Scott Podsednik time?

[Dick Allen]

If BA is out, wouldn't the Sox go with Lilli in CF, Pods in LF, JD in RF, and TCQ DH?

What's the fascination with Lillibridge getting regular time? He brings 2 things to the table. A good glove and speed. He's best suited as a defensive replacement and a pinch runner. Using him as a pinch runner will get him on base just as much if not more than playing him every day would and it would save you several outs.

[chisox2334]

I dont think anyone suggesting that Lili deserves starting time... people are just suggesting to do with lineup if Anderson and Thome go on DL.

[hogan873]

That's a hell of a sample size. Clearly, Swisher deserved to be traded, after all, you read it alot.

 

If I lack fervor in this post, I apologize. I had typed out a concise response and then my computer decided to freeze.

 

Anyway, I may not have gotten my point across about the Swisher trade and the latest talk of it. My point was that I found it confounding that there was remorsefulness out there in regards to trading Swisher when before he started tearing it up with Yankees the consensus was good riddance.

 

I'm not terribly excited about Pods, but I think he gives us a better chance at the plate. As far as his defense, well we'll have to wait and see.

[SoxFan562004]

If I lack fervor in this post, I apologize. I had typed out a concise response and then my computer decided to freeze.

 

Anyway, I may not have gotten my point across about the Swisher trade and the latest talk of it. My point was that I found it confounding that there was remorsefulness out there in regards to trading Swisher when before he started tearing it up with Yankees the consensus was good riddance.

 

I'm not terribly excited about Pods, but I think he gives us a better chance at the plate. As far as his defense, well we'll have to wait and see.

oh there may have been a consensus that if was good riddance but there were PLENTY of us on here who were pissed that he got moved.

[BaseballNick]

What's the fascination with Lillibridge getting regular time? He brings 2 things to the table. A good glove and speed. He's best suited as a defensive replacement and a pinch runner. Using him as a pinch runner will get him on base just as much if not more than playing him every day would and it would save you several outs.

 

I didn't think that Lillibridge deserved to make the team out of Spring Training, but now that we're down three CFs (Wise, BA, and Owens) and we didn't trust Pods to play CF in 2005, I don't know why we'd trust him to play CF in 2009. I really don't think anyone is fascinated with Brent Lillibridge, but he's probably the lesser of all the other evils until BA comes back.

[Kalapse]

I didn't think that Lillibridge deserved to make the team out of Spring Training, but now that we're down three CFs (Wise, BA, and Owens) and we didn't trust Pods to play CF in 2005, I don't know why we'd trust him to play CF in 2009. I really don't think anyone is fascinated with Brent Lillibridge, but he's probably the lesser of all the other evils until BA comes back.

Then start Lillibridge in CF and put Betemit at DH. There's no reason to have 2 awful hitters at the bottom of the lineup in Lilli and Pods especially when one of them is a terrible defender. With Thome's big lefty bat out of the lineup we need someone to replace him even partially and Betemit is the man for the job.

[Kalapse]

Podsednik is supposed to be on ESPN 1000 sometime in the next few minutes.

[TitoMB345]

.307/.416/.720

 

7 Hrs, 19 RBIs

 

 

[witesoxfan]

only one of Podsednik and Lillibridge should ever be in the lineup at the same time. I'd rather take my chance with Betemit hitting right handed over those two both being in the same lineup.

 

Also, one thing this team really lacks is a good right handed bat off the bench to hit LHP. Corky has done fine so far, but he's almost certainly never going to pinch hit. I know Ozzie loves having 12 pitchers, but if you get rid of Broadway for a guy who can actually hit LHP (Frank Thomas comes to mind, but he can't do anything in the field, and having two DHs on the roster doesn't accomplish a ton), the team improves immensely.

[Kyyle23]

.307/.416/.720

 

7 Hrs, 19 RBIs

 

.219/ .332/ .410

 

24 HR 69 RBIs

Edited April 30, 2009 by kyyle23

[chisox2334]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9520864...ll-up-Podsednik

[Kalapse]

Podsednik was terrible in his role as a pinch hitter last season BTW. He really struggled adjusting to his role as a bench player.

[southsider2k5]

Joey the 6th grader knew there were problems with this line-up when Dewayne Wise was leading off. He also knew Jerry Owens was garbage. There were lots of options available this winter. The White Sox, despite chairman Reinsdorf's comment that the 2008 team was "not a fun team to watch" decided slashing payroll, despite raising ticket prices was the way to go. Sometimes you do get what you pay for.

