ptatc

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 09:51 PM) Which is why it's f***ing dumb that Emery didn't even have the ability to fire Lovie when he was brought in. The way Emery is going about this coaching search, he probably wanted to evaluate Lovie for a year before deciding on keeping him or not. He seems to be a detailed person not impulsive, kind of like Hahn is appearing to be.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 09:40 PM) It doesnt matter. The entire premise of my argument is the Bears shouldnt be firing Lovie this year. Its a terrible year for hiring coaches when there are a bunch of vacancies and you arent going to bid competitively. And it also doesnt matter because the Bears were never going to hire a coach like that. The Bears have a brand new GM who wants to prove himself. He isnt going to hire a coach who wants a lot of control. That means you are not going to be able to hire most of the top candidates who already have experrience. Its not really shocking at all. I think this is a good thing. Very few people can do both jobs and have success. But I still agree with your overall premise. When they fired Lovie, you has to hope emery knew what he is doing because it was going to be a "prospect" coach hire.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 09:43 PM) Coach Q had about ten years of head coaching experience before this stint with the Hawks. That's right. It's been so long since they played I forgot about the current coach.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 09:22 PM) The Bears have never hired a coach with previous HC experience Exactly. For the Sox the only one I can come up with in recent memory is Fregosi. I can't think of one for the Bulls. For the Hawks, I think it's Keenan.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 08:19 PM) This is why I was extremely terrified about losing Lovie. At least Lovie is respected and trusted by the players. If you are going to change the entire system and disrupt a veteran team, it better be for a proven coach. You should have known they would not hire a proven head coach. Other than the Cubs, what team in Chicago ever hires a proven coach, especially the Bears?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 07:16 PM) Darrell Bevell too. Seems that these are the 2 finalists for the job. That's what was said on 670 a few minutes ago.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 06:59 PM) UGH. It's not rocket science. It has nothing to do with spending $25 million more. It has everything to do with developing younger players that will all hit years 2-5 at roughly the same time, combined with, at the very least, above average starting pitching and bullpen. And the right mix of veteran leadership at 2-3-4 positions on the field. This whole idea of spending our way into contention was tried in 2011, was it not? That doesn't mean it can NEVER EVER in the history of the franchise, happen again...just that the front office considers it more financially prudent to stand pat than to go out on a limb again and take the risk they'll have to sell off assets like Edwin Jackson in order to clear guys like Teahen off the books, like in 2011. Or dumping promising young pitchers because the pressure's too great for them to stand up to a pennant race, like Daniel Hudson. At least right now, they're in a much better position with Dunn and Rios than they were coming into 2012, but nobody's exactly clamoring for either of these guys in trade. If anything, 2005 proves the intelligence of NOT adopting the Marty Method. Dump Valentin, Ordonez and C-Lee, three players with big contracts. Add Garcia, Contreras, Vizcaino, Everett, Pods, Iguchi, Jermaine Dye, AJ, Hermanson, El Duque, McCarthy and Bobby Jenks. WIN. You spread out the risk financially not having so many of those $10+ million contracts, like we've been dealing with in the Jake Peavy, Rios and Dunn situations. Or even Konerko, if he continues to struggle in 2013 (let's hope not). Marty wants to spend that money on a Greinke or Josh Hamilton, and history has shown time after time those huge FA contracts work out about 15-20% of the time in the team's favor. I think I would like to spread it out more. If they all it FA at the same time it would be to expensive. Then it's either a really large payroll jump or a total rebuild.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 05:06 PM) Alex Boone was a complete bust until that coaching staff got ahold of him. He was a total assclown at OSU as well. Sows how nicely they coach those guys up. Who isn't? (just kidding. I couldn't pass it up)

