Unprecedented financial flexibility…

[caulfield12]

Something just doesn’t sit well reading the board’s tenor this morning about being close to lowered luxury/competitive balance tax numbers.

How was Hahn ACTUALLY planning to fit Machado or Harper into the future Sox payroll three years ago?

Exchanging Wheeler for Keuchel, more or less, is pretty obvious.
 

But what did we actually do with that money…where was/is “it will be spent”?

Hendriks and now Kimbrel, those two are obvious, we could have gone much cheaper there, and have historically at the closer’s spot.

Keeping McCann instead of bringing in Grandal.

So that leaves an alternative reality of let’s say McCann and Wheeler instead of Keuchel and Grandal as the offset.  You can argue which is better.

So it really comes down to spending that on closers versus one superstar in Machado or Harper, take your pick.

Because with all the extensions for our young core pieces becoming increasingly expensive as we move closer to 2023-24, we’re to the point where they’re capped out (at $175-180 million) for all intents and purposes.

And Fathom will be annoyed, but where does the money for Giolito and Anderson extensions come from?  Trade Moncada down the line, maybe?

If the plan is simply waiting to eventually shed Abreu, Keuchel, Kimbrel, Grandal and Hendriks from the payroll, what are the future solutions at all those positions beyond our 1B/DH depth?

Of course, that still leaves only Vaughn, Sheets, Burger and Crochet as trade bait to fill RF and additional SP depth, assuming Leury gets another 120+ games again now moving forward.

 

Obviously, shedding Kimbrel will help mitigate this sudden financial pressure, at least somewhat, but certainly not if it commits us to spending $20 million at 2B in Segura/Gregorious/Leury.  Plus we still have to replace the Heuer/Tepera spot.

It’s hard not to argue that Kimbrel is the main culprit, but it still really comes down to buying Hendriks at peak instead of spending another $10 million per season on a Harper or Machado…what am I missing here?

Edited December 1, 2021 by caulfield12

[ron883]

The "unprecedented financial flexibility" was used to cover the loses (or lesser profits in comparison to other years) caused by the covid lockout. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by ron883

[southsider2k5]

One signing affecting future signings seems like a pretty straight forward concept and not something in need of 14 paragraphs,  but maybe that's just me.

[caulfield12]

11 minutes ago, ron883 said:

The "unprecedented financial flexibility" was used to cover the loses (or lesser profits in comparison to other years) caused by the covid lockout. 

Maybe. If you believe it after the wild spending so far this offseason.

Even dumping Keuchel on someone leaves our rotation as Lopez at #5 and dreadfully exposed to injuries as many teams experienced last season.  Kopech will still be limited, somewhat.

So being able to afford Rodon would take a ton of maneuvering, and risk blowing up in Hahn's face.  Or it could be the best move of the offseason again, although unlikely.

 

I totally forgot Lance Lynn...he's the other big factor in the payroll expansion since missing on our three big FA targets.

So Lynn/Kimbrel vs. Harper or Machado, essentially.

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

One signing affecting future signings seems like a pretty straight forward concept and not something in need of 14 paragraphs,  but maybe that's just me.

That said, our self-delusions about Wheeler and Harper or Wheeler and Machado were just that. Never realistic. Or simply both those guys, Harper and Machado.

So it was never unprecedented. Or we would be the Texas Rangers.  Maybe the Tigers.

 

In the end result, we can simply argue that the combination of Grandal, Lynn and Kimbrel is a better allocation of resources than ONE superstar, but we'll probably never know...not as long as JR and family are the principal owners.

Edited December 2, 2021 by caulfield12

[Snopek]

16 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Something just doesn’t sit well reading the board’s tenor this morning about being close to lowered luxury/competitive balance tax numbers.

How was Hahn ACTUALLY planning to fit Machado or Harper into the future Sox payroll three years ago?

Exchanging Wheeler for Keuchel, more or less, is pretty obvious.
 

