caulfield12 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 What were the revenue splits for Game 163 with the Twins? Is it exactly the same as a "normal" or regular playoff game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 01:48 PM) 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. Well there you go, according to your own admission, I don't parrot the company line. Hopefully that pointless thing can be dropped now. No I don't believe JR when he said that that stuff doesn't affect the bottom line, because common sense tells me it does. If you start taking people away from the games, sponsors from the games, and less concession and parking revenues, how does that not affect the bottom line? It makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 01:23 PM) 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. Just a few things here... First off, there's an ugly-ass Comcast tarp over the Fundamentals deck. Who knows how much they lost there? Secondly, who knows how much the Sox are spending on their farm system, their revamped scouting staff, their baseball academies, promotional items and services, and things like White Sox charities and so forth? Also, if you sign a player for say $10M/year, that doesn't mean you just devote $10M/year to that player and you're done with it. Who knows what other costs there are? Food, transportation, perhaps equipment costs, special favors here and there, etc. could all play a factor. Point is, I don't think any of us, including Forbes, have any business speculating on how much JR is or is not spending. We'd all just be guessing and getting angry for the sake of getting angry. Baseball is private business and thus much is not nor will ever be reported. Also, playoff monies don't just go to the Sox. Every team in baseball gets that. To the baseball items: 1) Jon Garland sucked last year and still signed for several million per season. I am a Garland fan and thought it was very dumb for a team like the Cubs or Mets to give all that money over longer commitments to guys like Oliver Perez and Ryan Dempster when they could have had a bargain in Garland. However, to say that he's $6-7M better than Jeff Marquez is debatable, and even though I'd probably say he is, it still remains to be seen whether or not $6-7M or whatever in Garland is better than having that same amount available at the deadline. Considering all the teams out there looking to cut salary, if we in theory have that amount to spend, I'd rather have the ability to take on a contract. For example, if BA is out for a good period of time, I'd rather stick with Colontreras at the 4/5 and stick Randy Winn out there in place of Pods/Owens/human vomit. 2) Lillibridge has a lot of value as a bench player. Injuries and injuries only have forced him into a larger role, otherwise he'd be a great defensive player with some speed that would allow players to take the day off without the team having to take hits on the defensive side of the baseball. 3) Egbert should in no way be grouped with the crap you've listed him alongside. Egbert has not had the chances those players have had, and when Egbert did hurt us, it was during games we were going to lose anyway. It's not like he came in and blew the whole thing over and over like MacDougal for instance. 4) I love Juan Cruz too and think he'd have been a wonderful addition to this team, and if a sign-and-trade was really possible between us and the D'Backs I'd have given up a couple pretty damn good prospects to pick him up. However, the Sox made the right decision IMO when it came to signing him. I guarantee that whoever it is the Sox draft in the first round will be worth about 500% more trade value wise, and that is EXTREMELY important in an era of Sox baseball that will see many very good players on the trade market simply because of their salaries. The Sox BTW should be about $40M lighter in terms of payroll next year before raises to Jenks, TCQ, Danks, and Floyd so there is definitely the possibility of adding a very good veteran player. Edited April 30, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) Well there you go, according to your own admission, I don't parrot the company line. Hopefully that pointless thing can be dropped now. No I don't believe JR when he said that that stuff doesn't affect the bottom line, because common sense tells me it does. If you start taking people away from the games, sponsors from the games, and less concession and parking revenues, how does that not affect the bottom line? It makes no sense. First off, If Forbes is accurate, they have banked a lot of money. For instance if they said in 2006 the made $30 million, then in 2007 they increased payroll $30 million but Forbes said they made $20 million that year, they would be sitting on $50 million even after the payroll increase. If Forbes is not accurate, KW shouldn't be spouting off numbers they come up with when they say the White Sox spend more on payroll vs. total revenues than every team in baseball. The reason I think he's saying it won't have any effect on payroll is because they are planning another huge drop in payroll next year. This way they will say it was planned all along. Contreras, Dye, Thome, Dotel and MacDougal off the books. Viciedo's $4.2 million bonus paid. If you want to believe the $5 million to Tucson having an effect on payroll (I don't). You're looking a close to $50 million coming off the books. They could have signed guys like Garland, Hudson, Cruz for one year with an option. It was really no risk. This is my 20th year with season tickets. I have never complained about the payroll