1998 Orioles 79-83 missed playoffs (highest payroll in 1998)
1999 Dodgers 77-85 missed playoffs
2000 Dodgers 86-76 missed playoffs
2001 Red Sox 82-79 missed playoffs
2002 Red Sox 93-69 missed playoffs
2003 Mets 66-95 missed playoffs
2004 Red Sox 98-64 finally broke through

So over a seven year period, the next highest payroll team had 3 losing records and missed the playoffs completely 6 times. And the record for the third-highest payroll teams isn't much better.

voodoochile
04-08-2005, 01:56 PM
You just love to keep focussing on the Yankees, but they're only one team out of 30. So just for a change of pace, why don't we look at the highest payroll team OTHER than the Yankees? They spend a lot of money, too, so they should be pretty successful, right?

1998 Orioles 79-83 missed playoffs (highest payroll in 1998)
1999 Dodgers 77-85 missed playoffs
2000 Dodgers 86-76 missed playoffs
2001 Red Sox 82-79 missed playoffs
2002 Red Sox 93-69 missed playoffs
2003 Mets 66-95 missed playoffs
2004 Red Sox 98-64 finally broke through

So over a seven year period, the next highest payroll team had 3 losing records and missed the playoffs completely 6 times. And the record for the third-highest payroll teams isn't much better.

Didn't everyone of those teams lose out to another team with a "high payroll"?

I mean the ALC winner is the only mid-level team in the playoffs year in and year out for the most part with the exception of the Marlins in 2003.

Lip Man 1
04-08-2005, 02:02 PM
No. 2:

I don't focus on the Yankees... Bob does. Read the post, I said 'let's look at 'other' teams.'

Voodoo:

You're correct, as Selig's comments from March 2002 confirm... but that doesn't fit the opinions of No. 2 so he just disregards them, then 'manipulates' his figures to 'prove' his point, as PHG so eloquently called him out over.

I'm guessing that No. 2 is now pouring over statistics from past years to 'prove' that your contention is wrong. LOL

Personally I'm not going to 'argue' with him about this anymore. The last time I did the thread got sent to the Roadhouse and PHG started to show 'concern.' I have no desire to feel his wrath again.

No. 2 is entitled to his opinion, I disagree with it. History shows that in the 25 years that Uncle Jerry has owned this team they have been a failure in the area where it counts most, on- the- field performance.

Now I'm sure it has been a tremendous success in the area that is most important to Uncle Jerry, his other investors and The Friends Of Uncle Jerry... in the financial statement.

To me that is a sick and disgusting reason as to 'why own a sports franchise.' They play the games to win...if you want to make money and that's the most important thing, go invest in real estate or the stock market.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
04-08-2005, 02:17 PM
Didn't everyone of those teams lose out to another team with a "high payroll"?

I mean the ALC winner is the only mid-level team in the playoffs year in and year out for the most part with the exception of the Marlins in 2003.Depends on what you consider "high payroll".

1998 Orioles lost out to Yankees and Red Sox(WC) - both lower payroll
1999 Dodgers lost out to Arizona and Mets(WC) - both lower payroll
2000 Dodgers lost out to Giants and Mets(WC) - both lower payroll
2001 Red Sox lost out to Yankees and Athletics(WC) - Athletics lower payroll
2002 Red Sox lost out to Yankees and Angels(WC) - Angels lower payroll
2003 Mets lost out to Braves and Marlins(WC) - both lower payroll

A lot of those teams are in the middle third and a few are even in the bottom half.

Ol' No. 2
04-08-2005, 02:19 PM
No. 2:

I don't focus on the Yankees Bob does. Read the post I said let's look at 'other' teams.

Voodoo:

You're correct, as Selig's comments from March 2002 confirm... but that doesn't fit the opinions of No. 2 so he just disregards them, then 'manipulates' his figures to 'prove' his point, as PHG so eloquently called him out over.

LipYou crack me up, Lip. Quoting Bud Selig as if he's some kind of font of truth and wisdom. :rolling:

gosox41
04-08-2005, 03:58 PM
Bob:

Yep they seem to win more then 83 games a season, they seem to always be in the playoffs and at least they seem to have a shot at the series.

I'd kill to be able to say 'it's been four years since the Sox won a series.'

But why just focus on the Yankees Bob, seems like an obsession to me?

I see the Red Sox having a ton of success, the Braves, the Cardinals, the Astros, the Giants. All teams that spend a lot of money.

There can only be one champion every season, I'd at least like the CHANCE to be that team. It'll never happen when you can't seem to be able to get the talent needed to win more then 83 games or hire quality people to manage the talent you have to win more then 83 games.

Like I said, you want a guarantee that if you spend a ton of money that you'll win....baseball doesn't work that way Bob, neither does business. You take your chances, you roll the dice. But by not doing anything you're guaranteed no chance to succeed.

Lip

Why focus on the Yankees. Two reasons. First, you think it's wrong to exclude them from any statistical analysis. Second because when you spend 50% more then your nearest competitor and in same cases spend 5 times as much as the competition, the expectations are higher. And as you say, who's happy just being there? Were you happy the Sox made the playoffs in 2000 and then lost in the first round. Based on what I've read here, I'm betting not.

The Red Sox have had a ton of success? Not if it's measured by your standard of winning a championship. 1 in 87 years.

I thought the Sox had a great season in 2000 with 95 wins. I was happy with their regular season but disappointed by the playoffs. Don't confuse happiness with satisfaction but winning 95 games in a given season is damn good. Like you, I wish it happened more often.

As for the Sox, their payroll is $75 mill in 2005. Told you it was going up, didn't I? It went up to the upper range of where I was told it would be. So now the Sox have the highest payroll in the division by a significant amount. That should enhance their chances greatly for them to win the division, right? And by winning the division they have the CHANCE you referred to (in all caps) above to be that team, right?

So if the Sox don't win the division this year, are you going to say it's because they didn't spend enough? Or is it because the problems run deeper? If they don't win and you want to rip KW for having the highest payroll in the Central and not getting it done, I'm on your boat. But all this talk of teams spending a lot to get to the playoffs should apply to the SOx. THere's an unbalanced schedule so the Sox play 76 games in their own division with lesser payroll teams. All 5 teams in the Central get the joy of facing the Yankees, etc except the Sox should be better prepared then the Twins or Indians since they spend more and should have more depth, etc. Right?

You predicted the Sox would have more then 90 wins or less then 75. Not much room for error in that prediction. But if the Sox fail to win 75 as you predicted, does that mean you're going to look at other issues as to why they couldn't beat out a lesser payroll team or is it just becuase they only outspend the Twins by $15 mill and not $20. Money may increase odds, but bad management has a greater effect on losing then all the money in the world.


Bob

gosox41
04-08-2005, 03:59 PM
Didn't everyone of those teams lose out to another team with a "high payroll"?

I mean the ALC winner is the only mid-level team in the playoffs year in and year out for the most part with the exception of the Marlins in 2003.


Maybe so but when a team like the Mets wins 66 games I'd say the next higher payroll team was the least of the worries.



