Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 04:48 PM) I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I still think the team needs another hitter. And while I like the idea of 9 guys getting just about all of the at-bats with the DH spot rotating from player to player (meaning a group of 2 or 3 players get days off from the field while remaining in the lineup...Podsednik was a HUGE fan of that idea, by the way), if they acquire a guy that is unable to play the field and only DH, that would be better than leaving the team as is. I agree. In the AL if you use a bench quality player every day which is what the Sox would be doing under the current plan, if its really a plan, as Bo Jackson would say, they would be a bat short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:12 PM) You didn't challenge me. You just came up with some silly comment that didn't even portray my position accurately. Its actually a tactic I have seen you scold others for doing. If you're going to rip me, be accurate about my position. You spent pretty much at least the last year calling the Sox cheap. It has become a running joke because of how many threads you jumped into and mentioned how cheap the Sox were being. Now you are slamming the Sox for probably the biggest financial acquisitions in their history. Seems to me I am dead-on balls accurate on your moving positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:21 PM) You spent pretty much at least the last year calling the Sox cheap. It has become a running joke because of how many threads you jumped into and mentioned how cheap the Sox were being. Now you are slamming the Sox for probably the biggest financial acquisitions in their history. Seems to me I am dead-on balls accurate on your moving positions. I called them cheap at the beginning of last year.You said they had no money, yet Peavy gets added and then the curious acquisition of Rios. Sounds like a team that had some money to burn to me. Of course you will never admit to that. I chided the acquisition of Rios immediately. If they have that money to spend, it could have been spent a lot more wisely. In fact, if they hadn't been so cheap the winter before, they probably wouldn't have claimed Rios, saving the team having to pay him $60 million+. Did you call out any of the other season tickeholders on this board who were dismayed at an increase in season ticket prices and a decrease in payroll? Edited December 22, 2009 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:27 PM) I called them cheap at the beginning of last year.You said they had no money, yet Peavy gets added and then the curious acquisition of Rios. Sounds like a team that had some money to burn to me. Of course you will never admit to that. I chided the acquisition of Rios immediately. If they have that money to spend, it could have been spent a lot more wisely. In fact, if they hadn't been so cheap the winter before, they probably wouldn't have claimed Rios, saving the team having to pay him $60 million+. Did you call out any of the other season tickeholders on this board who were dismayed at an increase in season ticket prices and a decrease in payroll? I was pretty clear on the economy reality of the situation that the Sox were preparing for. In fact, I have been borne out pretty correct in most of my predictions about how much teams that weren't as prudent would get into trouble, and you only have to look at our division to see that playing out now. The Sox were very smart and ahead of the bell-curve in being ready for the problems. So much so that they have been able to take advantage of the situation of other teams to get guys like Peavy and Rios. Also after that same argument a million times you do realize that in the world of absolutes a few different things could have happened with the Sox. The first and most obvious is that the Sox prepared for a worst case scenario that did not happen. Like always the Sox invest their extra cash back into the team. The other is that revenue ended up being higher than anticipated. Another is that at the request of Kenny Williams, Jerry went back to the board and got extra cash from the investors that hadn't been there before. Another is that they moved funds over from other areas to pay for payroll raises. None of those scenarios means the Sox were cheap, like you said a million times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa1334 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 01:43 PM) Well let's go ahead and get to the "bringin' it" you speak of: First, I'll just start by saying that your real-world scenario already doesn't work when you admit that one of your options couldn't possibly be available to the Sox anyway. I don't understand how you think that signing Nick Johnson and then plugging the rest of the holes with league-minimum salaried players, makes this team better. Rick Ankiel? No. The backups they currently have didn't cost them all that much at all. You're acting like they've spent $20 million on it. The Sox current bench is better than yours and your bullpen is not as good as the one they've got now. . How would you even set that lineup? It's almost like you're just throwing out cheap names to fill spots. I'm sorry, but that team you have listed is just simply not better. couldnt agree more. and if that currently was our roster,like u said: people would be complaining about all the no names Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:34 PM) I was pretty clear on the economy reality of the situation that the Sox were preparing for. In fact, I have been borne out pretty correct in most of my predictions about how much teams that weren't as prudent would get into trouble, and you only have to look at our division to