until this year. I think its dirty pool to raise prices and drop payroll. It shouldn't cost more to watch Brent Lillibridge than it does even a Tadihito Iguchi. Other teams are doing stuff like having $1 menus at their concession stands. When they asked the White Sox if they would follow suit the response was "not at this time." , so things must not be that bad at 35th and the Ryan. When anyone from the White Sox talks about how they feel for all the fans who are struggling win this economy (and thankfully I'm not yet) I wish someone would tell them actions are stronger than words. BTW, I'm not the only one thinking MLB and the White Sox are using the bad economy as a crutch: Stark compared 2009 April attendance to 2008, excluding the New York teams given their new stadiums. He found virtually no change, overall. One anonymous agent complained that Bud Selig "overdramatized the potential financial losses so as to limit and to artificially control spending on free agency." Edited April 30, 2009 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baines3 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Pods is back! Sure glad he's back in a White Sox uniform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stretchstretch Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 QUOTE (PlunketChris @ Apr 29, 2009 -> 08:07 PM) I could open the "what if we had actually signed Torii Hunter" can of worms if we're opening cans of worms... Oh yeah, Hunter, did that guy ever catch on anywhere??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 QUOTE (Baines3 @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 08:22 PM) Pods is back! Sure glad he's back in a White Sox uniform. Maybe he can add a spark to the top of the line up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baines3 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 06:01 PM) Maybe he can add a spark to the top of the line up That is what I am hoping for. Welcome home Scott! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klaus kinski Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 02:10 PM) First off, If Forbes is accurate, they have banked a lot of money. For instance if they said in 2006 the made $30 million, then in 2007 they increased payroll $30 million but Forbes said they made $20 million that year, they would be sitting on $50 million even after the payroll increase. If Forbes is not accurate, KW shouldn't be spouting off numbers they come up with when they say the White Sox spend more on payroll vs. total revenues than every team in baseball. The reason I think he's saying it won't have any effect on payroll is because they are planning another huge drop in payroll next year. This way they will say it was planned all along. Contreras, Dye, Thome, Dotel and MacDougal off the books. Viciedo's $4.2 million bonus paid. If you want to believe the $5 million to Tucson having an effect on payroll (I don't). You're looking a close to $50 million coming off the books. They could have signed guys like Garland, Hudson, Cruz for one year with an option. It was really no risk. This is my 20th year with season tickets. I have never complained about the payroll until this year. I think its dirty pool to raise prices and drop payroll. It shouldn't cost more to watch Brent Lillibridge than it does even a Tadihito Iguchi. Other teams are doing stuff like having $1 menus at their concession stands. When they asked the White Sox if they would follow suit the response was "not at this time." , so things must not be that bad at 35th and the Ryan. When anyone from the White Sox talks about how they feel for all the fans who are struggling win this economy (and thankfully I'm not yet) I wish someone would tell them actions are stronger than words. Perfect example was last off saeason-going from 4 installments on season tickets to just 2 (and one at Christmas) Edited May 1, 2009 by klaus kinski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 This is starting to feel like the Darin Erstad situation only this time there's a sentimental attachment fueling the fan's optimism and not KW's irrational love for all things grindy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 01:44 PM) 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). Them SOB's charged me for FOUR parking spaces in a half empty dirt lot the day I brought my RV, $20 in spring F'ing training! Then they hit me for $26 a ticket for equivelent seats I paid $10 for in Oaklands park. I did one date at Camelback and 2 on the road (Clevelands facility is also nice and parking with a shuttle was free). If I go again I'll likely avoid Camelback altogther. Its a wonderful trip that I recomend to everyone but stay away from the bandits at Camelback. Stick that in your budget and smoke it, Jerry. You're doing it to yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (TLAK @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 08:05 PM) Them SOB's charged me for FOUR parking spaces in a half empty dirt lot the day I brought my RV, $20 in spring F'ing training! Then they hit me for $26 a ticket for equivelent seats I paid $10 for in Oaklands park. I did one date at Camelback and 2 on the road (Clevelands facility is also nice and parking with a shuttle was free). If I go again I'll likely avoid Camelback altogther. Its a wonderful trip that I recomend to everyone but stay away from the bandits at Camelback. Stick that in your budget and smoke it, Jerry. You're doing it to yourself. I wonder if that's the policy that came from the White Sox or was a joint decision of Reinsdorf and McCourt/Dodgers? Because the Dodgers' parking and ticket prices aren't bad at all, nothing like what you would expect of LA. I'm sure everything is more expensive at USCF. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if prices were lower (parking) during Dodgers' ST games, although I'm not sure how they could do that...especially when there are so many dates when the teams played each other with them trading back and forth the home and visitor status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capn12 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Oh man, our savior will be up soon possibly... Mr. Limp Noodle arm, come give us another 'highlight' ball off the head moment in CF!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Whether Getz remains as the leadoff man, where he has led the team in hitting, or moves back to the two-slot depends on what the White Sox decide to do with Podsednik upon his triumphant return. That move won't need to be made official until prior to Friday's contest, with no statement coming from the team Thursday. triumphant return my ass. there's nothing that should move Getz from his leadoff spot. stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 brilliant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (Reddy @ May 1, 2009 -> 10:29 AM) triumphant return my ass. there's nothing that should move Getz from his leadoff spot. stupid. Yeah but what if he reverts back to his 2005 form? Just pretend for a second that the last 3 years never happened, Scott Podsednik is coming off a season in which he hit .290 with a .351, 50+ stolen bases and led his team to a World Series Championship! Why wouldn't you hit him leadoff? Ugh, nostalgia can make people wacky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 1, 2009 -> 11:15 AM) brilliant! Skanberg is just incredible. He almost never lets me down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (Kalapse @ May 1, 2009 -> 09:39 AM) Yeah but what if he reverts back to his 2005 form? Just pretend for a second that the last 3 years never happened, Scott Podsednik is coming off a season in which he hit .290 with a .351, 50+ stolen bases and led his team to a World Series Championship! Why wouldn't you hit him leadoff? Ugh, nostalgia can make people wacky. There's a bit of actual logic that could argue for him leading off...specifically, he can take a walk and work a pitcher as well as anyone on this team other than Thome. Right now, Fields is struggling in the 2 hole, we want Getz up there, you can put Getz and Pods in there, esp. against a righty, and you work a pitcher fairly hard for the first inning. Pods probably can still give you a .320-.330 OBP, which is at least a big upgrade from what we're getting from Lilli and company, and he's going to put the ball in play more than Fields is doing right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 1, 2009 -> 11:50 AM) There's a bit of actual logic that could argue for him leading off...specifically, he can take a walk and work a pitcher as well as anyone on this team other than Thome. Right now, Fields is struggling in the 2 hole, we want Getz up there, you can put Getz and Pods in there, esp. against a righty, and you work a pitcher fairly hard for the first inning. Pods probably can still give you a .320-.330 OBP, which is at least a big upgrade from what we're getting from Lilli and company, and he's going to put the ball in play more than Fields is doing right now. That's fine, solid logic. But the offensive spark and reverting back to his '05 form s*** is just silliness. This whole ordeal still makes me sick, the fact that we're forced to turn back to Scott f***ing Podsednik who Ozzie wanted nothing to do with after '07, should never have been retained after '06 and really isn't capable of playing the position is just sad. Just get well Brian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 The only problem I have with this move is Pods' defense, but it's no worse than the other options available right now. Let's face it, this is now option 4. He's about as good a 4th CF/6th OF as anyone. In any event, he doesn't need to stay healthy for long. Just long enough for BA to get back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 1, 2009 -> 11:14 AM) Hahahahahaha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 At least we know that Carl Everett is keeping in playing shape with the Newark Bears just in case Thome makes a trip to the DL. Garcia and Vizcaino were recently released, Orlando Hernandez is still looking for a job, Neal Cotts should be available soon, Willie Harris should be available for trade once he comes off the DL, the Bobby Valentine led Chiba Lotte Marines are in last place so Tadahito Iguchi could become available soon, Pablo and Timo have stuck around and could easily be acquired, Hermanson, Politte and Widger are out of the game and Damaso Marte could be released by the Yankees sometime this year. It's a perfect storm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Podsednik, 2006-08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Lemon Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 QUOTE (Kalapse @ May 1, 2009 -> 11:39 AM) Yeah but what if he reverts back to his 2005 form? Just pretend for a second that the last 3 years never happened, Scott Podsednik is coming off a season in which he hit .290 with a .351, 50+ stolen bases and led his team to a World Series Championship! Why wouldn't you hit him leadoff? Ugh, nostalgia can make people wacky. And sometime during the last three years he gained the skills needed to play Major League CF. 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.