Bob

gosox41
04-08-2005, 04:03 PM
You crack me up, Lip. Quoting Bud Selig as if he's some kind of font of truth and wisdom. :rolling:

Funny because I've thought I've seen posts where Lip has ripped on Selig for various other alleged lies or mistakes or whatever.

I'm starting to get it. Selig has credibility when he helps prove a point. But if he comes out and says something like 'many teams are losing money' he's clearly full of it even though no one has definite proof.

Yet JR has zero credibility even though in the last couple of years he has gone out of his way to make many positive changes to this team and it's image.

How someone can say Selig has more credibility then JR is beyond me.
:smile:


Bob

Ol' No. 2
04-08-2005, 04:36 PM
Funny because I've thought I've seen posts where Lip has ripped on Selig for various other alleged lies or mistakes or whatever.

I'm starting to get it. Selig has credibility when he helps prove a point. But if he comes out and says something like 'many teams are losing money' he's clearly full of it even though no one has definite proof.

Yet JR has zero credibility even though in the last couple of years he has gone out of his way to make many positive changes to this team and it's image.

How someone can say Selig has more credibility then JR is beyond me.
:smile:


Bob:tool It's okay. I had my fingers crossed the whole time.

voodoochile
04-08-2005, 04:51 PM
I would like the people defending the payroll status quo to answer these questions (assume Frank plays by mid-May and is healthy and productive all year long.):

1)Do you think the Sox are WS contenders this season (I do remember ON2 picked them to win it all, as did I. I did it because I refuse to predict losses before they happen - it's one of my superstitious quirks.)

2) How close is the team to being WS contenders?

3) Where should the Sox be upgrading the team?

4) Would more money help the team upgrade in those areas?

5) How much further money would need to be spent to seriously upgrade those areas and turn the team into WS contenders?

6) If the Sox are WS contenders this season and in years to come, do you expect to see a dramatic increase in revenue through increased attendance?

Personally, I think the Sox are one more top 3 starter and a powerhitting LF from being serious contenders. I think that could be accomplished by spending another $15-20M. I think the Sox would walk away with the division if they could make those acquistions and make a serious run at the Pennant and beyond (again, assuming Frank is healthy as stated). I think if they made those moves, they would draw well over 2.5M on the season and basically pay for the increased payroll.

No guarantees, but if they did it right, they would have 3 bites on the apple and that should be enough to get over the hump.

Prove you care about winning the pennant year in and year out, JR. Go on, I dare you...

Ol' No. 2
04-08-2005, 05:11 PM
I would like the people defending the payroll status quo to answer these questions (assume Frank plays by mid-May and is healthy and productive all year long.):

1)Do you think the Sox are WS contenders this season (I do remember ON2 picked them to win it all, as did I. I did it because I refuse to predict losses before they happen - it's one of my superstitious quirks.)

2) How close is the team to being WS contenders?

3) Where should the Sox be upgrading the team?

4) Would more money help the team upgrade in those areas?

5) How much further money would need to be spent to seriously upgrade those areas and turn the team into WS contenders?

6) If the Sox are WS contenders this season and in years to come, do you expect to see a dramatic increase in revenue through increased attendance?

Personally, I think the Sox are one more top 3 starter and a powerhitting LF from being serious contenders. I think that could be accomplished by spending another $15-20M. I think the Sox would walk away with the division if they could make those acquistions and make a serious run at the Pennant and beyond (again, assuming Frank is healthy as stated). I think if they made those moves, they would draw well over 2.5M on the season and basically pay for the increased payroll.

No guarantees, but if they did it right, they would have 3 bites on the apple and that should be enough to get over the hump.

Prove you care about winning the pennant year in and year out, JR. Go on, I dare you...Generally speaking, increased payroll helps you GET to the playoffs, but once you get there, it doesn't seem to matter too much. That's not all that surprising when you realize that the best playoff teams might win 100 games and the worst about 90. So their winning percentage is only about 0.062 different. Over a short series, that's not going to matter much. So in answer to your question, if they can get to the playoffs, they have as good a chance as anybody. (I just know I'm going to hear a lot of crap about this, but it's true.)

As to how close they are, it's hard to say this early. This time last year everybody said they had no chance as long as they had Rowand and Konerko in the lineup.:o: The problem just never seems to be where you expect. I believe that the Sox will come up with some money mid-season if they're in it and they have an opportunity to improve the team. How much they'll spend I wouldn't even hazard a guess, but remember, if you acquire a $10M/yr player at the deadline, you're only on the hook for a third of it, so I don't think money is the real issue. It's more a question of which prospects they want in trade and who you're willing to give up.

I think with the continuing shenanigans on the North Side, people are getting sick and tired of the whining and finger-pointing. If the Sox were to make some real noise, I think they have a unique opportunity right now to make real gains in fan share. People are dying for a winner, and 2.5M is not an unreasonable number. They were on pace for about 2.3M last year before the bottom fell out. That extra revenue, put back in the team, will add another incremental improvement. Keep building like that for a couple more years and they could become a real powerhouse. (Not deep pink.)

Iwritecode
04-08-2005, 05:26 PM
FWIW...

Of the 40 teams that have been to the playoffs since 2000, only 11 of them have had payrolls in the lower half of MLB and only 1 of them has even made to the WS. That would be the 2003 Marlins. The Angels were #15 when they won in 2002.

The A's and Twins seem to be the most consistent bottom half payroll team in the playoffs. The Twins are almost by default because it's rare for any ALC team to be in the top half. The Sox were 24th in 2000.

The Yankees have been #1 and in the playoffs each year but the #2 team is not always there. After that, there is quite a variety between #3 and #15.

What does this prove? Frankly, I'm not sure. It seems as though if the team is at least in the upper-half for payroll, they have a pretty good shot at the playoffs. In the top ten, an even better shot at the playoffs and a pretty good shot at making/winning the WS.

voodoochile
04-08-2005, 05:44 PM
Generally speaking, increased payroll helps you GET to the playoffs, but once you get there, it doesn't seem to matter too much. That's not all that surprising when you realize that the best playoff teams might win 100 games and the worst about 90. So their winning percentage is only about 0.062 different. Over a short series, that's not going to matter much. So in answer to your question, if they can get to the playoffs, they have as good a chance as anybody. (I just know I'm going to hear a lot of crap about this, but it's true.)

As to how close they are, it's hard to say this early. This time last year everybody said they had no chance as long as they had Rowand and Konerko in the lineup.:o: The problem just never seems to be where you expect. I believe that the Sox will come up with some money mid-season if they're in it and they have an opportunity to improve the team. How much they'll spend I wouldn't even hazard a guess, but remember, if you acquire a $10M/yr player at the deadline, you're only on the hook for a third of it, so I don't think money is the real issue. It's more a question of which prospects they want in trade and who you're willing to give up.

I think with the continuing shenanigans on the North Side, people are getting sick and tired of the whining and finger-pointing. If the Sox were to make some real noise, I think they have a unique opportunity right now to make real gains in fan share. People are dying for a winner, and 2.5M is not an unreasonable number. They were on pace for about 2.3M last year before the bottom fell out. That extra revenue, put back in the team, will add another incremental improvement. Keep building like that for a couple more years and they could become a real powerhouse. (Not deep pink.)

