Tribune stories on Sox & economy, KW and Colon

[caulfield12]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,6904519.story (Sox and economy, KW quotes)

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,7096588.story (Colon deal, KW/Coop quotes)

Watch the 4:43 KW video conference

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,4788987.story

Spring training facility progress/Reinsdorf tour

 

Edited January 16, 2009 by caulfield12

[266344]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,6904519.story (Sox and economy, KW quotes)

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,7096588.story (Colon deal, KW/Coop quotes)

Watch the 4:43 KW video conference

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,4788987.story

Spring training facility progress/Reinsdorf tour

 

Is it me or does it look like the White Sox are the only large market team struggling with the economy ? Makes you wonder, is it:

 

A) The millions to fund the new Glendale facility

B) The legal fees and the $5 million dollar buyout of the 3 years left on the Tucson lease. ($5 million would get you a nice player this off season)

 

[caulfield12]

Well....everyone forgets we also spent that money on Viciedo...it would be like we had the largest first round draft picking signing bonus in MLB history, essentially.

 

Although he does basically cancel out Swisher for this year.

 

Which teams are spending like crazy? Well, you have the Yankees, Mets and Braves....who else? The Red Sox are being very "prudent/careful" with their money, too. Angels, likewise. Before all is said and done, the Dodgers will probably bring back Manny Ramirez, I'm guessing. $50 million for 3 years, maybe?

 

The Cardinals are a perfect comparison with the White Sox...the two teams have been acting very similarly over the last 5 years or so, with the White Sox finally catching up on lowering payroll.

 

The Dodgers almost let Furcal get away...and were shying away from most of the big name free agents. The Angels were only interested in TEX, and not enough to fight with the Yankees and Red Sox when it came down to it. The Mets and Yankees both have new stadiums. As mentioned, Red Sox are very very conservative in spending this offseason. Then you have the Cubs. Even the Phillies, coming off a World Championship, haven't done much or spent wildly like we did in 2006.

Edited January 16, 2009 by caulfield12

[elrockinMT]

$5M will get you a player for maybe one year. I think the economics of it all are a concern, but I think it's more of the fact we just don't want to spend a lot of money on someone maybe no better than who we already have and break up team chemistry. It's complicated and the formula for success is 25 players and not one. I don't like the idea of signing a player or trading for one that is only going to be here a year. We did an even swap lat year with O Cab for Jon Garland and they are both still out there on the free agent market. I am guessing that budgetwise maybe even $8 to $10M is too much for us to pay. I hate to think we might jettison a player like Dye or Konerko only because of money.

Edited January 16, 2009 by elrockinMT

[witesoxfan]

Is it me or does it look like the White Sox are the only large market team struggling with the economy ? Makes you wonder, is it:

 

A) The millions to fund the new Glendale facility

B) The legal fees and the $5 million dollar buyout of the 3 years left on the Tucson lease. ($5 million would get you a nice player this off season)

 

Payrolls in the AL (money in millions)

1. New York ($207)

2. Detroit ($137)

3. Boston ($133)

4. Chicago ($121)

5. Anaheim ($119)

6. Seattle ($117)

7. Toronto ($96)

8. Cleveland ($78)

9. Texas ($67)

10. Baltimore ($67)

11. Kansas City ($58)

12. Minnesota ($56)

13. Oakland ($47)

14. Tampa Bay ($43)

 

Payrolls in the NL (money in millions)

1. Mets ($137)

2. Cubs ($118)

3. Dodgers ($118)

4. Braves ($102)

5. Cardinals ($99)

6. Phillies ($97)

7. Astros ($88)

8. Brewers ($80)

9. Giants ($76)

10. Reds ($74)

11. Padres ($73)

12. Rockies ($68)

13. Diamondbacks ($66)

14. Nationals ($54)

15. Pirates ($48)

16. Marlins ($21)

 

I imagine these numbers are skewed a bit by deadline trades and what have you else, because I merely got them from B-R, but it paints a relatively clear picture nonetheless. The Sox also did not pay quite a bit of that payroll thanks to money from a couple a teams (the Phillies for sure and it seems to me that there's another team in there too).

 

Of those teams, which have really been the most active in adding payroll? To me, I see the Yankees, Red Sox to some degree (bringing in multiple cheaper free agents and signing guys to extensions), and that's it in the AL. In the NL, I see the Mets, Phillies, and Braves, though the Dodgers have brought a couple guys back at decently expensive extensions. I don't mention the Cubs because while they've been active, they've also had to dump players for cheap while picking up money in the deals as well (namely DeRosa and Marquis).