 

KW talks about some aggressive approach. With a division that includes KC, Minnesota and the economy damaged cities of Cleveland and Detroit, and season ticket sales ahead of last year's pace, it was time to put the pedal to the metal. No one is going to have a perfect roster, but to expect 4 or 5 miracles is a stretch.

 

That said, this team could win 83 games and win the division and the WS, like STL in 2006. The ride just won't be as enjoyable. Thank God they aren't in the AL East. They would have no chance.

 

So going back to all of the economy/attendance/payroll arguements we had over the winter, I actually went in and checked what our attendance #'s looked like this year so far, to the same point last year. Through 12 games this year we are averaging 24,608. Through the same point last year, we averaged 26,095. In other words there are about 10% less people at ballgames this year. Couple that reality with the big losses in sponsorships that Jerry has been talking about, and this franchise could have been in major trouble financially, if they hadn't have made the move to raise revenues and cuts costs somehow. It might not be the best thing for the team on the field, but the reality is that the Sox were either going to cut a little bit now, or a whole helluva a lot later. Watch and see the losses that Detroit is going to take this year, and the huge purge that is going to take place up there, and tell me if you would rather see that happen here, or the way that JR and the Sox have done things. The revenue picture you are trying to paint just isn't real. At best the Sox are probably even on ticket revenue (with the fall at the turnstiles getting balanced by the raise in ticket prices), and losing money on concessions, parking, and advertising versus last year.

[bigruss]

So going back to all of the economy/attendance/payroll arguements we had over the winter, I actually went in and checked what our attendance #'s looked like this year so far, to the same point last year. Through 12 games this year we are averaging 24,608. Through the same point last year, we averaged 26,095. In other words there are about 10% less people at ballgames this year. Couple that reality with the big losses in sponsorships that Jerry has been talking about, and this franchise could have been in major trouble financially, if they hadn't have made the move to raise revenues and cuts costs somehow. It might not be the best thing for the team on the field, but the reality is that the Sox were either going to cut a little bit now, or a whole helluva a lot later. Watch and see the losses that Detroit is going to take this year, and the huge purge that is going to take place up there, and tell me if you would rather see that happen here, or the way that JR and the Sox have done things. The revenue picture you are trying to paint just isn't real. At best the Sox are probably even on ticket revenue (with the fall at the turnstiles getting balanced by the raise in ticket prices), and losing money on concessions, parking, and advertising versus last year.

Someone mentioned elsewhere that the one of the DH games had an attendance of 0 in the MLB books, so that brings down our average. I believe the same poster said that we were averaging around 28K a game before that, which is an increase from last year.

[maki]

So going back to all of the economy/attendance/payroll arguements we had over the winter, I actually went in and checked what our attendance #'s looked like this year so far, to the same point last year. Through 12 games this year we are averaging 24,608. Through the same point last year, we averaged 26,095. In other words there are about 10% less people at ballgames this year. Couple that reality with the big losses in sponsorships that Jerry has been talking about, and this franchise could have been in major trouble financially, if they hadn't have made the move to raise revenues and cuts costs somehow. It might not be the best thing for the team on the field, but the reality is that the Sox were either going to cut a little bit now, or a whole helluva a lot later. Watch and see the losses that Detroit is going to take this year, and the huge purge that is going to take place up there, and tell me if you would rather see that happen here, or the way that JR and the Sox have done things. The revenue picture you are trying to paint just isn't real. At best the Sox are probably even on ticket revenue (with the fall at the turnstiles getting balanced by the raise in ticket prices), and losing money on concessions, parking, and advertising versus last year.

 

as per the attendance figures thread that includes a 0 for the first game of the DH, otherwise we would be tracking ahead thus far.

 

[bigruss]

as per the attendance figures thread that includes a 0 for the first game of the DH, otherwise we would be tracking ahead thus far.

Beat ya

[CanOfCorn]

So going back to all of the economy/attendance/payroll arguements we had over the winter, I actually went in and checked what our attendance #'s looked like this year so far, to the same point last year. Through 12 games this year we are averaging 24,608. Through the same point last year, we averaged 26,095. In other words there are about 10% less people at ballgames this year. Couple that reality with the big losses in sponsorships that Jerry has been talking about, and this franchise could have been in major trouble financially, if they hadn't have made the move to raise revenues and cuts costs somehow. It might not be the best thing for the team on the field, but the reality is that the Sox were either going to cut a little bit now, or a whole helluva a lot later. Watch and see the losses that Detroit is going to take this year, and the huge purge that is going to take place up there, and tell me if you would rather see that happen here, or the way that JR and the Sox have done things. The revenue picture you are trying to paint just isn't real. At best the Sox are probably even on ticket revenue (with the fall at the turnstiles getting balanced by the raise in ticket prices), and losing money on concessions, parking, and advertising versus last year.

