Reinsdorf tid-bits

[Dick Allen]

Because logic says that one of your two assertions is completely wrong. If you believe that the Sox do not put their profits back into the team annually, that means the money goes back to the partners/shareholders as profit. If this is the case, that also means that there isn't any "extra" money around from year to year, because that money is gone out of the organization. If they do reinvest the profits and do have money available when they say they don't, then your assertion that they have made all of this money over the years, asserted by you to be all of the years single profit totals added up together, isn't really true because it would skew by the total of the money added back into the system. For example, starting with what I will call year one, say the Sox make $20 million, which seems to be pretty typical. If they don't pay out that money, and they do reinvest it into the team in the form of a cash infusion, it goes back on to the ledger as cash. If they make $25 million in year two, they actually only made $5 million in actual profit this year, because they still have the first $20 million in cash from year one, and so on down the line.

 

So you tell me, which of your assertions is wrong?

I'm not wrong at all. I don't know what they do with the profits but they don't spend them on the baseball team. Maybe they divvy them up, maybe they buy bonds or something else with them. But if every dime is supposedly going in the baseball operation, that money should be available to spend on players. If the money is around to pass out to partners or place in some account somewhere, it certainly could be made available to pay for players.Forbes has the White Sox making a collective $135 million in profit from the 1999 season through the 2008 season. They had one season where Forbes said they lost $4 million and one where Forbes said they made $1 million. According to them, the White Sox have made $87 million in profit, that's after raising payroll and paying all expenses from 2005-2008.

 

The profit Forbes estimates doesn't include the supposed profit they held onto from the year prior. These profits are separate from each other. A $20 million profit one year, than raising the payroll $20 million but a $25 million profit the next year isn't a $5 million total profit, or a $25 million total profit. Its a $45 million total profit. The higher payroll is included in the figures. The franchise value has gone from $315 million right after they won the WS to $450 million estimated on opening day 2009. Doesn't sound like a break even business to me.

 

Again, show one thing, just one, other than a White Sox employee insisting its true, that they truly only break even.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

I'm not wrong at all. I don't know what they do with the profits but they don't spend them on the baseball team. Maybe they divvy them up, maybe they buy bonds or something else with them. But if every dime is supposedly going in the baseball operation, that money should be available to spend on players. If the money is around to pass out to partners or place in some account somewhere, it certainly could be made available to pay for players.Forbes has the White Sox making a collective $135 million in profit from the 1999 season through the 2008 season. They had one season where Forbes said they lost $4 million and one where Forbes said they made $1 million. According to them, the White Sox have made $87 million in profit, that's after raising payroll and paying all expenses from 2005-2008.

 

The profit Forbes estimates doesn't include the supposed profit they held onto from the year prior. These profits are separate from each other. A $20 million profit one year, than raising the payroll $20 million but a $25 million profit the next year isn't a $5 million total profit, or a $25 million total profit. Its a $45 million total profit. The higher payroll is included in the figures. The franchise value has gone from $315 million right after they won the WS to $450 million estimated on opening day 2009. Doesn't sound like a break even business to me.

 

Again, show one thing, just one, other than a White Sox employee insisting its true, that they truly only break even.

 

So you know, but you don't know what they do with the money, that makes no sense. Either the money goes back into the team, or it leaves the organization never to be seen again, as you stated very clearly prior to this point that you know they never do any capital raises. If the money does leave in the form of profits, as you keep asserting how much money everyone is making off of the team, it is NOT available to the team the next season. You can not have it both ways. It is either reinvested, or it isn't.

 

Also I want to see exactly where Forbes states that reinvested funds are not included in annual profits. I looked again at their statements for each line, and none of them says anything like that. The explanation for operating incomes is this...

 

5Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.

 

Nothing is stated about retained earnings.

 

Finally as an accountant you have got to understand that the valuation of a business has zero to do with its profitability, right? Take Ford for example. They are valued at billions of dollars, and they are very clearly not making a dime. That is a complete non sequitor to the statements you are trying to assert here.