 

Also, as you mentioned, the Sox did spend some money to get the move to Glendale expedited as well, and that has to be figured into the equation.

 

The Sox definitely aren't alone.

 

[caulfield12]

Payrolls in the AL (money in millions)

1. New York ($207)

2. Detroit ($137)

3. Boston ($133)

4. Chicago ($121)

5. Anaheim ($119)

6. Seattle ($117)

7. Toronto ($96)

8. Cleveland ($78)

9. Texas ($67)

10. Baltimore ($67)

11. Kansas City ($58)

12. Minnesota ($56)

13. Oakland ($47)

14. Tampa Bay ($43)

 

Payrolls in the NL (money in millions)

1. Mets ($137)

2. Cubs ($118)

3. Dodgers ($118)

4. Braves ($102)

5. Cardinals ($99)

6. Phillies ($97)

7. Astros ($88)

8. Brewers ($80)

9. Giants ($76)

10. Reds ($74)

11. Padres ($73)

12. Rockies ($68)

13. Diamondbacks ($66)

14. Nationals ($54)

15. Pirates ($48)

16. Marlins ($21)

 

I imagine these numbers are skewed a bit by deadline trades and what have you else, because I merely got them from B-R, but it paints a relatively clear picture nonetheless. The Sox also did not pay quite a bit of that payroll thanks to money from a couple a teams (the Phillies for sure and it seems to me that there's another team in there too).

 

Of those teams, which have really been the most active in adding payroll? To me, I see the Yankees, Red Sox to some degree (bringing in multiple cheaper free agents and signing guys to extensions), and that's it in the AL. In the NL, I see the Mets, Phillies, and Braves, though the Dodgers have brought a couple guys back at decently expensive extensions. I don't mention the Cubs because while they've been active, they've also had to dump players for cheap while picking up money in the deals as well (namely DeRosa and Marquis).

 

Also, as you mentioned, the Sox did spend some money to get the move to Glendale expedited as well, and that has to be figured into the equation.

 

The Sox definitely aren't alone.

 

The Phillies' offseason has basically been status quo....they let Burrell go (not offering arbitration, perhaps wisely it seems), and he was making $15 million per season, but might have offered the worst free agent position-player deal of this offseason to Raul Ibanez, a glorified DH.

 

Other than that....released So Taguchi (just picked up by Cubs I think), traded for Ronnie Paulino, resigned Moyer (status quo) and the very speculative contract for one season for Chan Ho Park. Hard to tell where they've done anything but treaded water, and perhaps regressed with the expected decline over Ibanez's insane contract.

 

The White Sox payroll is a little bit misleading if you include Griffey's money, as well as Thome's (without the subsidies)...

Edited January 16, 2009 by caulfield12

[Allsox]

The Cardinals are a perfect comparison with the White Sox...the two teams have been acting very similarly over the last 5 years or so, with the White Sox finally catching up on lowering payroll.

 

The Dodgers almost let Furcal get away...and were shying away from most of the big name free agents. The Angels were only interested in TEX, and not

 

The Cardinals are still paying some $$ on their new stadium so that's why they've been a little conservative on the payroll the past 3 seasons (Even with a WS title in '06). Once they complete those payments, they might be able to spend some $$ like the Cubs do.

[hitlesswonder]

The Cardinals are still paying some $$ on their new stadium so that's why they've been a little conservative on the payroll the past 3 seasons (Even with a WS title in '06). Once they complete those payments, they might be able to spend some $$ like the Cubs do.

 

Speaking of the Cubs, I think points out how payroll figures for a single season can be somewhat misleading. The Cubs nominally had a lower payroll than the Sox last season (although it was higher if the PHI and CIN money are subtracted from the Sox payroll). But the Cubs have been willing to give out longer-term contracts (witness Soriano) than the Sox. There likely will come a time when those deals become a lot of money for not great performance. The Sox have been unwilling to do that.

[striker]

Is it me or does it look like the White Sox are the only large market team struggling with the economy ? Makes you wonder, is it:

 

A) The millions to fund the new Glendale facility

B) The legal fees and the $5 million dollar buyout of the 3 years left on the Tucson lease. ($5 million would get you a nice player this off season)

The Yankees have spent alot of money but they also had alot coming off their payroll. Attendance may go down but they have alot of other revenues that help pay the bills: television, xm radio, mlb.com media.