 

Thank you! This is the difference between laying off a couple of people to save the whole vs. waiting til the whole kit and kaboodle goes to hell in a handbasket and you have to have a fire sale.

 

What the White Sox did was protect themselves financially in the short term while still remaining competitive. And I still don't want any of the CF options that were possibly coming to the White Sox...well, maybe Coco Crisp.

[Dick Allen]

So going back to all of the economy/attendance/payroll arguements we had over the winter, I actually went in and checked what our attendance #'s looked like this year so far, to the same point last year. Through 12 games this year we are averaging 24,608. Through the same point last year, we averaged 26,095. In other words there are about 10% less people at ballgames this year. Couple that reality with the big losses in sponsorships that Jerry has been talking about, and this franchise could have been in major trouble financially, if they hadn't have made the move to raise revenues and cuts costs somehow. It might not be the best thing for the team on the field, but the reality is that the Sox were either going to cut a little bit now, or a whole helluva a lot later. Watch and see the losses that Detroit is going to take this year, and the huge purge that is going to take place up there, and tell me if you would rather see that happen here, or the way that JR and the Sox have done things. The revenue picture you are trying to paint just isn't real. At best the Sox are probably even on ticket revenue (with the fall at the turnstiles getting balanced by the raise in ticket prices), and losing money on concessions, parking, and advertising versus last year.

The White Sox attendance was ahead of last years' pace until the rainout wiped out a game. A goose egg with only about 11 dates will hurt the average. I love how you tell me the revenue picture I paint isn't real, yet the only picture you come up with is the one KW and JR give you. They cut the second most in the major leagues this past offseason and JR when crying about the lost sponsorships said it would not affect White Sox payroll. Then he said KW had a 3 year board.....You want to bet it isn't slashed an even larger amount next season? They also had 3 bonus gates last year, all sellouts. So if they planned to break exactly even last year, those bonus gates would cover the Motorola loss wouldn't it, considering they said Motorola would have to let 10 people go if they continued with the sponsorship. According to Forbes, and KW references Forbes when it says their revenue to payroll ratio is the best in baseball, they have made over $70 million in profit the past 3 seasons combined. What did they do with that $70 million? Don't tell me put it in payroll because those figures are taking payroll into account. Of course the White Sox would say Forbes doesn't have any idea what its talking about when they come up with those numbers. The most recent figures now have the team worth $450 million up to 10th in the majors. KW talking about making the games day games because they can't afford the electric bill is trash. I'm not asking him to boost the payroll to $200 million. But when good players are available for bargain prices, don't insult the fanbase and say guys like Owens, and Lillibridge and Wise are as good or better than the players available. Don't tell the fanbase you thought about signing Jon Garland but realized you had the exact same pitcher in Jeff Marquez. It just isn't true. Here's an example: I wanted Juan Cruz bad. He would have cost a first round pick. So what. You save the bonus you have to give to that pick and get an established major leaguer at a bargain price. The bullpen is nails. You don't have to deal with the MacDougals and Egberts and Broadways. A team that charges its fans more than any team other than the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and Cubs owes the people paying a little more than that.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Balta1701]

as per the attendance figures thread that includes a 0 for the first game of the DH, otherwise we would be tracking ahead thus far.

Were there any of those 0 attendance double headers last year?

[Dick Allen]

Were there any of those 0 attendance double headers last year?

In September, so the average after a 0 after 10 or 11 dates will put the average out of whack. It was ahead of last April's pace.

[southsider2k5]

Someone mentioned elsewhere that the one of the DH games had an attendance of 0 in the MLB books, so that brings down our average. I believe the same poster said that we were averaging around 28K a game before that, which is an increase from last year.

 

Even if you add in that game with a full attendence of the 25,042, that only brings the average up to 26694 or just about 100 more per game. But the reality is that they DID lose all revenues from one game, should we ignore that?