[Dick Allen]

So you know, but you don't know what they do with the money, that makes no sense. Either the money goes back into the team, or it leaves the organization never to be seen again, as you stated very clearly prior to this point that you know they never do any capital raises. If the money does leave in the form of profits, as you keep asserting how much money everyone is making off of the team, it is NOT available to the team the next season. You can not have it both ways. It is either reinvested, or it isn't.

 

Also I want to see exactly where Forbes states that reinvested funds are not included in annual profits. I looked again at their statements for each line, and none of them says anything like that. The explanation for operating incomes is this...

 

 

 

Nothing is stated about retained earnings.

 

Finally as an accountant you have got to understand that the valuation of a business has zero to do with its profitability, right? Take Ford for example. They are valued at billions of dollars, and they are very clearly not making a dime. That is a complete non sequitor to the statements you are trying to assert here.

Again, what is your evidence they don't make money? Its the 3rd time I have asked. Nothing is stated about retained earnings because those aren't considered in their estimates. As far as profitability having zero to do with a valuation of a business, wow. If Ford was making a billion dollars a year wouldn't they be valued higher than they are right now? After all if they liquidated everything they owned, they would have some cash.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

Again, what is your evidence they don't make money? Its the 3rd time I have asked?

 

I have given you all kids of evidence. The Forbes numbers you have given are actually the best proof for my point. I have explained, in detail, how those numbers work, and you have yet to be able to actually refute that.

 

Short of actually having their books, there isn't much more I can give you. I can't help it if you don't understand basic accounting for some reason. Though I suspect the sudden shift in debate tactics has more to do with knowing you can't prove both of your points, so you have given that up and tried to change the argument instead.

[Dick Allen]

I have given you all kids of evidence. The Forbes numbers you have given are actually the best proof for my point. I have explained, in detail, how those numbers work, and you have yet to be able to actually refute that.

 

Short of actually having their books, there isn't much more I can give you. I can't help it if you don't understand basic accounting for some reason. Though I suspect the sudden shift in debate tactics has more to do with knowing you can't prove both of your points, so you have given that up and tried to change the argument instead.

You have given no evidence. You just assume Forbes uses the White Sox profit from the previous year and restates it as revenue the next season. Why does Forbes call the White Sox one of the most profitable teams in baseball if they are your best example of proof they break even?

 

From Forbes:

 

Team Value1$450 mil

 

 

The Chicago White Sox

are owned by Jerry Reinsdorf,

who bought them in 1981

for $20 mil.

 

2008 Wins-to-player cost ratio8 87

 

 

 

Valuation Breakdown

 

 

The skinny

During the past few years the Chicago White Sox have gone from being one of the most ineffective franchises in baseball to one of the most effective. Owner Jerry Reinsdorf, who bought the Sox in 1981 and is the only current owner to have won a title in two of the four major U.S. team sports (White Sox and the NBA's Bulls), made two crucial decisions that turned his franchise around: hiring Ozzie Guillen to be manager (a .534 winning percentage over five season and World Series title in 2005) prior to the 2004 season and renovating U.S. Cellular Field into a more fan-friendly ballpark (much cleaner and safer and seating with better sightlines). Attendance is up 25% during the past five seasons and the team is among the most profitable in baseball.

 

If that's the best proof of your point they make no money.........................................

Edited January 14, 2010 by Dick Allen

[kapkomet]

Again, what is your evidence they don't make money? Its the 3rd time I have asked. Nothing is stated about retained earnings because those aren't considered in their estimates. As far as profitability having zero to do with a valuation of a business, wow. If Ford was making a billion dollars a year wouldn't they be valued higher than they are right now? After all if they liquidated everything they owned, they would have some cash.

 

nevermind. already addressed.

Edited January 14, 2010 by kapkomet

[southsider2k5]

You have given no evidence. You just assume Forbes uses the White Sox profit from the previous year and restates it as revenue the next season. Why does Forbes call the White Sox one of the most profitable teams in baseball if they are your best example of proof they break even?

 

From Forbes:

 

Team Value1$450 mil

 

 

The Chicago White Sox

are owned by Jerry Reinsdorf,

who bought them in 1981

for $20 mil.