But what did we actually do with that money…where was/is “it will be spent”?

Hendriks and now Kimbrel, those two are obvious, we could have gone much cheaper there, and have historically at the closer’s spot.

Keeping McCann instead of bringing in Grandal.

So that leaves an alternative reality of let’s say McCann and Wheeler instead of Keuchel and Grandal as the offset.  You can argue which is better.

So it really comes down to spending that on closers versus one superstar in Machado or Harper, take your pick.

Because with all the extensions for our young core pieces becoming increasingly expensive as we move closer to 2023-24, we’re to the point where they’re capped out (at $175-180 million) for all intents and purposes.

And Fathom will be annoyed, but where does the money for Giolito and Anderson extensions come from?  Trade Moncada down the line, maybe?

If the plan is simply waiting to eventually shed Abreu, Keuchel, Kimbrel, Grandal and Hendriks from the payroll, what are the future solutions at all those positions beyond our 1B/DH depth?

Of course, that still leaves only Vaughn, Sheets, Burger and Crochet as trade bait to fill RF and additional SP depth, assuming Leury gets another 120+ games again now moving forward.

 

Obviously, shedding Kimbrel will help mitigate this sudden financial pressure, at least somewhat, but certainly not if it commits us to spending $20 million at 2B in Segura/Gregorious/Leury.  Plus we still have to replace the Heuer/Tepera spot.

It’s hard not to argue that Kimbrel is the main culprit, but it still really comes down to buying Hendriks at peak instead of spending another $10 million per season on a Harper or Machado…what am I missing here?

I know I'm oversimplifying here and being a GM is an incredibly hard job (despite what many of us on here seem to think), but the idea of waiting to shed the salary of guys that were brought in to help win a championship so that we can...bring in guys to help win a championship makes feel all kinds of loony.

[GradMc]

The Sox are the only major market team in their division. Yet they are operated like a class A affiliate. CWS should be perinneal contenders and major players in the elite FA Market.

Sadly, they're not.

But to a group of affulent sportsmen who can spend and make money (yes, folks like that really do exist),  CWS could be a very attractive team to own.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by GradMc

[WBWSF]

9 minutes ago, GradMc said:

The Sox are the only major market team in their division. Yet they are operated like a class A affiliate. CWS should be perinneal contenders and major players in the elite FA Market.

Sadly, they're not.

But to a group of affulent sportsmen who can spend and make money (yes, folks like that really do exist),  CWS could be a very attractive team to own.

 

 

Mellody Hobson (wife of George Lucas) bought 30% of the White Sox a few weeks ago. I wonder if she and her husband are the future  owners of the team.

Edited December 2, 2021 by WBWSF

[caulfield12]

17 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Mellody Hobson (wife of George Lucas) bought 30% of the White Sox a few weeks ago. I wonder if she and her husband are the future  owners of the team.

Hopefully, a more modern, analytics-based approach to the game.

And less LaRussa.

Seems like she has Out-Hahned Hahn and KW in the social networking/high society crowd.

 

“As Co-CEO, Mellody is responsible for management, strategic planning and growth for all areas of Ariel Investments outside of research and portfolio management. Additionally, she serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ariel Investment Trust—the company’s publicly traded mutual funds. Prior to being named Co-CEO, Mellody spent nearly two decades as the firm’s President. Outside of Ariel, Mellody is a nationally recognized voice on financial literacy. Her leadership has also been invaluable to corporate boardrooms across the nation. She currently serves as Chair of the Board of Starbucks Corporation. She is also a director of JPMorgan Chase. She previously served as Chairman of the Board of DreamWorks Animation until the company’s sale and was also a long-standing board member of the Estée Lauder Companies. Mellody’s community outreach includes her role as Chairman of After School Matters, a Chicago non-profit that provides area teens with high-quality after school and summer programs. Additionally, she is vice chair of World Business Chicago; co-chair of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art; and a board member of the George Lucas Education Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies. She also serves on the board of trustees of the Center for Strategic & International Studies, and of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA). Mellody is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, The Rockefeller Foundation Board of Trustees, and serves on the executive committee of the Investment Company Institute. Mellody earned her AB from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of International Relations and Public Policy. In 2019, she was awarded the University’s highest honor, the Woodrow Wilson Award, presented annually to a Princeton graduate whose career embodies a commitment to national service. She has also received honorary doctorate degrees from Howard University, Johns Hopkins University, St. Mary’s College, and the University of Southern California. In 2015, Time Magazine named her one of the “100 Most Influential People” in the world.”

