PDA

View Full Version : Anyone Else Sick Of the Sox Lowballing Free Agents?


Thome25
06-29-2007, 10:43 AM
The Garland comments got me thinking. I'm a die hard Sox fan and I will be until the day I die. But, can't we sign a free agent without the circus?

Why on Earth can't we just sign someone without the words "hometeam discount" coming into the equation?

We Sox fans put our hard earned money into the product and it doesn't seem like it gets put back out.

Yeah I know.....we have a 100 million + payroll but, why do we always have to lowball our guys?

Who agrees? Disagrees? What do you think?

Madvora
06-29-2007, 10:48 AM
It's a business and the main concern is to make money. Investing in a winner is the real way to make money, but sometimes it seems like they're being too careful. Then again, these same people got it right in 2005, so you can't really blame them.

jenn2080
06-29-2007, 10:57 AM
Agree, but why should people be piad ridiculous amounts of money?

Thome25
06-29-2007, 10:58 AM
It's a business and the main concern is to make money. Investing in a winner is the real way to make money, but sometimes it seems like they're being too careful. Then again, these same people got it right in 2005, so you can't really blame them.

They pieced a team together in 2005 w/players that every other team viewed as "scraps". THANK GOD it worked.

I'm not saying go the Red Sox and Yankees route but, damn loosen up the purse strings just a little more.

Chicken Dinner
06-29-2007, 10:59 AM
The Garland comments got me thinking. I'm a die hard Sox fan and I will be until the day I die. But, can't we sign a free agent without the circus?

Why on Earth can't we just sign someone without the words "hometeam discount" coming into the equation?

We Sox fans put our hard earned money into the product and it doesn't seem like it gets put back out.

Yeah I know.....we have a 100 million + payroll but, why do we always have to lowball our guys?

Who agrees? Disagrees? What do you think?

When I buy a car or anything else I'm not going to pay the sticker price. Everyone likes a fair deal.

FielderJones
06-29-2007, 11:01 AM
I'm not saying go the Red Sox and Yankees route but, damn loosen up the purse strings just a little more.

:reinsy
"And that, my friend, is why you are a wage slave and I am a Major League Baseball team owner."

Thome25
06-29-2007, 11:06 AM
C'mon guys and gals....make this your thread to voice your opinion about the White Sox budgetary concerns.

Brooks and possibly other Sox officials visit this site. Let 'em know how you feel.

seventyseven
06-29-2007, 11:16 AM
C'mon guys and gals....make this your thread to voice your opinion about the White Sox budgetary concerns.

Brooks and possibly other Sox officials visit this site. Let 'em know how you feel.

Why the **** should they care about how we feel? Seriously, we're the fans. We root for whoever is in a Sox uniform, show our appreciation for good efforts, and our displeasure for poor efforts. We buy tickets and merchandise to show we're pleased, and don't when we're displeased. That's where it ends. The team does not belong to us, nor do most of us have the slightest idea how teams are constructed and run.

If you'd like to change something upstairs, save your pennies and buy a stake. Until then, these sorts of threads are useless.

Luke
06-29-2007, 11:17 AM
The Garland comments got me thinking. I'm a die hard Sox fan and I will be until the day I die. But, can't we sign a free agent without the circus?

Why on Earth can't we just sign someone without the words "hometeam discount" coming into the equation?

We Sox fans put our hard earned money into the product and it doesn't seem like it gets put back out.

Yeah I know.....we have a 100 million + payroll but, why do we always have to lowball our guys?

Who agrees? Disagrees? What do you think?

It's in the team's interest to spend as little as possible for the requisite talent to win. Teams that are percieved to thow money at FAs often find themselves hamstrung by bad contracts and unable to compete. The Rangers are glaring example with ARod, as are Dodgers and Kevin Brown. I think it's a situation the Cubs will find themselves in shortly with a few players.

If the Sox weren't careful with their money in 2005 for example, they might have had to make a choice between sigingin AJ or Tadahito. I like the financial discretion.

As for putting your money in, I think the Sox spend about as much of their gross revenues on players as any other team...At least that's always been the company line. Regardless, no matter how much we want it to be, our money isn't an investment, and the Sox aren't obligated to use it capital improvements.

INSox56
06-29-2007, 11:18 AM
C'mon guys and gals....make this your thread to voice your opinion about the White Sox budgetary concerns.

Brooks and possibly other Sox officials visit this site. Let 'em know how you feel.A good fact to remember is our ****ty farm system. If you can't bring in cheap talent to offset the FAs, then you have only a couple options. Give one or two guys huge FA contracts that they're worth and have the rest of the team full of halfassed, cheap veterans. Or you can try to lowball the FAs we do have.

When you don't have salary extremes in your payroll, you have to get a low average somehow.

jdm2662
06-29-2007, 11:28 AM
Ok, I said this in another thread, and I will ask again. Just who have the Sox let go that have gone on to stardom that they would truly regretted letting go? In the past 20 years, I could certainly think of one name (Bonilla, who was traded his rookie season), and Ventura (who had one great season and a few solid, but not really great seasons). So, really, this whinning about the Sox lowballing FA's per say hasn't exactly bitten them in the ass. Wait and see what happens with Mark and Garland before jumping to conclusions. The White Sox currently have the fourth highest payroll in baseball, and yet sit 12 games out of first place. The Yankees have the highest payroll and currently sit three games under .500. Throwing money around doesn't equate to wins.

southside rocks
06-29-2007, 11:37 AM
The Garland comments got me thinking. I'm a die hard Sox fan and I will be until the day I die. But, can't we sign a free agent without the circus?

Why on Earth can't we just sign someone without the words "hometeam discount" coming into the equation?

We Sox fans put our hard earned money into the product and it doesn't seem like it gets put back out.

Yeah I know.....we have a 100 million + payroll but, why do we always have to lowball our guys?

Who agrees? Disagrees? What do you think?

I think that this type of strategy/negotiation goes on in every baseball city when players are re-negotiating or re-signing contracts. We just don't hear about it in other cities, which leads us perhaps to conclude that it's only the Sox who have this fuss surrounding contracts. It's not. At all.

Point two: I have not read that anybody here actually knows what the Sox have been offering to MB. That "4/50" deal that got spread all over the airwaves by the sportsblab radio idiots did not originate with the White Sox; they never said that was their offer to MB. Without knowing what they're offering, and what he's asking, it's really impossible to judge the progress of the talks and negotiations. I am a negotiator, and it's a fact that the way a bargaining session LOOKS is very often no indicator at all of what's actually going on.

Reacting to **** that is broadcast on the Score or printed in the newspapers is pointless. Most of those people have no real information at all about stuff like this. And they think that their job is to stir the pot, not to provide information, so they get whipped up over nothing. Pathetic.

Garland's comments were his opinion. Of course he doesn't see why JR doesn't want to do more than 3 years normally for a pitcher; Garland is labor and JR is management, and the most classic divide in the world will always be between those two points of view. That said, nobody has even whispered that the Sox are only offering MB 3 years.

I'm a Sox fan for 40 years now. I put my money into this product, and to me it does seem like it gets paid back. I love US Cellular Field and have a lot of fun there in the summer. I love the convenience of the parking; I love the concourse; I love the view from all the seats I sit in. I love it that the team has a winning record every year in this century (with this season still a work in progress) and that the manager, GM, coaches, broadcasters, and other organization personnel are all Sox alumni. I'm a happy camper.

soxfan13
06-29-2007, 11:39 AM
They pieced a team together in 2005 w/players that every other team viewed as "scraps". THANK GOD it worked.

I'm not saying go the Red Sox and Yankees route but, damn loosen up the purse strings just a little more.

Who exactly were the "scrap" players? They way you say it, the whole team was built at major league minimum salaries.

areilly
06-29-2007, 11:57 AM
Who exactly were the "scrap" players? They way you say it, the whole team was built at major league minimum salaries.

I think he meant there were a lot of players on that team who'd been written off (Contreras, Carl Everett, A.J., and Jermaine for example) and the Sox jumped on that for the discount.

Thome25
06-29-2007, 12:07 PM
I think he meant there were a lot of players on that team who'd been written off (Contreras, Carl Everett, A.J., and Jermaine for example) and the Sox jumped on that for the discount.

My point EXACTLY.

I'm not saying overspend ala the Rangers, Dodgers, or even Cubs but a team SHOULD spend on it's own core group of guys.

I'm saying pay market value for your team leaders who should be here for years to come. i.e. Paulie, Buehrle, Garland, and Crede fell into that category untl he got injured.

I'm tired of the Sox running this team like it's a discount store......they always seem to sign the guys who are "projects" just because they're cheap.

Luke
06-29-2007, 12:21 PM
My point EXACTLY.

I'm not saying overspend ala the Rangers, Dodgers, or even Cubs but a team SHOULD spend on it's own core group of guys.

I'm saying pay market value for your team leaders who should be here for years to come. i.e. Paulie, Buehrle, Garland, and Crede fell into that category untl he got injured.

I'm tired of the Sox running this team like it's a discount store......they always seem to sign the guys who are "projects" just because they're cheap.

To clarify things do you mean fair value or market value? Because there is difference.

Paulie tested the open market, and the Sox happily paid market value for him. Buehrle and Garland both signed their last extensions while under contract and certainly got fair value for their services, but not being on the open market, they didn't get market value. Crede is arbatration eligible, and not entitled to market value, he gets what an unbiased arbitor deems fair.

As for the term "projects" I don't think that's fair. A project implies a lot of work has to be spent developing a player. the Sox decided that both Dye and Everett were good players that were undervalued, and thus good signings.

rainbow6
06-29-2007, 12:49 PM
[
I don't think it's been a case of the Sox not paying "market value" it's just that the players in the past who we've let go either didn't seem like they were worth the risk (the pitchers from the 90's) or it was determined that an in-house solution would yield similar production (Ventura vs. Crede).

As others have stated in previous threads, what players did the Sox let go that came back to haunt them? Who, specifically are you refering to? Magglio is the obvious answer but just about EVERYONE thought Detroit was nuts giving him that contract at the time...

The fact that Konerko came back, and hopefully Buerhle to follow, gives me confidence that Reinsdorf will "spend on his own core guys" when no alternatives are out there.






quote=Thome25;1620764]My point EXACTLY.

I'm not saying overspend ala the Rangers, Dodgers, or even Cubs but a team SHOULD spend on it's own core group of guys.

I'm saying pay market value for your team leaders who should be here for years to come. i.e. Paulie, Buehrle, Garland, and Crede fell into that category untl he got injured.

I'm tired of the Sox running this team like it's a discount store......they always seem to sign the guys who are "projects" just because they're cheap.[/quote]

Hitmen77
06-29-2007, 01:23 PM
[
I don't think it's been a case of the Sox not paying "market value" it's just that the players in the past who we've let go either didn't seem like they were worth the risk (the pitchers from the 90's) or it was determined that an in-house solution would yield similar production (Ventura vs. Crede).

As others have stated in previous threads, what players did the Sox let go that came back to haunt them? Who, specifically are you refering to? Magglio is the obvious answer but just about EVERYONE thought Detroit was nuts giving him that contract at the time...

The fact that Konerko came back, and hopefully Buerhle to follow, gives me confidence that Reinsdorf will "spend on his own core guys" when no alternatives are out there.

I wouldn't even count Magglio as one we regretted letting get away. Yes, he's doing great now - but if the Sox paid enough to keep in before the '05 season, I find it hard to believe that we would have won the World Series that year. IMO, that forever puts the Sox in the clear on the Magglio situation.

soxfan13
06-29-2007, 01:33 PM
I think he meant there were a lot of players on that team who'd been written off (Contreras, Carl Everett, A.J., and Jermaine for example) and the Sox jumped on that for the discount.

My point EXACTLY.

I'm not saying overspend ala the Rangers, Dodgers, or even Cubs but a team SHOULD spend on it's own core group of guys.

I'm saying pay market value for your team leaders who should be here for years to come. i.e. Paulie, Buehrle, Garland, and Crede fell into that category untl he got injured.

I'm tired of the Sox running this team like it's a discount store......they always seem to sign the guys who are "projects" just because they're cheap.

Guess what I am saying, which I thought you were implying is that all of those players above would have been playing somewhere. Dye you got because of injury problems, contreras wasnt exactly cast off, AJ had a problem with a teammate and the Giants thought they were better off without him. I could understand the term "scrap" if they were a bunch of bush leaguers that won it in 2005, but all the players named were and are quality ballplayers that would have been playing somewhere.

Dolanski
06-29-2007, 01:54 PM
The Garland comments got me thinking. I'm a die hard Sox fan and I will be until the day I die. But, can't we sign a free agent without the circus?

Why on Earth can't we just sign someone without the words "hometeam discount" coming into the equation?

We Sox fans put our hard earned money into the product and it doesn't seem like it gets put back out.

Yeah I know.....we have a 100 million + payroll but, why do we always have to lowball our guys?

Who agrees? Disagrees? What do you think?

Ok, so a few years ago you would have paid 25 million for ARod?

Arm Chair GM threads are the biggest waste of time.

itsnotrequired
06-29-2007, 02:02 PM
I wouldn't even count Magglio as one we regretted letting get away. Yes, he's doing great now - but if the Sox paid enough to keep in before the '05 season, I find it hard to believe that we would have won the World Series that year. IMO, that forever puts the Sox in the clear on the Magglio situation.

The whole Magglio situation was lose-lose for the Sox. Without being able to examine him, KW had very little options. Hell, even offering him arbitration for draft picks was a larger gamble than it usually is.

hawkjt
06-29-2007, 02:03 PM
I think that this type of strategy/negotiation goes on in every baseball city when players are re-negotiating or re-signing contracts. We just don't hear about it in other cities, which leads us perhaps to conclude that it's only the Sox who have this fuss surrounding contracts. It's not. At all.

Point two: I have not read that anybody here actually knows what the Sox have been offering to MB. That "4/50" deal that got spread all over the airwaves by the sportsblab radio idiots did not originate with the White Sox; they never said that was their offer to MB. Without knowing what they're offering, and what he's asking, it's really impossible to judge the progress of the talks and negotiations. I am a negotiator, and it's a fact that the way a bargaining session LOOKS is very often no indicator at all of what's actually going on.

Reacting to **** that is broadcast on the Score or printed in the newspapers is pointless. Most of those people have no real information at all about stuff like this. And they think that their job is to stir the pot, not to provide information, so they get whipped up over nothing. Pathetic.

Garland's comments were his opinion. Of course he doesn't see why JR doesn't want to do more than 3 years normally for a pitcher; Garland is labor and JR is management, and the most classic divide in the world will always be between those two points of view. That said, nobody has even whispered that the Sox are only offering MB 3 years.

I'm a Sox fan for 40 years now. I put my money into this product, and to me it does seem like it gets paid back. I love US Cellular Field and have a lot of fun there in the summer. I love the convenience of the parking; I love the concourse; I love the view from all the seats I sit in. I love it that the team has a winning record every year in this century (with this season still a work in progress) and that the manager, GM, coaches, broadcasters, and other organization personnel are all Sox alumni. I'm a happy camper.

SS Rocks nailed it very well... this just part of the process in any franchise that actually knows how to operate in todays baseball environment.. no hard feelings on either mgt or labor sides afterward..

I have been pleased with our mgts budget the last 4-5 years and really think JR plows profits back in for the most part... but wisely if possible.

Re-signing MB would validate my faith in Kenny and JR to make the smart big money moves.. sign him, kenny ,please.

Thome25
06-29-2007, 02:09 PM
Ok, so a few years ago you would have paid 25 million for ARod?

Arm Chair GM threads are the biggest waste of time.