That is my point partially. I agree about playoff teams. Clearly just getting to the playoffs means you have a certain level of ability/talent and that means you are facing teams with more of that same ability/talent, so no guarantees. That is why it is important to keep making it to the playoffs so you get several chances to win it all.

The Sox have been a one and done team for most of their existence and entirely that way since JR took over with an average break of 8.5 years between playoff appearances and a current streak that is 4 years long.

It's like Lip says - the Twins have made the playoffs 3 straight years. The next time the Sox do that, will be the first time in their history. Heck, make it two years in a row will be the first time ever.

A lot of turnover can occur in 4 years. The Sox are not the same team they were in 2000. You want to build a fanbase, you have two options...

1) Build your ballpark in the middle of a bar district.

2) Build a consistent winner - and not just a team that wins more games than it loses on average, one that makes the playoffs 3 years in every 5.

As we all agree, the Sox ARE making strides toward recapturing a lost fanbase, but they need to do more or they will forever be treading water...

voodoochile
04-08-2005, 05:47 PM
FWIW...

Of the 40 teams that have been to the playoffs since 2000, only 11 of them have had payrolls in the lower half of MLB and only 1 of them has even made to the WS. That would be the 2003 Marlins. The Angels were #15 when they won in 2002.

The A's and Twins seem to be the most consistent bottom half payroll team in the playoffs. The Twins are almost by default because it's rare for any ALC team to be in the top half. The Sox were 24th in 2000.

The Yankees have been #1 and in the playoffs each year but the #2 team is not always there. After that, there is quite a variety between #3 and #15.

What does this prove? Frankly, I'm not sure. It seems as though if the team is at least in the upper-half for payroll, they have a pretty good shot at the playoffs. In the top ten, an even better shot at the playoffs and a pretty good shot at making/winning the WS.

Both the A's and Twins were "window teams". That is to say they both built teams from the ground up over time with good drafts and good trades and player development. Both of their windows are closing (The A's already has probably) and the Twins have only a year or two in front of them before they will start losing talent.

Lip Man 1
04-09-2005, 01:12 AM
This and that:

Voodoo, I agree with your points.

I write code, you are right on the money (but don't tell that to the Friends Of Uncle Jerry...)

Bob, I don't care for Selig but unlike some, you can't argue about the figures he stated in March 2002 as I write code has shown just in a quick look, Proud To Be Your Bud didn't lie about teams in the upper quarter of payroll winning all but 5 post season games from 1995 through 2001. That's a fact not fantasy (unless you believe in the new math...)

Also I do agree with you on the management factor in winning although since we know from history Uncle Jerry will NOT spend on top front office talent (or managerial talent for that matter) to me the only way to get around that is to have so much talent that even doofuses like Terry Bevington can't f$%^ it up.

Right now the Sox are trying to play both ends against the middle, have some talent, and have some front office talent and 'hope.'

Like my late father used to tell me, 'wish in one hand, piss in the other...see which fills up first.'

Lip

TheBull19
04-09-2005, 01:30 AM
For those that complain about the Red Sox being Yankees II

The Yankees are on the books for 84 Million more than Boston which is more than 20 teams spend in total. Yes the red Sox spend but what choice do they have?

I've read this entire thread and not once did anyone complain specifically about Boston's similarities to the Yankees. But thanks for once again bringing up the Red Sox in yet another thread in the White Sox Clubhouse

johnny_mostil
04-09-2005, 11:48 AM
Billini:

I never said the Sox payroll should be 100 million but for many years it was below the league average which was totally unacceptable for the nation's 3rd largest market.


And less than 10,000 people showed up on a beautiful Wednesday afternoon in 75 degree weather for a season-highlight comeback? Maybe the reason the payroll was weak is because the fans can't be counted on to show up and pay the bills?

voodoochile
04-09-2005, 11:52 AM
And less than 10,000 people showed up on a beautiful Wednesday afternoon in 75 degree weather for a season-highlight comeback? Maybe the reason the payroll was weak is because the fans can't be counted on to show up and pay the bills?

Oh come on... it's a Wednesday afternoon game in April. Kids are in school. Adults are working.

You want to build that number? Sell more season tickets. One way to do that is to win and win consistently.

All around the league, teams suffere with bad attendance on the second day of the season except in select stadiums. It's jut the nature of the beast.

They could also try playing the games at night, but that will get pretty cold. Still, at least a few more people will show up.

Jr is that you?

:reinsy
"It's all the fans' fault..."

Lip Man 1
04-09-2005, 12:05 PM
Johnny says: "Maybe the reason the payroll was weak is because the fans can't be counted on to show up and pay the bills?"

Johnny the fans did pay the bills, they bought the owner a brand new stadium with tax payer money. Uncle Jerry didn't invest one thin dime of his own money, unlike owners in San Francisco and soon to be Florida.

Time for him to repay that part of the deal.

He can start by giving Sox fans a reason to show up instead of mediocrity year after year claiming they can't afford to pay the price for excellence.

Excuse me while I shed tears for his 'plight...'

Lip

munchman33
04-09-2005, 12:10 PM
Oh come on... it's a Wednesday afternoon game in April. Kids are in school. Adults are working.

You want to build that number? Sell more season tickets. One way to do that is to win and win consistently.

All around the league, teams suffere with bad attendance on the second day of the season except in select stadiums. It's jut the nature of the beast.

They could also try playing the games at night, but that will get pretty cold. Still, at least a few more people will show up.

Jr is that you?

:reinsy
"It's all the fans' fault..."

No, Voodoo, you're wrong. As Lip is always saying, Chicago is the third biggest market. It was a beautiful day, the team was winning, payroll went up over the offseason, and attendance was 10,000? That's just ridiculous. I'm sure there were a lot more than 10,000 sox fans in the city of Chicago and the suburbs that weren't working and could have easily come to the game.

But they didn't. And that's a shame. Because don't think for a second Uncle Jerry didn't notice this. It'll most certainly factor in to his decision the next time Kenny asks him for more money.

gosox41
04-09-2005, 12:19 PM
I'll bite though I'm not defending the payroll status quo. I'd be thrilled if it were raised. But here goes. I apologize for the uncovnentional way of answering your questions in the quotes. I'll make the answers a different color.


would like the people defending the payroll status quo to answer these questions (assume Frank plays by mid-May and is healthy and productive all year long.):

1)Do you think the Sox are WS contenders this season (I do remember ON2 picked them to win it all, as did I. I did it because I refuse to predict losses before they happen - it's one of my superstitious quirks.)
I think the Sox are strong enough to contend for the division and get to the playoffs. They're not favored to win the division by any stretch of my imagination. But I predicted 86 wins and second place though I did predict them for second place but within a few games. It's hard enough to predict a playoff appearence let alone # of wins.