 

The White Sox attendance was ahead of last years' pace until the rainout wiped out a game. A goose egg with only about 11 dates will hurt the average. I love how you tell me the revenue picture I paint isn't real, yet the only picture you come up with is the one KW and JR give you. They cut the second most in the major leagues this past offseason and JR when crying about the lost sponsorships said it would not affect White Sox payroll. Then he said KW had a 3 year board.....You want to bet it isn't slashed an even larger amount next season? They also had 3 bonus gates last year, all sellouts. So if they planned to break exactly even last year, those bonus gates would cover the Motorola loss wouldn't it, considering they said Motorola would have to let 10 people go if they continued with the sponsorship. According to Forbes, and KW references Forbes when it says their revenue to payroll ratio is the best in baseball, they have made over $70 million in profit the past 3 seasons combined. Of course the White Sox would say Forbes doesn't have any idea what its talking about when they come up with those numbers. The most recent figures now have the team worth $450 million up to 10th in the majors. KW talking about making the games day games because they can't afford the electric bill is trash. I'm not asking him to boost the payroll to $200 million. But when good players are available for bargain prices, don't insult the fanbase and say guys like Owens, and Lillibridge and Wise are as good or better than the players available. Don't tell the fanbase you thought about signing Jon Garland but realized you had the exact same pitcher in Jeff Marquez. It just isn't true. Here's an example: I wanted Juan Cruz bad. He would have cost a first round pick. So what. You save the bonus you have to give to that pick and get an established major leaguer at a bargain price. The bullpen is nails. You don't have to deal with the MacDougals and Egberts and Broadways.

 

 

I don't know why I waste my time when you argument is always you are such a JR and KW luver, lolz. The irony is that you're always on the JR and KW suck no matter what happens side of things. Unless you have their records in front of you, I'd love to know whom else we should be listening to on what the team is making... I guess I could always take the word of the person who talks about how cheap the organization is, and how stupid its management and ownership is an objective source of information.

 

Anyways, the profit #'s would be compelling if they weren't always followed by a raise in payroll the next year. The worth of the team means nothing to what the payroll is. GM is worth billions, but it doesn't mean they have a dime to their name. You should know that. The playoff #'s could also be compelling , but you also have to keep in mind that a large chunk of that money flows back to the players in the form of playoff bonuses, and to MLB.

 

All of the KW screwed up here, here, and here stuff is a complete misdirect away from the original point, and has nothing to do with the bottom line of organizational revenues. It is completely immaterial and just distracts from what the organization is taking in is less than the year before. Unless you have the books, I don't know how you can argue otherwise with the economic reality of 2009, coupled with the fall in attendance and the fall of sponsorships.

[caulfield12]

I think you really need to wait until May and maybe June before you start making comparisons in terms of attendance to previous years.

 

Last year, the weather was seemingly the worst in history, but the White Sox were coming off a horrible season. On the other hand, they jumped into first place and were at the top of the standings from about this point on.

 

Of course, we're in first place again, but we haven't been playing (especially pitching) nearly as well as last year. Fans this year are naturally a little skeptical after this off-season and they're all being hit more in the pocketbooks.

 

Where we should be making some comparisons are in terms of sellouts/crowds on weekends and special promotional nights, and you have to take into consideration the opponents as well.

 

But sure, KW was taking huge risks at the back of the rotation (imagine if Marquez, Broadway, Poreda or Richard started in place of Colon) and with the CF position, as well as overestimating the offensive (improvement) ability of Lillibridge. We can complain about the 7th reliever spot, others will complain about Corkaroo or Wilson Betemit's defense, but the team we left ST with was certainly not AS GOOD as the one we ended the season with. Maybe the chemistry is better, clubhouse, etc., but it would be almost impossible to argue we'd improved for 2009.

 

I don't disagree with what's been done, we're in a transition year much like the Twins were last year when they lost Santana and Hunter, it's just that this division is filled with so much parity, it's frustrating right now to watch the team muddle along.

 

But the future, at least for now, looks very bright because of Birmingham.

 

To show how far we've fallen, Pods wouldn't have come close to the CF position in 2005/06, and yet he's now being considered a starter (with a straight face) by some, despite the shadow of his former self Pods was after he returned from his injury in 05 and then 06. Even if he was in pre-season 2005 form, he would be such a defensive risk (and arm) that he would negate anything positive he gave to the offense.

 

Problem 2, we don't have an Iguchi type that's guaranteed of moving him around the basepaths. Who is our Iguchi now to do that? Not Fields, Ramirez or AJ.

 

Getz? Unless Pods is starting every game and leading off, do we really want to now take Chris Getz out of position he's comfortable with?