Try reading a few more posts in this thread..... and you'd see that wasn't what I was implying.

voodoochile
06-29-2007, 02:36 PM
I wouldn't even count Magglio as one we regretted letting get away. Yes, he's doing great now - but if the Sox paid enough to keep in before the '05 season, I find it hard to believe that we would have won the World Series that year. IMO, that forever puts the Sox in the clear on the Magglio situation.

Yeah, and when Magglio refused to have his knee looked at I can't really fault the Sox for refusing to break the bank to pay him.

Noneck
06-29-2007, 03:52 PM
Lowball free agents, hire inexpensive managers and gm's, squeeze politicians for new digs, dump announcers because they are too expensive or don't toe the company line and generally cut as many corners as you can has been the chairmans trademark. And you know what? The investors love him, He has made them tons of money.

The Dude
06-29-2007, 04:01 PM
The Garland comments got me thinking. I'm a die hard Sox fan and I will be until the day I die. But, can't we sign a free agent without the circus?

Why on Earth can't we just sign someone without the words "hometeam discount" coming into the equation?

We Sox fans put our hard earned money into the product and it doesn't seem like it gets put back out.

Yeah I know.....we have a 100 million + payroll but, why do we always have to lowball our guys?

Who agrees? Disagrees? What do you think?

It's good you got to thinking but we DO spend a **** ton of money and will continue to do so. We are a relatively smart team when it comes to handing out contracts and why shouldn't we be? We aren't a cash cow like the Yankees or Red Sox but we do spend within our means.

When you think you have it bad, look over yonder at teams like Pittsburgh and then tell me that we lowball free agents. :rolleyes:

Frontman
06-29-2007, 04:11 PM
Yep. Sox sure go cheap at over 100 million for salaries. Compared to what I'll make this year, Garland and co. are living the high life.

Sorry, but Jon's comments were out of line, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Sox part ways with him down the road. Certain things should remain "in house" and that's one of them. If they feel they aren't making enough, test the FA market. If they want to play for the Sox, get paid fairly and don't complain.

Simple way of lookin' at it, I'm sure. But that's how I feel.

Noneck
06-29-2007, 04:18 PM
I am really tired of hearing how extravagant the Sox are with spending about 100m in salaries. They drew almost 3m fans (who eat and buy at concessions), and get a nice chunk of change from parking concessions. Compared to small market teams like Pirates, they should spend at least 100m or its a travesty.

itsnotrequired
06-29-2007, 04:29 PM
Yeah, and when Magglio refused to have his knee looked at I can't really fault the Sox for refusing to break the bank to pay him.

:rolleyes:

:redneck

From KW's standpoint, it looked like this:

A. KW rolls the dice believing Maggs is leaving no matter what and offers arbitration to get draft picks. Magglio is far more injured than is known (as in he will never be the same again), jumps at the Sox offer, rakes in big money for another year and moves on/retires.

B. Maggs isn't that injured. He accepts arbitration, uses the 2005 season to rehab and then departs for free agency afterwards.

C. Maggs accepts the Sox long term offer and is hurt. Sox are on the hook for $60 million+.

No matter what, the Sox were screwed. Besides, picking up Maggs salary means no Dye, less money to get guys like Pierzynski, Iguchi, etc. and most likely, no WS win. I think everyone here would trade Maggs amazing 2007 season for a WS championship.:cool:

The Dude
06-29-2007, 04:31 PM
:rolleyes:

:redneck

From KW's standpoint, it looked like this:

A. KW rolls the dice believing Maggs is leaving no matter what and offers arbitration to get draft picks. Magglio is far more injured than is known (as in he will never be the same again), jumps at the Sox offer, rakes in big money for another year and moves on/retires.

B. Maggs isn't that injured. He accepts arbitration, uses the 2005 season to rehab and then departs for free agency afterwards.

C. Maggs accepts the Sox long term offer and is hurt. Sox are on the hook for $60 million+.

No matter what, the Sox were screwed. Besides, picking up Maggs salary means no Dye, less money to get guys like Pierzynski, Iguchi, etc. and most likely, no WS win. I think everyone here would trade Maggs amazing 2007 season for a WS championship.:cool:

:worship:
Perfectly stated!

EndemicSox
06-29-2007, 04:43 PM
Because winning is secondary, it always has been.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 04:47 PM
I'm sick of fans *****ing about money when we have one of the highest payrolls in all of baseball.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 04:48 PM
Yeah, and when Magglio refused to have his knee looked at I can't really fault the Sox for refusing to break the bank to pay him.

I wouldn't have given him 1 freaking dollar if he was unwilling to have the Sox team doctors examine him and all of his medical records after he had to go to Europe to get his knee worked on.

RockJock07
06-29-2007, 04:50 PM
Maggs didn't want to stay. Because he wouldn't let the Sox review his knee, Kenny did the right thing by letting him walk.

This is a team game, but there are only a select few players who can change an outcome of a season. Maggs is not one of those, Ichiro is. Granted, Seattle has done nothing since Ichiro has been there, but the M's have had nothing else around him.

Maggs is better off out of town and the Sox won the WS. I'd rather spend the $ on a for-sure thing as in Ichiro. I hope that when it comes time to make an offer, Kenny really opens up the purse strings, but you never know......

Noneck
06-29-2007, 04:57 PM
I'm sick of fans *****ing about money when we have one of the highest payrolls in all of baseball.

One of the highest payrolls goes hand and hand with one of the highest attendance.

Thome25
06-29-2007, 05:01 PM
I'm sick of fans *****ing about money when we have one of the highest payrolls in all of baseball.

Yep. Sox sure go cheap at over 100 million for salaries. Compared to what I'll make this year, Garland and co. are living the high life.

Sorry, but Jon's comments were out of line, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Sox part ways with him down the road. Certain things should remain "in house" and that's one of them. If they feel they aren't making enough, test the FA market. If they want to play for the Sox, get paid fairly and don't complain.

Simple way of lookin' at it, I'm sure. But that's how I feel.

The White Sox go for Quantity over Quality. No one said they had a low payroll. I merely stated that when one of their core players is up for free agency they always cry poor and look for the "hometown discount".

Instead of signing a bunch of reclamation projects that add up to 100MM why not give your core guys who are the nucleus of this team their due?

With their attendance the last couple of seasons, their payroll should be AT LEAST 100MM. I'm not saying they should get outta control like the Yankees and Red Sox either.

Jurr
06-29-2007, 05:09 PM
I'm sick of fans *****ing about money when we have one of the highest payrolls in all of baseball.
thank you, thank you very much.

southside rocks
06-29-2007, 05:16 PM
The White Sox go for Quantity over Quality. No one said they had a low payroll. I merely stated that when one of their core players is up for free agency they always cry poor and look for the "hometown discount".



Please, can you show me where the Sox have done that with MB? With PK? With any recent signing of that type?

Are you maybe confusing what the writers and radio jocks say, with what the organization says? I have not heard the Sox "cry poor" at all, and I have heard that they are very willing to break their 3-year rule for MB. And the Sox have never said that they would seek a "hometown discount" from MB. That's the papers and the radio idiots blabbering.

Sorry, I don't at all see what the wrongdoing by the Sox organization is on this. Maybe I missed something?

Thome25
06-29-2007, 05:24 PM
Please, can you show me where the Sox have done that with MB? With PK? With any recent signing of that type?

Are you maybe confusing what the writers and radio jocks say, with what the organization says? I have not heard the Sox "cry poor" at all, and I have heard that they are very willing to break their 3-year rule for MB. And the Sox have never said that they would seek a "hometown discount" from MB. That's the papers and the radio idiots blabbering.

Sorry, I don't at all see what the wrongdoing by the Sox organization is on this. Maybe I missed something?

Have you seen the circus that is the Mark Buehrle contract situation? Not all of this is media created.

If the Sox were smart they would've give him a 5-year deal. That's what championship-caliber teams do with their good, quality, home grown talent.

Not toe the same company line they always have before the WS victory.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 05:27 PM
The White Sox go for Quantity over Quality.

Bull****

The sox go for building the best possible organization, not seeing who has the biggest wallet and is willing to risk the largest sum of money on a single contract.

Would you have been happier if we paid big $ to Hideo Nomo or Mike Hampton or Adrian Beltre or whomever, just to outbid someone on "quality" and then be freaking screwed for 3 years?

For crying out loud - *****ing about payroll is just ridiculous right now. It isn't that we didn't spend money. It isn't that we don't have good players. Our good players aren't hitting.

MRM
06-29-2007, 05:28 PM
They pieced a team together in 2005 w/players that every other team viewed as "scraps". THANK GOD it worked.

I'm not saying go the Red Sox and Yankees route but, damn loosen up the purse strings just a little more.

They have. The payroll this year is some $35mil higher than the one in '05 was. For years I criticized J.R. for being a tight wad but I can't do that anymore, and I'm not sure how anyone else can, either. He didn't sit on the profits the increased attendance brought, he put it back into the team. He sold naming rights to the field and used that money to dramatically inprove the ball park.

Like it or not the Sox don't have the revenue the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox do...or the Cubs and Rangers for that matter...but they are still among among the 4 or 5 highest player payrolls in the game. I don't know what else you can ask for.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 05:31 PM
If the Sox were smart they would've give him a 5-year deal.

There's no reason to tie yourself to 5 years on a pitcher. There isn't any good reason to do it. If he doesn't want to stay here for 4 years, and 56mm or so, then screw him. The franchise can ill afford to be handicapped to a long term contract if things go wrong with Mark. I'm glad we have managed to avoid all the crappy contracts that some franchises are saddled with.

Given how organizationally deep we are with starting pitching right now, I would not even think about giving mark a guaranteed 5th year. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why we should.

If he'd be happier elsewhere, and he wants to go elsewhere, he can get 6, 7 or maybe 8 years from a dumb franchise. The Sox are too smart for that - and are also (hopefully) too smart to go anything more than 4 years.

FarWestChicago
06-29-2007, 05:32 PM
Yeah I know.....we have a 100 million + payroll but, why do we always have to lowball our guys?You do realize this statement is completely self-contradictory and makes no sense?

oeo
06-29-2007, 05:34 PM
I wouldn't even count Magglio as one we regretted letting get away. Yes, he's doing great now - but if the Sox paid enough to keep in before the '05 season, I find it hard to believe that we would have won the World Series that year. IMO, that forever puts the Sox in the clear on the Magglio situation.

Maggs had surgery in Austria and wouldn't even let our team doctors examine his knee. Not to mention he was offered a pretty fair contract beforehand that he turned down. Screw Magglio.

Steelrod
06-29-2007, 05:34 PM
One of the highest payrolls goes hand and hand with one of the highest attendance.
...and by far the highest ticket prices!!!
Take a look at what good seats cost in NY and Boston.
The Sox are always in the upper third of payrolls.
ARE YOU PREPARED TO PAY A LOT MORE THAT YOU CURRENTLY DO !!
The Yanks and Red Sox sell out every game, and we have won as many World Series in the last 7 years as both of them combined!

Steelrod
06-29-2007, 05:36 PM
Also, anyone wanting the Sox to do a bunch of 5 year contracts, I'm sure would be willing to make a similiar commitment with their season tickets.

FarWestChicago
06-29-2007, 05:37 PM
For years I criticized J.R. for being a tight wad but I can't do that anymore, and I'm not sure how anyone else can, either.In Lip's case he's just obsessed with spending other people's money. Despite contrary evidence, he believes the highest payroll wins the Series every year. As for the rest of the malcontents, that's harder to explain. They seem to check logic at the door and rant.

santo=dorf
06-29-2007, 05:41 PM
In Lip's case he's just obsessed with spending other people's money. Despite contrary evidence, he believes the highest payroll wins the Series every year. As for the rest of the malcontents, that's harder to explain. They seem to check logic at the door and rant.
I just find it weird he wants Garland signed to another extension when just a couple years ago he was considered just another "can't miss kid" flop. :o:

Noneck
06-29-2007, 05:43 PM
...and by far the highest ticket prices!!!
Take a look at what good seats cost in NY and Boston.
The Sox are always in the upper third of payrolls.
ARE YOU PREPARED TO PAY A LOT MORE THAT YOU CURRENTLY DO !!
The Yanks and Red Sox sell out every game, and we have won as many World Series in the last 7 years as both of them combined!

What are you saying? The Sox don't have Boston or New York salaries. At least 100m in salaries is expected when you draw 3m.

CLR01
06-29-2007, 05:44 PM
The White Sox go for Quantity over Quality. No one said they had a low payroll. I merely stated that when one of their core players is up for free agency they always cry poor and look for the "hometown discount".

Instead of signing a bunch of reclamation projects that add up to 100MM why not give your core guys who are the nucleus of this team their due?

With their attendance the last couple of seasons, their payroll should be AT LEAST 100MM. I'm not saying they should get outta control like the Yankees and Red Sox either.

When your "core guys" are due to be making $10-15 million per year that $100 million disappears rather quick. This year the 4 you listed earlier are making $36.5 million next year that will increase to around $45 (assuming Mark at $14 mil and Crede at $7 mil). Add in Jose and Javier and you have $58 million this year and $66.5 million next year tied up in 6 players. You now have to fill out the other 19 positions with the remaining $33.5. That leaves you with an average of about $1.7 million per player. Talk about filling your team out with a bunch of cheap project players.

FarWestChicago
06-29-2007, 05:45 PM
I just find it weird he wants Garland signed to another extension when just a couple years ago he was considered just another "can't miss kid" flop. :o:Now that's a good one. :cool:

MRM
06-29-2007, 05:46 PM
If the Sox were smart they would've give him a 5-year deal. That's what championship-caliber teams do with their good, quality, home grown talent.


And exactly which "championship-caliber team" has done this? Lets list the perrenial "championship caliber teams":

Yankees - I'll grant you Jeter. Who else?
Braves - Smoltz? Chipper.
A's - Lose their top F.A.s EVERY year
Twins - See A's
Red Sox - Every great player they have comes from somewhere else.
St. Louis - Pujols hasn't reached F.A. yet. Who else?

Doesn't much look to me like the "smart teams", the ones who make the playoffs almost every year, do anything close to what you suggest "smart" teams do. They either re-stock yearly with young, cheap players or they buy someone elses high $$$ players. Two very different philosophies that have yielded similar results.

Steelrod
06-29-2007, 05:48 PM
What are you saying? The Sox don't have Boston or New York salaries. At least 100m in salaries is expected when you draw 3m.
We do have 100m in salaries and won't draw 2.5 ! Where does the shortfall come from, Increased ticket prices?

Noneck
06-29-2007, 05:56 PM
We do have 100m in salaries and won't draw 2.5 ! Where does the shortfall come from, Increased ticket prices?


We won't have 100m in salaries next year because of drop in attendance. Probably down to 85m territory. I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm saying if you draw you have to pay and the less you draw the less you pay.
I don't know exactly how much either way but I am am sure the chairmans finance staff does, so the investors will get a nice return on their investment.

Jurr
06-29-2007, 06:03 PM
I remember a team not too long ago winning a WS with a 75 mil payroll. They did it by signing the right players at the right time. Though I'll admit that they gambled on a couple of players (Dye, Iguchi, Hernandez), it worked.

You've gotta come out with the right mix of stars and role players to win. You've gotta have guys that are willing to sacrifice a little bit because they're not worried about their numbers in anticipation of a huge contract.

This team is not cheap, but they are smart. They're worried about remaining competitive, and dumping loads of money into two or three players isn't going to get it done. You sign a handful of guys to big(ger) deals (your core) and you plug in capable players around. Mix in a dash of chemistry and luck (mainly avoiding injuries), and you have a shot.