2) How close is the team to being WS contenders?
As close as they are to the playoffs. If the SOx get there anything can happen. Look how tough the Sox have played the Yankees the last 4 seasons. They've at least split or won 4 of 6 games. Yet know one here is going to argue the Sox are overall a better team then the Yankees. They can compete. On the flipside look how the Sox consistently blow it on the west coast no matter what the team, but play the western division better at home.
3) Where should the Sox be upgrading the team?
Left field, starting pitching, pitching and more pitching. And oh year, if the Sox don't make the playoffs thsi season, a GM.
4) Would more money help the team upgrade in those areas?
It wouldn't hurt. This is a weighted question. But what would really help the team more is better scouting. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see Everett as being fat and injured last year (and please go read my posts at the time the trade was made). Also, if the Sox had a better minor league system they could do more with what they had.

5) How much further money would need to be spent to seriously upgrade those areas and turn the team into WS contendeers?
Another weighted question. Of course more money would help, assuming management is competent. But the Sox are spending 25% more then the Twins this season ($75 mill to $59mill). Get to the playoffs and I'll take my chances. That's not to say the team has no holes.


6) If the Sox are WS contenders this season and in years to come, do you expect to see a dramatic increase in revenue through increased attendance?
Yes.
Personally, I think the Sox are one more top 3 starter and a powerhitting LF from being serious contenders. I think that could be accomplished by spending another $15-20M. I think the Sox would walk away with the division if they could make those acquistions and make a serious run at the Pennant and beyond (again, assuming Frank is healthy as stated). I think if they made those moves, they would draw well over 2.5M on the season and basically pay for the increased payroll.

No guarantees, but if they did it right, they would have 3 bites on the apple and that should be enough to get over the hump.

Prove you care about winning the pennant year in and year out, JR. Go on, I dare you...



Bob

voodoochile
04-09-2005, 01:08 PM
No, Voodoo, you're wrong. As Lip is always saying, Chicago is the third biggest market. It was a beautiful day, the team was winning, payroll went up over the offseason, and attendance was 10,000? That's just ridiculous. I'm sure there were a lot more than 10,000 sox fans in the city of Chicago and the suburbs that weren't working and could have easily come to the game.

But they didn't. And that's a shame. Because don't think for a second Uncle Jerry didn't notice this. It'll most certainly factor in to his decision the next time Kenny asks him for more money.

Sigh...

Really? So you expect 10K people to walk up on a mid-afternoon weekday game in early April? School isn't out yet, the Sox aren't playing a big name rival, it's normally cold and/or raining. Sure there are a lot more people who might go to games, but many of them have friends/family who are working/in school and don't have people to go with. It's also 10 days before tax deadline so most people have something else to be doing even if they are free and less money to do it with.

And no... JR won't make a decision based on one bad day of attendance or even two. He will make it based on projected sales for the year and again...

If you want to sell more tickets to games in April, the way to do that is sell them in February. Sell the season tickets.

I can hear you asking... HOW do we sell more season tickets...:rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2
04-09-2005, 01:18 PM
Bob, I don't care for Selig but unlike some, you can't argue about the figures he stated in March 2002 as I write code has shown just in a quick look, Proud To Be Your Bud didn't lie about teams in the upper quarter of payroll winning all but 5 post season games from 1995 through 2001. That's a fact not fantasy (unless you believe in the new math...)
2001:
Oakland A's (29th of 30 teams in OD payroll) - 2 post-season wins
Seattle Mariners (11th of 30) - 4 post-season wins
St. Louis Cardinals (9th of 30) - 2 post-season wins
Arizona D-backs (8th of 30) - 11 post-season wins
2000:
Oakland A's (25th of 30) - 2 post-season wins
SF Giants (17th of 30) - 1 post-season win
St. Louis Cardinals (11th of 30) - 4 post-season wins
Seattle Mariners (14th of 30) - 5 post-season wins
1999:
NY Mets (8th of 30) - 5 post-season wins
Boston Red Sox (10th of 30) - 4 post-season wins
Houston Astros (13th of 30) - 1 post-season win
1998:
Boston Red Sox (8th of 30) - 1 post-season win
San Diego Padres (14th of 28) - 7 post-season wins
Houston Astros (15th of 28) - 1 post-season wins
1997:
Seattle Mariners (15th of 28) - 1 post-season win
Florida Marlins (8th of 28) - 11 post-season wins
1996:
St. Louis Cardinals (9th of 28) - 6 post-season wins
Texas Rangers (11th of 28) - 1 post-season win
1995:
Colorado Rockies (16th of 28) - 1 post-season win
Seattle Mariners (12th of 28) - 5 post-season wins
Cleveland Indians (8th of 28) - 9 post-season wins

That's actually 84 wins from teams not in the upper quarter, not 5. And 2 World Series winners. Must be the "new math".

voodoochile
04-09-2005, 01:32 PM
2001:
Oakland A's (29th of 30 teams in OD payroll) - 2 post-season wins
Seattle Mariners (11th of 30) - 4 post-season wins
St. Louis Cardinals (9th of 30) - 2 post-season wins
Arizona D-backs (8th of 30) - 11 post-season wins
2000:
Oakland A's (25th of 30) - 2 post-season wins
SF Giants (17th of 30) - 1 post-season win
St. Louis Cardinals (11th of 30) - 4 post-season wins
Seattle Mariners (14th of 30) - 5 post-season wins
1999:
NY Mets (8th of 30) - 5 post-season wins
Boston Red Sox (10th of 30) - 4 post-season wins
Houston Astros (13th of 30) - 1 post-season win
1998:
Boston Red Sox (8th of 30) - 1 post-season win
San Diego Padres (14th of 28) - 7 post-season wins
Houston Astros (15th of 28) - 1 post-season wins
1997:
Seattle Mariners (15th of 28) - 1 post-season win
Florida Marlins (8th of 28) - 11 post-season wins
1996:
St. Louis Cardinals (9th of 28) - 6 post-season wins
Texas Rangers (11th of 28) - 1 post-season win
1995:
Colorado Rockies (16th of 28) - 1 post-season win
Seattle Mariners (12th of 28) - 5 post-season wins
Cleveland Indians (8th of 28) - 9 post-season wins

That's actually 84 wins from teams not in the upper quarter, not 5. And 2 World Series winners. Must be the "new math".

Does that officially constitute perjury then? I wonder if anyone ever actually looked into Bud's statement. You should forward that to someone who can write about it.

Ol' No. 2
04-09-2005, 01:40 PM
Does that officially constitute perjury then? I wonder if anyone ever actually looked into Bud's statement. You should forward that to someone who can write about it.No, Lip's just got his facts (or instincts) mixed up. Selig was quoting from the report of the Blue Ribbon Panel. The time period was actually 1995-1999, and they said that there were 5 playoff games won by teams not in the top HALF, not top quarter. Which is technically true. But the same cannot be said for the most recent 5-year period. In fact, I doubt you can find any other 5-year period for which it would be true. It's an anomoly. I can't imagine why Honest Bud would choose to emphasize this particular statistic, knowing it was such an anomoly.

voodoochile
04-09-2005, 01:44 PM
No, Lip's just got his facts (or instincts) mixed up. Selig was quoting from the report of the Blue Ribbon Panel. The time period was actually 1995-1999, and they said that there were 5 playoff games won by teams not in the top HALF, not top quarter. Which is technically true. But the same cannot be said for the most recent 5-year period. In fact, I doubt you can find any other 5-year period for which it would be true. It's an anomoly. I can't imagine why Honest Bud would choose to emphasize this particular statistic, knowing it was such an anomoly.

