RockRaines

QUOTE(sayitaintso @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 11:43 PM) I would like to see the Reds actually be good again, i've always liked them. my fav NL team. The big red machine will be back.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:36 AM) I think the Red Sox got jobbed. The Indians now have a great replacement for worthless Aaron Boone at 3B and a decent reliever. Coco Crisp was a Sox killer but this trade will make the Indians better for the future, if Marte pans out of course. I dont think they got jobbed. Marte hasnt proven anything at the major league level. He is a good enough prospect that he has already been traded 2 times this offseason. The Red Sox obviously decided he wasnt good enough for the starting role, and decided that it was better to trade him for crisp, than pick up someone like Reed for nothing. If he was this super prospect that everyone seems to think, then they wouldnt have let him go like that.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 09:17 PM) is that true? i could've sworn one of the creative people on this website created it for me.. tis true.

Did anyone watch the last amazing race season? My old college roomate was on it and won, but their rivals was this family from FLA who would ask god for help on the clue every time they got to a checkpoint. I never understood how they could stand there and preach to everyone about their beliefs and then ask god for help in figuring out how to find a needle in a haystack.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 09:46 AM) Not that I have to prove anything to you, but, I will be more than willing to bet you ANY amount of money that you are willing to put up that I am in fact a licensed attorney. Would you like to bet, say, $1,000.00, professor? It's put up or shut up time...YOU HAVE BEEN "CALLED OUT". Pfff, ok its a deal. Meet me under the swingset with your "proof" I love internet call outs.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:32 AM) You have reading comprehension deficiencies, Rock. I'm done with you too, because you can't understand simple Business 101, (or English 101 as well!). You werent even quoting me dude. You lost me at claiming to be a lawyer, care to refute that claim? You have no argument, no facts, no anything.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 03:38 PM) Is there anyway we can change Red's tag to be "Red Sox Apologist" without his permission? ...just so new-comers know what they're getting themselves into. It alread says Bi-sox-ual which was the name that a large group of cubs fans took as their rallying cry when rooting for the white sox in the playoffs this year. Siding with cubs fans is bad enough.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 07:37 PM) Well I can respect the guys post. He did a lot of work, and put some thought into it. It was excellent work. Agreed, better than an IQ score follow by jibberish. With respect to the sox organization. I would have a hard time thinking our payroll would ever reach to the heights that other teams have taken it. I think JR is a pretty capable businessman, and I dont see us overextending ourselves in that way.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 07:19 PM) Nice work. Now if you go back and research net PnLs for the Sox over the years and then correlate it to the net change in next years payroll, you will see it matches almost exactly. I already posted this concept, it seems that as soon as it is brought up, it is ignored.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 07:20 PM) Get used to it. That is the way he/she posts. He/She thinks he/she is the only one that knows anything about baseball. He/She has made that obvious many times. Dont jump in a thread not knowing what was posted and make a ignorant personal comment. We werent even discussing baseball, take your grudges elsewhere.

Steff, that was good.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) You are intelligent enough not to believe everything you hear, aren't you? I'm intelligent enough to know what to believe. And according to the history of the team's finances, the payroll has increased based on the revenue stream. His statements make a whole lot of sense based on his tendencies. But of course, you do know more than he does.

so soon we forget that our payroll in 2003 was around 58 million. Now 100 million isnt enough.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 04:37 PM) And my point was, I don't think the Sox would be operating at a loss if they took on Abreu's salary. Considering the General Manager and the Chairman of the board already said we were extended beyond our budget, I would re-evaluate my opinion if I were you.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 04:34 PM) You refrain from personal attacks, and I will do the same! I did that where? Dont confuse me dismantling your arguments with attacking you personally.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) Then by your "logic", since the odds of us repeating are slim, we should be dumping all of our big money players, and go for as much profit as possible?! When did I say that I was all for profit? I said our budget was already tapped. You determined that you couldnt make any other argument, and tried to turn it into profitability, not me. Now that argument didnt hold weight, so now you are trying to make me stand behind a statement of running the team as profitable as possible. Fact is, I never made that statement. I said do not run the team at a loss. Putting words into my mouth isnt a good way to state your position.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 04:24 PM) Never said you were gay, I said you are a girl! Thats not really necessary here is it? If you claim to be an overly intelligent executive, please conduct yourself as such.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) 1. Abreu improves the team. 2. An improved team has a better chance to repeat as champions. 3. A championship teams draw more fans. 1+2+3= MORE MONEY! I like how you didnt touch my posts. Secondly-fact is, we are already champions, so we probably have hit our peak value all things considered. The odds are we wont repeat as champions even with the aquisition of an overpriced, declining slugger. So we will increase our expenses while most likely seeing a decrease in returns. This would make a decrease in profit margin, which would actually makes us less money!!

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 04:14 PM) Rock...you and your girlfriend Kyle make a sweet couple. I wish you the best. :banghead Every battle is won before it is ever fought. Sun-tzu, The Art of War.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 04:11 PM) The first (unwritten) Rule of Business..."It takes money to make money.". Is that before or after: "Lunch is for wimps" I believe it was in the same chapter as this one: "The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bulls***. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. "

Kyle- WWSBMID?

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:32 PM) Operating on a budget means not spending more than you have. The Sox are FAR from spending more than they have or make. This is the best. If my attorney gave me this advice, I would be a little suspicious. "Ok, this is how we will draw up the budget you will live on. First we will take every dime you make and make sure we spend it in the plan."

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 03:57 PM) Some of you talk like the Whitesox are a "Not-for-Profit" corporation. That is just plain stupid. Are you serious? What part of that even makes sense. We are talking about the team not being in debt, and you assume that makes them non-profit? Seriously, are you currently taking freshman business classes? Your view is that they should extend their finances beyond their means, because they will be able to afford it this year, but probably not the year after that. But that doesnt matter to you as long as they make a run at the title this year. You are basically talking about running a company at a loss so they can perform great one year, but then gradually lose money and customers for the next 10 years. How is that a good business model?

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 03:48 PM) IIT Chicago-Kent, Class of 1990. Admitted to Illinois Bar 1991. Leslie Matlaw, is that you?

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 03:42 PM) I stand by what I said about my intelligence. I am an attorney. (My I.Q. is in the high 130s.) I have brokered multi-million dollar deals. Most of all, I am intelligent enough to know that there is NO way Jerry and his co-investors have only split even over the years. That is preposterous. too....much...ammo...... Well I already have you beat in IQ and deal size. If you would like to race a couple of laps around the loop we can do that as well. Companies that over extended themselves do not last at a high level. Jerry and his investors are better businessmen than you, how do I know that? THEY OWN THE FREAKIN WHITE SOX. Back to your original point which has since been twisted due to your lack of sources. Why wont the white sox expand their payroll beyond their means to pick up Bobby Abreu: Because they wont. They have already increased payroll by almost 50 percent of last year's, its not plausible for it to increase much more. If you can miraculously pull some numbers out of your ass, please post them. Being that you are this "big attorney" you should have some subscriptions to D&B, Hoovers, Forbes etc. Its not that hard to find out some figures.