Just because you sign a big free agent doesn't mean you will win more games. The fact that you resign a player to a big contract doesn't necessarily mean he's going to be the same stud he was a year ago. Hell, the '06 Sox should've won 120 games by that reasoning. Sometimes a roster doesn't play itself out the way you'd think, and that's why you can't dump huge amounts of money into a couple of players. You have to be smart, and that's exactly what KW is trying to do.

The Dude
06-29-2007, 06:08 PM
I'm sick of fans *****ing about money when we have one of the highest payrolls in all of baseball.

AMEN!:gulp:

The Dude
06-29-2007, 06:09 PM
You do realize this statement is completely self-contradictory and makes no sense?

I highly doubt he does.:D:

This team looked great the last 3 years on paper. Problem is that this team had 2 of the 3 departments that failed. We had an awesome rotation, great hitters, and a revamped and reloaded bullpen. Problem is that Pods gets hurt, Thome gets hurt, Crede gets hurt & Dye gets hurt. This all after miserable hitting early on by Dye, Konerko, Crede, etc. with no one to pick up the slack. And we all know what happened with the pen. I was very high on Sisco, Aardsma and MacDougal in April but they have all failed. Our payroll, which is high, has nothing to do with our success. We spent money and made moves and it just didn't pan out. And Yankees are proof that if you spend spend spend, it doesn't guarantee ****.

MRM
06-29-2007, 06:12 PM
We do have 100m in salaries and won't draw 2.5 ! Where does the shortfall come from, Increased ticket prices?

Ticket prices are only a part of a teams revenue and the Sox lag far behind other teams in other areas such as TV contracts. People who want to tie payroll strictly to attendance don't know what they are talking about.

How much does the average fan spend on a trip to the ball park? Ticket, concessions, etc? $50-$60? Let's be generous and call it $80 for every man woman and child who walks through the turnstiles. Even drawing 3 million people (which they won't do) that's still only $240mil in GROSS revenue from the fans at the games. Sounds like a lot? Not when you pay all the expenses involved in running a MLB franchise. Everyone from the Usher to the Beer vendor is drawing a paycheck. Scouts, minor league players, coaches, and instructors. You've got chartered flights, hotel rooms, per diems on the road. At home, the electric bill for a single night game would cover my house for probably 3 years. You've got bats and balls. I mean we could get down to laundry service. The Gate isn't providing enough in and of itself to retain a $100mil 25-man roster payroll, to be sure.

MRM
06-29-2007, 06:15 PM
We won't have 100m in salaries next year because of drop in attendance. Probably down to 85m territory. I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm saying if you draw you have to pay and the less you draw the less you pay.
I don't know exactly how much either way but I am am sure the chairmans finance staff does, so the investors will get a nice return on their investment.

The White Sox don't pay dividends. The only "return on investment" the investors will ever see is if they sell their shares of the team.

JB98
06-29-2007, 06:16 PM
Please, can you show me where the Sox have done that with MB? With PK? With any recent signing of that type?

Are you maybe confusing what the writers and radio jocks say, with what the organization says? I have not heard the Sox "cry poor" at all, and I have heard that they are very willing to break their 3-year rule for MB. And the Sox have never said that they would seek a "hometown discount" from MB. That's the papers and the radio idiots blabbering.

Sorry, I don't at all see what the wrongdoing by the Sox organization is on this. Maybe I missed something?

Good post. There is a media perception that the Sox are a poor, low-revenue club that can't sign or keep players. Believe it or not, the Sox wear big-league uniforms and play in a big-league stadium and everything. That seems to be lost on some media types around here, especially radio people.

Hell, I hadn't even finished celebrating the 2005 title before people started up with their "Too bad they can't afford to sign Paulie" crap. Well, we signed Paulie. We might sign Buerhle too.

We aren't the ****ing Royals or the ****ing Pirates. We haven't had a losing season yet this decade. The people who run our organization may not be geniuses, but they are not idiots either.

Noneck
06-29-2007, 06:19 PM
The White Sox don't pay dividends. The only "return on investment" the investors will ever see is if they sell their shares of the team.

Exactly, and the shares increase in value every year and can be sold at anytime.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 06:22 PM
Exactly, and the shares increase in value every year and can be sold at anytime.

Not exactly - A share of the White Sox is not like a share of General Electric.

Noneck
06-29-2007, 06:28 PM
Not exactly - A share of the White Sox is not like a share of General Electric.
Ok can you please explain the difference, I would like to know.

MRM
06-29-2007, 06:33 PM
Ok can you please explain the difference, I would like to know.

The Sox are a closed corporation. They aren't traded on the stock exchange and in order to sell their % of the team, first the Sox board of directors has to approve the sale, then MLB has to approve it as well. As such, they don't have a set "value" that "increases every year".

jabrch
06-29-2007, 06:36 PM
Ok can you please explain the difference, I would like to know.


A share of a publicly traded company, like GE, is bought and sold millions of times a day on an open market. The price is determined by where the convergence is from the buyers and sellers, without (much) regulation or interference.

A share of the White Sox is a private institution with very specific rules and regulations about how it can be sold, and what rights the current partners have to buy it back before it can be sold. It does not trade on an open market, and can not just be "sold" like that. Some private partnerships like the Sox don't allow for any new partners to come in, and have caveats that dictate the payment terms that a seller would get if he sold his share. I know of one sports franchise like that where if you sold your "share" you got paid out over 20 years, and at the price that you paid for your share + the appreciation rate of inflation over that time. That's very different than being able to trade your share on a stock market, or selling it on a private auction.

Noneck
06-29-2007, 06:37 PM
The Sox are a closed corporation. They aren't traded on the stock exchange and in order to sell their % of the team, first the Sox board of directors has to approve the sale, then MLB has to approve it as well. As such, they don't have a set "value" that "increases every year".
How does an individual investor sell his/her "shares" ?

itsnotrequired
06-29-2007, 06:40 PM
How does an individual investor sell his/her "shares" ?

Someone buys them out.

MRM
06-29-2007, 06:47 PM
How does an individual investor sell his/her "shares" ?

He'd have to find a buyer who was approved by the Board of Directors and MLB at the very least. As has already been stated, closed corporations can have all sorts of rules involving a sale, as well.

The main benefit one gets from owning a % of the White Sox is being able to say "I own a portion of the White Sox". These guys aren't in it as a true investment, but rather as an ego boost.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 06:48 PM
How does an individual investor sell his/her "shares" ?

Someone buys them out.

First off - they don't. These aren't "individual investors". It is a single group of investors. You can not buy or sell your way in or out regularly. The board can buy back shares if people want to sell them, but at a price that the board chooses.

Here's the bottom line - none of the owners of the Sox need to sell their shares for money. These are some of the most wealthy people in Chicago - all of whom like "owning a team" more than they care about the meager profits they'd make from selling it.

Takiff, Stern, Munchin, Malkin, Mazer, Pinsky, Judelson, Pizer, etc...none of them give a damn about selling their shares.

Noneck
06-29-2007, 06:50 PM
Someone buys them out.

Does a majority of stock holders have to approve an individuals sale of shares?

MRM
06-29-2007, 06:58 PM
Does a majority of stock holders have to approve an individuals sale of shares?

As has been stated the Board of directors AND MLB would have to approve such a sale. As has also been stated, none of these people are in it to make money. The misconception is that Jerry and the boys are putting tons of profits into their personal bank accounts at the fans expense. That simply isn't how it works. Any monies that come into the corporation STAY in the corportation. Whether that money is spent, invested, whatever, has no effect on the personal financial situation of any owners beyond any salary they may draw.

The only sports franchise out there that is open to public investors is the Green Bay Packers and they have a rule that prevents their investors from making on profit by selling their shares.

Noneck
06-29-2007, 06:59 PM
Thank you jabrch and MRM for educating me on this matter. I know these rich guys like to say they are part owners of the Sox but I bet they love making money even more. And as we poor slobs don't understand, these guys never have enough money. Thanks again.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 07:04 PM
The only sports franchise out there that is open to public investors is the Green Bay Packers and they have a rule that prevents their investors from making on profit by selling their shares.

The Boston Celtics used to be not only open to the public, but traded on the open market without restrictions. But again, that's a totally different story than the Sox, a very private and very limited partnership where ownership is limited, restricted, and not as lucrative as some seem to think.

Thome25
06-29-2007, 07:04 PM
You do realize this statement is completely self-contradictory and makes no sense?

I highly doubt he does.:D:

This team looked great the last 3 years on paper. Problem is that this team had 2 of the 3 departments that failed. We had an awesome rotation, great hitters, and a revamped and reloaded bullpen. Problem is that Pods gets hurt, Thome gets hurt, Crede gets hurt & Dye gets hurt. This all after miserable hitting early on by Dye, Konerko, Crede, etc. with no one to pick up the slack. And we all know what happened with the pen. I was very high on Sisco, Aardsma and MacDougal in April but they have all failed. Our payroll, which is high, has nothing to do with our success. We spent money and made moves and it just didn't pan out. And Yankees are proof that if you spend spend spend, it doesn't guarantee ****.

I know it SOUNDS contradictory but, trust me it isn't. Now try to bear with me here because I'm about to blow your minds.

It's possible to have a 100MM payroll AND lowball your free agents at the same time.

CLR01 proves my point 100MM isn't what it used to be in the world of baseball economics. i.e. 100MM doesn't go as far as it once did 5-10 years ago.

It's possible to have a 100MM payroll and every time one of your good, homegrown players gets to FA all the talk is about how we're not going to give them the money or the years to keep them here.

Like CLR01 said a 100MM payroll adds up VERY quick these days. With that said the Sox are into Quantity rather than Quality.

Example: Instead of letting Contreras and Vazquez walk via FA and using all of the money earmarked for them to re-sign Buehrle, they got two pitchers for the price of one.

Now they're talking about resigning Buehrle and trading Contreras and/or Vazquez. Doesn that make sense? Why not just sign Buehrle in the first place and let Contreras and Vazquez walk.

They would've been able to bring up some of these good young starters we keep hearing about and still have a pretty good rotation.

southside rocks
06-29-2007, 07:05 PM
Have you seen the circus that is the Mark Buehrle contract situation? Not all of this is media created.

If the Sox were smart they would've give him a 5-year deal. That's what championship-caliber teams do with their good, quality, home grown talent.

Not toe the same company line they always have before the WS victory.

Yes, of course I have seen the circus. But even if, as you say, not all of that is media created -- which I agree -- I still do not see how this supports your earlier claim that the Sox, either this time around or 'always', are crying poor and asking MB to give a discount. That may be the way you view this, but that reaction is maybe your frustration and dissatisfaction, it's not -- that I can see -- based on any REAL news or facts that have come to light.

Fact: MB has said that he wants to stay with the Sox and would prefer to remain in Chicago rather than go to another team.

Fact: the Sox have said that they want Mark to stay, and they have not denied (so they have agreed) that they'll do a 4-year deal with him. We don't know if a 5-year deal has been discussed, but it's very possible. But we don't know that. We do know that 4 years is doable for both parties.

This afternoon Bruce Levine said that a 4 year deal at $14 million per year was in the works. This seems like a good guess on his part; it is consistent with things we know, one of which is that Farmio has said that Mark told him he wants $14 million a year. Okay, so the 4/$56M deal is far more probable than the 4/$50M rumor of earlier in the week.

Could Mark get more than $14 million somewhere else? Almost certainly he could.

So here's a question for you: if Mark wants $14 million, and the Sox will give him $14 million, does the deal HAVE TO BE for more than that because let's say the Yankees would pay $18 million?

In other words, if Party A and Party B are satisfied with the terms of the deal, should Party C be able to influence the price even though Party C has no stake in the deal as it is constituted?

Because if that's the source of the 'hometown discount' comments, that's not a hometown discount, it's a highball trade by a nonparticipant. Very different.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 07:07 PM
Thank you jabrch and MRM for educating me on this matter. I know these rich guys like to say they are part owners of the Sox but I bet they love making money even more. And as we poor slobs don't understand, these guys never have enough money. Thanks again.

No problem...for these guys, they make money hand over fist in so many other ventures. This one, back when they bought the team from Veeck, was all about owning a team, and not at all about the profits they'd make from it. All of these guys have real-estate holdings and stock portfolios that are worth well more than their shares of the Sox. In fact, most of them have, at their fingertips, cash equivalents that you and I may never sniff.

southside rocks
06-29-2007, 07:10 PM
Thank you jabrch and MRM for educating me on this matter. I know these rich guys like to say they are part owners of the Sox but I bet they love making money even more. And as we poor slobs don't understand, these guys never have enough money. Thanks again.

FWIW, I know a couple of those guys and they have more money than they can ever spend. The guys I know have made their fortunes long since in the futures markets, and if they were just after more $$$$$, they wouldn't get involved with a pro sports team, they'd stick to the Exchanges. You're right, they like to brag about being part owners of the Sox, but not because of the money. They love being able to rub elbows with pro athletes, that's part of it. They don't dislike money, but they really do want what money can't buy: more WS trophies, and the fame that goes with them.

A sports team is a business, but money and winning are not mutually exclusive goals.

Johnny Mostil
06-29-2007, 07:16 PM
Because winning is secondary, it always has been.

This point (or a variation) is debated elsewhere in this thread, but one fact I haven't seen mentioned: since 1981, i.e., the time of the current ownership, the Sox have the 8th best winning percentage of the 30 teams that have played major league baseball in that time.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 07:17 PM
CLR01 proves my point 100MM isn't what it used to be in the world of baseball economics. i.e. 100MM doesn't go as far as it once did 5-10 years ago.

It is amongst the top payrolls in all of baseball.

It's possible to have a 100MM payroll and every time one of your good, homegrown players gets to FA all the talk is about how we're not going to give them the money or the years to keep them here.

And that is NOT lowballing them. Saying you won't pay 5/75 for a player, but you'd give them 4/56 is not lowballing them. It is making a very fair offer that you can live within your budget, and that the player can decide on.

Like CLR01 said a 100MM payroll adds up VERY quick these days. With that said the Sox are into Quantity rather than Quality.

BULL****. They are into maximizing the value of thier payroll $. Nearly every team in baseball does that.

Example: Instead of letting Contreras and Vazquez walk via FA and using all of the money earmarked for them to re-sign Buehrle, they got two pitchers for the price of one.

BULL**** AGAIN. That's not close to 2 for 1 and it isn't even relevant anyhow because you need a 5 man rotation. We have plenty of money to pay Mark whatever we want. The Sox have set the upper limit of what they want to give him. After they sign him, if they do, they will still have plenty left over for other players. KW is not blowing the bank on one player. That's not quantity over quality - that's managing a payroll and a roster. It's what good executives do.

Now they're talking about resigning Buehrle and trading Contreras and/or Vazquez. Doesn that make sense? Why not just sign Buehrle in the first place and let Contreras and Vazquez walk.

Because you need a 5 man pitching staff - and you want as many proven starters as you can have, and proven starters, under contract, are very valuable assets that you can always (provided you aren't stupid enough to give them long term no-trade clauses) trade for other valuable pieces.

They would've been able to bring up some of these good young starters we keep hearing about and still have a pretty good rotation.

Then you'd piss and moan and call them cheap if those rookies weren't immediately productive on the major league level. You want a veteran roation with proven guys. I love the depth we have for pitching in the minors, but most of it isn't ready yet. Eventually we will see some of those guys - and maybe as soon as the trade deadline if we let some of our current guys (MB, JC or JV) go. But that doesn't mean you'd want to bet an entire season on them being ready. That's silly. We went with one rookie starter this year, and were fortunate that he has been pretty solid - but not spectacular. I can't see us putting more than one rookie in the rotation at once...

