Where did that $75 million go ?

[Dick Allen]

Hmm, I wonder what he thinks of Hawk?

Hawk pisses me off a lot, but I do love him.

[Dick Allen]

Easy on my guy, shack. He and I share similar views, so perhaps I have an affinity for him and subsequent bias, but he's hardly Jay Mariotti.

Thank you, Mr. President.

[NorthSideSox72]

Thank you, Mr. President.

Actually, his 1 year term expired on 12/7.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

GP,

You two don't share similar views, you share the precise same view, and you volley your negative beachball back and forth enough that eventually enough people see it and start to believe it.

 

And DA and I tear into one another on a daily basis, so I don't think it's anything with which he'll be surprised.

 

We disagree on several things. Notably Ozzie Guillen. Josh Fields. (DA and I.)

As for our negative beach-balling, I'd counter that you and several others on this site spend so much time looking at the bright side you've burnt out your eyes.

 

But really, I'm only teasing you to take it easy. I mean, Mariotti?!

 

Really, I have respect for you and you know it, from back when we used to talk about Barry Zito to even today, when you provide counter.

[Gregory Pratt]

Actually, his 1 year term expired on 12/7.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. That leads to much legal wrangling!

 

But I keep the title, as all Presidents do, for life. "Mr. President".

 

Oooooh, it feels gooooooooooooooooood to be free of all my duties and responsibilities.

 

It's also nice to know someone was counting down the days!

Edited December 21, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[iamshack]

First off calling me Jay Mariotti is a personal attack and should get you a lifetime ban. Secondly, if you have ever read my posts, I'm hardly a "hindsight" guy. Thirdly the "90 win team" of 2006 was a mirage. They were awesome the first half, and awful the second. 2007 was an extension of the second half of 2006. Bad hitting, a horrible bullpen. That is now a season and a half of bad baseball. Thinking its just some sort of "perfect storm" is for cowards and losers as coach Ditka likes to say.

KW's point wasn't 5/75 vs. 5/90. Hunter never even gave the White Sox a chance to match it. It was the 75 million. People expect KW to spend that now, and he's basically letting people know its not there.

KW needs to realize the reason why he doesn't have stacks and stacks of money to spend on improving his team, is because KW spent stacks and stacks of money locking in a bad team for a few years.

 

See, here we are with the hindsight guy.

 

You're telling me that in the offseason of 06', you were:

 

1) Against the extension he gave Garland (I actually was, but that's because of the silly way it was structured);

2) Against the extension he gave Contreras;

3) Against the deal he gave Konerko;

4) Against the deal he gave Pierzynski;

 

And prior to last season, you were:

 

5) Against the extension given to Vazquez (this you may have been, and it is actually the move that looks best now);

 

During the middle of the 07' season, you were:

 

6) Against the extension given to Buehrle; and

7) Against the extension given to Dye (I didn't like it, personally)

 

And this offseason, you were/are:

 

8) Against the extension given to Pierzynski?

 

I don't remember your posts much from before maybe before this last season, so I don't recall. But I vividly remember the VAST majority of posters VERY happy with most of those extensions, so much so that there were psuedo "Chuck Norris" threads on the forum with KW substituted for Chuck....

[Dick Allen]

Actually, his 1 year term expired on 12/7.

He was the greatest President Soxtalk ever had.

 

[RME JICO]

In 2004 the payroll was $65mil.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1778397

 

In 3 years the White Sox increased their payroll by $40mil (almost 200%) and yet fans are still not happy. They still want to say that the Sox dont spend the money.

 

I call bulls***.

Going from $65 to $105 is not 200%, it is more like a 61% increase. 200% from $65 would be $195.

 

The only issue with the Sox payroll now is they have too many post-Arb players, which makes a few guys have most of the money. That ratio needs to decrease.

Edited December 21, 2007 by RME JICO

[Gregory Pratt]

He was the greatest President Soxtalk ever had.