source: Ariel Investments website/bio

 

And probably Starbucks at GRF, haha…along with a renaming deal with JPMorgan Chase, instead of a tacky mortgage company.

[HOFHurt35]

Been saying this for a while now, I'm not all that bothered by the lack of participation in the Mega Free Agent deals as many here are.  However, I'll be in the front of that line if they come out crying poor when it comes time to start paying our own guys.   The clock is ticking on TA and Gio.  

I better not see the 90s be repeated here.  

[Ducksnort]

All I know is right in the middle of the rebuild, Hahn said the money will be spent, and that they were building to be competitive for an extended period of time. Multiple championships is the goal. Right now is time to put the words into action. Well, ya know, after the lockout.

All that to say...the Sox do have the 2nd highest payroll in the AL right now next to the Yankees...5th in MLB.

[South Side Hit Men]

4 hours ago, WBWSF said:

Mellody Hobson (wife of George Lucas) bought 30% of the White Sox a few weeks ago. I wonder if she and her husband are the future  owners of the team.

Yes, hopefully with majority ownership / control, and not just a ploy by the Reinsdorfs to shake down Chicago taxpayers for hundreds of millions more.

[caulfield12]

7 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Yes, hopefully with majority ownership / control, and not just a ploy by the Reinsdorfs to shake down Chicago taxpayers for hundreds of millions more.

On a new stadium OR selling under 1,200,000 or 800,000 or whatever the number of tickets required to qualify for state subsidies?

[South Side Hit Men]

8 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

On a new stadium OR selling under 1,200,000 or 800,000 or whatever the number of tickets required to qualify for state subsidies?

The inevitable new stadium shakedown. Sox have at least a couple more years where they should be competitive enough to not giving out free Pepsi can tickets. They have been more stealth about the freebies in recent years, selling large blocks of $3-$5 tickets during the "tanking" years, or more accurately the "intentional/blatant" tanking years.

 

[southsider2k5]

5 hours ago, WBWSF said:

Mellody Hobson (wife of George Lucas) bought 30% of the White Sox a few weeks ago. I wonder if she and her husband are the future  owners of the team.

When did this come out? I don't remember seeing the name before, at least officially. 

[caulfield12]

31 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

When did this come out? I don't remember seeing the name before, at least officially. 

We had a thread on it....but it was very surreptitiously announced.

[southsider2k5]

12 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

We had a thread on it....but it was very surreptitiously announced.

It was mentioned as a possibility,  not a certainty. 

[JoeCredeYes]

1 hour ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Yes, hopefully with majority ownership / control, and not just a ploy by the Reinsdorfs to shake down Chicago taxpayers for hundreds of millions more.

I'll never understand this mindset.  I don't have any figures in front of me, but my armchair accounting would lead me to believe the tax revenues and payroll taxes from job creation have more than paid for the tax money spent on stadium construction over the years.  The alternative is you play hardball like the idiot Mayor of Oakland that has apparently never heard of a dome stadium and you're left without a baseball team.

Edited December 3, 2021 by JoeCredeYes
wrong word

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

When did this come out? I don't remember seeing the name before, at least officially. 

This, for example, was from May 10th...hinting at her name.

https://www.awesemo.com/sideaction/30-percent-of-the-chicago-white-sox-have-allegedly-been-sold-to-mystery-buyer-for-a-boatload-of-money-bjs/

 

 

Along with this somewhat interesting tidbit...