see that playing out now. The Sox were very smart and ahead of the bell-curve in being ready for the problems. So much so that they have been able to take advantage of the situation of other teams to get guys like Peavy and Rios. Also after that same argument a million times you do realize that in the world of absolutes a few different things could have happened with the Sox. The first and most obvious is that the Sox prepared for a worst case scenario that did not happen. Like always the Sox invest their extra cash back into the team. The other is that revenue ended up being higher than anticipated. Another is that at the request of Kenny Williams, Jerry went back to the board and got extra cash from the investors that hadn't been there before. Another is that they moved funds over from other areas to pay for payroll raises. None of those scenarios means the Sox were cheap, like you said a million times. They said they had no money. None. Then they said they extended themselves for Peavy which was BS because you know JR doesn't lose money. Then they claimed Rios who I still believe they really didn't want, at least without any salary relief. KW said fans came to the park. It was the $9 Buerhle tickets he referred to. It was BS. The Sox know how many tickets they have sold. They drew 400k less last year than 2007. It was the worst attendance in 5 years. They were cheap. If the money was available in June, it was available in February. They had some guys playing that had no business being in the major leagues and there were bargains last winter with one year committments. Not the crazy 5 year deal they are now stuck with a guy who scouts say packs it in. Isn't it at least possible in your mind that the Sox were sitting on money when they said they had none and spend some or all of it on Peavy and Rios? I'm a guy who had thousands invested in the team via tickets and basically because of the playoff ticket refund policy was held with thousands of others hostage laast off season. I guarantee if the Sox didn't have that money in hand, they never would have pulled the stunt they pulled. But then again the next time you disagree with any thing KW says, it will probably be the first. You probably agree with him more than any other human being. I bet you JR and Rick Hahn disagree with his moves more than you do. You used to use Forbes as a guide for White Sox payroll. What do you say about their estimated $70 million profit the past 4 seasons? As I said before, I don't have a problem with JR turning a profit, but don't say you aren't making money and moan about lack of funds when you are doing a lot better than most. Edited December 22, 2009 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 05:46 PM) They said they had no money. None. IIRC, Kenny said this back in May, when it was obvious that the Sox weren't going to take a massive hit in attendance. This is the best example that I can think of that NOTHING that comes out of the Sox front office can be taken at face value. Their official position is always whatever it takes to give them an advantage. Then they claimed Rios who I still believe they really didn't want, at least without any salary relief. There's almost no way that Kenny would've gotten salary relief for Rios after he claimed him. He would've had zero leverage at that point. Kenny would've had to have taken on a second player to get salary relief in return. That would've involved taking on another expensive contract (which would've been counter-productive) or taking a prospect in return (not a good idea for the Jays, who were clearly entering a rebuilding process). Therefore, Kenny absolutely had to know that the chances of him getting any salary relief after claiming Rios was close to nil... because everybody knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:34 PM) I was pretty clear on the economy reality of the situation that the Sox were preparing for. In fact, I have been borne out pretty correct in most of my predictions about how much teams that weren't as prudent would get into trouble, and you only have to look at our division to see that playing out now. The Sox were very smart and ahead of the bell-curve in being ready for the problems. So much so that they have been able to take advantage of the situation of other teams to get guys like Peavy and Rios. Also after that same argument a million times you do realize that in the world of absolutes a few different things could have happened with the Sox. The first and most obvious is that the Sox prepared for a worst case scenario that did not happen. Like always the Sox invest their extra cash back into the team. The other is that revenue ended up being higher than anticipated. Another is that at the request of Kenny Williams, Jerry went back to the board and got extra cash from the investors that hadn't been there before. Another is that they moved funds over from other areas to pay for payroll raises. None of those scenarios means the Sox were cheap, like you said a million times. Explain what other areas they could have possibly relocated money from to pay for mid season acquisitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (WCSox @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:04 PM) IIRC, Kenny said this back in May, when it was obvious that the Sox weren't going to take a massive hit in attendance. This is the best example that I can think of that NOTHING that comes out of the Sox front office can be taken at face value. Their official position is always whatever it takes to give them an advantage. There's almost no way that Kenny would've gotten salary relief for Rios after he claimed him. He would've had zero leverage at that point. Kenny would've had to have taken on a second player