Or why Lip would emphasize it incorrectly thereafter? :wink:

Lip Man 1
04-09-2005, 02:03 PM
Gentlemen:

Here is the exact quote. I didn't misconstrue or manipulate anything. It was NOT through 1999. Look it up for yourself if you think I changed it.

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 major league baseball postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the the lower half of the industry. None ever advanced past the division series, and no team, other then those whose payrolls were 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 high payroll teams." -- 'Bud' Selig, March 2002.

I do know how to read No.2.

Bottom line as always, you spend more, you win more, you increase your chances of getting to the World Series and winning it.

Lip

voodoochile
04-09-2005, 02:19 PM
Gentlemen:

Here is the exact quote. I didn't misconstrue or manipulate anything. It was NOT through 1999. Look it up for yourself if you think I changed it.

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 major league baseball postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the the lower half of the industry. None ever advanced past the division series, and no team, other then those whose payrolls were 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 high payroll teams." -- 'Bud' Selig, March 2002.

I do know how to read No.2.

Bottom line as always, you spend more, you win more, you increase your chances of getting to the World Series and winning it.

Lip

And that is actually correct...

edit: but it's not what you typed the first time, Lip.

Ol' No. 2
04-09-2005, 04:42 PM
And that is actually correct...

edit: but it's not what you typed the first time, Lip.Not quite. If you refer back to my list, you'll find there were seven. But regardless, it's still just a statistical anomoly.

Lip Man 1
04-09-2005, 11:34 PM
No. 2 says: "It's still just a statistical anomoly..."

219-5 is a statistical anomoly??????

That is a glorified ass whooping, complete domination.

:rolleyes:

Suuuuuuurrrrrrreeeeeeee......

LOL

Lip

Ol' No. 2
04-10-2005, 01:20 AM
No. 2 says: "It's still just a statistical anomoly..."

219-5 is a statistical anomoly??????

That is a glorified ass whooping, complete domination.

:rolleyes:

Suuuuuuurrrrrrreeeeeeee......

LOL

Lipa·nom·a·ly http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fr%3D2%26q%3Danomaly) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.gifmhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif)
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies
Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.

Lip Man 1
04-10-2005, 02:19 PM
No deviation at all because it's not a statistical abnormality.

219-5 is not 'abnormal,' not when one side has such a large advantage over the other side. When that big of an ass kicking occures that become 'normal.' That's not a 'small sample' either, that's 224 games.

It's simple (except you refuse to acknowledge it...)

You spend more, you increase your chances of making the playoffs, you increase your chances of getting to the World Series, you increase your chances of winning the World Series.

Now one can argue that it's not worth increasing your chances say 2% by going out and spending 50 million extra dollars, but that's what I'd expect from a businessman and Friend Of Uncle Jerry.

The name of the game is to win, not make a profit or keep your costs down.

If that is any ownerships primary concern then they are in the wrong business and as stated they need to get out and invest their money in real estate, the stock market and T bonds. That's a much better investment if all they care about is making money.

Lip

Fake Chet Lemon
04-10-2005, 05:33 PM
Don't be deceived by our attendance number, we play higher than that. Our average price per ticket is much higher than the smaller markets. Also, a Kansas City for example doesn't have the Corporate dollars to compete with what the Sox can generate in luxury box, stadium club type revenue. Even parking revenues, what is it in Milwaukee to park $6? We're double. So we "play higher" than our actual number because of our being the #3 market.

Ol' No. 2
04-10-2005, 06:54 PM
No deviation at all because it's not a statistical abnormality.

219-5 is not 'abnormal,' not when one side has such a large advantage over the other side. When that big of an ass kicking occures that become 'normal.' That's not a 'small sample' either, that's 224 games.

It's simple (except you refuse to acknowledge it...)

You spend more, you increase your chances of making the playoffs, you increase your chances of getting to the World Series, you increase your chances of winning the World Series.

Now one can argue that it's not worth increasing your chances say 2% by going out and spending 50 million extra dollars, but that's what I'd expect from a businessman and Friend Of Uncle Jerry.

The name of the game is to win, not make a profit or keep your costs down.

If that is any ownerships primary concern then they are in the wrong business and as stated they need to get out and invest their money in real estate, the stock market and T bonds. That's a much better investment if all they care about is making money.

LipIf you can find other similar periods with similar results, you could argue it's normal. But there aren't any. You can't just make up your own definitions.

But there's really no point in arguing logic and facts with you. The earth is flat, and there is nothing anyone can say to convince you it isn't. And I'm tired of wasting my time trying.

FINIS

samram
04-10-2005, 07:17 PM
Don't be deceived by our attendance number, we play higher than that. Our average price per ticket is much higher than the smaller markets. Also, a Kansas City for example doesn't have the Corporate dollars to compete with what the Sox can generate in luxury box, stadium club type revenue. Even parking revenues, what is it in Milwaukee to park $6? We're double. So we "play higher" than our actual number because of our being the #3 market.

True, but the costs of running a business in Chicago are also higher than they are in KC or Milwaukee.

mealfred13
04-10-2005, 07:22 PM
If you can find other similar periods with similar results, you could argue it's normal. But there aren't any. You can't just make up your own definitions.

But there's really no point in arguing logic and facts with you. The earth is flat, and there is nothing anyone can say to convince you it isn't. And I'm tired of wasting my time trying.

FINIS

I have to agree with Lip here. According to the statistics, teams that spend more money have absolutely dominated the post-season as shown by the record 219-5. The only anomaly is the five wins by teams that spent less money. I don't see what you guys are even arguing about. The facts are right there.

Lip Man 1
04-10-2005, 11:33 PM
Mealfred:

I can't understand it either. I know No. 2 is a well read, intelligent person yet he simply refuses to see the truth.

He's a big statistics guy and maybe that's the issue...it doesn't fit his idea of what his numbers say so either he ignors the results or tries to change the numbers to make his assessment solid, kind of like the 'scientists' in the Middle Ages.

Bottom line.. in 25 years under this ownership, the Sox have never made the World Series and as long as they continue with their self imposed restrictions, the odds of them ever doing it get smaller and smaller every season as long as more clubs outspend them.

Oh well..I tried to show him the error of his ways. God bless him. I may think the Earth is flat but at least I know what I see.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
04-11-2005, 12:17 PM
I have to agree with Lip here. According to the statistics, teams that spend more money have absolutely dominated the post-season as shown by the record 219-5. The only anomaly is the five wins by teams that spent less money. I don't see what you guys are even arguing about. The facts are right there.In 2003, teams from the bottom half of the league in payroll won 15 of 38 playoff games. In 2002, they won 7 of 34. If you cherry-pick which years to quote, you can make it look a lot more extreme than it actually is. That's exactly what Selig did to make his case in trying to imply that only high payroll teams have any chance at all. But that time period is not representative of the norm. It's an anomaly.