 

Thank you, good sir. I tried my best. Sometimes, Congress cooperated; sometimes, it didn't. Sometimes, the people cooperated and sometimes they didn't. I tried my best to serve with integrity and honor. I tried my best to be a goodwill ambassador on behalf of the people and to forge close ties with other communities. I tried my best to be fair, rational, reasonable and handsome.

 

More than anything, regarding my term, I want to be remembered as a peacemaker.

[Dick Allen]

See, here we are with the hindsight guy.

 

You're telling me that in the offseason of 06', you were:

 

1) Against the extension he gave Garland (I actually was, but that's because of the silly way it was structured);

2) Against the extension he gave Contreras;

3) Against the deal he gave Konerko;

4) Against the deal he gave Pierzynski;

 

And prior to last season, you were:

 

5) Against the extension given to Vazquez (this you may have been, and it is actually the move that looks best now);

 

During the middle of the 07' season, you were:

 

6) Against the extension given to Buehrle; and

7) Against the extension given to Dye (I didn't like it, personally)

 

And this offseason, you were/are:

 

8) Against the extension given to Pierzynski?

 

I don't remember your posts much from before maybe before this last season, so I don't recall. But I vividly remember the VAST majority of posters VERY happy with most of those extensions, so much so that there were psuedo "Chuck Norris" threads on the forum with KW substituted for Chuck....

Actually after 2005 I suggested trading Politte, which was laughed at because you don't trade guys with his numbers. I was fine with Contreras, Garland and Buerhle's extensions, although I did suggest last off season trading 3 starters for prospects, stepping back a little bit in 2007 and being in good position to strike it big in 2008. Garland and Contreras would have netted huge packages last offseason. I was against the Vazquez acquisition from the beginning. That's a ton of money right there, and that's also a cheap CF. I am AJP's biggest fan. People forget KW the "Stanford guy" wanted no part of him. He wanted Jason Kendall to catch in 2005. I'm not always right, I'm wrong a lot, as is everyone which makes baseball a great game. But KW brought back a team that was bad the second half of 2006 saying they won 90 games and couldn't play worse. Well, he was wrong. If he wants 2008 to be different, he needs to move some of the "names" on his roster, or up the payroll a ton.

[NorthSideSox72]

Maybe. Maybe not. That leads to much legal wrangling!

 

But I keep the title, as all Presidents do, for life. "Mr. President".

 

Oooooh, it feels gooooooooooooooooood to be free of all my duties and responsibilities.

 

It's also nice to know someone was counting down the days!

 

Kind of hard to forget. The day that will live in infamy - December 7th. 1941, 2006, whatever.

 

He was the greatest President Soxtalk ever had.

 

And you are the greatest poster named Dick Allen that Soxtalk has ever had.

 

[iamshack]

Actually after 2005 I suggested trading Politte, which was laughed at because you don't trade guys with his numbers. I was fine with Contreras, Garland and Buerhle's extensions, although I did suggest last off season trading 3 starters for prospects, stepping back a little bit in 2007 and being in good position to strike it big in 2008. Garland and Contreras would have netted huge packages last offseason. I was against the Vazquez acquisition from the beginning. That's a ton of money right there, and that's also a cheap CF. I am AJP's biggest fan. People forget KW the "Stanford guy" wanted no part of him. He wanted Jason Kendall to catch in 2005. I'm not always right, I'm wrong a lot, as is everyone which makes baseball a great game. But KW brought back a team that was bad the second half of 2006 saying they won 90 games and couldn't play worse. Well, he was wrong. If he wants 2008 to be different, he needs to move some of the "names" on his roster, or up the payroll a ton.

 

Contreras would not have netted a "huge" package last offseason. He was terrible and injured the second half of 06', and the correct play was either to hold onto him and hope he rebounded, or to deal him just to ditch his salary. As he was in trade rumors all offseason, it's probably safe to assume Kenny tested those waters with several GM's. As for Garland, apparently the best package offered for him was Tavares, Hirsh, and Buccholtz from the Astros, and many here were disgusted by that near-deal.