to get salary relief in return. That would've involved taking on another expensive contract (which would've been counter-productive) or taking a prospect in return (not a good idea for the Jays, who were clearly entering a rebuilding process). Therefore, Kenny absolutely had to know that the chances of him getting any salary relief after claiming Rios was close to nil... because everybody knew that. Not on a waiver claim, but I think he really didn't believe Toronto would let him go for nothing. It was reported he was trying to get him earlier and obviously whatever he was offering wasn't as good as just eating his contract. So either KW thought they wouldn't move him and try to work out a trade or he was trying to block him from going elsewhere. Detroit may have claimed him and waived Maggs. Considering what they would have saved with Maggs off the books, it made a little sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I understand the White Sox aren't going to come out and say, we run a business and want to make some money. That wouldn't go over very well. What does work is the break even line they use. The reality is that while JR might not mind if they didn't turn a huge profit, he would be livid if they lose money. According to Forbes, they seem to make between $10 million and $20 million just about every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 06:08 PM) Not on a waiver claim, but I think he really didn't believe Toronto would let him go for nothing. It was reported he was trying to get him earlier and obviously whatever he was offering wasn't as good as just eating his contract. So either KW thought they wouldn't move him and try to work out a trade or he was trying to block him from going elsewhere. Detroit may have claimed him and waived Maggs. Considering what they would have saved with Maggs off the books, it made a little sense. I'm sure that Kenny spoke to Ricciardi (most likely on multiple occasions) about Rios. Given that Kenny's the type of guy who targets specific players and pursues them for months and even years in some cases, that would make sense. However, I don't think that Kenny (or any GM) would ever pick up up a $60+ million contract simply to cock-block Detroit. That may have been an added bonus, but is highly unlikely to have been a major factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Per the NY Post: Apparently, MLB Advanced Media, which we’ve reported before as heading for an IPO, won’t be doing so anytime in the near future, reports NYP. The reason: the baseball team owners were afraid to reveal too much about their wealth right before contract talks with the players... Despite months of pitches by Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, First Boston and J.P. Morgan, the baseball team owners couldn’t be convinced that reaping a few billion dollars was worth the light that would be shone on their business operations and personal fortunes. Some stats on MLBAM: each of the 30 teams team kicked in $1 million a year for four years. But only $70 million to $75 million of the pledged $120 million was ever used before the site started generating excess cash in only its second year. That means each team’s $3 million investment in Advanced Media could now be worth $100 million if the valuation comes in at only $3 billion, which is not unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:06 PM) Explain what other areas they could have possibly relocated money from to pay for mid season acquisitions. Player development, funds earmarked to pay for ballpark improvements, funds from other investment projects, such as Silver Chalice Ventures, future budgets, etc.,. There are a myriad of other areas they could have taken funds from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:26 PM) Player development, funds earmarked to pay for ballpark improvements, funds from other investment projects, such as Silver Chalice Ventures, future budgets, etc.,. There are a myriad of other areas they could have taken funds from. But wouldn't that go against the every dime that comes in goes out line they like to use, especially when they try to make it seem like its for players? If they have extra millions for player development not being used, I would have to question why. BTW, they don't pay for ballpark improvements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:46 PM) They said they had no money. None. Then they said they extended themselves for Peavy which was BS because you know JR doesn't lose money. Then they claimed Rios who I still believe they really didn't want, at least without any salary relief. KW said fans came to the park. It was the $9 Buerhle tickets he referred to. It was BS. The Sox know how many tickets they have sold. They drew 400k less last year than 2007. It was the worst attendance in 5 years. They were cheap. If the money was available in June, it was available in February. They had some guys playing that had no business being in the major leagues and there were bargains last winter with one year committments. Not the crazy 5 year deal they are now stuck with a guy who scouts say packs it in. Isn't it at least possible in your mind that the Sox were sitting on money when they said they had none and spend some or all of it on Peavy and Rios? I'm a guy who had thousands invested in the team via tickets and basically because of the playoff ticket refund policy was held with thousands of others hostage laast off season. I guarantee if the Sox didn't have that money in hand, they never would have pulled the stunt they pulled. But then again the next time you disagree with any thing KW says, it will probably be the first. You probably agree with him more than any other human being. I bet you JR and