Back in March, it was reported by Crain’s Chicago that Jerry Reinsdorf’s sons, Michael and Jonathan, were actively trying to purchase shares of the White Sox.

“Over the years, several limited partners have sought to sell their White Sox partnership interests, and in many cases, they have been able to sell to other partners,” Reinsdorf wrote in the letter, obtained by Crain’s. “These sales have been infrequent. Recently, I have become aware that additional partners are seeking liquidity because of the death of partners or to accomplish various estate planning goals. My adult sons, Michael and Jonathan, are part of a small, but well-funded and credible, investment group that wishes to purchase White Sox limited partnership interests.”

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/consumer-products/more-reinsdorfs-want-stake-sox?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D04035061536488459413099681381699703648|MCORGID%3D138FFF2554E6E7220A4C98C6%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1620695737&CSAuthResp=1%3A%3A186547%3A359%3A24%3Asuccess%3AA65AE5DE542F0C5A988AF94F4AF19ABA

 

This is from they (Lucas & Hobbson) got married back in 2013 in Hyde Park.  No mention of KW and Hahn sightings, haha.

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130630/hyde-park/george-lucas-mellody-hobson-reception-galaxy-of-stars-turn-out-for-bash/

The greatest cheer from the crowd came for actor Robin Williams, who gave a "royal wave" from the back of his golf cart. Other celebs spotted were Grammy-winning R&B artist Ne-Yo, Oprah BFF Gayle King and "Today" show weatherman Al Roker.

Chicago notables attending the event were newly minted Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, former White House Social Secretary and  Johnson Publishing Company CEO Desiree Rogers, businessman Christopher Kennedy (son of late Senator Robert F. Kennedy), the Rev. Jesse Jackson, former Mayor Richard M. Daley and his brother and Illinois gubernatorial candidate Bill Daley.

Also spotted were Bulls and White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, radio host Tom Joyner and former NBA star and senator Bill Bradley.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel drove to the event directly from Lake Shore Drive, where barricades separating the Lake Front Trail had been removed. Emanuel left before the night's music guest — Prince — took the stage,  a police officer working security said.

Prince kicked off his set just before 10 p.m., diving into "1999." Lights flashed from inside the huge covered tent, which a dozen passersby could just barely see from across South Lake Shore Drive.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Again, not hinting, but officially. 

[caulfield12]

You want more future owners of the Chicago White Sox, the answer's likely among those listed here at the bottom of this letter as signatories...

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-d6c1-dca5-a3f7-dff713a40000

 

Marcus Lemonis, CEO of Camping World, has been mentioned numerous times, but he's "only" worth around half a billion, haha.

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by caulfield12

[South Side Hit Men]

20 minutes ago, JoeCredeYes said:

I'll never understand this mindset.  I don't have any figures in front of me, but my armchair accounting would lead me to believe the tax revenues and payroll taxes from job creation have more than paid for the tax money spent on stadium construction over the years.  The alternative is you play hardball like the idiot Mayor of Oakland that has apparently never heard of a dome stadium and you're left without a baseball team.

That would be false, be it for Olympics, MLB, or any other boondoggle. Catch Field of Schemes for hundreds of examples.

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/

 

[caulfield12]

23 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

That would be false, be it for Olympics, MLB, or any other boondoggle. Catch Field of Schemes for hundreds of examples.

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/

 

 

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

 

Unfortunately, the subsidies have not created the local impact that they promised. To understand why, let’s consider the Atlanta Falcons’ new stadium, which cost $2 billion for construction—$700 million of which was paid by local taxpayers. While proponents may talk about a multiplier effect, several theoretical and empirical studies of local economic impact of stadiums have shown that beliefs that stadiums have an impact that matches the amount of money that residents pay are largely unfounded. The average stadium generates $145 million per year, but none of this revenue goes back into the community. As such, the prevalent idea among team owners of “socializing the costs and privatizing the profits” is harmful and unfair to people who are forced to pay for a stadium that will not help them.