 

Say what you'd like about the Vazquez deal, but at the time, it was a move the majority of experts praised, and the extension given to him last season is very reasonable in this market, especially considering his performance last season. If you want to talk about netting a "huge" package, KW could probably get back more than he gave away to get Javy at this particular moment.

 

It's very easy to look at this with such a broad view. But your arguments for what you would have done differently don't really appear that they would have have changed the result.

[Dick Allen]

Contreras would not have netted a "huge" package last offseason. He was terrible and injured the second half of 06', and the correct play was either to hold onto him and hope he rebounded, or to deal him just to ditch his salary. As he was in trade rumors all offseason, it's probably safe to assume Kenny tested those waters with several GM's. As for Garland, apparently the best package offered for him was Tavares, Hirsh, and Buccholtz from the Astros, and many here were disgusted by that near-deal.

 

Say what you'd like about the Vazquez deal, but at the time, it was a move the majority of experts praised, and the extension given to him last season is very reasonable in this market, especially considering his performance last season. If you want to talk about netting a "huge" package, KW could probably get back more than he gave away to get Javy at this particular moment.

 

It's very easy to look at this with such a broad view. But your arguments for what you would have done differently don't really appear that they would have have changed the result.

It wouldn't have change the result of 2007, but as I said, I thought they should take a step back. The White Sox would have a lot more money to play with. I think you're mistaken if you don't think Contreras wouldn't have netted a big return last winter.

 

 

[iamshack]

It wouldn't have change the result of 2007, but as I said, I thought they should take a step back. The White Sox would have a lot more money to play with. I think you're mistaken if you don't think Contreras wouldn't have netted a big return last winter.

 

You don't think we tried to move him before last season?

 

We could still have the money to play with- all we have to do is trade those players now. If anything, some of their value is greater now because of the market prices for current FA's or recent FA's.

[Dick Allen]

You don't think we tried to move him before last season?

 

We could still have the money to play with- all we have to do is trade those players now. If anything, some of their value is greater now because of the market prices for current FA's or recent FA's.

Garland is gone. Contreras is a huge question. Buerhle is going nowhere. They can trade Vazquez, and probably should.

[iamshack]

Garland is gone. Contreras is a huge question. Buerhle is going nowhere. They can trade Vazquez, and probably should.

 

Vazquez has massively increased his value. Paulie's remains steady. If anything, Buehrle value (or value to us) has increased as a result of the contract he signed. Garland is gone, but it's not as though "he vanished like a fart in the wind." We have Cabrera here now, who can be dealt as well. And Contreras was a huge question LAST offseason. How are you forgetting that minor detail after his 06' second half?

[Dick Allen]

Vazquez has massively increased his value. Paulie's remains steady. If anything, Buehrle value (or value to us) has increased as a result of the contract he signed. Garland is gone, but it's not as though "he vanished like a fart in the wind." We have Cabrera here now, who can be dealt as well. And Contreras was a huge question LAST offseason. How are you forgetting that minor detail after his 06' second half?

He had some leg and back problems, not as nasty as arm problems. Garcia got Gio back. Contreras would have brought back more, and saved the Sox about $30 million. I would hold on to Contreras now, unless someone wants to pick up all of his contract. I think he will bounce back and be decent. Then I would trade him.

 

Considering this was your quote in another thread 2 days ago

 

until Contreras' rapid decline this season, we had not one bad contract. Now, we have one. And it's not the worst thing that's ever happened

 

You must not have thought his 2006 was all that bad, until you wanted to argue my beliefs "in hindsight".

Edited December 21, 2007 by Dick Allen

[iamshack]

He had some leg and back problems, not as nasty as arm problems. Garcia got Gio back. Contreras would have brought back more, and saved the Sox about $30 million. I would hold on to Contreras now, unless someone wants to pick up all of his contract. I think he will bounce back and be decent. Then I would trade him.

 

Considering this was your quote in another thread 2 days ago

 

until Contreras' rapid decline this season, we had not one bad contract. Now, we have one. And it's not the worst thing that's ever happened

 

You must not have thought his 2006 was all that bad, until you wanted to argue my beliefs "in hindsight".