Rick Hahn disagree with his moves more than you do. You used to use Forbes as a guide for White Sox payroll. What do you say about their estimated $70 million profit the past 4 seasons? As I said before, I don't have a problem with JR turning a profit, but don't say you aren't making money and moan about lack of funds when you are doing a lot better than most. The funny part of your first paragraph is I remember very specifically an argument we had on this very topic sometime around late May or Early June were I posted the attendance numbers being down as justification of why the Sox were justified in cutting payroll, and you couldn't accept that. Now apparently it is OK because attendance was down? The Sox knew attendance would be lower, and tried to protect themselves by raising more money, which apparently was wrong. Then the Sox end up having lower attendance, like they thought, but they should have spent more money all along? I don't know about you, but I when I have lost my job in the past, I go out and spend all of my money, because I have it. I don't plan for the future, or the worst case scenario... And there is nothing I have ever read that said the money was available in Feb that was there in June. You don't know that for a fact, and you have zero proof of it. Without having any idea how the season was going to go, there very well could have been money approved in June that was not available in Feb because, I don't know if you noticed or not, but we were in the biggest economic freefall in this country in about 80 years. Without some common-sense, we could be the Tigers right now, selling off parts to the highest bidder. Instead in that environment our management team put us in a position of strength that the organization put together extra money to be able to add to this team. I know it makes for better drama if the Sox are always wrong, but it doesn't make any sense the way you present it. As for the rest of it, it gets personal as usual. Could you do me one favor though... If you are going to go that route, come up with some new ones. Every single time we have this argument you pull the three year old tactic of "you like them better" out. I have posted to that multiple times. Google it, rinse, and repeat. Or I can just pull out, "Did Kenny run over your dog and is that why you hate him so much?" for every time that BS gets posted by you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:46 PM) They said they had no money. None. Then they said they extended themselves for Peavy which was BS because you know JR doesn't lose money. Then they claimed Rios who I still believe they really didn't want, at least without any salary relief. KW said fans came to the park. It was the $9 Buerhle tickets he referred to. It was BS. The Sox know how many tickets they have sold. They drew 400k less last year than 2007. It was the worst attendance in 5 years. They were cheap. If the money was available in June, it was available in February. They had some guys playing that had no business being in the major leagues and there were bargains last winter with one year committments. Not the crazy 5 year deal they are now stuck with a guy who scouts say packs it in. Isn't it at least possible in your mind that the Sox were sitting on money when they said they had none and spend some or all of it on Peavy and Rios? I'm a guy who had thousands invested in the team via tickets and basically because of the playoff ticket refund policy was held with thousands of others hostage laast off season. I guarantee if the Sox didn't have that money in hand, they never would have pulled the stunt they pulled. But then again the next time you disagree with any thing KW says, it will probably be the first. You probably agree with him more than any other human being. I bet you JR and Rick Hahn disagree with his moves more than you do. You used to use Forbes as a guide for White Sox payroll. What do you say about their estimated $70 million profit the past 4 seasons? As I said before, I don't have a problem with JR turning a profit, but don't say you aren't making money and moan about lack of funds when you are doing a lot better than most. I refuse to believe that you could be an accountant and still be this unsophisticated about how a professional sports team actually operates. I think you pretend to try and advance your crusade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:31 PM) But wouldn't that go against the every dime that comes in goes out line they like to use, especially when they try to make it seem like its for players? If they have extra millions for player development not being used, I would have to question why. BTW, they don't pay for ballpark improvements. You are being absolutely ridiculous. Do you want us to prove that Noah had two of every species on the Ark, too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:06 PM) Explain what other areas they could have possibly relocated money from to pay for mid season acquisitions. Without actually knowing their budget, it is hard to say exactly, but it is very commonly done by other organizations and corporations all of the time. Quite honestly I really believe it was a capital raise by the investors who were not willing to put forth any more money until they KNEW was the season was going to bring. These people didn't get rich by blowing all of their money during complete financial chaos. It makes total sense to me that the investors of the club would not be willing to put more money on the table until some of those uncertainties cleared up, the biggest being, would people still go to baseball games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:32 PM) The funny part of your first paragraph is I remember very specifically an