 

2008 Wins-to-player cost ratio8 87

 

 

 

Valuation Breakdown

 

 

The skinny

During the past few years the Chicago White Sox have gone from being one of the most ineffective franchises in baseball to one of the most effective. Owner Jerry Reinsdorf, who bought the Sox in 1981 and is the only current owner to have won a title in two of the four major U.S. team sports (White Sox and the NBA's Bulls), made two crucial decisions that turned his franchise around: hiring Ozzie Guillen to be manager (a .534 winning percentage over five season and World Series title in 2005) prior to the 2004 season and renovating U.S. Cellular Field into a more fan-friendly ballpark (much cleaner and safer and seating with better sightlines). Attendance is up 25% during the past five seasons and the team is among the most profitable in baseball.

 

If that's the best proof of your point they make no money.........................................

 

Um, you are the one who is trying to tell me that retained earnings are excluded with no evidence to actually prove that. If retained earnings are included, like I have contended all along, that means your theory about the Sox earning ridiculous amounts of money, is wrong. If they Sox don't retain earnings and instead pay that money out to shareholders in the form of profits, that means that the Sox don't have any extra money to spend, again meaning you are wrong. Either way, you have backed yourself into a corner, and are wrong at some point.

[Dick Allen]

Um, you are the one who is trying to tell me that retained earnings are excluded with no evidence to actually prove that. If retained earnings are included, like I have contended all along, that means your theory about the Sox earning ridiculous amounts of money, is wrong. If they Sox don't retain earnings and instead pay that money out to shareholders in the form of profits, that means that the Sox don't have any extra money to spend, again meaning you are wrong. Either way, you have backed yourself into a corner, and are wrong at some point.

There is no evidence Forbes uses retained earnings as revenue for the next season. None. Forbes calls them one of the most profitable. You say Forbes numbers prove they break even. The Spx say every dime that comes in goes into making the team better, they just want to break even. Maybe every dime that comes in goes out, but then some of it goes to the shareholders, and when they get done with some calculations the books say they break even, but you know that doesn't mean they really break even. That's deceiving. Its not the bill of goods they sell when they say it, and you know that as well as anyone. Just remember, MLB could raise what is being estimated to be $5 billion right now, more than $150 million per team if they offered an IPO on MLB advanced media. They won't do it because the owners profits and personal wealth would be exposed. Boras and his buddies would have a field day. Some fans would be irate. I'm just happy JR is on record saying money is available for more players. Hopefully, it will keep KW from talking about having to play day games because they can't pay the electric bill.

 

 

 

 

 

Previous: San Francisco Giants

Next: Atlanta Braves

 

 

 

1-Yr Value Chg. 2%

Ann. Value Chg.2 12%

Debt/Value3 9%

Revenue4 $196 mil

Operating Inc.5 $13.8 mil

Player Expenses6 $126 mil

Gate Receipts7 $71 mil

 

 

Facility Information

 

U.S. Cellular Field

Owner: Illinois Sports Facilities Authority

Year Opened: 1991

Capacity: 40,615

Cost To Build: $167 mil

Concessionaire: Sportservice

Average Ticket Price: $30

 

 

 

 

Sport: Portion of franchise's value attributable to revenue shared among all teams.

Market: Portion of franchise's value attributable to its city and market size.

Stadium: Portion of franchise's value attributable to its stadium.

Brand Management: Portion of franchise's value attributable to the management of its brand.

Revenues and operating income are for 2008 season and are net of revenue sharing.

NA: Not applicable.

Team Logos Courtesy MLB.