CLR01
06-29-2007, 07:17 PM
I know it SOUNDS contradictory but, trust me it isn't. Now try to bear with me here because I'm about to blow your minds.

It's possible to have a 100MM payroll AND lowball your free agents at the same time.

CLR01 proves my point 100MM isn't what it used to be in the world of baseball economics. i.e. 100MM doesn't go as far as it once did 5-10 years ago.

It's possible to have a 100MM payroll and every time one of your good, homegrown players gets to FA all the talk is about how we're not going to give them the money or the years to keep them here.

Like CLR01 said a 100MM payroll adds up VERY quick these days. With that said the Sox are into Quantity rather than Quality.

Example: Instead of letting Contreras and Vazquez walk via FA and using all of the money earmarked for them to re-sign Buehrle, they got two pitchers for the price of one.

Now they're talking about resigning Buehrle and trading Contreras and/or Vazquez. Doesn that make sense? Why not just sign Buehrle in the first place and let Contreras and Vazquez walk.

They would've been able to bring up some of these good young starters we keep hearing about and still have a pretty good rotation.

You need quantity. Mark Buehrle can't pitch every day and in order to sign him to the big contract you need to dump the two pitchers and replace them with cheap alternatives. Replacing Jose and Javier with Danny Wright and Felix Diaz just to keep Mark on would make the Sox worse than keeping Jose and Javier and replacing Mark.

Noneck
06-29-2007, 07:32 PM
You need quantity. Mark Buehrle can't pitch everyday and in order to sign him to the big contract you need to dump the two pitchers and replace them with cheap alternatives. Replacing Jose and Javier with Danny Wright and Felix Diaz just to keep Mark on would make the Sox worse than keeping Jose and Javier and replacing Mark.
Doesn't it come down to, Who would have more wins Mark, Danny and Felix or Jose, Javie and Gio? Over 3 years that is.

Tragg
06-29-2007, 07:34 PM
We aren't young, so we have few minimum earners. These $3 mill and $5 mill salaries add up. I always thought we tended to overpay some of the bottom of the roster guys (I think Ozuna earns $ 2mill; Cintron over a million...just off the top of my head, could be wrong).

Put Fields, Anderson and Sweeney in the lineup and you get some payroll flexibility. Of course, 3 rookies present other issues.

Thome25
06-29-2007, 07:34 PM
It is amongst the top payrolls in all of baseball.



And that is NOT lowballing them. Saying you won't pay 5/75 for a player, but you'd give them 4/56 is not lowballing them. It is making a very fair offer that you can live within your budget, and that the player can decide on.



BULL****. They are into maximizing the value of thier payroll $. Nearly every team in baseball does that.



BULL**** AGAIN. That's not close to 2 for 1 and it isn't even relevant anyhow because you need a 5 man rotation. We have plenty of money to pay Mark whatever we want. The Sox have set the upper limit of what they want to give him. After they sign him, if they do, they will still have plenty left over for other players. KW is not blowing the bank on one player. That's not quantity over quality - that's managing a payroll and a roster. It's what good executives do.



Because you need a 5 man pitching staff - and you want as many proven starters as you can have, and proven starters, under contract, are very valuable assets that you can always (provided you aren't stupid enough to give them long term no-trade clauses) trade for other valuable pieces.



Then you'd piss and moan and call them cheap if those rookies weren't immediately productive on the major league level. You want a veteran roation with proven guys. I love the depth we have for pitching in the minors, but most of it isn't ready yet. Eventually we will see some of those guys - and maybe as soon as the trade deadline if we let some of our current guys (MB, JC or JV) go. But that doesn't mean you'd want to bet an entire season on them being ready. That's silly. We went with one rookie starter this year, and were fortunate that he has been pretty solid - but not spectacular. I can't see us putting more than one rookie in the rotation at once...

Let me see if I can make this a little simpler for you. You don't like my quantity over quality argument.

And you REALLY don't like my Contreras and Vazquez over Buehrle example.

So try this one on for size to prove my point. (granted this example worked well for the Sox.) In 2005, the Sox traded Lee and did not re-sign Ordonez. They used the money to sign Iguchi, AJ, El Duque, and Dye. Doesn't this show that they choose quantity?

Daver
06-29-2007, 07:37 PM
Let me see if I can make this a little simpler for you. You don't like my quantity over quality argument.

And you REALLY don't like my Contreras and Vazquez over Buehrle example.

So try this one on for size to prove my point. (granted this example worked well for the Sox.) In 2005, the Sox traded Lee and did not re-sign Ordonez. They used the money to sign Iguchi, AJ, El Duque, and Dye. Doesn't this show that they choose quantity?

Position players don't pitch, and pitching is the most valuable thing in MLB.

Noneck
06-29-2007, 07:38 PM
Let me see if I can make this a little simpler for you. You don't like my quantity over quality argument.

And you REALLY don't like my Contreras and Vazquez over Buehrle example.

So try this one on for size to prove my point. (granted this example worked well for the Sox.) In 2005, the Sox traded Lee and did not re-sign Ordonez. They used the money to sign Iguchi, AJ, El Duque, and Dye. Doesn't this show that they choose quantity?

And they also got Pods.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 07:40 PM
Let me see if I can make this a little simpler for you. You don't like my quantity over quality argument.

And you REALLY don't like my Contreras and Vazquez over Buehrle example.

So try this one on for size to prove my point. (granted this example worked well for the Sox.) In 2005, the Sox traded Lee and did not re-sign Ordonez. They used the money to sign Iguchi, AJ, El Duque, and Dye. Doesn't this show that they choose quantity?


ABSOLUTELY NOT

They chose to fill their roster with players who fit their needs rather than give a 5 year guaranteed contract to a guy who just had some bizarre surgery in Austria and wouldn't let the team doctors examine him and his records and rather than give a ton of money to a guy who failed to play the game the way his manager had asked him to play it.

That wasn't quantity over quality. That was fill your team's holes with guys who make sense to sign rather than sign a stupid contract for an injured player (Magglio) and keep a guy who you already decided you'd let walk rather than pay 5/75+ (Carlos).

OG and KW want a full roster of guys who can contribute. That's not quantity over quality - that's managing a roster and a budget.

Are you proposing that we have a bunch of guys making the minimum salary from the minors with a 6 guys making 15mm? You think that's a better way to build a team?

jabrch
06-29-2007, 07:43 PM
I always thought we tended to overpay some of the bottom of the roster guys (I think Ozuna earns $ 2mill; Cintron over a million...just off the top of my head, could be wrong).


Your numbers look roughly right. I don't think either of those are particularly bad deals for veterans who offer some positional flexibility and are both (historically) serviceable bench players.

Cintron hit .285 last year. Pablo hit .328 last year.

I have no problem with 3mm for those two combined.

Tragg
06-29-2007, 07:52 PM
Your numbers look roughly right. I don't think either of those are particularly bad deals for veterans who offer some positional flexibility and are both (historically) serviceable bench players.

Cintron hit .285 last year. Pablo hit .328 last year.

I have no problem with 3mm for those two combined.I think you can get utility infielders for the minimum - Cintron is really, really weak - he's not even a good fielder (I can't believe we cut harris to trade for that guy).

A few minimum earners (rookies with potential fit that) on the roster gives flexiblity elsewhere.

voodoochile
06-29-2007, 07:58 PM
Ticket prices are only a part of a teams revenue and the Sox lag far behind other teams in other areas such as TV contracts. People who want to tie payroll strictly to attendance don't know what they are talking about.

How much does the average fan spend on a trip to the ball park? Ticket, concessions, etc? $50-$60? Let's be generous and call it $80 for every man woman and child who walks through the turnstiles. Even drawing 3 million people (which they won't do) that's still only $240mil in GROSS revenue from the fans at the games. Sounds like a lot? Not when you pay all the expenses involved in running a MLB franchise. Everyone from the Usher to the Beer vendor is drawing a paycheck. Scouts, minor league players, coaches, and instructors. You've got chartered flights, hotel rooms, per diems on the road. At home, the electric bill for a single night game would cover my house for probably 3 years. You've got bats and balls. I mean we could get down to laundry service. The Gate isn't providing enough in and of itself to retain a $100mil 25-man roster payroll, to be sure.

Sorry, I disagree. Gate revenue is probably 50% of overall team revenue for most teams.. Your figure of $240M is probably too high. Still, call it $150M which breaks down like this $20/seat = $60M (most of it free and clear). $30/concessions = $90M. Ballpark food is WAY over priced compared to even restaurants and the cost for most food and beverage at a game is in the 10% range. That's another $81M after costs.

Costs of maintaining the park aren't nearly as high as you think. Let's assume it take 500 people to run the entire ballpark for any game. Let's assume ALL of them make $50K/year (this number is WAY too high). 500 X 50,000 = $25M labor costs. But, the kicker is they ALL get fired every 6 months, so it's really only $12.5M (and again, this number is WAY too high, those nice people working the concession stands are probably making closer to $8.00/hr = $16K/year).

Still after COGS and labor, the team in question is looking at at least $128M. If insurance, rent and other assundries come to $25M the team is netting $100M from the gate.

That's before tacking on parking. If your numbers are correct, the net revenue from gate receipts is through the roof.

Baseball is regional Nobody is making huge money from their TV/Radio except for a few select teams.

MRM
06-29-2007, 08:04 PM
Let me see if I can make this a little simpler for you. You don't like my quantity over quality argument.

And you REALLY don't like my Contreras and Vazquez over Buehrle example.

So try this one on for size to prove my point. (granted this example worked well for the Sox.) In 2005, the Sox traded Lee and did not re-sign Ordonez. They used the money to sign Iguchi, AJ, El Duque, and Dye. Doesn't this show that they choose quantity?

Um no. Lee was a headcase who regularly ignored Ozzie. In return they received a much needed leadoff hitter with speed. Who in their right mind would have re-upped Ordonez after the crap he pulled medically? If anything the Sox were loyal to a fault by not just buying out Franks option prior to the '05 season when it became obvious his injury situation wasn't improving much. Iguchi was plan B when Willie Harris didn't work out and had nothing to do with Lee/Ordonez. Dye and AJ were available below market for different reasons, but were brilliant signings.

In short the Sox didn't "dump" Lee and Ordonez in order to afford these other guys. They dumped those guys because it was the smart thing to do under the individual circumstances, not because of some company mandate to "get quantity over quality".

voodoochile
06-29-2007, 08:06 PM
Um no. Lee was a headcase who regularly ignored Ozzie. In return they received a much needed leadoff hitter with speed. Who in their right mind would have re-upped Ordonez after the crap he pulled medically? If anything the Sox were loyal to a fault by not just buying out Franks option prior to the '05 season when it became obvious his injury situation wasn't improving much. Iguchi was plan B when Willie Harris didn't work out and had nothing to do with Lee/Ordonez. Dye and AJ were available below market for different reasons, but were brilliant signings.

In short the Sox didn't "dump" Lee and Ordonez in order to afford these other guys. They dumped those guys because it was the smart thing to do under the individual circumstances, not because of some company mandate to "get quantity over quality".

Well said. In addition, doesn't it seem odd to be using the pre-2005 signings as a way of proving how cheap and poorly the team is run? Did I miss something and the Sox had to give back the trophy from that season?:?:

spiffie
06-29-2007, 08:12 PM
One thing that people don't point out often is that yes, we have to fill a lot of spaces with little money, but many of those spaces are not likely to be big money. Our bullpen makes barely a couple million combined, and hasn't in years.

The way I see this is we are only going to keep a few veteran pitchers for the future. Personally, I feel like we'd be better off gambling the extra year on Mark Buehrle, since really, if he implodes will it matter much if we have one extra year of a crappy contract? For the contract to be a failure he would have to fall apart early in the deal and remain awful all the way through. If that is a concern that weighs very heavily on the team we might as well trade him now, since 4 years of onerous contract problems would be basically just as disasterous as 5 years.

Going forward it seems almost certain that 2-3 spots will be filled by very cheap pitchers (Danks, Gio, Broadway, Floyd, Masset, etc.) with a couple of veterans kept on. If that's the case, I would take the chance on going with extending Mark through 2012 at 14-15 per. Move Contreras. I'd say keep Vazquez for one more year while the young pitchers sort themselves out. And if possible extend Garland after 2008. Going forward you end up with the following cost rotations:
2008: Buehrle 15MM, Garland 12MM, Vazquez 11.5MM, Danks 0.5mm, Floyd/Gio/Broadway/Masset .33mm = 40.33mm
2009: Buehrle 15MM, Garland 15MM, Danks 0.75MM, Gio 0.5MM, Broadway 0.5MM = 31.75MM

Considering that this year our rotation is running us around 40 million, that would give us wiggle room in case we need to keep Javy around and still not be spending much more on the pitching.

The young pitchers are going to get their time in the rotation. Williams didn't get this many young arms just to help the Charlotte Knights. In response to jabrch asking if we want a team with 6 guys making 15MM and 19 minimum salary guys, in a smaller version that's what the rotation is going to be anyhow. If they let Buehrle and Garland go either you end up with Jose and Javy making their 10+ million yearly while filling three spots with those young kids or you end up having to go out and spend 7 million on Jason Marquis. Out of all those options, I'd say the one with the smallest risk is a long-term extension on Buehrle. Pitching is becoming very much a game of high-end and low-end pitchers. It's too expensive nowadays to build a rotation of proven top-line guys, so you end up either with 5 mediocre guys or with a couple high-end pitchers and a few top young prospects.

Really though everything comes down to the young players. If Fields, Sweeney, Anderson, Owens, Floyd, Broadway, Gio, Gonzalez, Day, etc. can't in some combination become a useful core of players it won't matter what we do with Mark. Personally I think having Buehrle around is better for the young players than Javy or Jose. Others may disagree.

Thome25
06-29-2007, 08:15 PM
Um no. Lee was a headcase who regularly ignored Ozzie. In return they received a much needed leadoff hitter with speed. Who in their right mind would have re-upped Ordonez after the crap he pulled medically? If anything the Sox were loyal to a fault by not just buying out Franks option prior to the '05 season when it became obvious his injury situation wasn't improving much. Iguchi was plan B when Willie Harris didn't work out and had nothing to do with Lee/Ordonez. Dye and AJ were available below market for different reasons, but were brilliant signings.

In short the Sox didn't "dump" Lee and Ordonez in order to afford these other guys. They dumped those guys because it was the smart thing to do under the individual circumstances, not because of some company mandate to "get quantity over quality".

No one said they dumped Lee and Ordonez. Do I think it was the right thing to let those guys go? Yes.

The point wasn't the reasoning behind what they did. The point was that they did it. It has been their M.O. to spread their money as far as it would go. I.E. Quantity over quality.

In this case it worked (and I THANK GOD every day that it did.) But, they're using the same philosophies in the Buehrle situation. Which is, "we'll get Contreras and Vazquez to sign for less and get two pitchers outta the deal thus spreading our money farther."

In Buehrle's case I think it's the wrong way to go. Only time will tell.

MRM
06-29-2007, 08:16 PM
Sorry, I disagree. Gate revenue is probably 50% of overall team revenue for most teams.. Your figure of $240M is probably too high. Still, call it $150M which breaks down like this $20/seat = $60M (most of it free and clear). $30/concessions = $90M. Ballpark food is WAY over priced compared to even restaurants and the cost for most food and beverage at a game is in the 10% range. That's another $81M after costs.

Costs of maintaining the park aren't nearly as high as you think. Let's assume it take 500 people to run the entire ballpark for any game. Let's assume ALL of them make $50K/year (this number is WAY too high). 500 X 50,000 = $25M labor costs. But, the kicker is they ALL get fired every 6 months, so it's really only $12.5M (and again, this number is WAY too high, those nice people working the concession stands are probably making closer to $8.00/hr = $16K/year).