argument we had on this very topic sometime around late May or Early June were I posted the attendance numbers being down as justification of why the Sox were justified in cutting payroll, and you couldn't accept that. Now apparently it is OK because attendance was down? The Sox knew attendance would be lower, and tried to protect themselves by raising more money, which apparently was wrong. Then the Sox end up having lower attendance, like they thought, but they should have spent more money all along? I don't know about you, but I when I have lost my job in the past, I go out and spend all of my money, because I have it. I don't plan for the future, or the worst case scenario... And there is nothing I have ever read that said the money was available in Feb that was there in June. You don't know that for a fact, and you have zero proof of it. Without having any idea how the season was going to go, there very well could have been money approved in June that was not available in Feb because, I don't know if you noticed or not, but we were in the biggest economic freefall in this country in about 80 years. Without some common-sense, we could be the Tigers right now, selling off parts to the highest bidder. Instead in that environment our management team put us in a position of strength that the organization put together extra money to be able to add to this team. I know it makes for better drama if the Sox are always wrong, but it doesn't make any sense the way you present it. As for the rest of it, it gets personal as usual. Could you do me one favor though... If you are going to go that route, come up with some new ones. Every single time we have this argument you pull the three year old tactic of "you like them better" out. I have posted to that multiple times. Google it, rinse, and repeat. Or I can just pull out, "Did Kenny run over your dog and is that why you hate him so much?" for every time that BS gets posted by you? As for the attendance, where was the spike to lead to an increase? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:32 PM) I refuse to believe that you could be an accountant and still be this unsophisticated about how a professional sports team actually operates. I think you pretend to try and advance your crusade. I'm unsophisticated and you believe everything KW tells you about White Sox money. The proof is in the pudding. They said they had no money and then in June the trade for Peavy and claim Rios. They obviously had money. If they had all this money laying around that was earmarked for player development, like you throw out as a possibility, I ask have they not learned their lesson? If they could develop some players. they wouldn't have the holes they have. I'm sorry but ballpark improvements would be inaccurate for the White Sox. They don't own the park. They don't pay for improvements. They started their other business. It was money for that. There was no cash call. I know that for a fact. Do some research on the IPO non offering. Its pretty interesting, and its not just JR, its every owner. Many of the same guys who own the White Sox also own the Bulls. Look how they operate. They can't even play with a full roster because the organization, one that Forbes estimates made $51 million in profit last year, refuses to sign a minimum wage guy because it will take them over the luxury threshold and while not turning them unprofitable, it will cut into the profit a couple of million. What's funny is when the White Sox paid $5 million to Tucson so they could move to Phoenix, you guys used that as $5 million that couldn't be used on the payroll. I suggested it came from a different source than payroll and was talked down to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:35 PM) Without actually knowing their budget, it is hard to say exactly, but it is very commonly done by other organizations and corporations all of the time. Quite honestly I really believe it was a capital raise by the investors who were not willing to put forth any more money until they KNEW was the season was going to bring. These people didn't get rich by blowing all of their money during complete financial chaos. It makes total sense to me that the investors of the club would not be willing to put more money on the table until some of those uncertainties cleared up, the biggest being, would people still go to baseball games. If this is common, how come you argued with me last year when I suggest the exact same thing concerning the $5 million they spent to get out of Tucson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) A baseball team is under no obligation to spend more than they make and are under no obligation to simply break even. It's a business. It isn't a public trust. That said, I still have an incredibly difficult time understanding how people can still call this organization cheap, despite the cascade of hard evidence that proves otherwise. It's almost like arguing that Yao Ming isn't tall. Here's the reality, and where I believe the argument should cease: for the last several years, the Sox payroll is exactly in line (and sometimes even higher) with their attendance for a given season. When they have middle-of-the-road attendance, they have a middle-of-the-road payroll. It happens EVERY year -- except for years like 2006 when they were 10th in attendance, yet 4th in payroll. Hell, you could go back to 2001 when they had the 22nd highest attendance but their payroll was 16th in MLB. There is just no disputing this. This is fact, not opinion. Edited December 22, 2009 by Ranger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:02 PM) A baseball team is under no obligation to spend more than they make and are under no obligation to simply break even. It's a