 

 

 

 

Rank

Team

Current Value

1-Yr Value Change

Debt/Value

Revenues

Operating Income

 

 

 

 

 

1Value of team based on current stadium deal (unless new stadium is pending) without deduction for debt (other than stadium debt). 2Current team value compared with latest transaction price. 3Includes stadium debt. 4Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments. 5Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. 6Includes benefits and bonuses. 7Includes club seats. 8Compares the number of wins per player payroll relative to the rest of the MLB. Postseason wins count twice as much as regular season wins. A score of 120 means that the team achieved 20% more victories per dollar of payroll compared with the league average. Photos AP

Edited January 14, 2010 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

There is no evidence Forbes uses retained earnings as revenue for the next season. None. Forbes calls them one of the most profitable. You say Forbes numbers prove they break even. The Spx say every dime that comes in goes into making the team better, they just want to break even. Maybe every dime that comes in goes out, but then some of it goes to the shareholders, and when they get done with some calculations the books say they break even, but you know that doesn't mean they really break even. That's deceiving. Its not the bill of goods they sell when they say it, and you know that as well as anyone. Just remember, MLB could raise what is being estimated to be $5 billion right now, more than $150 million per team if they offered an IPO on MLB advanced media. They won't do it because the owners profits and personal wealth would be exposed. Boras and his buddies would have a field day. Some fans would be irate. I'm just happy JR is on record saying money is available for more players. Hopefully, it will keep KW from talking about having to play day games because they can't pay the electric bill.

 

Forbes is full of s***. If KW says they break even, they break even.

 

The evidence is pretty damned clear. They listed the things they excluded! If it was excluded, they would have said so, just like they did for interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Whey in the heck would they list four things, but not the rest of them? That is so completely counterintuative.

 

Is it so hard to understand the Sox look profitable because many other owners are willing to lose money on a team every year?

 

Anyway, I think it is pretty clear your basic assumptions are completely exclusionary. You haven't been able to prove otherwise, so now you are trying to nitpick methodology, dispite it still making at least one of the pillars of your faith null and void.

[southsider2k5]

There is no evidence Forbes uses retained earnings as revenue for the next season. None. Forbes calls them one of the most profitable. You say Forbes numbers prove they break even. The Spx say every dime that comes in goes into making the team better, they just want to break even. Maybe every dime that comes in goes out, but then some of it goes to the shareholders, and when they get done with some calculations the books say they break even, but you know that doesn't mean they really break even. That's deceiving. Its not the bill of goods they sell when they say it, and you know that as well as anyone. Just remember, MLB could raise what is being estimated to be $5 billion right now, more than $150 million per team if they offered an IPO on MLB advanced media. They won't do it because the owners profits and personal wealth would be exposed. Boras and his buddies would have a field day. Some fans would be irate. I'm just happy JR is on record saying money is available for more players. Hopefully, it will keep KW from talking about having to play day games because they can't pay the electric bill.

 

 

 

 

 

Previous: San Francisco Giants

Next: Atlanta Braves

 

 

 

1-Yr Value Chg. 2%

Ann. Value Chg.2 12%

Debt/Value3 9%

Revenue4 $196 mil

Operating Inc.5 $13.8 mil

Player Expenses6 $126 mil

Gate Receipts7 $71 mil

 

 

Facility Information

 

U.S. Cellular Field

Owner: Illinois Sports Facilities Authority

Year Opened: 1991

Capacity: 40,615

Cost To Build: $167 mil

Concessionaire: Sportservice

Average Ticket Price: $30

 

 

 

 

Sport: Portion of franchise's value attributable to revenue shared among all teams.

Market: Portion of franchise's value attributable to its city and market size.

Stadium: Portion of franchise's value attributable to its stadium.

Brand Management: Portion of franchise's value attributable to the management of its brand.

Revenues and operating income are for 2008 season and are net of revenue sharing.

NA: Not applicable.

Team Logos Courtesy MLB.

 

 

 

 

Rank

Team

Current Value

1-Yr Value Change

Debt/Value

Revenues

Operating Income

 

 

 

 

 

1Value of team based on current stadium deal (unless new stadium is pending) without deduction for debt (other than stadium debt). 2Current team value compared with latest transaction price. 3Includes stadium debt. 4Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments. 5Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. 6Includes benefits and bonuses. 7Includes club seats. 8Compares the number of wins per player payroll relative to the rest of the MLB. Postseason wins count twice as much as regular season wins. A score of 120 means that the team achieved 20% more victories per dollar of payroll compared with the league average. Photos AP

 

I just noticed the edit you threw in there after the fact, and that still doesn't change anything. Retained earnings for 2007(and all prior years), would still be on the 2008 balance sheet...as retained earnings. You do understand that right? I haven't opened an accounting book since before half of this board was born, and I understand that much.