 

Pods, if he is starting, really should be hitting last, with Getz leading off.

 

 

[caulfield12]

please delete, double post

Edited April 30, 2009 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Though regular-season ticket sales are "ahead of last year's pace for the White Sox despite a slumping economy," White Sox Chair Jerry Reinsdorf is "bracing for 2010, when several of the team's corporate sponsorships expire," according to Mark Gonzales of the CHICAGO TRIBUNE. Reinsdorf: "I'm worried about 2010. We lost a number of sponsorships coming into this year, but there are more deals that expire next year." But Reinsdorf added that the "potential dip next year ... might not hurt player payroll because of [GM] Ken Williams' three-year roster projection." Meanwhile, Gonzales notes the "anticipated spike in ticket sales" at the White Sox' new Camelback Ranch Spring Training facility has "fallen short because of the recession as well as delays in building the complex that prevented the Sox from selling tickets and marketing the team in advance." The team will "review their entire spring operations and revise their plans where needed." Reinsdorf: "But the place is terrific. It's really functional" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 3/15). Reinsdorf said of renegotiating with the team's sponsors, "There are people who are out of the business in sports marketing. Bank of America, for example, is a big sponsor. They're gone. We lost Pontiac this year. I assume we'll lose Chevy next year when their deal is up. This is going on all over sports" (Illinois DAILY HERALD, 3/15). Meanwhile, when asked what the "average fan's perception" of him is, Reinsdorf said, "Nobody wants to be vilified. Based upon the mail I get and the people that stop me, it's probably pretty good, whereas there was a time when it wasn't so good" (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 3/15).

 

 

Some things we don't know:

 

1) How much the buyout of Tucson and relocation of ST facilities and pretty dismal attendance affects the bottom line

2) How they're considering Viciedo's signing bonus

3) If they have replaced any of the Pontiac and Bank of America sponsorships...I noticed there was an LG sign now covering Pontiac?

4) I think the Pontiac/B of A sponsorships totalled around $3-4 million total, something like that

5) Luxury box revenues year over year

6) Of course, we lost another $3 million on MacDougal

7) Possible increases from MLB (radio/tv/broadcast) rights

8) Increased souvenir sales because of Obama around the world

Edited April 30, 2009 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

Even if you add in that game with a full attendence of the 25,042, that only brings the average up to 26694 or just about 100 more per game. But the reality is that they DID lose all revenues from one game, should we ignore that?

 

 

 

 

I don't know why I waste my time when you argument is always you are such a JR and KW luver, lolz. The irony is that you're always on the JR and KW suck no matter what happens side of things. Unless you have their records in front of you, I'd love to know whom else we should be listening to on what the team is making... I guess I could always take the word of the person who talks about how cheap the organization is, and how stupid its management and ownership is an objective source of information.

 

Anyways, the profit #'s would be compelling if they weren't always followed by a raise in payroll the next year. The worth of the team means nothing to what the payroll is. GM is worth billions, but it doesn't mean they have a dime to their name. You should know that. The playoff #'s could also be compelling , but you also have to keep in mind that a large chunk of that money flows back to the players in the form of playoff bonuses, and to MLB.

 

How many home games have they had? 10 or 11. 25000 would up the average between 2000 and 2500 a game.

 

All of the KW screwed up here, here, and here stuff is a complete misdirect away from the original point, and has nothing to do with the bottom line of organizational revenues. It is completely immaterial and just distracts from what the organization is taking in is less than the year before. Unless you have the books, I don't know how you can argue otherwise with the economic reality of 2009, coupled with the fall in attendance and the fall of sponsorships.

First off, I like JR. I think KW has a swollen ego, but I have praised many of his moves. I did use management as a source of information. JR said last year's team was no fun to watch. So he slashed payroll and raised ticket, parking and concession prices. If you say concession revenues are going to be down, what successful business model says to raise prices for less demand. JR also said the loss of sponsors would not affect the payroll, so why must you say it will if everything he says is gospel?

 

Boyer said Motorola mentioned it would have to lay off 10 people if they continued with the sponsorship. I gave a pretty big overestimation as saying 10 people making $250k. Thats $2.5 million. While players get some of the playoff gate the 3 games drew 120,000. Considering the cost index for a family of 4 is about $220 for a White Sox game, the 5th highest in baseball, that's $2.2 million a game gross. That's a $6.6 million gross for the 3 games. That's at regular season prices. I think $2.5 million is a reasonable number at the very least for the team's take for those 3 games.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Dick Allen