Further, a study by Noll and Zimbalist on newly constructed subsidized stadiums shows that they have a very limited and possibly even negative local impact. This is because of the opportunity cost that goes into allocating a significant amount of money into a service like a stadium, rather than infrastructure or other community projects that would benefit locals. Spending $700 million in areas like education or housing could have long-term positive consequences with the potential for long-term increases in the standard of living and economic growth.

Additionally, it is important to consider that public financing is largely helping billionaires pay less for a service that they can afford. This dangerous precedent is an unnecessary privilege rather than a necessity. These sports teams are supported by successful owners who are capable of funding stadiums themselves. The owners will be compensated handsomely through the profits received through ticket sales, corporate advertising, and concessions over the next several decades. Public subsidies are an unfortunate power play used by these influential teams on local communities that are emotionally attached to sports teams, and a shift to making these projects private is going to be important moving forward.

Furthermore, stadium construction in college sports is indicative of the precedent in professional sports. For example, the University of Alabama’s football program brought in $174 million in revenue in 2018, which is comparable to professional sports teams. College sports, especially in historic, blue-blood programs, can affect communities just as strongly as professional sports teams can.  However, Alabama was funded entirely by the school, carefully racking up profits before deciding to invest in a new stadium. Starting something similar in professional sports could lead to a system of self-sustenance and owners considering stadium costs when deciding to purchase a new team.

 

 

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/

One promotional study estimated that the local annual economic impact of the Denver Broncos was nearly $120 million; another estimated that the combined annual economic benefit of Cincinnati’s Bengals and Reds was $245 million. Such promotional studies overstate the economic impact of a facility because they confuse gross and net economic effects. Most spending inside a stadium is a substitute for other local recreational spending, such as movies and restaurants. Similarly, most tax collections inside a stadium are substitutes: as other entertainment businesses decline, tax collections from them fall.

Promotional studies also fail to take into account differences between sports and other industries in income distribution. Most sports revenue goes to a relatively few players, managers, coaches, and executives who earn extremely high salaries—all well above the earnings of people who work in the industries that are substitutes for sports. Most stadium employees work part time at very low wages and earn a small fraction of team revenues. Thus, substituting spending on sports for other recreational spending concentrates income, reduces the total number of jobs, and replaces full-time jobs with low-wage, part-time jobs.

A second rationale for subsidized stadiums is that stadiums generate more local consumer satisfaction than alternative investments. There is some truth to this argument. Professional sports teams are very small businesses, comparable to large department or grocery stores. They capture public attention far out of proportion to their economic significance. Broadcast and print media give so much attention to sports because so many people are fans, even if they do not actually attend games or buy sports-related products.

A professional sports team, therefore, creates a “public good” or “externality”—a benefit enjoyed by consumers who follow sports regardless of whether they help pay for it. The magnitude of this benefit is unknown, and is not shared by everyone; nevertheless, it exists. As a result, sports fans are likely to accept higher taxes or reduced public services to attract or keep a team, even if they do not attend games themselves. These fans, supplemented and mobilized by teams, local media, and local interests that benefit directly from a stadium, constitute the base of political support for subsidized sports facilities.

Edited December 3, 2021 by caulfield12

[Kyyle23]

Wonder if anything changed since 1997

[caulfield12]

21 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Wonder if anything changed since 1997

The philosophy underpinning the primary disagreements about the value of publicly funded sports facilities hasn’t…besides the fact that the other article is more contemporaneous.

By that argument, Veeck as In Wreck isn’t helpful at all to modern day sports marketers.

How to Win Friends and Influence People, just as relevant.

In fact, it’s 5x more difficult now to get public funding for stadiums than in 1997…and increasingly challenging moving forward.

Edited December 3, 2021 by caulfield12