Still after COGS and labor, the team in question is looking at at least $128M. If insurance, rent and other assundries come to $25M the team is netting $100M from the gate.

You aren't taking into account the rest of the payroll beyond the $8/hr food service employee.

That long list of executives the Sox employ aren't working below market value any more than the players are. There are a whole lot of minor league players and coaches on the payroll, as well. Despite popular belief, scouts don't work for free hot dogs, either :D:

Obviously neither of us is privvy to the Sox balance sheet and we could throw hypothetical (and probably not even close) numbers back and forth all day. I was simply pointing out that it costs FAR more to run a MLB franchise than player salaries alone.

MRM
06-29-2007, 08:31 PM
No one said they dumped Lee and Ordonez. Do I think it was the right thing to let those guys go? Yes.

The point wasn't the reasoning behind what they did. The point was that they did it. It has been their M.O. to spread their money as far as it would go. I.E. Quantity over quality.

Isn't the M.O. of EVERY team to get as much as possible for the money they have to spend? (O.K., maybe not the Yankees, but every OTHER team)

To turn around and call that "Quantity over quality" is absurd for the very reasons I and others have pointed out to you. By making that claim you flat imply the REASON Lee and Mags were traded/let leave was to open up their $$$ to sign cheap(er) players. That isn't what happened. The Sox were fully ready to re-sign Mags to a very nice contract. In fact, IIRC, they made him a nice offer on an extension while he was injured but before the extent of his injury was fully known. HE refused the Sox access to his medical records as part of the F.A. negotiations. How can you call that QUALITY? Carlos Lee was all about his stats. That's all he cared about because he was looking for a big pay day. He flat refused to do some things Ozzie asked of him. How can you call that QUALITY?

You can't make the quality/quantity case w/out showing the QUALITY part.

MRM
06-29-2007, 08:47 PM
I would take the chance on going with extending Mark through 2012 at 14-15 per.

Screw it. Give him $18mil per. I KNOW he'd sign for that.
Pretty easy to spend someone elses money, eh? :D:

rdivaldi
06-29-2007, 09:19 PM
Is anyone else tired of people misusing the term "market value"? Mark isn't on the market, so there isn't a value to assign to him.

MRM
06-29-2007, 09:41 PM
Is anyone else tired of people misusing the term "market value"? Mark isn't on the market, so there isn't a value to assign to him.

It's a media term that fans pick up on. The "Market value" Would be 7 years at $18mil/per for MB since the closest to him is Barry Zito and that's what he got. Worse yet, the "Market Value" for a fireballing right hander is 1 yr. $28mil since that's what Clemens got. :D:

Fact is there is more to it than that.

Can I make more money for what I do If I was willing to relocate? Absolutely. Could probably make 3 times as much in some circumstances. Does living where I live outweigh doing so? Absolutely. Free agents go through the same thing on a much larger scale, I'm sure.

If you are happy with where you are, "market value" doesn't mean much and it's unreasonable to expect your current employer to just pay you what you could theoretically make somewhere else.

WhiteSox5187
06-29-2007, 11:21 PM
It's a media term that fans pick up on. The "Market value" Would be 7 years at $18mil/per for MB since the closest to him is Barry Zito and that's what he got. Worse yet, the "Market Value" for a fireballing right hander is 1 yr. $28mil since that's what Clemens got. :D:

Fact is there is more to it than that.

Can I make more money for what I do If I was willing to relocate? Absolutely. Could probably make 3 times as much in some circumstances. Does living where I live outweigh doing so? Absolutely. Free agents go through the same thing on a much larger scale, I'm sure.

If you are happy with where you are, "market value" doesn't mean much and it's unreasonable to expect your current employer to just pay you what you could theoretically make somewhere else.
The thing is though with Zito and Clemens is, if I'm Kenny and Buerhle says "Hey I want this kinda money because that's what Zito and Clemens got," I'd say "Well...Roger has won three hundred games and won about seven Cy Young Awards. Zito has won twenty plus games in a season (twice, I think) and a Cy Young. You haven't." And then maybe work out some sort of clause that gives him a nice bonus should he win the Cy Young and twenty plus games.

FarWestChicago
06-29-2007, 11:27 PM
I know it SOUNDS contradictory but, trust me it isn't. Now try to bear with me here because I'm about to blow your minds.The only way you are blowing any minds is by being silly. The Sox have one of the top payrolls in baseball. What do you want? Are you Lip? Do you insist on spending more than Steinbrenner or the Sox are cheap. You're still making no logical sense at all.

FarWestChicago
06-29-2007, 11:32 PM
Screw it. Give him $18mil per. I KNOW he'd sign for that.
Pretty easy to spend someone elses money, eh? :D:I think Lip wants to hug you. :D:

soxfanreggie
06-29-2007, 11:57 PM
I would like to see MB ink a 5 year $70-$75 million deal. However...4 years, 5 years, whatever to get him here and locked up for a while.

StillMissOzzie
06-30-2007, 12:26 AM
And exactly which "championship-caliber team" has done this? Lets list the perrenial "championship caliber teams":

Yankees - I'll grant you Jeter. Who else?
Braves - Smoltz? Chipper.
A's - Lose their top F.A.s EVERY year
Twins - See A's
Red Sox - Every great player they have comes from somewhere else.
St. Louis - Pujols hasn't reached F.A. yet. Who else?


St. Louis signed Pujols to a 7 yr/$100M deal back in 2004, locking up his arb-eligible years as well as his first 4 FA years

Is anyone else tired of people misusing the term "market value"? Mark isn't on the market, so there isn't a value to assign to him.

Mark himself is not on the market, but there is a market that can be inferred from the current FA signings. When a Ted Lilly gets a 4 yr/$40M deal ($10M/yr) and a Gil Meche gets a 5 yr/$55M deal ($11M/yr) and a Barry Zito gets a 7 yr/$126M deal ($18M/yr) and a Jason Schmidt gets a 3 yr/$47M deal ($15.7M/yr), any agent worth their salt will look as those terms and adjust their expectations for their client. Of course, the market also depends on who else is a FA in the current crop.

SMO
:gulp:

MRM
06-30-2007, 01:19 AM
I would like to see MB ink a 5 year $70-$75 million deal.

OK. Let me ask this...how do you come to those numbers?

Iguana775
06-30-2007, 01:21 AM
They are so cheap, they are only #4 in all of baseball in payroll...

http://blog.sportscolumn.com/story/2007/4/9/1367/60158

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=chw

:?:

MRM
06-30-2007, 01:21 AM
St. Louis signed Pujols to a 7 yr/$100M deal back in 2004, locking up his arb-eligible years as well as his first 4 FA years


Was not aware of that. Brilliant move on their part.

Nellie_Fox
06-30-2007, 01:46 AM
Have you seen the circus that is the Mark Buehrle contract situation? Not all of this is media created.Actually, no I haven't. What part of the "circus" is there other than the one in the media? Other than the constantly changing media reports, I have no idea what is going on in the negotiations. For all I know, they're going very smoothly and at a pace that works for both sides.

I would like to see MB ink a 5 year $70-$75 million deal. However...4 years, 5 years, whatever to get him here and locked up for a while.Another one who likes to spend other people's money.

OK. Let me ask this...how do you come to those numbers?From his nether regions. Just more "pay him whatever he wants" fan silliness.

Yes, the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox will always offer the players they want more money than the Sox will. Then those players will have to decide whether that additional money (over and above more money than they can reasonably spend in the first place) is worth living in an area with a much, much higher cost of living, and a media and fan pressure far beyond what they'd experience here. The Yankees pretty much have to pay those insane amounts to get players to come there and deal with the expectations.

Parrothead
06-30-2007, 07:38 AM
Another one who likes to spend other people's money.

I love spending other peoples money. It saves mine !:D:

wassagstdu
06-30-2007, 07:50 AM
I'm tired of the Sox running this team like it's a discount store.
This point of view seems to be impervious to reality ($100MM, 4th highest...).

chitownhawkfan
06-30-2007, 08:22 AM
is worth living in an area with a much, much higher cost of living,


That really isn't true, Boston is cheaper to live in than Chicago and while New York seems expensive by American standards, it really isn't that awful. Stop lowballing and give him the money or the no trade clause or whatever it is he wants.

Frater Perdurabo
06-30-2007, 08:52 AM
I don't think the Sox are "lowballing."

They have remained competitive over the years and recently have had a very high payroll relative to the rest of the MLB.

What I do not understand, though, is why the Sox often seem to be the ones who piss off a lot of good players.

Yes, Fisk was washed up in 1993, but it was classless for them to treat him like they did when they released him.

I agree with their overall stance on McDowell (they knew about his arthritic hip and therefore didn't want to lock him up long-term), but they jerked him around in 91 or 92 when he was still under their control. McDowell never seemed to forgive JR for that. They did the same thing with Buehrle over something like $15,000 in 2002, but Buehrle's just too nice a guy to stay angry.

JR low-balled Ventura - who drew in the fans - when he reached free agency. He signed a 4 year contract with the Mets (then got traded to the Yanks a year later), but the Sox could have offered comparable dollars and years and had third base filled nicely until Crede would have been ready to take over in 2003 (at which point Robin could have moved into a reduced role).

Sox management also tends to bad-mouth players after they leave (Frank, Lee, Maggs, Widger, etc.). As an organization, why can't they just take the high road, even if they player has said or did something stupid or to deserve being traded/released/not re-signed)?

We all have heard the credible stories that JR treats his employees like royalty. So why does it seem that Sox players don't get the same treatment?

Steelrod
06-30-2007, 10:48 AM
I don't think the Sox are "lowballing."

They have remained competitive over the years and recently have had a very high payroll relative to the rest of the MLB.

What I do not understand, though, is why the Sox often seem to be the ones who piss off a lot of good players.

Yes, Fisk was washed up in 1993, but it was classless for them to treat him like they did when they released him.

I agree with their overall stance on McDowell (they knew about his arthritic hip and therefore didn't want to lock him up long-term), but they jerked him around in 91 or 92 when he was still under their control. McDowell never seemed to forgive JR for that. They did the same thing with Buehrle over something like $15,000 in 2002, but Buehrle's just too nice a guy to stay angry.

JR low-balled Ventura - who drew in the fans - when he reached free agency. He signed a 4 year contract with the Mets (then got traded to the Yanks a year later), but the Sox could have offered comparable dollars and years and had third base filled nicely until Crede would have been ready to take over in 2003 (at which point Robin could have moved into a reduced role).

Sox management also tends to bad-mouth players after they leave (Frank, Lee, Maggs, Widger, etc.). As an organization, why can't they just take the high road, even if they player has said or did something stupid or to deserve being traded/released/not re-signed)?

We all have heard the credible stories that JR treats his employees like royalty. So why does it seem that Sox players don't get the same treatment?
Disagree,
McDowell works tv for the Sox when needed. I guess he and JR get along.

Thome25
06-30-2007, 10:52 AM
The only way you are blowing any minds is by being silly. The Sox have one of the top payrolls in baseball. What do you want? Are you Lip? Do you insist on spending more than Steinbrenner or the Sox are cheap. You're still making no logical sense at all.

Read a few more of my posts in this thread. You'll see that I wasn't implying that the White Sox raise their payroll as high as the Yankees.

Frater Perdurabo
06-30-2007, 11:10 AM
Disagree,
McDowell works tv for the Sox when needed. I guess he and JR get along.

I should have been more clear; I meant to say that McDowell held a grudge while he was a player and vowed not to sign with the Sox when he reached free agency. That, plus the arthritic hip, is why the Sox dealt him. I know that he fills in on occasion in the booth; he must have patched things up with JR after he retired.

Bill Naharodny
06-30-2007, 11:30 AM
I don't think the Sox are "lowballing."

They have remained competitive over the years and recently have had a very high payroll relative to the rest of the MLB.

What I do not understand, though, is why the Sox often seem to be the ones who piss off a lot of good players.

Yes, Fisk was washed up in 1993, but it was classless for them to treat him like they did when they released him.

I agree with their overall stance on McDowell (they knew about his arthritic hip and therefore didn't want to lock him up long-term), but they jerked him around in 91 or 92 when he was still under their control. McDowell never seemed to forgive JR for that. They did the same thing with Buehrle over something like $15,000 in 2002, but Buehrle's just too nice a guy to stay angry.

JR low-balled Ventura - who drew in the fans - when he reached free agency. He signed a 4 year contract with the Mets (then got traded to the Yanks a year later), but the Sox could have offered comparable dollars and years and had third base filled nicely until Crede would have been ready to take over in 2003 (at which point Robin could have moved into a reduced role).

Sox management also tends to bad-mouth players after they leave (Frank, Lee, Maggs, Widger, etc.). As an organization, why can't they just take the high road, even if they player has said or did something stupid or to deserve being traded/released/not re-signed)?

We all have heard the credible stories that JR treats his employees like royalty. So why does it seem that Sox players don't get the same treatment?

Couldn't agree more, particularly about the bad-mouthing. I'm sure someone will say that those players started the back-and-forth, but it sure seems to happen a lot, doesn't it? Sure seem to be lots of "sources" -- discussing how bad the guy was in the clubhouse or with pitchers or whatever -- who come out of the woodwork after these deals. Just part of the culture over there, I guess.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 11:38 AM
That really isn't true, Boston is cheaper to live in than Chicago

That's untrue. Boston has a 139 Composite Cost of Living Index while Chicago has a 129. NYC has a 212. (in 2005) If you earn 100,000 in Chicago, and want to maintain the same standard of living you need to earn $115,000 in Boston.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/movecalc.asp?a=0&d1=100000&d2=117.358212067269&d3=135.431609747707


and while New York seems expensive by American standards, it really isn't that awful.

Are you kidding me? Where are you pulling that crap from? The same $100,000 in Chicago requires earning $175,000 to maintain the same standard of living in Manhattan and $125,000 in Queens.

Stop lowballing

If you think what they are doing is lowballing, I imagine you have never had to negotiate for anything in your life. They are offering him a very attractive deal to have it all done now and take any risk out of the remainder of the year.

and give him the money or the no trade clause or whatever it is he wants.

NEVER - I would NEVER give a player a full, unlimited, life of a contract, no trade clause. You are depreciating the value of that deal significantly, right away. If Mark won't take the same deal as far as NTC that Gar and Jose took, a 1 year full NTC, and that's it, then I have no problem with KW making that a deal killer. And as far as the money, you don't just "give him what he wants". You give him what you can afford, within your budget.

We need to get an (or multiple) OF and a SS next year. We need to either resign Iguchi, or get a 2B. We need RP help. Breaking the bank for Mark, with all the starting pitching we have under contract, would be stupid.

I want to keep Mark if we can do it within the constructs of a reasonable budget and within terms that allow the team to not be screwed for the long haul just to sign one guy.

graham5
06-30-2007, 11:44 AM
If we overpay for Buerhle then we would just be screwing ourselves over in much the same way that the Rangers did with A-Rod.

We need to re-tool in lots of positions, and we aren't going to be competitive by re-signing Buerhle to a huge contract and ignoring all the other problems.

soxfan13
06-30-2007, 11:48 AM
Well the deal is dead. Hopefully everyone can move on now!

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/450383,CST-SPT-buehrle30.article

kobo
06-30-2007, 11:51 AM
That's untrue. Boston has a 139 Composite Cost of Living Index while Chicago has a 129. NYC has a 212. (in 2005) If you earn 100,000 in Chicago, and want to maintain the same standard of living you need to earn $115,000 in Boston.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/movecalc.asp?a=0&d1=100000&d2=117.358212067269&d3=135.431609747707




Are you kidding me? Where are you pulling that crap from? The same $100,000 in Chicago requires earning $175,000 to maintain the same standard of living in Manhattan and $125,000 in Queens.