[Jimbo's Drinker]

Reinsdorf did make his money in real estate, im just saying.

[Allsox]

The Yankees have spent alot of money but they also had alot coming off their payroll. Attendance may go down but they have alot of other revenues that help pay the bills: television, xm radio, mlb.com media.

 

If I'm a NY taxpayer, I'd be lighting a torch and demanding my $$ back from the Yankees on that new billion $ stadium they supposedly couldn't "build" on their own. Funny part is the Mets new park looks much better than the new Yankee Stadium.

 

Actually, the new Yankee Stadium is over 2 Billion now:

http://fieldofschemes.com/

Edited January 16, 2009 by Allsox

[caulfield12]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,239430.column

 

Latest Phil Rogers column, about fiscal responsibility of the Dodgers and White Sox this offseason. By the way, is the $92-94 million payroll figure taking into account the money the Phillies are supposedly sending for Thome? If not, our "real" payroll is essentially down in the $85-90 million range.

 

Maybe it doesn't include Viciedo's signing bonus, though...which has been equated by KW to Swisher's 2009 contract in terms of a tit-for-tat replacement.

 

Finally, Rogers mentions 3B Javier Castillo (a name I don't think I've seen once) as a sleeper/darkhorse candidate for the position. I'll stick with Eider Torres as my darkhorse, although he's have to beat our either Betemit or Lillibridge. I'm sure the first one won't happen (since KW is our GM), but maybe the second one will and Lillibridge will end up the starting SS in Charlotte, or starting CF (although, from everything you read, he would be most valuable as a trade chip with other organizations at SS).

 

 

[Dick Allen]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,239430.column

 

Latest Phil Rogers column, about fiscal responsibility of the Dodgers and White Sox this offseason. By the way, is the $92-94 million payroll figure taking into account the money the Phillies are supposedly sending for Thome? If not, our "real" payroll is essentially down in the $85-90 million range.

 

Maybe it doesn't include Viciedo's signing bonus, though...which has been equated by KW to Swisher's 2009 contract in terms of a tit-for-tat replacement.

 

Finally, Rogers mentions 3B Javier Castillo (a name I don't think I've seen once) as a sleeper/darkhorse candidate for the position. I'll stick with Eider Torres as my darkhorse, although he's have to beat our either Betemit or Lillibridge. I'm sure the first one won't happen (since KW is our GM), but maybe the second one will and Lillibridge will end up the starting SS in Charlotte, or starting CF (although, from everything you read, he would be most valuable as a trade chip with other organizations at SS).

I don't see why the Phillies would be sending money to the Sox to pay Thome after he performed well enough with the Phillies picking up half the tab for a couple years for the option to vest. Its like saying, if he plays really well for you, and/or stays healthy. we will give you more money. I really doubt they are still paying anything.

 

 

PHILADELPHIA — Pat Gillick understood that by accepting the job as Philadelphia Phillies general manager, he had two major issues to contend with before spring training.

On Wednesday, he went a long way toward solving the bigger of the two issues.

 

"It's always difficult to move someone with (Jim Thome's) talent level," Gillick said.

 

But with National League Rookie of the Year Ryan Howard primed to return, Gillick and the Phillies tentatively agreed to trade first baseman Thome to the Chicago White Sox for center fielder Aaron Rowand and a pair of minor league prospects. The Phillies also agreed to pay $22 million of the $46 million owed to Thome.

 

I'm pretty sure the $22 million has already been shelled out.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

There's rumor/s that there was a "handshake agreement" in place between KW and Gillick, that the Phillies would also pick up the tab for nearly half of the option year, but this was never publicly illuminated from what I've read.

 

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense from the Phillies' standpoint to expose themselves to further financial losses on a "bad" contract, but I've seen this story a number of times from different posters on different boards. Maybe it has become an urban legend by now!

[YASNY]

There's rumor/s that there was a "handshake agreement" in place between KW and Gillick, that the Phillies would also pick up the tab for nearly half of the option year, but this was never publicly illuminated from what I've read.

 

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense from the Phillies' standpoint to expose themselves to further financial losses on a "bad" contract, but I've seen this story a number of times from different posters on different boards. Maybe it has become an urban legend by now!

 

This is a perfect example of just how little we know about about the inner workings of MLB. We try and 'scout' guys based on the internet and try to figure payroll for a team when we don't work in the payroll department. In a nutshell, when it comes right down to it we are clueless.

 

But, it's still fun.