 

Your premise, Dick, is based on the idea that I don't believe Contreras' contract, presently, is bad. Yet, as you so thankfully have provided for me, I clearly said it was a bad contract. Qualifying it as "not the worst thing that ever happened" doesn't exactly prove your point.

 

Secondly, ask anyone who knows anything about pitching this question: "How important are one's legs and back to pitching effectively?"

 

Thirdly, part of the reason Garcia got back Gio was because he only had 1 year left, not two, like Contreras. Additionally, Garcia pitched very well down the stretch in 06', which probably made the Phillies feel a hell of a lot better about Garcia's chances than Contreras', especially given Garcia's durability history. I honestly think you're crazy, or suffering through some sort of revisionist history if you believe Jose was significantly more valuable than Garcia as of last offseason.

Edited December 21, 2007 by iamshack

[Dick Allen]

Your premise, Dick, is based on the idea that I don't believe Contreras' contract, presently, is bad. Yet, as you so thankfully have provided for me, I clearly said it was a bad contract. Qualifying it as "not the worst thing that ever happened" doesn't exactly prove your point.

 

Secondly, ask anyone who knows anything about pitching this question: "How important are one's legs and back to pitching effectively?"

 

Thirdly, part of the reason Garcia got back Gio was because he only had 1 year left, not two, like Contreras. Additionally, Garcia pitched very well down the stretch in 06', which probably made the Phillies feel a hell of a lot better about Garcia's chances than Contreras', especially given Garcia's durability history. I honestly think you're crazy, or suffering through some sort of revisionist history if you believe Jose was significantly more valuable than Garcia as of last offseason.

My point was a muscle pull in the legs or back is far less threatening than arm problems. Contreras would have netted the Sox at least 2 top prospects last offseason. He had a couple more years on his contract. That's adds value. A contract that you just said isn't the worst thing even after an awful 2007. He wasn't throwing 85. He wasn't woefully out of shape. Contreras came into 2007 as the White Sox ace. You're the one with the problem in history.

Based on your criteria, wouldn't Buerhle be a HUGE question mark in 2008? His monthly ERAs in August and September were over 5.00, and he's signed for more than 1 year, in fact 4, at $4 million more per, so based on your logic, he's probably not worth anything.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Dick Allen

[iamshack]

My point was a muscle pull in the legs or back is far less threatening than arm problems. Contreras would have netted the Sox at least 2 top prospects last offseason. He had a couple more years on his contract. That's adds value. A contract that you just said isn't the worst thing even after an awful 2007. He wasn't throwing 85. He wasn't woefully out of shape. Contreras came into 2007 as the White Sox ace. You're the one with the problem in history.

 

Actually, I was mistaken. Contreras actually had THREE years left on his contract, as the extension he signed in April of 06' covered the years 07'-09'. So the return for Garcia was for a guy who had pitched well to finish the 06' season (7-4, 4.12 ERA post ASB, including two near no-hitters) with 1 year and $10 million left, and had been durable for his entire career, and was at age of 30. The return on Contreras would have been for a guy who pitched horribly during the second half of 06' (4-9 with a 5.40 ERA post ASB), had $30 million left on his contract, was listed as 35, but who most seem to think is at least 3-5 years older, with an erratic career history in the mlb.

 

Now I love Jose probably more than anyone on this site (he was in my avatar until I recently changed it to Gio), but it's extremely difficult for me to believe, considering everything I have posted, as well as everything coming out in the press at the time, that Jose was going to bring in some haul for us. Sure, he was our opening day starter in 07', but that means absolutely nothing regarding his trade value. Kenny Rogers has been "the ace" of the staff for the Tigers previously. Do you seriously believe he has more value in trade than Justin Verlander or Jeremy Bonderman?