Furthermore, a lot of mid-level teams do very well, so it's not just the top teams, which is what he's trying to imply. The Cardinals and Astros were 11th and 12th in payroll last year.

There's no doubt that wealthier teams have an advantage. But it's nowhere as extreme as that.

Ol' No. 2
04-11-2005, 12:19 PM
Mealfred:

I can't understand it either. I know No. 2 is a well read, intelligent person yet he simply refuses to see the truth.

He's a big statistics guy and maybe that's the issue...it doesn't fit his idea of what his numbers say so either he ignors the results or tries to change the numbers to make his assessment solid, kind of like the 'scientists' in the Middle Ages.

Bottom line.. in 25 years under this ownership, the Sox have never made the World Series and as long as they continue with their self imposed restrictions, the odds of them ever doing it get smaller and smaller every season as long as more clubs outspend them.

Oh well..I tried to show him the error of his ways. God bless him. I may think the Earth is flat but at least I know what I see.

LipExplain something to me. You keep quoting Selig's statement (or mis-quoting it) which "proves" that teams in the top half of the league in payroll are winning all the playoff games. You go on to say that this is the reason the Sox have no chance. But the Sox ARE in the top half of the league in payroll. So which is it?:?:

jabrch
04-11-2005, 12:26 PM
http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/tier/deadhorse1.gif


Another day...another payroll arguement.

Before the season it was - There's no way the payroll would be 75mm. Now it is that 75mm is not enough. It's funny.

gosox41
04-11-2005, 12:35 PM
http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/tier/deadhorse1.gif


Another day...another payroll arguement.

Before the season it was - There's no way the payroll would be 75mm. Now it is that 75mm is not enough. It's funny.

You knew the payroll not being high enough argument was coming.:D:


Bob

gosox41
04-11-2005, 12:40 PM
I have to agree with Lip here. According to the statistics, teams that spend more money have absolutely dominated the post-season as shown by the record 219-5. The only anomaly is the five wins by teams that spent less money. I don't see what you guys are even arguing about. The facts are right there.

If you go back and read No.2's posts he clearly states that the issue of the statistical anomaly is the 5 year time period. If you go back and look over different 5 year periods throughout the 100+ year histor of MLB, you probably won't find a winning percentage that equates t the 219-5. That was the exception, or the anomaly.




Bob

Ol' No. 2
04-11-2005, 01:38 PM
If you go back and read No.2's posts he clearly states that the issue of the statistical anomaly is the 5 year time period. If you go back and look over different 5 year periods throughout the 100+ year histor of MLB, you probably won't find a winning percentage that equates t the 219-5. That was the exception, or the anomaly.




BobYou wouldn't think that would be such a difficult concept, would you?:o:

Lip Man 1
04-11-2005, 01:46 PM
Bob:

I applaude the Sox for raising the payroll. It was so far down for so many years how could they not improve it?

The next step is to get to the league average and then we'll see what lies ahead.

I don't have a problem with the payroll regardless of where it is as long as they win...which they haven't.

Something must be wrong since they aren't winning. What is it?

Lack of talent?
Lack of depth?? (especially for so many years in pitching...)
Lack of front office ability?

You seem to favor the last point and I think there is some truth to that.

As I stated ealier since history shows ownership will not spend to get the quality of front office talent needed to win (the point that you strongly believe in) to me the only way to overcome that is to have the most talent. Getting that talent costs money.

Basically I just feel the cut corner method (get some on field talent, get some front office talent) just isn't going to get it done. The Sox need to make a committment one way or the other. Either get, without question, the best scouts, minor league people, and big league front office people money can buy, or get the best talent money can buy on the field to 'overcome' the front office.

We'll see what this year winds up bringing Sox fans who have waited for decades.

Lip

Rocklive99
04-11-2005, 01:54 PM
N.Y. Yankees $205,938,439

:hawk

Mercy!

gosox41
04-11-2005, 02:45 PM
Bob:

I applaude the Sox for raising the payroll. It was so far down for so many years how could they not improve it?

The next step is to get to the league average and then we'll see what lies ahead.

I don't have a problem with the payroll regardless of where it is as long as they win...which they haven't.

Something must be wrong since they aren't winning. What is it?

Lack of talent?
Lack of depth?? (especially for so many years in pitching...)
Lack of front office ability?

You seem to favor the last point and I think there is some truth to that.

As I stated ealier since history shows ownership will not spend to get the quality of front office talent needed to win (the point that you strongly believe in) to me the only way to overcome that is to have the most talent. Getting that talent costs money.

Basically I just feel the cut corner method (get some on field talent, get some front office talent) just isn't going to get it done. The Sox need to make a committment one way or the other. Either get, without question, the best scouts, minor league people, and big league front office people money can buy, or get the best talent money can buy on the field to 'overcome' the front office.

We'll see what this year winds up bringing Sox fans who have waited for decades.

Lip


Lip,

We definitely agree on the lack of front office ability and that effects the first 2 points about lack of talent and lack of depth.

I'd love to see the payroll go a lot higher, but it's not realistic to expect it to just jump to $100 mill. But that doesn't meant the team (or fans should give up hope.) It's still possible to make the playoffs (and Series) with a $75 mill payroll. The reason I say make the playoffs is because (obviously) no team since 1969 has gone to the WS without making the playoffs (stupid factoid of the day).

But you can bet that since the Sox have spent rough 25% more then the Twins and an even higher percentage then the Indians that I am going to come down and come down hard on KW if this team fails.

I like some of the moves he made, and he had his best offseason he's had as a GM. But that's not saying much after his first few years here.

When you spend the most in the division and put together a team that (in my opinion) should be a contender but is by no means a favorite, then one's not doing his job very well.


Bob

santo=dorf
04-11-2005, 02:57 PM
Lip, why are you putting so much stock in what something Selig said back in 2002 that talks about the correlation of higher payrolls to playoff success from 1995-2001? What about 2002, 2003, 2004?
Is it fair to compare a "high" payroll today to a "high" payroll back in 2000 let alone 1995?

Believe me, I would love for the Sox to spend $100-$150 million on payroll, but it ain't happening. If raising the payroll to get more playoff success is such a simple idea, why aren't more teams taking that approach? How come the Mets and Phillies can't win anything?

Flight #24
04-11-2005, 03:14 PM
I would like the people defending the payroll status quo to answer these questions (assume Frank plays by mid-May and is healthy and productive all year long.):

1)Do you think the Sox are WS contenders this season (I do remember ON2 picked them to win it all, as did I. I did it because I refuse to predict losses before they happen - it's one of my superstitious quirks.)

2) How close is the team to being WS contenders?

3) Where should the Sox be upgrading the team?

4) Would more money help the team upgrade in those areas?

5) How much further money would need to be spent to seriously upgrade those areas and turn the team into WS contenders?

6) If the Sox are WS contenders this season and in years to come, do you expect to see a dramatic increase in revenue through increased attendance?


I'll bite. Although I'd say I'm not in favor of the "payroll status quo" if that means "I don't think we should raise payroll", I merely believe that they should operate on a cash-flow-neutral basis and that they are currently doing that. I'd love to see a significant salary hike, I just don't think it's realistic to expect it.