[fathom]

DA, you know you're my favorite poster on here. With that said, I'm getting frustrated seeing the same argument between you and SS2k, etc. I'm sure a lot of posters on here just skip these long posts, even though I'm sure they're well written and insightful.

[Dick Allen]

I just noticed the edit you threw in there after the fact, and that still doesn't change anything. Retained earnings for 2007(and all prior years), would still be on the 2008 balance sheet...as retained earnings. You do understand that right? I haven't opened an accounting book since before half of this board was born, and I understand that much.

Where would they get that info? Would they just assume the White Sox throw everything they make back into the team. I'm still trying to figure out how profitability means zero in business valuation. Again and it will be the last time, why would Forbes, if they are using the method you suggest, go on to say they are one of the most profitable teams in baseball if they are not? Beleive what you want. JR said they have money to spend. That's really all I care about.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

Where would they get that info? Would they just assume the White Sox throw everything they make back into the team. I'm still trying to figure out how profitability means zero in business valuation. Again and it will be the last time, why would Forbes, if they are using the method you suggest, go on to say they are one of the most profitable teams in baseball if they are not? Beleive what you want. JR said they have money to spend. That's really all I care about.

 

Because they are one of the few teams that are showing a profit every year. It's not too complex. I have no idea where they get their info from.

[joeynach]

The money does not leave the organization. One of my parents friends is a shareholder. The owners own equity in the team, the dont get cash from profit, they are not on payroll. The only way a shareholder or owner makes hard cash from their ownership is if they were to sell their stake in the organization. That is where the increased value of the team is important. Being worth 450 Million instead of 300 Mil makes your shares worth more when sold. The actualy money the team makes goes into the organization as a whole. Payroll, player development, spring training facilities, stadium upgrades, front office payroll/benefits, insurance, services, etc. All those things are paid for by the cash they take in. If there is any cash leftover at the end it is simply added to an area of need or held on to (assumably earning interest) until a need is found. Where do you think the money comes from for mid-season acquisitions or to pay for the supposed new bar/restaurant area outside Gate 5.

[WHITESOXRANDY]

The team is more like the 2005 team but with better pitching all around. Everyone except Pierre and AJ can easily hit 20-30 HR.

 

Pierre: 1 HR

Beckham: 25 HR

Quentin: 40 HR

Konerko: 30 HR

AJ: 15 HR

Rios: 25 HR

Missile: 20 HR

Teahen: 20 HR

Bench: 30 HR

 

Is this not realistic? Around 200 HRs of the balanced variety. 20 From Jones and another 10 between Nix, Kotsay and Castro. Maybe we could use another player but I'm ok with this. I still wish we had another good outfielder.

 

The only difference from 2005 is that this pitching staff only has to pitch up to its ability, not out their asses like 2005.

 

Completely agree. Plus, this team batting average will probably be between .275 an d.280. That will score plenty of runs.

 

[Jerksticks]

I don't worry so much about Garcia/Hudson because the front 4 is so powerful. What was it 2003 or 2004 where we had that rotating door of crap 5th starters going like 4-15? Our front 4 are way better than that year. I don't think Hudson would post awful numbers if Garcia goes down, either.

[southsider2k5]

The money does not leave the organization. One of my parents friends is a shareholder. The owners own equity in the team, the dont get cash from profit, they are not on payroll. The only way a shareholder or owner makes hard cash from their ownership is if they were to sell their stake in the organization. That is where the increased value of the team is important. Being worth 450 Million instead of 300 Mil makes your shares worth more when sold. The actualy money the team makes goes into the organization as a whole. Payroll, player development, spring training facilities, stadium upgrades, front office payroll/benefits, insurance, services, etc. All those things are paid for by the cash they take in. If there is any cash leftover at the end it is simply added to an area of need or held on to (assumably earning interest) until a need is found. Where do you think the money comes from for mid-season acquisitions or to pay for the supposed new bar/restaurant area outside Gate 5.

