Our Putrid Cfer's

[southsider2k5]

Please stop.

 

Tex, no one is saying that its important whether or not the team makes money, in a vacuum. They are saying that salary has to be part of the picture because they don't have an unlimited budget. Why is this so hard for you to even acknowledge?

 

Thank you. With that I bid this thread adios.

[Dick Allen]

Sounds about right - that's like $18M per year in gross profit, less in net, which means they are making just a few percentage points in profit. I remember seeing the Sox at something like 1.9% the last year that I looked at Forbes' numbers, and that was better than a lot of teams.

 

This whole conspiracy theory that they are taking money out of the team and going "cheap" on payroll is just manifestly false. They make little money, they have one of the highest payrolls in baseball, and are facing lower ticket sales and rolling sponsorship losses. They aren't juicing the fans, they are doing what everyone has to do right now.

 

And for the love of... Brent Lillibridge is not playing because of salary issues!!!!!! He's the f***ing 4th string option in CF, due to injuries, which by the way no team in baseball would have a good option for.

I used to believe what you wrote, but after the past 18 months do not. The White Sox were going to give Hunter or Fukudome a ton of money. Knowing how they operate, that money fit right into the salary parameters of the 2008 White Sox. They did not sign either, but traded for Swisher who was about $5-7 million less for last year. They also had 3 extra home dates, all sellouts. If a family of 4's cost index is $220, 40k people should mean $2.2 million x 3 is $6.6 million. Obviously its not all profit, but it is a significant figure, probably more than enough to cover the loss of Motorola's add on the scoreboard.

 

If $20-30 million profit, again according to Forbes, is little money, than they should be willing to lose $20-30 million in a season in order to win. They are making a huge deal out of Pontiac and Motorola leaving, and I guarantee you they were giving the White Sox nowhere near $20 million.

 

 

[BaseballNick]

This whole conspiracy theory that they are taking money out of the team and going "cheap" on payroll is just manifestly false. They make little money, they have one of the highest payrolls in baseball, and are facing lower ticket sales and rolling sponsorship losses. They aren't juicing the fans, they are doing what everyone has to do right now.

 

They are actually 12th this season behind NYY, NYM, CHC, BOS, DET, LAA, PHI, HOU, LAD, SEA, and ATL.

[Texsox]

Thank you. With that I bid this thread adios.

 

Interesting, money is so important to the success, yet no one wants to discuss the factors that go into where the money comes from. It seems there is a direct connection from success on the field to attendance to payroll to future teams. A slow start, and tough year, could have a far reaching impact. Poor weather. Poor scheduling. Lots of stuff there.

[Dick Allen]

They are actually 12th this season behind NYY, NYM, CHC, BOS, DET, LAA, PHI, HOU, LAD, SEA, and ATL.

And the only teams who cost more to go see are the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and Cubs. Another thing to keep in mind regarding ad revenue. Ed Sherman in his blog on Crains mentioned how Comcast Sportsnet's rating are up for all its programming due to the success of its teams. He said it will lead to increased ad revenue. I think the White Sox own 20% of that station. Its just not the Cubs and Hawks and Bulls games that are higher. Their own shows, like Chicago Tribune Live are up almost double.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Dick Allen

[Texsox]

They are making a huge deal out of Pontiac and Motorola leaving, and I guarantee you they were giving the White Sox nowhere near $20 million.

 

It would be interesting to know which teams are the most dependent on these types of sponsorships. The revenue streams to teams are so varied, I'll bet some teams are much better positioned to weather this downturn. Perhaps we may see some of the smaller market teams actually in better shape if the large market teams with large corporate deals have to cut back. That would be good for baseball.

[Texsox]

And the only teams who cost more to go see are the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and Cubs. Another thing to keep in mind regarding ad revenue. Ed Sherman in his blog on Crains mentioned how Comcast Sportsnet's rating are up for all its programming due to the success of its teams. He said it will lead to increased ad revenue. I think the White Sox own 20% of that station. Its just not the Cubs and Hawks and Bulls games that are higher. Their own shows, like Chicago Tribune Live are up almost double.

 

There are a lot of issues that go into that. Just like the same movie costs differently to watch based on the theater, etc. Stadiums have different structures. I would not necessarily assume profit percentage is the same.

[Texsox]

Another comment on the overall profitability of sports franchises. Every owner made their money in other arenas before becoming an owner. I don't think anyone believes a sports franchise is a great way to earn profits each year. The real profit taking only occurs when you sell, and most of these guys enjoy their sport too much.

 

And even a not-for-profit charity budgets to have a surplus at the end of the year. You can't stick around for long when revenue does not meet expense.

[bmags]

Small sample size this year, but I'd stroke it if we had a CFer with those numbers.