business. It isn't a public trust. That said, I still have an incredibly difficult time understanding how people can still call this organization cheap, despite the cascade of hard evidence that proves otherwise. It's almost like arguing that Yao Ming isn't tall. Here's the reality, and where I believe the argument should cease: for the last several year, the Sox payroll is exactly in line (and sometimes even higher) with their attendance for a given season. When they have middle-of-the-road attendance, they have a middle-of-the-road payroll. It happens EVERY year -- except for years like 2006 when they were 10th in attendance, yet 4th in payroll. Hell, you could go back to 2001 when they had the 22nd highest attendance but their payroll was 16th in MLB. There is just no disputing this. This is fact, not opinion. True, but the White Sox have advantages some other teams do not, they have a sweatheart lease deal and pay nothing for ballpark upkeep. In fact, if their full price ticket attendance falls below a certain threshold, they don't even pay rent. Those half priced Mondays killed two birds with one stone. They increased the attendance on a normally slow night and those tickets didn't count towards their rent, at least not fully.They also make more than most for local TV and radio rights. I can call them cheap last off season. They obviously had money. They spent more than they ever had in June and July. There is no way Dewayne Wise should have been leading off on opening day. There is no way Brent Lillibridge should have been playing in MLB in 2009 and especially not leading off occassionally. There were bargains available and the Sox said they had no money to spend. Read Forbes. They claim the White Sox make a decent amount of money, and that's after paying all these salaries. Edited December 22, 2009 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Dye Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:02 PM) A baseball team is under no obligation to spend more than they make and are under no obligation to simply break even. It's a business. It isn't a public trust. That said, I still have an incredibly difficult time understanding how people can still call this organization cheap, despite the cascade of hard evidence that proves otherwise. It's almost like arguing that Yao Ming isn't tall. Here's the reality, and where I believe the argument should cease: for the last several years, the Sox payroll is exactly in line (and sometimes even higher) with their attendance for a given season. When they have middle-of-the-road attendance, they have a middle-of-the-road payroll. It happens EVERY year -- except for years like 2006 when they were 10th in attendance, yet 4th in payroll. Hell, you could go back to 2001 when they had the 22nd highest attendance but their payroll was 16th in MLB. There is just no disputing this. This is fact, not opinion. Even though I don't call the Sox tight with money, I think there's a valid argument some make that they refuse to do certain deals out of principle. Boras aside, they wont do what other clubs are doing in overpaying for talent. Is it a distaste for Boras in particular or for what he represents in a larger sense? The whole thing about not signing long term free agent pitchers.... It pains a bit to watch other teams do it and win championships. I think what we'd all like is this great farm system pumping out cheap talent... to cushion the blow for free agent overpays. But obviously it's easier said than done. Overall I agree with you.... the angry Sox fan should focus their argument on how the org spends the money...not claim that they dont spend it. That part is just wrong. Because the Albert Belle signing was such an anomaly for this franchise, it just seems like they're cheap. But that's not doing one's homework. Edited December 22, 2009 by Princess Dye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:54 PM) I'm unsophisticated and you believe everything KW tells you about White Sox money. The proof is in the pudding. They said they had no money and then in June the trade for Peavy and claim Rios. They obviously had money. If they had all this money laying around that was earmarked for player development, like you throw out as a possibility, I ask have they not learned their lesson? If they could develop some players. they wouldn't have the holes they have. I'm sorry but ballpark improvements would be inaccurate for the White Sox. They don't own the park. They don't pay for improvements. They started their other business. It was money for that. There was no cash call. I know that for a fact. Do some research on the IPO non offering. Its pretty interesting, and its not just JR, its every owner. Many of the same guys who own the White Sox also own the Bulls. Look how they operate. They can't even play with a full roster because the organization, one that Forbes estimates made $51 million in profit last year, refuses to sign a minimum wage guy because it will take them over the luxury threshold and while not turning them unprofitable, it will cut into the profit a couple of million. What's funny is when the White Sox paid $5 million to Tucson so they could move to Phoenix, you guys used that as $5 million that couldn't be used on the payroll. I suggested it came from a different source than payroll and was talked down to. Dick, it's not that I believe everything they say, it's just that I don't think they have any reason to lie to us. I trust, through the behavior of the owner and the GM, that they do everything in their power to win. I am not on some mission or crusade to uncover every unspent dollar that may be in the cushions of their couch. For whatever reason, you are. 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.