If you think what they are doing is lowballing, I imagine you have never had to negotiate for anything in your life. They are offering him a very attractive deal to have it all done now and take any risk out of the remainder of the year.



NEVER - I would NEVER give a player a full, unlimited, life of a contract, no trade clause. You are depreciating the value of that deal significantly, right away. If Mark won't take the same deal as far as NTC that Gar and Jose took, a 1 year full NTC, and that's it, then I have no problem with KW making that a deal killer. And as far as the money, you don't just "give him what he wants". You give him what you can afford, within your budget.

We need to get an (or multiple) OF and a SS next year. We need to either resign Iguchi, or get a 2B. We need RP help. Breaking the bank for Mark, with all the starting pitching we have under contract, would be stupid.

I want to keep Mark if we can do it within the constructs of a reasonable budget and within terms that allow the team to not be screwed for the long haul just to sign one guy.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of posting all of this.

kobo
06-30-2007, 11:53 AM
Well the deal is dead. Hopefully everyone can move on now!

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/450383,CST-SPT-buehrle30.article
Yep, I'm gonna believe Cowley especially when he says this: "According to a source outside the organization but familiar with the situation,"

Unless the info is coming from the Organization, I don't believe a single word.

roadrunner
06-30-2007, 11:56 AM
So vazquez gets a no-trade clause but buehrle doesn't? Makes no sense to me. I would take the contract on the table (even with a no trade) for buehrle over the one they gave vazquez (with the limited no trade).

I know vazquez's no-trade is limited to the west coast teams but in my view this limits the potential trading partners so narrowly that it effectively could work as well as a true no trade clause.

I don't disagree with the team's stance in general but once they gave it to vazquez it's not unreasonable for buehrle to expect the same treatment.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 11:59 AM
So vazquez gets a no-trade clause but buehrle doesn't? Makes no sense to me. I would take the contract on the table (even with a no trade) for buehrle over the one they gave vazquez (with the limited no trade).

I know vazquez's no-trade is limited to the west coast teams but in my view this limits the potential trading partners so narrowly that it effectively could work as well as a true no trade clause.

I don't disagree with the team's stance in general but once they gave it to vazquez it's not unreasonable for buehrle to expect the same treatment.

I highly doubt that it would fall apart because they wouldn't give him a WEST COAST no trade clause. I'm guessing (and I'd agree with the Sox if that were the case) that it would be FULL NTC that would be a deal killer.

southside rocks
06-30-2007, 12:02 PM
So vazquez gets a no-trade clause but buehrle doesn't? Makes no sense to me. I would take the contract on the table (even with a no trade) for buehrle over the one they gave vazquez (with the limited no trade).

I know vazquez's no-trade is limited to the west coast teams but in my view this limits the potential trading partners so narrowly that it effectively could work as well as a true no trade clause.

I don't disagree with the team's stance in general but once they gave it to vazquez it's not unreasonable for buehrle to expect the same treatment.

Vazquez: shorter term contract; less money per year (a big consideration if the team has to eat it at any point); and the ability to trade him to east coast and other teams, which leaves plenty of room for the Sox to ship a good contract if the need arises.

Big, big difference between that and giving a blanket no-trade for 4 or 5 years to MB.

However, I think MB should get his clause; I wonder if the organization is concerned with setting a precedent for future contracts and negotiations by that, though.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 12:06 PM
Vazquez: shorter term contract; less money per year (a big consideration if the team has to eat it at any point); and the ability to trade him to east coast and other teams, which leaves plenty of room for the Sox to ship a good contract if the need arises.

Big, big difference between that and giving a blanket no-trade for 4 or 5 years to MB.

However, I think MB should get his clause; I wonder if the organization is concerned with setting a precedent for future contracts and negotiations by that, though.

Somewhere towards the end of this deal, MB will get 10/5 rights. All the Sox probably want is the ability to unload him at some point before then if the team's priorities and Mark's skills no longer mesh. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Give him 1 year FULL NTC, then if he wants limited NTC (crappy teams? West coast? whatever), but leave a window open so the team isn't completely at his mercy at some point before he gets 10/5.

Steelrod
06-30-2007, 12:20 PM
FYI
Buehrle will have completed 8 seasons at the end of this year. He will be 10/5 after 2009, and would automatically have the right to nix a trade if he chooses to. So, he already has a no trade clause in his next contract!

jdm2662
06-30-2007, 12:23 PM
Yep, I'm gonna believe Cowley especially when he says this: "According to a source outside the organization but familiar with the situation,"

Unless the info is coming from the Organization, I don't believe a single word.

Any story involving "sources" I don't believe. Unless either party is commenting, I will wait until the ink is dry on the contract, or a trade has been approved by the MLB.

wassagstdu
06-30-2007, 12:24 PM
Buehrle and his agent would have to be insane to sign a below-market deal, where the Sox are taking advantage of his desire to stay in Chicago to get a hometown discount, without a full no-trade clause. The minute he signs such a deal his trade value goes through the roof and he has given up his free-agency payday so the Sox pocket the profit, not MB. If this is what really killed the deal, and the Sox site says it is, then shame on the White Sox.

roadrunner
06-30-2007, 12:26 PM
Vazquez: shorter term contract; less money per year (a big consideration if the team has to eat it at any point); and the ability to trade him to east coast and other teams, which leaves plenty of room for the Sox to ship a good contract if the need arises.

Big, big difference between that and giving a blanket no-trade for 4 or 5 years to MB.

However, I think MB should get his clause; I wonder if the organization is concerned with setting a precedent for future contracts and negotiations by that, though.

Thanks for correcting me about Vazquez's NTC - I didn't realize it was limited to the AL and NL West teams. You're right there is a big difference but there's also a big difference between the players involved especially when you consider the intangibles like past contributions to the organization and inevitable fan backlash.

peeonwrigley
06-30-2007, 12:30 PM
Buehrle and his agent would have to be insane to sign a below-market deal, where the Sox are taking advantage of his desire to stay in Chicago to get a hometown discount, without a full no-trade clause. The minute he signs such a deal his trade value goes through the roof and he has given up his free-agency payday so the Sox pocket the profit, not MB. If this is what really killed the deal, and the Sox site says it is, then shame on the White Sox.


This is so true. If this really killed the deal, its totally on the Sox. If you are going to get MB below market value (and I think he realistically could get 5 years at more money, and probably even a 6th at equal money) then he needs to protect himself that he will play where he wants to play.

Since he reportedly is offering to take less to stay in Chicago, its up to the Sox to either guarantee he will be here or step up and pay market value with no guarantees.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 12:32 PM
the Sox are taking advantage of his desire to stay in Chicago

SPIN ALERT!

If he wants to stay in Chicago, why is that "taking advantage". Mark has to make the call. If he wants more money, he can go to NY or somewhere else. The Sox may not give him 5 years and will not give him a full NTC. If he wants limited NTC on a 4 year deal - he might get it. No team should give a guy full NTC as he approaches 10/5. It's asking for trouble.

I'm glad KW and JR are not going to cave into his demands. I'm glad they don't care what the media and many of the fans are complaining about. I trust KW and JR know a lot more about what we can and can not spend on Mark while still building a team. I guarantee they have two options for next year - one with spending 14mm on Mark, and one without. Frankly, with as good as Gio and Lance look, and as bad as our OF situation might look, I am really starting to believe that Ichiro - a first round pick + two top prospects is worth much more to this team next year than Buehrle alone.

Noneck
06-30-2007, 12:34 PM
Buehrle and his agent would have to be insane to sign a below-market deal, where the Sox are taking advantage of his desire to stay in Chicago to get a hometown discount, without a full no-trade clause. The minute he signs such a deal his trade value goes through the roof and he has given up his free-agency payday so the Sox pocket the profit, not MB. If this is what really killed the deal, and the Sox site says it is, then shame on the White Sox.


I totally agree. This gives the perception that Sox management is really shady.

IowaSox1971
06-30-2007, 12:36 PM
Does anybody else realize that Buehrle's horrible second half last season was one of the biggest reasons we missed the playoffs? If he had finished 18-7 (as Garland did) instead of 12-13, we would have been in the playoffs. But now everyone is overlooking that just because he has had a pretty good first half of this season.

People also forget that Buehrle was only 14-14 in 2003. If he had gone 19-9 that year, not an unrealistic expectation for a so-called ace, we'd have beaten out Minnesota for the division title.

In his past four full seasons with this team, Buehrle has been very good in 2004 and 2005, he's been mediocre in 2003 and he's been horrible in 2006. And as I've shown, his disappointing seasons in 2003 and 2006 cost us playoff spots that were there for the taking.

If we're going to give this guy a four-year contract, perhaps we should look at exactly what he's done over the previous four full seasons. Judging from his past performance, it's a safe bet that he will have a .500 season and a below-.500 season within the next four-year span. Plus, there's always the possibility he could get hurt.

I would not mind if we re-signed Buehrle, but it should be at a reasonable price. He is not in the class of true aces like Santana or Maddux in his prime.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 12:41 PM
Does anybody else realize that Buehrle's horrible second half last season was one of the biggest reasons we missed the playoffs? If he had finished 18-7 (as Garland did) instead of 12-13, we would have been in the playoffs. But now everyone is overlooking that just because he has had a pretty good first half of this season.

People also forget that Buehrle was only 14-14 in 2003. If he had gone 19-9 that year, not an unrealistic expectation for a so-called ace, we'd have beaten out Minnesota for the division title.

In his past four full seasons with this team, Buehrle has been very good in 2004 and 2005, he's been mediocre in 2003 and he's been horrible in 2006. And as I've shown, his disappointing seasons in 2003 and 2006 cost us playoff spots that were there for the taking.

If we're going to give this guy a four-year contract, perhaps we should look at exactly what he's done over the previous four full seasons. Judging from his past performance, it's a safe bet that he will have a .500 season and a below-.500 season within the next four-year span. Plus, there's always the possibility he could get hurt.

I would not mind if we re-signed Buehrle, but it should be at a reasonable price. He is not in the class of true aces like Santana or Maddux in his prime.

I agree 100%. I like Mark - but I wouldn't handicap the franchise for him. There are guys out there who can help this team next year at a lot of positions where we have need. Our farm looks like it has some strong SP options that are close to ready (Gio, Gavin, Broadway, etc) and good prospects for down the road. If Buehrle decidese he'd rather be somewhere else instead of taking a 4/56 deal that would have full NTC protection after two years (when he gets 10/5) then screw him. Trade him for two top tier prospects and move on.

roadrunner
06-30-2007, 12:43 PM
I am really starting to believe that Ichiro - a first round pick + two top prospects is worth much more to this team next year than Buehrle alone.

That is a great point. With all the emotion involved with the situation it's easy to overlook the opportunity cost.

southside rocks
06-30-2007, 12:50 PM
Thanks for correcting me about Vazquez's NTC - I didn't realize it was limited to the AL and NL West teams. You're right there is a big difference but there's also a big difference between the players involved especially when you consider the intangibles like past contributions to the organization and inevitable fan backlash.

Definitely. I can't picture season-ticket holders threatening to not buy their plans next year of Javy is traded. (Personally, I think Javy is underappreciated, but every time I become convinced of that, he blows up in a game and I go back to undecided about him.)

A long-term contract for MB will convert Mark from a liquid asset to a less-liquid asset. A good contract -- say 4 years and $56 million -- would be, for the Sox, still a very liquid asset, that is, something they could trade and get excellent value in return (unless Mark goes totally sucky, which is highly unlikely). Two years from now, the ability to trade a durable lefty who's making ONLY $14 million a year will be a great bargaining chip for them to have.

But a long-term contract with a 100% NTC leaves the Sox with an illiquid asset. If something goes bad, they're stuck with that expense for the life of the contract and nothing in return for it (worst-case scenario).

That, I believe, is what the Sox are trying to avoid. That, I think, is why the NTC is an issue now.

Law11
06-30-2007, 01:13 PM
This team is a laughing stock when it comes to contracts. The vasquez thing makes no sense when compared to the terms of Marks deal..

Open your eyes kenny. Time to blink and get this done.

CLR01
06-30-2007, 01:21 PM
SPIN ALERT!

If he wants to stay in Chicago, why is that "taking advantage". Mark has to make the call. If he wants more money, he can go to NY or somewhere else. The Sox may not give him 5 years and will not give him a full NTC. If he wants limited NTC on a 4 year deal - he might get it. No team should give a guy full NTC as he approaches 10/5. It's asking for trouble.

I'm glad KW and JR are not going to cave into his demands. I'm glad they don't care what the media and many of the fans are complaining about. I trust KW and JR know a lot more about what we can and can not spend on Mark while still building a team. I guarantee they have two options for next year - one with spending 14mm on Mark, and one without. Frankly, with as good as Gio and Lance look, and as bad as our OF situation might look, I am really starting to believe that Ichiro - a first round pick + two top prospects is worth much more to this team next year than Buehrle alone.

I'm sure Ichiro will just be dying to come to a team which finished .500 or below with two and a half question marks in the rotation, a giant one in the bullpen and an lineup which may contain 1-4 rookies/second year players.

socko82
06-30-2007, 01:27 PM
I'm sure Ichiro will just be dying to come to a team which finished .500 or below with two and a half question marks in the rotation, a giant one in the bullpen and an lineup which may contain 1-4 rookies/second year players.

And he'll gladly sign a back loaded contract full of "Reinsdorfian" clauses and no NTC.

Noneck
06-30-2007, 01:29 PM
Definitely. I can't picture season-ticket holders threatening to not buy their plans next year of Javy is traded. (Personally, I think Javy is underappreciated, but every time I become convinced of that, he blows up in a game and I go back to undecided about him.)

A long-term contract for MB will convert Mark from a liquid asset to a less-liquid asset. A good contract -- say 4 years and $56 million -- would be, for the Sox, still a very liquid asset, that is, something they could trade and get excellent value in return (unless Mark goes totally sucky, which is highly unlikely). Two years from now, the ability to trade a durable lefty who's making ONLY $14 million a year will be a great bargaining chip for them to have.

But a long-term contract with a 100% NTC leaves the Sox with an illiquid asset. If something goes bad, they're stuck with that expense for the life of the contract and nothing in return for it (worst-case scenario).

That, I believe, is what the Sox are trying to avoid. That, I think, is why the NTC is an issue now.
When you say "If something goes bad, they're stuck with that expense for the life of the contract and nothing in return for it (worst-case scenario)" What do you mean? If Burls sucks or gets hurt all the Sox can do is eat the contract, no value then. Whats the other things that can go bad?

CLR01
06-30-2007, 01:33 PM
When you say "If something goes bad, they're stuck with that expense for the life of the contract and nothing in return for it (worst-case scenario)" What do you mean? If Burls sucks or gets hurt all the Sox can do is eat the contract, no value then. Whats the other things that can go bad?

He might go Ricky Williams on them.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 01:49 PM
back loaded contract

Nowhere have we heard any discussion of this yet. And by the way, most teams do that now - deals that increase as time goes so the player makes more towards the end. Not that it matters, since the player can easily, if he needs, convert the backloaded portion to up front money without a problem. This is an old ***** by Sox fans that never made any sense when it started, and still holds no water.

full of "Reinsdorfian" clauses

That's more nonsense - as nobody is talking about anything close to that.

and no NTC

There's no reason to give someone a full NTC when they are two years away from 10/5 and you are signing them to a 4 year deal. Very few teams give full unlmited NTCs. It is bad business to do so.