Back to your questions:
1 - I think that the team as currently constructed is a serious playoff contender, with as good a shot to win as Minnesota. I also believe that this is a team that can make a major acquisition if the team is contending. Add that to Frank's eventual return and I think this will be a WS-capable team. But then I thought we were a WS-capable team last year when we traded for Garcia and thought we'd have Frank & Maggs healthy.

2 - See #1, I think we're up upgrade away from being a serious WS contender. That upgrade could be at a # of positions - 3B, RF, SP, or RP. I believe we have very solid guys there now(except 3B), but we could swap one for a star.

3 - Right now I'd say the biggest weakness is 3B. I'd love to add a proven dominant SP if possible (although Contreras could be that guy).

4 - Only to the extent that someone's available and we can take on salary. In the offseason it would have helped had we decided to go get Pedro.

5 - An offseason adding say $10-15mil would be enough when added to the current team to do it. 1 impact FA - SP if Frank's going to be back, otherwise SP or a bat (preferably 3B)

6 - Yes, I believe if the team avoided injury last year we would have had pretty good revenue increases. If they do it this year, I think we'll see 2.3, maybe even 2.5mil.

AZChiSoxFan
04-11-2005, 03:50 PM
No. 2 is entitled to his opinion, I disagree with it. History shows that in the 25 years that Uncle Jerry has owned this team they have been a failure in the area where it counts most, on- the- field performance.




For what it's worth, the on-the-field performance during the 24 years that JR has owned the team has not been much different from the last 24 years prior to JR's ownership.

1981-2004:
1932 W's, 1829 L's (.514 WP)
14 seasons with a winning record
3 postseason appearances (0 pennants)

1957-1980:
1940 W's, 1899 L's (.505 WP)
13 seasons with a winning record
1 postseason appearance (1 pennant)

I'm not saying that I'm at all pleased with the team's collective performance during Jerry's tenure, but it's not like he took over a perennial pennant contender and drove them into the ground. In the 13 years prior to JR buying the team, the Sox posted a winning record just 2 times ('72 & '77).

I did a little exercise and took the 2005 payroll levels from this thread, and divided them by 2004 attendance figures to come up with dollars spent on payroll, for every fan who came to a game last year. Here are the top 5 teams from that calculation (along with the evil empire):

1) Expos/Nationals $64.86
2) Yankees $54.55
3) Mets $45.20
4) Red Sox $42.76
5) Sox $38.96
14) Scrubs $27.51

The Expos/Nats are an anomaly due to the fact that they raised their payroll this year in anticipation of moving to a new city. If you take them out, the Sox are 4th. This sort of becomes a chicken or an egg argument, with JR saying he would increase payroll if attendance went up and others saying attendance would go up if he would increase payroll.

I realize the JR is not the model owner, but I also believe he is not the villian that some have made him out to be.

Ol' No. 2
04-11-2005, 03:57 PM
The next step is to get to the league average and then we'll see what lies ahead.Or at least raise it above the Twins payroll so we can win a division once in a while.

AZChiSoxFan
04-11-2005, 04:12 PM
The next step is to get to the league average and then we'll see what lies ahead.


According to the numbers from the SI article in the first post in this thread, I calculated that the average team payroll was approximately $72,749,000 (I rounded my numbers to the nearest thousand). The Sox payroll at $75,228,000 is already above the league average, not to even mention the median.

TwinGats
04-11-2005, 06:56 PM
i'm just glad to see it's money well spent...so far

payroll statistics are stupid anyway, the ones that matter are W's and L's

:)

swanson24
04-11-2005, 08:55 PM
TwinGats I couldn't agree more. Payroll does not always translate into wins and loses. Look at Oakland, and now Atlanta. The Braves have kept alive their incredible run of 13 straight division titles despite cutting payroll the last two years. Anything is possible.

jabrch
04-11-2005, 08:59 PM
Anyone know where the offseason "Guess the Payroll" thread went?

Lip Man 1
04-11-2005, 09:05 PM
Folks:

Az: According to the story in the Sporting News based on 2004 figures the Sox were still below the league average. We won't know about 2005 until the season is over since teams will be acquiring and gutting payroll and talent.

Swanson: Sure the Braves 'cut' payroll, it's now only 85 million or so... They also have the best pitching coach in baseball and one of the top field managers to go along with perhaps the best General Manager in baseball. See my discussion with Bob about 'front office talent.'

Lip

CWSGuy406
04-11-2005, 09:24 PM
I would like the people defending the payroll status quo to answer these questions (assume Frank plays by mid-May and is healthy and productive all year long.):

1)Do you think the Sox are WS contenders this season (I do remember ON2 picked them to win it all, as did I. I did it because I refuse to predict losses before they happen - it's one of my superstitious quirks.)

2) How close is the team to being WS contenders?

3) Where should the Sox be upgrading the team?

4) Would more money help the team upgrade in those areas?

5) How much further money would need to be spent to seriously upgrade those areas and turn the team into WS contenders?

6) If the Sox are WS contenders this season and in years to come, do you expect to see a dramatic increase in revenue through increased attendance?

Personally, I think the Sox are one more top 3 starter and a powerhitting LF from being serious contenders. I think that could be accomplished by spending another $15-20M. I think the Sox would walk away with the division if they could make those acquistions and make a serious run at the Pennant and beyond (again, assuming Frank is healthy as stated). I think if they made those moves, they would draw well over 2.5M on the season and basically pay for the increased payroll.

No guarantees, but if they did it right, they would have 3 bites on the apple and that should be enough to get over the hump.

Prove you care about winning the pennant year in and year out, JR. Go on, I dare you...

I'm a late-reader in this thread, and I'd like to put in my two cents in this thread (hope ya don't mind).

1.) Do I think the White Sox are World Series contenders? Eh, I think if healthy and if things clicked right, yes. I like Buehrle/Hernandez/Garcia in a short series, as I don't see a real dominating pitching staff in the AL -- Johnson is solid for the Yanks, but I dunno about Pavano/Mussina with NY. Schilling is solid for Boston, but then there's Clement/Wells, which doesn't scare me. Anahiem certainly doesn't scare me either, and while Santana and Radke are dynomite (Radke to a lesser extent), they don't have anyone after the big two.

2.)I think we're close. If Kenny could make a move and grab us someone at the A-S Break -- I can't tell you who, I haven't seen enough of the team -- but I would keep an eye on the situation in Milwaukee with Sheets. If they are unable to reach a contract extension by June, you know that Kenny is going to offer up an appealing package of players (hopefully not McCarthy, but Anderson + others would be a nice start). Maybe if there's a stud reliever that comes available, you can never have too many solid relievers.

3.)IMHO, we're a pretty well rounded team. Not spectacular in any one area, but above average all around -- again, IMHO. The only place where I could see this team in a position to upgrade is 3B -- and good 3B-men don't grow on trees. If Kenny can get us a Shea Hillenbrand (who I think would be an awesome pickup) or a Joe Randa without giving up the farm, I'd do it. Another bullpen arm would be nice too. If Contreras falters, that's a spot that needs upgrading.