[Dick Allen]

Another comment on the overall profitability of sports franchises. Every owner made their money in other arenas before becoming an owner. I don't think anyone believes a sports franchise is a great way to earn profits each year. The real profit taking only occurs when you sell, and most of these guys enjoy their sport too much.

 

And even a not-for-profit charity budgets to have a surplus at the end of the year. You can't stick around for long when revenue does not meet expense.

Barry Rozner had a column about a partner with the Bulls several years ago when they were winning 13 games a year. I forgot the guy's name or even if Barry mentioned it, but the guy was quoted as saying he was "embarrassed" by all the money they were making with the team being so bad.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I guess we should change the title of this thread to "Are the White Sox really broke or not?"

[Texsox]

Barry Rozner had a column about a partner with the Bulls several years ago when they were winning 13 games a year. I forgot the guy's name or even if Barry mentioned it, but the guy was quoted as saying he was "embarrassed" by all the money they were making with the team being so bad.

 

Doesn't basketball have a salary cap? I'm not certain it is fair to compare MLB and the NBA.

 

Plus, I was just thinking the NBA has smaller rosters and without the extensive farm system. I'm not certain how much that comes into play. The finance guys have left the discussion, but it would seem that it is easier to make money in the NBA and the hardest in baseball.

 

I'd rank it NFL > NBA > MLB > NHL

[Texsox]

I guess we should change the title of this thread to "Are the White Sox really broke or not?"

 

Not necessarily broke, but how close to breaking even are they each year? They have some serious assets, which would keep them from being "broke" as long as they stay realistic.

[Melissa1334]

Hunter would have pissed people off here something intense. His defense isn't what it used to be 2-3 years ago, and he put up an .810 OPS last year. Do you really want to pay someone like that $18 mill a year?

why 18mil? thats what the angels signed him for. but the sox were going to sign him for 15mil a year.

[caulfield12]

The problem is that the White Sox seem to treat Chicago like an inelastic market and they can just charge almost any price they want to because 80% of their annual attendance theoretically comes from people who would almost pay anything to watch White Sox baseball, at least that must be the thinking.

 

What I don't get is how teams like the Dodgers and Angels have much more affordable ticket prices, concessions, parking, etc. Last time I checked, LA was a significantly more expensive cost-of-living market than Chicago.

 

With this team, it seems like we'll be in the mix for most of the year, but it doesn't have any identity at all for the fans. We were a great home team last year. This feels like one of those seasons (with the economy being what it is) that the fans will be a bit pessimistic and wait as long as possible before they commit to coming out and supporting the team. Last year, in the beginning, you felt that the team might be good because of the starting pitching, the bullpen and the way they played at home.

 

Then it gets back to the old argument...you don't want to go through another 72-90 season, but if it gives you another Beckham in the draft, might it be worth it? Especially with some of the small-market teams perhaps shying away from some of the Top 10 picks in 2010 because of affordability, it gives the White Sox a chance to get a franchise player even better than Beckham. Hopefully a college pitcher that could make an immediate impact, because pitching will be the most expensive cost to replace.

 

But the cost of that 72-90 would be a loss of around 20-30% of the season ticket base...and theoretically they wouldn't do anything SIGNIFICANT to improve the team (OF/starting pitcher) through free agency but marketing the Birmingham team as the future and hoping the excitement of the arrival of 6-7 new players at one time would be enough to keep the season ticket holders around. I'd guess they would hold off on CF if Danks continues to impress, but that the pitching staff would be the area they'd have to improve. And it's area where we haven't spent since David Wells in free agency, but the Homer Bailey's of the world will be even more difficult to pry away.

 

Personally, I'd rather have lower ticket prices, but I can also understand why they wanted to "lock" in those revenues for 09. The only question is what financial shape we'll be in for 2010. Going from $115 million to $65 million would be pretty astounding, but it's quite possible.

Edited May 15, 2009 by caulfield12

[JorgeFabregas]

Angels and Dodgers probably get more TV money. Possibly better sponsorships as well. Supposedly the Nationals and White Sox (in that order) put the highest percentage of their revenue towards player salaries.

[caulfield12]

Doesn't basketball have a salary cap? I'm not certain it is fair to compare MLB and the NBA.

 

Plus, I was just thinking the NBA has smaller rosters and without the extensive farm system. I'm not certain how much that comes into play. The finance guys have left the discussion, but it would seem that it is easier to make money in the NBA and the hardest in baseball.

 

I'd rank it NFL > NBA > MLB > NHL

 

 

MLB has been much more profitable than the NBA over the last decade. Not even close. In terms of year-to-year profitability as well as franchise appreciation.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

why 18mil? thats what the angels signed him for. but the sox were going to sign him for 15mil a year.

