BrandoFan Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 68 Mill is a LIE. Sox have NEVER in their histpry had that kind of a payroll, not in 1998, not in 2001. To my count 2003 payroll was about 52 Mill MINUS deferred-- and JR LOVES that kind of method of payment, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Here you go Pasttime...... White Sox Payroll History You bet your ass he is. And if the miser would GIVE BACK once in a while, the fans would respond in kind.The above links showed that JR did indeed give back just as you requested in 2001. They more than DOUBLED payroll in 2003 going from $31 million to $65 million after the 2000 Division Championship. Didn't do a hell of a lot of good, did it?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Rector Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Here you go Pasttime...... White Sox Payroll History The above links showed that JR did indeed give back just as you requested in 2001. They more than DOUBLED payroll in 2003 going from $31 million to $65 million after the 2000 Division Championship. Didn't do a hell of a lot of good, did it?? What that just goes to show is how fallacious the whole idea that you can increase your chances of success by simply spending money. Its how effectively you spend money, not how much you spend. Also, if the Sox do ultimately pick up and leave the South Side, then Sox fans have nobody to blame but themselves. Their failure to support a quality team will in the long run insure that there will not be any baseball team other than the Cubs in Chicago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Its how effectively you spend money, not how much you spend Don't let Marlins fluke win fool you, last between 1992 and 2002, winner have ALL been heavy (top 40%) spenders. The Dodgers and Cubs and Red Sox have to literally burn money (Dreiforts, Hundleys, etc) to not win. And given their 2004 payrolls (120 and 95 respectively) they might just TAKE the whole thing...which is more than I could say for bargain-hunting Sox. Did anyone notice that in the 10 seasons between 1988 and 1997, the payroll increased roughly 900%....What would we say if ticket prices went up ten fold? Another thing that suprised me was the fun, young 1999 Sox team which played in the same division as powerhouse Indians (and much better Detroit too) and was Big Hurt injury away from breaking .500 on a 24 MIll payroll. The 20002 team won 95 games (and had half the team pitch injured in the second half) on the 21 Mill dollar budget... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 I am right in the middle of the "room" helping myself to a piece of comely miss BrandoFan, occasionally lifting my head to see if Valentin hit a foul a ball or not on the IB. I'm scared to ask. It's almost like the scratching noise you hear in a box in the cellar. You want to know what's in there, so you slowly start to open the box, then you think twice about it, and start to walk away. But you go back, and then start to open it again, but then walk away. But something drives you back towards the box, because you just have to know ..... I think I'll leave this box alone and run up the stairs. *Officer Barbrady voice* "Let's move along people. Nothing to see here." Rex, In 2000 they won with a 31 million payroll - unbelieveable. It's obvious that it's not always how much money is being spent, but HOW it's being spent. That being said, I still wish the amount was higher, but I digress. We are just going to have to accept the fact that our future will be building through the minor leagues, like Minnesota, Oakland, Seattle, etc. That's not a bad thing, IF we draft the right players. IMO, next year will be really telling. Reed and others should be ready to go, and KW will have 14 million in "petty cash" to use. I do think it's about time to see if some of our young players can amount to something and live up to the hype. I want to see the little light bulbs go on above the heads of Rauch and Cotts - AND Borchard. Fact is, the Sox will never be major spenders or have a high payroll, so we just have to find alternative means of getting talent on the field. What's frustrating is that I complain (along with hundreds or thousands of Sox fans) about the payroll, but it doesn't change a thing. I believe the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result." (Or something like that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Why do you guys bother to respond to the racist social retard..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Why do you guys bother to respond to the racist social retard..? There is something about PA that we can't resist... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 That's not a bad thing, IF we draft the right players Drafting and player develoment are all a big crapshoot. High first round college can't miss phenoms bust out while 5th round midwest HS kids mature and become All-Stars. Unless you continuously get the first crack at talent pool (Twins, Marlins, Cubs sure did stack up on talent over the years by finishinf dead last) or you have the kind of money Yankees and Dodgers spend to have a scout in every Central American gas station bathroom.......relying on your farm system to compete is gambling. For every 2000 Sox team/2003 Marlins, you have 3 Tiger teams and 10 Indians teams. Going young might be a neccesity for the Sox at some point, but it's not ideal way way of going about trying to win the WS. Not by a long shot. What did you have in mind in terms of 2004 payroll? 60 is clearly too low for your taste, even though it will be the 2nd highest payroll in Sox history. How about 80, you like 80? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 I'm scared to ask No, not in Andrei Chicatilo way. In a good way. Not too keen on figurative language are we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Brandofan, Actually, 65-70 million would be my realistic hope, but if we're going to waste the money on the Paul Konerkos and Jose Valentins of the world, then I would rather just go young and build on the cheap. What good is having a high payroll if you don't spend the money wisely? The more I look at HOW the money is being spent, the more I see that a higher payroll might end up as an exercise in futility. Why add more money to the coffer if it's just going to be blown in the wrong way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Drafting and player develoment are all a big crapshoot. High first round college can't miss phenoms bust out while 5th round midwest HS kids mature and become All-Stars. Unless you continuously get the first crack at talent pool (Twins, Marlins, Cubs sure did stack up on talent over the years by finishinf dead last) or you have the kind of money Yankees and Dodgers spend to have a scout in every Central American gas station bathroom.......relying on your farm system to compete is gambling. Brando, you are right to a point. However, there is a lot a club can do to better their odds for success, from coaching staffs, to continuity of the type of instruction (i.e. not having a batting coach teach something different in AA than what as taught in A), to how they run their training and strength and conditioning programs, to how they scout players and what they look for. There are many factors, including the type of people they draft. Drinking and drug use is rampant in kids that age and teams that can control or minimize that rather than look the other way will help themselves. I know you will still have injuries and players that don't work as hard as others, but the environment in which the players are brought up can help a team increase the odds of deveolping players that will help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Drinking and drug use is rampant in kids that age Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Brando, you are right to a point. However, there is a lot a club can do to better their odds for success, from coaching staffs, to continuity of the type of instruction (i.e. not having a batting coach teach something different in AA than what as taught in A), to how they run their training and strength and conditioning programs, to how they scout players and what they look for. There are many factors, including the type of people they draft. Drinking and drug use is rampant in kids that age and teams that can control or minimize that rather than look the other way will help themselves. I know you will still have injuries and players that don't work as hard as others, but the environment in which the players are brought up can help a team increase the odds of deveolping players that will help. You're right, I didn't consider a lot of controllable variables in the whole fram system equation. But the point was that when you're going young and are over-relying on rookie infusion, you're far more likely to get a Devil Rays, Ti gers or Cleveland Indians or 1999 White Sox out of it than 2003 Marlins. What type of organization are the Sox? How good are our managers, coaches, trainers, scouts, facilities comparatively speaking? What are their policies with respect to said drinking, curfew, etc? How much do they spend on overseas recruitment network? I am not very confident we can pull this youth movemennt thing off. And this organization simply can ill-afford to have non-competing teams in 2004-2005 IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 They need to open the paybook, it's plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 They need to open the paybook, it's plain and simple. It ain't happening. For every 2 bucks Sox fans bring in, JR re-invests a dollar. You want a 75+ Mill payroll? 140-150 Mill in revenues would do that trick. In 2003, Sox fell 25 Mill short of that figure. Sorry, but Sox fans ain't winning the battle. Jerry and his peeps is doin' jus fine even if the team is losing and the franchise is disrespected. Fans are the ones whose hearts are broken, dreams crushed and mood f***ed-up. They will also be the ones to revitalize the team by coming out in hordes. Or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.