4.)Where would having a boatload of money helped us this offseason? I mean, the only case where I'm really mad that we're not able to outbid a team in is Pedro -- maybe Beltran or Drew, but that's about it. A lot of really, really bad contracts were handed out this winter, and for the most part, I'm glad Kenny stayed clear, got some nice one-two year deals done -- Milton, Ortiz, Benson, Guzman -- the list goes on.

5.)If we're have an $80 million payroll, which is $4.5 million or so above what we're at now, there's absolutely no excuse for Kenny not to get this team into the playoffs. That's what I want from Kenny -- to get us into the playoffs. After that, let the cards fall where they may -- because once your there, it doesn't matter if your team is spending $500 million or $50 million, the hotter team is going to win.

6.)A definite yes.

swanson24
04-11-2005, 09:31 PM
Good point I definitely don't think the Sox have the attendance to support being a top ten payroll. Lets face it baseball is a business.

swanson24
04-11-2005, 09:37 PM
All I'm saying is that you don't have to throw around cash like the Yankees and Red Sox to win. The 2003 Florida Marlins and the 2002 Anaheim Angels proved this. For the record I am not comparing the 2005 WhiteSox to either of those teams I'm just supporting my claim that money spent is not the most important ingredient to winning a championship.

Lip Man 1
04-11-2005, 09:42 PM
Swanson 24 says: "Good point I definitely don't think the Sox have the attendance to support being a top ten payroll. Lets face it baseball is a business."

Right...then good ol' Uncle Jerry should have ponied up his own millions and built his own stadium like in San Francisco. The city and state have already 'supported' him to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars PLUS the most sweetheart lease agreement in baseball according to Pulitzer Prize winning author, John Helyar in his book, 'The Lords Of The Realm.'

Given all that I think Uncle Jerry can afford to go into debt for a few years to try to pay back those who 'supported' him and increased the worth of the franchise many times over.

Lip

swanson24
04-11-2005, 09:48 PM
Cant we just be happy the Sox are playing well in the first week. The constant pessimism about payroll and low OBP really kill a good time.

jabrch
04-11-2005, 09:51 PM
Cant we just be happy the Sox are playing well in the first week. The constant pessimism about payroll and low OBP really kill a good time.

You haven't been around here very long, huh?

voodoochile
04-11-2005, 09:55 PM
Cant we just be happy the Sox are playing well in the first week. The constant pessimism about payroll and low OBP really kill a good time.

Well, now you know what threads to avoid. Wouldn't want to spoil your good time now would we?

jabrch
04-11-2005, 10:01 PM
Well, now you know what threads to avoid. Wouldn't want to spoil your good time now would we?


LMAO

gosox41
04-12-2005, 10:05 AM
Swanson 24 says: "Good point I definitely don't think the Sox have the attendance to support being a top ten payroll. Lets face it baseball is a business."

Right...then good ol' Uncle Jerry should have ponied up his own millions and built his own stadium like in San Francisco. The city and state have already 'supported' him to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars PLUS the most sweetheart lease agreement in baseball according to Pulitzer Prize winning author, John Helyar in his book, 'The Lords Of The Realm.'

Given all that I think Uncle Jerry can afford to go into debt for a few years to try to pay back those who 'supported' him and increased the worth of the franchise many times over.

Lip

Lip,

This is on a different note (and I my start a new thread abou this) but go read the April 25 Forbes magazine. (I think it's Forbe's if not it's Fortune). Anyway they do the valuation of franchises and focus on the most profitable team in baseball in 2004....the Seattle Mariners. Anyway, I don't have a link, but part of the artcile talks about how the Mariners have the greatest lease deal ever on their stadium.

Look it up.



Bob

CubKiller5
04-12-2005, 02:53 PM
I'm probably in the minority here but I would have preferred they spent a few dollars more to keep Lee. Lee had 16 mil /2 yr left on his contract. Koney has only 9 mil / 1 yr on his. If I could keep only 1 it would be Lee. If I could get a player like Pods (leadoff guy) w/out sacrificing Lee or Koney I'd do that. Even if it means parting with cheap talent.

Keeping Lee, means no Davis, no Dye, & no Vizc. Their earning just shy of 8 mil this year. With the FA C's avail this off-season I felt there was no reason to commit to Davis. He was essentially a throw in on the Garcia trade. I would have been willing to overpay for a C like AJ & therefore spend a few mil more than the 75 mil. I don't think you curb pennies when something great is w/in your reach.

What's often overlooked in the Lee trade is the fact he led the White Sox in combined SB's for 2003-2004. He tied Rowand in that dept.

I think a lineup of Pods, Guch, Lee, Everett/Frank, Rowand, AJ, Gload, Crede, & Uribe might have been the best in the ALC. Lee avg'd about 15 SB's/yr the last 2 yrs. Add that to Pod's 55 SB avg, & Guch's 30 SB avg & you've got a yrly avg of 100 SB's in your 1st 3 guys. I think that might have been the best in the majors.

I'm using Koney as the price to pay for Pods but it could have been a package built around Garland & Crede as well. Or maybe even involve a 3rd team. We know they were looking for HR power as the basis for the trade. Crede's proven to be a 20+ HR guy.

What's going to make or break this trade obviously is Dye. If he's amongst the team's leaders in OPS then Lee wil be forgotten. If he's not then Williams will always be second guessed. With a payroll of 76-77 mil we can still keep Lee, add Guch, AJ, Herm, & El Duque & be a better team than we are now. That's always going to play in the back of mind this season.

I'm hoping Dye proves me wrong. He seems to be a lock for a near 800 OPS player with potential to reach 900. Carlos on the other hand appears to be a near 900 OPS player with the potential to reach 1000. If both of them reach their potential I'd still give Williams the nod because of what Beane has said over the years about Dye as player. But if Carlos' potential emerges & Dye doesn't it was clearly a bad move.

CubKiller5
04-12-2005, 03:04 PM
Lip,

This is on a different note (and I my start a new thread abou this) but go read the April 25 Forbes magazine. (I think it's Forbe's if not it's Fortune). Anyway they do the valuation of franchises and focus on the most profitable team in baseball in 2004....the Seattle Mariners. Anyway, I don't have a link, but part of the artcile talks about how the Mariners have the greatest lease deal ever on their stadium.

Look it up.

Bob

But let's not forget the bigger enterprises like the Yankees are able to hide much more of their media revenue dollars because of owning thier own networks. When I last read it the White Sox were ranked 18th over all in revenue (around 130 mil). I think it's reasonable to suggest the payroll should be at least 1/2 of the revenue.

Where the White Sox lose out in franchise valuation is the fact they don't own their own stadiums. That's why teams like the NYY, CHC, SFG, BOS, LAD all rank near the top in franchise value because they own their own parks.

I would definitely say a mid-high 70 mil payroll is stretching the budget to the limits for the White Sox. I don't think they are expecting a huge increase at the gate in the 1st half to pay for it. If there is going to be an increase it's going to come in the 2nd half with a winning team. That's where there lies a real chance to grab an extra 250,000 fans to the park.
If they are out of it by the break I think we can expect a firesale. Let's hope that doesn't happen.