Huh? 18mil is what he took, that's what it took to acquire him. Some amount some other team tried to acquire him for is irrelevant.

 

[caulfield12]

Torii Hunter would have been a huge mistake at anything over $10 million per year for 3 years.

 

He'd already lost a couple of steps defensively, and his numbers offensively aren't overwhelming. He's very, very streaky and he strikes out way too much. It would have been great to see him beating the Twins after so many plays (running over Jamie Burke, robbing Carlos Lee, etc.) against us in a Twins' uniform, but we're really fortunate not to have been stuck with Fukudome, Rowand or Hunter.

[Texsox]

Torii Hunter would have been a huge mistake at anything over $10 million per year for 3 years.

 

He'd already lost a couple of steps defensively, and his numbers offensively aren't overwhelming. He's very, very streaky and he strikes out way too much. It would have been great to see him beating the Twins after so many plays (running over Jamie Burke, robbing Carlos Lee, etc.) against us in a Twins' uniform, but we're really fortunate not to have been stuck with Fukudome, Rowand or Hunter.

 

We are stuck as well, but with flea market finds. It would be interesting if there was a cost/productivity stat that could be developed.

[Texsox]

Huh? 18mil is what he took, that's what it took to acquire him. Some amount some other team tried to acquire him for is irrelevant.

 

exactly.

 

Is there much of an indirect cost to a revolving door at any position?

[Balta1701]

exactly.

 

Is there much of an indirect cost to a revolving door at any position?

Depends on what you're doing at the other positions. If you're strong in lots of places, one or two revolving doors can be tolerated.

[caulfield12]

We are stuck as well, but with flea market finds. It would be interesting if there was a cost/productivity stat that could be developed.

 

 

KW could make an argument that he has viable back-up options at every position on the team

 

3B: Betemit, Nix, Getz, Viciedo, Retherford

SS: Nix, Beckham, Lillibridge (try not to laugh), Torres

2B: Nix, Beckham, Lillibridge, Retherford

1B: Betemit, Allen/Viciedo

C: Lucy, Flowers

DH: Flowers/Allen/Viciedo

 

The two weaknesses on this team are obvious, going forward. The outfield might need two replacements (Anderson, Dye) and the starting rotation. Assuming Jordan Danks is ticketed for CF and leadoff that leaves LF, assuming Quentin is moved.

 

For LF, we have Viciedo, John Shelby, Gartrell and/or trade/FA.

 

For bullpen, Santeliz, Omogrosso and Nunez.

 

But Poreda is really the only one projected to have a chance to be a legit starter in the big leagues.

 

So looking for starters and LF (preferably a power-hitting LH like Dunn with better defensive ability) are the two areas of priority. Or we could leave Quentin in LF and find a RH. Or keep Dye for a lesser amount of money as the full-time DH...but then we really HAVE to get a LH power hitter for the outfield, with Thome gone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dick Allen]

The good news is the Sox don't have to be all that good to compete in their division. The problem I have with the offseason is it went entirely away from the gunslinger mentality KW loves to hear people refer to the way he goes about things. There's going conservative and there's the way the White Sox handled last offseason. I just wish the team wouldn't have been satisfied with trying to compete, but trying to blow away the rest of the AL Central. There were plenty of good players available at discounted prices and short term commitments. With all the money coming off the books after this season, it really wouldn't have been nearly the gamble giving Hunter or Fukudome 5 years just one year earlier would have been.

[caulfield12]

The good news is the Sox don't have to be all that good to compete in their division. The problem I have with the offseason is it went entirely away from the gunslinger mentality KW loves to hear people refer to the way he goes about things. There's going conservative and there's the way the White Sox handled last offseason. I just wish the team wouldn't have been satisfied with trying to compete, but trying to blow away the rest of the AL Central. There were plenty of good players available at discounted prices and short term commitments. With all the money coming off the books after this season, it really wouldn't have been nearly the gamble giving Hunter or Fukudome 5 years just one year earlier would have been.

 

 

We should be fine if we can get a corner OF, DH (if we don't keep Dye) and solidify the starting rotation. It's much easier to pay for an Abreu or Dunn than it is to find a CF like Danks who can lead off and also play very good defense. So we're saving a ton of money there if Danks works out, and there's a good feeling about him within the organization.

 

There was an opportunity to blow away everyone in the division by adding Crisp and Edwin Jackson, and it didn't happen...but there's no team that can run off a 10 game winning streak, so KW still has a chance to fix this season, if he so chooses.

 

Or he can do something that's nearly impossible for him, sit on his hands and neither be a buyer NOR seller and ride out the season with the idea of fielding a much better, more interesting and younger team for 2010.