Other than that - fantastic post!

MrX
06-30-2007, 01:53 PM
Does anybody else realize that Buehrle's horrible second half last season was one of the biggest reasons we missed the playoffs? If he had finished 18-7 (as Garland did) instead of 12-13, we would have been in the playoffs. But now everyone is overlooking that just because he has had a pretty good first half of this season.
Congrats on making the posts that blame last season on trading Aaron Rowand look sane.:thumbsup:

oeo
06-30-2007, 02:04 PM
I'm sure Ichiro will just be dying to come to a team which finished .500 or below with two and a half question marks in the rotation, a giant one in the bullpen and an lineup which may contain 1-4 rookies/second year players.

I'm not saying Ichiro is going to come here (and I don't anymore after this disaster of a season), but Kenny basically built that 2005 ball club in the offseason. We have no idea what the 2008 team will look like.

Lip Man 1
06-30-2007, 02:04 PM
Jab:

Maybe it comes down to this. I'm not trying to 'take sides' here either....

Mark apparently has 'given' for want of a better word, money and an additional year that he'll almost certainly get elsewhere to stay with the organization.

Maybe he simply wants the organization to 'give' something as well?

I find it hard to beleieve that a franchise worth as much as the Chicago White Sox is going to be 'handicapped' or 'held hostage' by giving ONE player a no trade clause.

I mean these aren't the small market Brewers, Pirates or Royals right? (And by small market I mean from a population stand point.)

I can't begin to try to explain the rational from both sides on this situation but just looking at the raw data it seems to me that Mark has tried to make moves to get this done. To me he seems to have proven his desire to stay and is asking for something in return for his willingness to do this.

That 'attitude' doesn't seem to be unreasonable to me.

Lip

jabrch
06-30-2007, 02:12 PM
Jab:

Maybe it comes down to this. I'm not trying to 'take sides' here either....

Mark apparently has 'given' for want of a better word, money and an additional year that he'll almost certainly get elsewhere to stay with the organization.

Maybe he simply wants the organization to 'give' something as well?

I find it hard to beleieve that a franchise worth as much as the Chicago White Sox is going to be 'handicapped' or 'held hostage' by giving ONE player a no trade clause.

I mean these aren't the small market Brewers, Pirates or Royals right? (And by small market I mean from a population stand point.)

Lip

Lip

The franchise appears to have given 4 years and 56+MM with no-trade in year one (they do that for everyone) and 10/5 rights that he'd get in years 3/4.

I just don't believe that any franchise should let any player dictate the terms of an agreement. Management holds all the cards. If Mark decides he would be happier elsewhere, he can wait until the end of the season and be free to negotiate with anyone he chooses. But if he wants to sign a deal now, I'm glad the Sox are making him do it on terms that are good for the club.

I've seen too many teams that have to do bad things to get out from under bad contracts. I'm thrilled that our management isn't going to put us in that position. I'd be just as happy with Gio/Floyd/Broadway in the rotation next year, along with 2 top tier prospects in the system, and $56mm to spend on some other FAs over the course of time as I would with Mark here for 4 years.

If the cupboard was bare, and we had no pitching under contract, and our farm looked bleak, it might be a different story. But look at our offensive talent, both at the big league level and in the farm. I'm really convinced that we can benefit more from spending that money on hitting and using our farm to backfill that rotation spot.

I'd be happy to keep Mark if the price is right. That 4/50 number sounded too good to be true (and it was). But I wouldn't keep him if it meant a deal that was long, guaranteed, and unescapable.

WhiteSox5187
06-30-2007, 02:18 PM
Jab:

Maybe it comes down to this. I'm not trying to 'take sides' here either....

Mark apparently has 'given' for want of a better word, money and an additional year that he'll almost certainly get elsewhere to stay with the organization.

Maybe he simply wants the organization to 'give' something as well?

I find it hard to beleieve that a franchise worth as much as the Chicago White Sox is going to be 'handicapped' or 'held hostage' by giving ONE player a no trade clause.

I mean these aren't the small market Brewers, Pirates or Royals right? (And by small market I mean from a population stand point.)

I can't begin to try to explain the rational from both sides on this situation but just looking at the raw data it seems to me that Mark has tried to make moves to get this done. To me he seems to have proven his desire to stay and is asking for something in return for his willingness to do this.

That 'attitude' doesn't seem to be unreasonable to me.

Lip
I'm just angry as I'm writing this so hopefully I'll be proven wrong and wind up looking like an idiot, but I really dont' think Kenny wants to sign Buerhle very much. If he did the deal would have happened already. I think this might have been a ploy by the Sox so they can tell their fans "Hey! We tried!" Kind of like the "offer" we gave Robin Ventura. This will be a move that will haunt the White Sox organization for years to come.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 02:33 PM
Kind of like the "offer" we gave Robin Ventura. This will be a move that will haunt the White Sox organization for years to come.

Did you see Robin's performance after the deal we didn't give him? He had ONE good year at age 31, followed by a sharp and immediate sprial into sub-mediocrity. The 8mm per year that the Mets paid him turned out to be a pretty crappy investment. I'm GLAD we weren't bullied into that deal for a 30 year old who was 1 year removed from a bad injury.

Using Ventura as an example of the Sox not signing someone doesn't help your case any unless your case is that fan favorites should be signed to big $ contracts regardless of what their production might be.

JB98
06-30-2007, 02:33 PM
Lip

The franchise appears to have given 4 years and 56+MM with no-trade in year one (they do that for everyone) and 10/5 rights that he'd get in years 3/4.

I just don't believe that any franchise should let any player dictate the terms of an agreement. Management holds all the cards. If Mark decides he would be happier elsewhere, he can wait until the end of the season and be free to negotiate with anyone he chooses. But if he wants to sign a deal now, I'm glad the Sox are making him do it on terms that are good for the club.

I've seen too many teams that have to do bad things to get out from under bad contracts. I'm thrilled that our management isn't going to put us in that position. I'd be just as happy with Gio/Floyd/Broadway in the rotation next year, along with 2 top tier prospects in the system, and $56mm to spend on some other FAs over the course of time as I would with Mark here for 4 years.

If the cupboard was bare, and we had no pitching under contract, and our farm looked bleak, it might be a different story. But look at our offensive talent, both at the big league level and in the farm. I'm really convinced that we can benefit more from spending that money on hitting and using our farm to backfill that rotation spot.

I'd be happy to keep Mark if the price is right. That 4/50 number sounded too good to be true (and it was). But I wouldn't keep him if it meant a deal that was long, guaranteed, and unescapable.

If we're going with some combination of Gio/Floyd/Broadway, along with Danks, in the rotation next year, we ain't winning a thing in this division. Maybe it is time to rebuild.

With 2007 already spiraling down the drain, I think people are searching for hope that 2008 will be better. If Buerhle departs, I think we can count on next year being a transition year for the organization. That's hard for a lot of people to swallow less than two years removed from a World Series title.

At this same time last year, we were talking about this being the "Golden Age of White Sox baseball," an opportunity for a run of three or four years of making the playoffs consecutively. Instead, we are going to get Gio/Floyd/Broadway. I don't see how that can be anything but a disappointment.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 02:37 PM
If we're going with some combination of Gio/Floyd/Broadway, along with Danks, in the rotation next year, we ain't winning a thing in this division. Maybe it is time to rebuild.

With 2007 already spiraling down the drain, I think people are searching for hope that 2008 will be better. If Buerhle departs, I think we can count on next year being a transition year for the organization. That's hard for a lot of people to swallow less than two years removed from a World Series title.

At this same time last year, we were talking about this being the "Golden Age of White Sox baseball," an opportunity for a run of three or four years of making the playoffs consecutively. Instead, we are going to get Gio/Floyd/Broadway. I don't see how that can be anything but a disappointment.

I think that's a leap you are making, that a rotation of Gio, Danks, Jose, Javy and Gar couldn't compete if we had an extra 15mm to spend on an impact offensive player.

CLR01
06-30-2007, 02:39 PM
I'm not saying Ichiro is going to come here (and I don't anymore after this disaster of a season), but Kenny basically built that 2005 ball club in the offseason. We have no idea what the 2008 team will look like.

No we don't but it's a safe bet to say 2008 payroll will need to be coming down. If Crede is gone Fields will be taking his place, Floyd has to be in on the 25 man roster or we lose him so you can probably pencil him into the 2008 rotation, At least one of the Podsednik, Erstad, Dye outfield will be gone (maybe two or all three) and I doubt you are going to see KW go out and sign anyone when he has Sweeney, Anderson, Owens and Terrero as cheap options, and Richar may be a potential replacement for Uribe or Iguchi. Outside of possibly making a run at Ichiro and bullpen guys I doubt we see KW make any big splashes in the FA market this upcoming offseason. Of course that is just my opinion and that may change depending on how the rest of this season plays itself out.

russ99
06-30-2007, 02:42 PM
I'd love to take a peek at the Sox books for the last 2-3 seasons and find out exactly how much profit was made.

It's time for management to bite the bullet and give a top player and fan-favorite what he deserves for once. I was pretty upset about the departures of Magglio and Frank, but at least at the time the Sox could claim injury concerns as to why they didn't give either of them a decent offer.

Sometimes I think management's principles come before putting a good product out on the field.

The Sox need to do what's right for Mark, or I can seriously forsee another White Flag-like boycott on ticket sales next season. The championship may have brought ownership back in to Sox fans' good graces, but they shouldn't expect 2005 success to validate future bad moves.

Lip Man 1
06-30-2007, 02:42 PM
Jab:

Unfortunately history has shown, particularly over the past 10 to 15 years that the Sox have had a hard time putting together a quality staff based at least in part on a significant contribution from their minor league pitchers.

That can change tomorrow but I don't 'blame' JB and others for being very, very skeptical over this idea.

I also think JB makes a great point on what this could 'represent' to Sox fans many of whom, like he said, were hoping for a 'second Golden Age' after winning the World Series.

In fact Richard Roeper in his WSI interview said the same thing, that for the franchise to take back their own city and influence the next generation of fans they HAD to have a stretch where they could make the post season in five of eight or seven of ten seasons.

That doesn't appear to have much chance of happening now.

Lip

WhiteSox5187
06-30-2007, 02:43 PM
Did you see Robin's performance after the deal we didn't give him? He had ONE good year at age 31, followed by a sharp and immediate sprial into sub-mediocrity. The 8mm per year that the Mets paid him turned out to be a pretty crappy investment. I'm GLAD we weren't bullied into that deal for a 30 year old who was 1 year removed from a bad injury.

Using Ventura as an example of the Sox not signing someone doesn't help your case any unless your case is that fan favorites should be signed to big $ contracts regardless of what their production might be.
He had a good 1999 and put up good power numbers in 2000, 2001, 2002 (20+ HRs with 100+ RBIs)...failing to re-sign Buerhle though will definately haunt us.

JB98
06-30-2007, 02:44 PM
I think that's a leap you are making, that a rotation of Gio, Danks, Jose, Javy and Gar couldn't compete if we had an extra 15mm to spend on an impact offensive player.

I don't think it's a leap at all. Look at the rotation. Who is the ace among those five? I would say Gar.

I'm a big supporter of Jon's. Like I said, I was furious to read reports last offseason that KW was trying to trade him. But on a championship team, Garland is a No. 3 starter. Over the long haul, he's not going to outpitch the aces in this division (Santana, Sabathia, Verlander).

Jose is pretty close to being done. I wish KW would trade him. Look at Jose's last 30 starts dating back to last season. The decline has been sharp and sudden.

Don't get me started on Vazquez. His career record is around .500. He's a back-of-the-rotation .500 pitcher.

Danks and Gio? I like both. They could be stalwarts for the 2010 World Champion White Sox. But we're not going to win in 2008 with Garland, Vaz, Jose, Danks and Gio. Sorry.

CLR01
06-30-2007, 02:47 PM
I think that's a leap you are making, that a rotation of Gio, Danks, Jose, Javy and Gar couldn't compete if we had an extra 15mm to spend on an impact offensive player.

It's a huge leap to assume Gio, Floyd or Danks are no guarantee to be good next year or that Jose will continue to age and his numbers continue to get worse and that a single offensive player will not make up for that? Garland is the only pitcher in that rotation who can be counted on at this point.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 02:55 PM
He had a good 1999 and put up good power numbers in 2000, 2001, 2002 (20+ HRs with 100+ RBIs)...failing to re-sign Buerhle though will definately haunt us.

He wasn't worth what he made - and we rightfully didn't pay him what some other foolish team would. I'm not convinced that Buehrle leaving will be any worse.

Jab:

Unfortunately history has shown, particularly over the past 10 to 15 years that the Sox have had a hard time putting together a quality staff based at least in part on a significant contribution from their minor league pitchers.

That can change tomorrow but I don't 'blame' JB and others for being very, very skeptical over this idea.

I also think JB makes a great point on what this could 'represent' to Sox fans many of whom, like he said, were hoping for a 'second Golden Age' after winning the World Series.

In fact Richard Roeper in his WSI interview said the same thing, that for the franchise to take back their own city and influence the next generation of fans they HAD to have a stretch where they could make the post season in five of eight or seven of ten seasons.

That doesn't appear to have much chance of happening now.

Lip

I'm not surprised you take a negative outlook towards this. I'm sure you aren't surprised that I am not convinced that this would signify anything either. I don't care about taking back the city, influencing fans, attendance or any of that crap. I don't care much for Roeper, the media, or what people think of the Sox. I don't care what our history of producing pitchers is. None of that bothers me. I go to 25+ games a year - I want to see the team win - and I don't care much about history or using it to project out the future.

I am looking at the talent we have in the minors and I see a lot of solid pitching, and a lack of offensive impact players. I'd rather spend cash money on a sure fire impact hitter and use my farm system to try and find a next starter who will be a 3.75, 1.25 type guy. I think we have a bunch of guys in the system who can do that.

If Mark wants to stay, he will. If he doesn't, he can find something to use as a lever to complain about. The sox likely wouldn't give him a NTC. It's bad business to do so. If that's a deal breaker for him, then I hope Mark is happy with the Yankees, Mets, Cardinals of whomever. I hope they sign him to a Zito-like deal. I hope he is happy - and they are happy. But I don't want this franchise to put itself in a position where we can't do something else that we need to do just to keep Mark Buehrle and his 3.75/1.25 career line.

JB98
06-30-2007, 02:56 PM
It's a huge leap to assume Gio, Floyd or Danks are no guarantee to be good next year or that Jose will continue to age and his numbers continue to get worse and that a single offensive player will not make up for that? Garland is the only pitcher in that rotation who can be counted on at this point.

Bingo.

Gio, Floyd and Danks = The Kids Can Play, Part 2

As I've said, I don't know if this fan base is ready to accept that less than two years removed from the World Series. I'm a diehard, so I'll live with it, if I must. But I am one of the people concerned about this franchise pissing away all the goodwill it built up in 2005, and I reserve the right to be disappointed about a return to rebuilding this quickly after reaching the pinnacle.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 02:58 PM
I don't think it's a leap at all.

Worse rotations have competed. Look at the Twins this year. Look at Seattle this year. The Mets? The Braves? Arizona? Milwaukee?

It would by no means be a lock - but I can't see how you can possibly be sure it won't compete.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 03:02 PM
Gio, Floyd and Danks = The Kids Can Play, Part 2


It could also be the next Big 3. You don't know either way.

And it would leave us 15mm to spend on something else.

And it would stock our farm with ideally two top tier prospects.

JB98
06-30-2007, 03:06 PM
Worse rotations have competed. Look at the Twins this year. Look at Seattle this year. The Mets? The Braves? Arizona? Milwaukee?