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 04:53 PM) Forbes magazine is a reliable source. Thanks for pointing that out. The player expenses were 138 mil last year according to the site. Also 125 mil. of the 600 mil valuation of the team is the stadium which they don't own. I think 138 mil for players is plenty of money for the team.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 04:51 PM) You're mixing up revenue and profit or rather operating income. No I'm not. You are. You've shown nothing that shows what their profit is. Thus, you cannot say they can 'easily" put more money into the team payroll.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) The point is the White Sox can easily afford a higher payroll than they claim. You've shown nothing that says they don't put every "profit" back into the team. The only number you've stated that shows what they have for a profit is the 175 million. If that is the case a 100 mil team payroll is very reasonable, considering that means only 75 mil for running the rest of the organization.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 03:44 PM) It's profit regardless of what ownership does with it. Maybe they put it back in to the business, maybe they take it as a dividend. I disagree.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 03:13 PM) Operating income is defined as: "The amount of profit realized from a business's operations after taking out operating expenses - such as cost of goods sold (COGS) or wages - and depreciation." It's only profit for the investors if it is not put back into the team.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2013 -> 05:25 PM) That was also right during the steroid era, in a home run hittinig ballpark. Their team ERA+ was 125. For comparison, Mark Buehrle's career ERA+ is 119. Think about that. As a whole, the 2005 starting rotation pitched "Better than Mark Buehrle in a normal year". The best ERA+ in the league last year was Tampa, at 120. That's the best ERA+ in baseball since 2003. It's been 9 season since any team put together that good of a pitching campaign. The last team that was better? The 2003 Dodgers...with their part human, part testosterone injection closer. I'm finding it amazing looking at how good that pitching staff really was compared to the rest of the league for the last decade. I think alot of the surprising success from the pitching staff came from Cotts and Politte. Who had two shut down middle relievers who had unbelievable career years and they happen to do it together on the same team. The starters knew that these guys would shut anything down if they came into the game. This has always been the part of the team that has amazed me.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 02:25 PM) Using Forbes numbers since 2003 Sox revenue is uo 101.8%, their payroll is up 102.9%, and their franchise value is up 157%. Moreover during this time the Sox have made $175M. When the value of the asset goes from $20M to $600M, more of that profit should be spent on payroll. The 175 is operating income not profit. The franchise value and asset value has absolutely nothing to do with the liquid budget. You cannot spend an asset unless you sell it. If they sell the team they would realize this increased in asset value but then they couldn't spend it on what they don't own.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 01:46 PM) Chairman Reinsdorf ownership group bought the team for roughly $20M. A conservative estimate (the Padres sold for $800M) from Forbes shows the Sox are worth $600M. According to Forbes over the last 10 years the Sox operating income is roughly $175M. They could easily afford an extra $25M in payroll. If the operating income is 175 million and you want to spend 125 on the MLB payroll, the rest of the organization will only get 50 million. So you don't want much for minor leagues and support staff, I assume. Where will future growth come from will minimal minor league production and minimal medical support.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 01:46 PM) Chairman Reinsdorf ownership group bought the team for roughly $20M. A conservative estimate (the Padres sold for $800M) from Forbes shows the Sox are worth $600M. According to Forbes over the last 10 years the Sox operating income is roughly $175M. They could easily afford an extra $25M in payroll. According to baseball cube (http://www.thebaseballcube.com/teams/stats.asp?Y=2000&T=7) the sox payroll in 2000 was 31.1 million. With the 200% increase you were referring to the payroll should be 93.3 million. I think the Sox have out performed what you should expect from those calculations.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 12:59 PM) Sounds trustworthy. He's got nothing at stake there. Incidentally, I saw a commercial by a corn lobby recently. It turns out high fructose corn syrup is totally cool now. The body doesn't know the difference between types of sugar.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2013 -> 12:50 PM) I have no problem with that, good chance for him to get extra innings. The only problem I have is that the WBC may add more "intense" innings than spring training. There is a big difference in pitching in competitive situations and spring training. I'm attaching a good article discussing pitch velocity and it's relationship to the etiology of elbow problems. It's done with high school pitchers but with added velocity of MLB pitchers the problems were intensified. pitch_velocity_and_medial_elbow_injuries.pdf

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 12, 2013 -> 04:44 PM) aren't you and your industry better off if more people are sick more often? EDIT: I'm not saying individual medical professionals such as yourself are bad people, or in cahoots, but the INDUSTRY itself is governed by the same capitalistic principles as our nation. the dollar rules all. Not really. Currently, we are so swamped with patients that we cannot handle to patient load. This makes the patient's extremely irritable and makes my job harder. It would be better if we had about a 20% decrease in patient's. We would as much money and the patients would be happier. This is the problem I have with the proposed version of health insurance. We cannot handle the volume now. If we add more people into the system, the quality of care is going to drop proportionally to number of people added. There are just not enough qualified people in healthcare.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 12, 2013 -> 02:30 PM) lol exactly - the government is terrible when it comes to the health/nutrition of americans. they wanna keep us sick to keep the medical industry thriving. Yes, we in the medical industry are in with the government for this conspiracy. You caught us.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Jan 12, 2013 -> 12:36 PM) Let the dopes running this country add another tax when they can't trim their budget? Walk into a public school where the kids are given a government breakfast. The government only requires calories. None of it is really healthy. The sugar content alone would be like eating 4 Snicker bars. I know this is a little off topic but did you know that the government considers pizza a vegetable? In Will county the schools can now only serve cheese pizza. This is because if it has anything like sausage it won't meet the State governments criteria for a vegetable.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 12, 2013 -> 10:02 AM) I just cannot believe so many of you care if other people eat themselves to death. Honestly, why do you give a s***? Because with the new healthcare system coming, I'm going to be paying for their medical care.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 12:35 PM) There is a problem that the plan the Sox have to "win a championship" is too expensive for them to execute. They either need to change the plan or improve the revenues. Instead of doing either, they stay in the middle. You are confusing ownership with management. The ownership routinely spends enough to be in the top ten in salary in MLB. The funds are there. How it is spent is another category. That is how the GM allocates it.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 11, 2013 -> 11:33 AM) At least he is smart enough to recognize what a problem he is for a coaching staff to deal with...you want to talk about a "coach killer." The only advantage was that in Jacksonville he would have made an impact in revenues. Unless you have a good team in place he may have been worth it as you are rebuilding the rest of the team.