Edited December 21, 2007 by iamshack

[Dick Allen]

Actually, I was mistaken. Contreras actually had THREE years left on his contract, as the extension he signed in April of 06' covered the years 07'-09'. So the return for Garcia was for a guy who had pitched well to finish the 06' season (7-4, 4.12 ERA post ASB, including two near no-hitters) with 1 year and $10 million left, and had been durable for his entire career, and was at age of 30. The return on Contreras would have been for a guy who pitched horribly during the second half of 06' (4-9 with a 5.40 ERA post ASB), had $30 million left on his contract, was listed as 35, but who most seem to think is at least 3-5 years older, with an erratic career history in the mlb.

 

Now I love Jose probably more than anyone on this site (he was in my avatar until I recently changed it to Gio), but it's extremely difficult for me to believe, considering everything I have posted, as well as everything coming out in the press at the time, that Jose was going to bring in some haul for us. Sure, he was our opening day starter in 07', but that means absolutely nothing regarding his trade value. Kenny Rogers has been "the ace" of the staff for the Tigers previously. Do you seriously believe he has more value in trade than Justin Verlander or Jeremy Bonderman?

Contreras vs. Garcia isn't anywhere close to Rogers vs. Bonderman or Verlander. That is ridiculous. Contreras was signed for 3 years at less money than the Sox gave Vazquez after Vazquez had a worse season than Contreras in 2007. I'm just going to disagree with you and say once and for all I believe the White Sox would have received at least 2 top prospects for Contreras last winter. You don't think so, and that's fine. I'm sure its not the last time we will disagree, and I'm sure you'll even be correct once in a while.

[iamshack]

Contreras vs. Garcia isn't anywhere close to Rogers vs. Bonderman or Verlander. That is ridiculous. Contreras was signed for 3 years at less money than the Sox gave Vazquez after Vazquez had a worse season than Contreras in 2007. I'm just going to disagree with you and say once and for all I believe the White Sox would have received at least 2 top prospects for Contreras last winter. You don't think so, and that's fine. I'm sure its not the last time we will disagree, and I'm sure you'll even be correct once in a while.

 

Well, the market when Javy signed was a bit different than the one in which Contreras signed. Additionally, Javy was at the very least about 5 years younger than Jose. And keep in mind Javy finished out 06' with a 3.82 ERA and 50k's in 35 IP's. And yes, there is a lot of difference between Contreras v. Garcia and Rogers v. Bonderman or Verlander, and that was exactly my point. The point is that despite the tremendous difference in trade value between Rogers and Verlander or Bonderman, Rogers was still considered their "ace," while you claimed that because Contreras was considered our "ace" heading into 07', he must therefore have more trade value than Garcia. Simply not the case.

 

Anyways, you're right, this has strayed far from the original argument, which was: Has Kenny strangled this team financially?" I think the answer is clearly no- it's been shown here that at the time of many of those deals, most believed them to be shrewd moves. It has more to do with a complete unexpected falloff of so many of those players in 07'. However, that is not something I expect to continue in 08'.

[Soxbadger]

Sorry on the percentages thing, I was at work and wasnt really thinking. I was thinking 2x 40= 80 therefore 200%, but that is in fact 100%. So my statement should have read, the Sox increased payroll almost 100%. And thats not really accurate either because 40/65= 61%.

 

It still is a drastic increase, I just should have stopped to think.

[Dick Allen]

Sorry on the percentages thing, I was at work and wasnt really thinking. I was thinking 2x 40= 80 therefore 200%, but that is in fact 100%. So my statement should have read, the Sox increased payroll almost 100%. And thats not really accurate either because 40/65= 61%.

 

It still is a drastic increase, I just should have stopped to think.

Its drastic, but I read yesterday where one exec believes in 2 years the average payroll will be $100 million. Its going to cost a mint to go to games.

[iamshack]

Its drastic, but I read yesterday where one exec believes in 2 years the average payroll will be $100 million. Its going to cost a mint to go to games.

 

Well, moreso than that, the revenue sharing has vastly increased as more and more fans flock to games, tune in to games, surf their team's website, and buy mlb merchandise. Every team gets about $65 million right now before one ticket, hot dog, or beer is sold.