It would by no means be a lock - but I can't see how you can possibly be sure it won't compete.

I'm not talking about competing. I'm talking about winning. Competing should be a given for a franchise with our resources.

The Twins this year? They're 41-37. Whoop-dee-doo. They'll probably stay in the hunt because Santana always gets hot in the second half. This proposed rotation of Garland, Vazquez, Contreras, Gio and Danks doesn't have anything resembling a Santana.

Don't compare us to National League clubs. They don't have the Tigers and Indians to deal with. Looking at who Detroit already has in its rotation and some of the prospects it has in the pipeline, we better find some shutdown starting pitchers if we're going to win.

Maybe Gio can be one of those guys, but it won't happen in 2008.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 03:10 PM
Maybe Gio can be one of those guys, but it won't happen in 2008.

I think it is a bit early to throw away 2008, regardless of what happens with Mark. If you don't agree - that's your choice.

In July of 2004, were you talking about how dead we were going to be in 2005?

JB98
06-30-2007, 03:11 PM
It could also be the next Big 3. You don't know either way.

And it would leave us 15mm to spend on something else.

And it would stock our farm with ideally two top tier prospects.

It could be the next Big 3, but we're going to take some lumps in the short term. That's the whole point I'm making. We've had a quick fall. Maybe rebuilding is the right course of action, but it's a tough pill to swallow right now. It's tough for me, and it's tough for a lot of people. I'm still going to go to the park. I'm not off the bandwagon, but I can't hide my disappointment.

If KW does go with a "Kids Can Play, Part 2," he's staking his job and reputation on it. If we get to 2010 or so, and we're no better than an 85-win team, some tough questions are going to have to be asked.

JB98
06-30-2007, 03:14 PM
I think it is a bit early to throw away 2008, regardless of what happens with Mark. If you don't agree - that's your choice.

In July of 2004, were you talking about how dead we were going to be in 2005?

No, because we were in first place in July of 2004, and we had just acquired Freddy Garcia. We would have been in the playoffs that year if we hadn't lost Frank and Maggs to injury.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 03:17 PM
No, because we were in first place in July of 2004, and we had just acquired Freddy Garcia. We would have been in the playoffs that year if we hadn't lost Frank and Maggs to injury.

If we didn't lose Erstad, Pods, Thome, Crede and Pablo, I am convinced we'd be right in the thick of things this year as well.

JB98
06-30-2007, 03:27 PM
If we didn't lose Erstad, Pods, Thome, Crede and Pablo, I am convinced we'd be right in the thick of things this year as well.

Perhaps. Injuries have definitely hurt us this year, but I'm skeptical that we'd win a thing with this bullpen full of arsonists. But that's another matter.

Here's the thing about 2004: KW made some moves midseason that set the table for 2005. He went and got Freddy. He reacquired Hot Carl, who turned out to be a key with Frank's failing health. He dumped Loaiza and got Contreras. All EXCELLENT moves, in which we got rid of dead weight for players that we knew could help us win IMMEDIATELY. (BTW 2004 Loaiza = 2007 Contreras).

Obviously, no midseason moves have been made yet here in 2007. But all signs seem to point toward moving proven players who have helped us win in the past for collections of prospects that we hope work out. To me, that signals we're moving into a transitional phase.

CLR01
06-30-2007, 03:29 PM
If we didn't lose Erstad, Pods, Thome, Crede and Pablo, I am convinced we'd be right in the thick of things this year as well.

They were a .500 team in 4th place when Pods, Thome and Ersty went down, a .500 team in third place when Ozuna went down and below .500 and in 4th place when Crede dropped. I'm not convinced they would be anything more than a .500 team in 4th place.

Lip Man 1
06-30-2007, 04:16 PM
Jab:

That's not a personal attack on you and you may be 100% correct in your thinking.

My point was that right or wrong history has shown the Sox have had a great deal of issues developing pitchers that can win at the major league level over the past decade and that I can understand why fans would be skeptical.

Kenny Williams didn't just recently fire Duane Shaffer as scouting director because he didn't like the way he had his haircut right?

Regarding the topic of the Sox needing to take back the city...again right or wrong drawing 2 to 3 million fans a year is VERY important. That many fans allows you more leeway to get talent, regardless of whether it's being willing to pay more to sign June draft picks or to go after free agents.

Again history has directly shown based on attendance figures that Sox fans WILL NOT support mediocrity / bad baseball. This may be fair or unfair but again with respect to Kenny, 'it is what it is' and it's not going to change in the forseeable future.

Just because a member of the media (and one of the biggest Sox fans to boot) said this, doesn't make that statement wrong. In fact based on your comment of going to 15 or so games a year, Roeper's comment carries more weight...he's got full season tickets and has for years. (I know this personally because he gave me his 12th row tickets to a game with the Mariners in May 2006 when he was in California.)

It's all interrelated.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the next month, year, two years.

Lip

soxwon
06-30-2007, 04:17 PM
Lowball who Buehrle ?
15mill a year not enough ? BS
Thats a ton of money, he's not worth a dime more
and we offered 4 years, we never do that,
I for one will allways be glad, we never offer 5 years
yet alone 4.
The league has to learn, to not pay huge bucks.
Look at Soriano with the Cubs.
He's not that good, all i ever see him do is hit a homer (3) against us, or Strike out.

soxwon
06-30-2007, 04:25 PM
I'm sure Ichiro will just be dying to come to a team which finished .500 or below with two and a half question marks in the rotation, a giant one in the bullpen and an lineup which may contain 1-4 rookies/second year players.


From my source and Jerrys good friend- Yru Anobelvrson.
Ichiro will be a sox next season.
Because our chinatown is the best in USA.

Bill Naharodny
06-30-2007, 04:29 PM
And he'll gladly sign a back loaded contract full of "Reinsdorfian" clauses and no NTC.

I love this -- two words that pretty much describe most contract offers made by Reinsdorf to anyone of All-Star quality -- other than Michael Jordan -- since about 1985.

russ99
06-30-2007, 04:30 PM
From my source and Jerrys good friend- Yru Anobelvrson.
Ichiro will be a sox next season.
Because our chinatown is the best in USA.

Ever been to San Francisco?!? I doubt Ichiro's decision would have much to do with that...

Nellie_Fox
06-30-2007, 04:43 PM
From my source and Jerrys good friend- Yru Anobelvrson.
Ichiro will be a sox next season.
Because our chinatown is the best in USA.

Ever been to San Francisco?!? I doubt Ichiro's decision would have much to do with that...You're correct about San Fran, but you guys are aware that Ichiro is Japanese, not Chinese, aren't you? Why would he care about Chinatown?

Noneck
06-30-2007, 05:01 PM
You're correct about San Fran, but you guys are aware that Ichiro is Japanese, not Chinese, aren't you? Why would he care about Chinatown?
I'm dying to hear the answer to this.

kobo
06-30-2007, 05:07 PM
Buehrle is a fan favorite and it would be a shame to watch him go, and I think that will piss off the fanbase more than anything else. The Sox already know they cannot get what they want for him, and in all honesty I don't want the Sox to settle for lesser prospects just because they won't give the guy a no trade clause. ***** about it all you want, but Lip is right, if Mark agreed in principle to a 4 year deal worth around $50-$56 million and wanted a NTC, why not give it to him? We ***** all the time about how players aren't loyal anymore, here we have a guy who is probably in the top 3 of everyone's current favorite Sox players who wants to stay here and asked for a NTC. And the organization won't give that to him? That sucks, and that's a slap in the face to the fans as much as it is to Buehrle.

If we're going with some combination of Gio/Floyd/Broadway, along with Danks, in the rotation next year, we ain't winning a thing in this division. Maybe it is time to rebuild.

With 2007 already spiraling down the drain, I think people are searching for hope that 2008 will be better. If Buerhle departs, I think we can count on next year being a transition year for the organization. That's hard for a lot of people to swallow less than two years removed from a World Series title.

At this same time last year, we were talking about this being the "Golden Age of White Sox baseball," an opportunity for a run of three or four years of making the playoffs consecutively. Instead, we are going to get Gio/Floyd/Broadway. I don't see how that can be anything but a disappointment.

Bingo.

Gio, Floyd and Danks = The Kids Can Play, Part 2

As I've said, I don't know if this fan base is ready to accept that less than two years removed from the World Series. I'm a diehard, so I'll live with it, if I must. But I am one of the people concerned about this franchise pissing away all the goodwill it built up in 2005, and I reserve the right to be disappointed about a return to rebuilding this quickly after reaching the pinnacle.

I'm not talking about competing. I'm talking about winning. Competing should be a given for a franchise with our resources.

Don't compare us to National League clubs. They don't have the Tigers and Indians to deal with. Looking at who Detroit already has in its rotation and some of the prospects it has in the pipeline, we better find some shutdown starting pitchers if we're going to win.

I agree with all of this. People tend to forget about the 3 teams that are currently ahead of us right now in the division. Does anyone honestly think that the Sox have the players in the minors and the resources available in the off season to compete with the Twins, Tigers, and Indians? Because that's who the main competition is going to be for the next 3-4 years. Yeah sure, the Sox may be competitive and finish around .500 for the next couple of years, but for me, that's not good enough.

JB is right, expectations have been raised. The organization said they would raise payroll and do their best to keep the team competitive if the fans came out and supported the club. And what has happened the last 1 1/2 years? The fans have come out, season tickets are sold out with a waiting list, the fans have done their part to support this team. White Sox fans by nature do not support mediocrity, never have and never will. This was supposed to be the time for the Sox to go on a run and be a playoff caliber team for several years, the organization built up those expectations.

Some of you may not care what the media and other people think about the team, but I know I want to see the Sox succeed year in and year out. I want the Sox to be the #1 team in town, I want the team to compete for the playoffs year in and year out. There is absolutely no reason why this team cannot be a perennial playoff contender. I want the team to win again and to win again soon. I can't afford to wait 88 years to see another championship. And to be honest, none of us should have to endure that ever again.

soxwon
06-30-2007, 05:57 PM
You're correct about San Fran, but you guys are aware that Ichiro is Japanese, not Chinese, aren't you? Why would he care about Chinatown?


duh- chinatown caters to japanese, korean, vietnamese people.
the chinese food is very similar to the other countries quisine.

voodoochile
06-30-2007, 07:00 PM
duh- chinatown caters to japanese, korean, vietnamese people.
the chinese food is very similar to the other countries quisine.

No, they aren't. Japanese food is nothing like Chinese food other than they both use rice...

UserNameBlank
06-30-2007, 07:27 PM
No, they aren't. Japanese food is nothing like Chinese food other than they both use rice...
I agree. There is indeed a difference between say sushi and Mongolian beef.

chitownhawkfan
06-30-2007, 09:29 PM
That's untrue. Boston has a 139 Composite Cost of Living Index while Chicago has a 129. NYC has a 212. (in 2005) If you earn 100,000 in Chicago, and want to maintain the same standard of living you need to earn $115,000 in Boston.

Not according to the data I looked at.


http://finance.move.com/homefinance/mortgages/mostleastexpensive.asp?poe=homestore (http://finance.move.com/homefinance/mortgages/mostleastexpensive.asp?poe=homestore)



Are you kidding me? Where are you pulling that crap from? The same $100,000 in Chicago requires earning $175,000 to maintain the same standard of living in Manhattan and $125,000 in Queens.


Of course NY is much more expensive than any other American city, but compared to world prices it isn't even in the top 10, in the latest rankings it was 15th.

http://www.citymayors.com/features/cost_survey.html (http://www.citymayors.com/features/cost_survey.html)


If you think what they are doing is lowballing, I imagine you have never had to negotiate for anything in your life. They are offering him a very attractive deal to have it all done now and take any risk out of the remainder of the year.

It obviously cannot be that attractive or he would have signed it by now, I may not be the negotiating expert you are but if it was as good a deal as you claim surely he would have signed it by now.
Compared to what he could get on the market they are lowballing, he has yet to have arm issues, give him the no trade clause.

NEVER - I would NEVER give a player a full, unlimited, life of a contract, no trade clause. You are depreciating the value of that deal significantly, right away. If Mark won't take the same deal as far as NTC that Gar and Jose took, a 1 year full NTC, and that's it, then I have no problem with KW making that a deal killer. And as far as the money, you don't just "give him what he wants". You give him what you can afford, within your budget.

The money isn't the issue, its the NTC. He's a fan favorite, a winner, and wants to stay on the Southside.

We need to get an (or multiple) OF and a SS next year. We need to either resign Iguchi, or get a 2B. We need RP help. Breaking the bank for Mark, with all the starting pitching we have under contract, would be stupid.

I want to keep Mark if we can do it within the constructs of a reasonable budget and within terms that allow the team to not be screwed for the long haul just to sign one guy.

t

voodoochile
06-30-2007, 11:42 PM
t

Well, I don't know who said what in your goofy quote reply thingy, and all I am getting is a "t" in my quotes because everything you and jabarch said was inside quotes which doesn't show up when I quote your post so if you want to go back and read what was said, scroll up...

Having said all of that, the whole cost of living thing is really silly. Yes, it matters when you are talking about $100-200K/year. Heck, even up to $500K, but once you get into the $1M/year range, cost of living really stops meaning a whole heck of a lot because you can afford to live anywhere you darned well please and not worry about it. With guys making $12M/year who are probably going to make $150M over the next 12 years or so it becomes so insignificant as to be completely moot, IMO.

But, feel free to continue jabbering away about the price of an apartment in Manhattan Vs. The Gold Coast if it makes you happy. Last I checked, a 3 bedroom condo on the 80th floor of the Hancock was under $3M. Even if a comparably located place in Manhattan is double that, BurlyMon and his wife should have no problem affording the mortgage. Since anything else save a serious mansion in Beverly Hills is going to be cheaper, they should be just fine.

soxwon
07-01-2007, 12:08 AM
No, they aren't. Japanese food is nothing like Chinese food other than they both use rice...

Ok my mistake.

Nellie_Fox
07-01-2007, 02:04 AM
duh- chinatown caters to japanese, korean, vietnamese people.
the chinese food is very similar to the other countries quisine.And giving someone a "duh" could easily be construed as personal.

chitownhawkfan
07-01-2007, 03:28 AM
Well, I don't know who said what in your goofy quote reply thingy, and all I am getting is a "t" in my quotes because everything you and jabarch said was inside quotes which doesn't show up when I quote your post so if you want to go back and read what was said, scroll up...

Having said all of that, the whole cost of living thing is really silly. Yes, it matters when you are talking about $100-200K/year. Heck, even up to $500K, but once you get into the $1M/year range, cost of living really stops meaning a whole heck of a lot because you can afford to live anywhere you darned well please and not worry about it. With guys making $12M/year who are probably going to make $150M over the next 12 years or so it becomes so insignificant as to be completely moot, IMO.

But, feel free to continue jabbering away about the price of an apartment in Manhattan Vs. The Gold Coast if it makes you happy. Last I checked, a 3 bedroom condo on the 80th floor of the Hancock was under $3M. Even if a comparably located place in Manhattan is double that, BurlyMon and his wife should have no problem affording the mortgage. Since anything else save a serious mansion in Beverly Hills is going to be cheaper, they should be just fine.

Sorry about that, I tried to break it up into a bunch of little quotes as he had done previously but i totally botched it. Being too lazy to figure out how to fix it i instead when back and put my stuff in italics but i botched that also. When it asked me for at least one letter i just hit t. But good points you make, cost of living stops mattering when you have that much money.

DumpJerry
07-01-2007, 10:52 AM
Reading this thread has suddenly given me a craving for dim sum.........

I'm waiting for the inevitable fight over what is the best Chinese restaurant in Chicago argument.