 

Well there you go. Myth #1 (The Sox ownership group makes tons of cash) dead.

[iamshack]

The money does not leave the organization. One of my parents friends is a shareholder. The owners own equity in the team, the dont get cash from profit, they are not on payroll. The only way a shareholder or owner makes hard cash from their ownership is if they were to sell their stake in the organization. That is where the increased value of the team is important. Being worth 450 Million instead of 300 Mil makes your shares worth more when sold. The actualy money the team makes goes into the organization as a whole. Payroll, player development, spring training facilities, stadium upgrades, front office payroll/benefits, insurance, services, etc. All those things are paid for by the cash they take in. If there is any cash leftover at the end it is simply added to an area of need or held on to (assumably earning interest) until a need is found. Where do you think the money comes from for mid-season acquisitions or to pay for the supposed new bar/restaurant area outside Gate 5.

Shocking.

[rowand's rowdies]

thanks joeynach for explaining that. you're absolutely correct. not sure why that is such a suprise to people to hear, but it always is. Truth is as much as people talk about sports and think they know what's going on and how it works, they have no idea.

 

Here's most people's idea of how it works:

 

Billionare Owners

- Salarys (Players on the 25 man only)

+ Ticket and Sponsorship Revenue (which is way over valued)

+ Food and Beverage and Parking

---------------------------------------------

= Lots of money for the owners

 

if your team sucks, people just assume that the owners arent making money and that they should throw more of their money at the problem to fix it.

 

Among other things, people never take into account front office salaries (from GM to scout to ticket rep to guys who pull the tarp), minor league salaries, spring training costs, travel, insurance, commission for sales reps, taxes, utilities, stadium costs, and a million other things.

 

Running a sports franchise and making money off of it is a VERY rare thing. Unless it's the NFL, you might have 10 teams in the other 3 leagues that turn a mentionable profit.

 

There are things like salary and stadium depreciation and tax shielding, dont get me wrong. The owners still find ways to make it beneficial, but these myths about how baseball economics work have gotta stop...

 

 

[rowand's rowdies]

and to get this back on white sox baseball, although staying in a negative light, i sometimes think we have cubs fans on this board pretending to be sox fans. at least that is what some of your baseball opinions show me.

 

juan pierre is not the worst hitter on this team. period. you can throw all the stats at it all day long, but he will be a valuable member of this team, and at worst a disapointment at $4 mil a year, which isnt going to kill us.

 

pods is one injury away from being done and one bad streak away from being back looking for a minor league job. not to mention he's 20 feet away from the fly ball about to hit the ground he misplayed. i love the guy and what he's done but im sure they gave him a reasonable offer to come back, and he decided to move on. what he took on the market now doesnt mean the sox didnt offer that much. look at what polanco got, if he signed now he might only get half that, and he signed about 2 months ago?

 

if it's true that dye is looking for 3 million 1 year, then I say we take that route. i dont see him being through and he's perfect for the cell. he wants to play some field...earn it. you're gonna have to beat out some decent fielders, JD, so earn it. otherwise we've got a rotating DH.

 

i ask this next thing for all sox fans who understand the game.

 

please stop pretending that you know something because some computer stat system or projection method tells you something.

 

the making of a successful team is much more complex than you think it is. let kenny and ozzie, who have more GM and managing experience than the rest of us will ever have, COMBINED, do their jobs and try to bring us another world series.

 

go sox

[southsider2k5]

and to get this back on white sox baseball, although staying in a negative light, i sometimes think we have cubs fans on this board pretending to be sox fans. at least that is what some of your baseball opinions show me.

 

juan pierre is not the worst hitter on this team. period. you can throw all the stats at it all day long, but he will be a valuable member of this team, and at worst a disapointment at $4 mil a year, which isnt going to kill us.

 

pods is one injury away from being done and one bad streak away from being back looking for a minor league job. not to mention he's 20 feet away from the fly ball about to hit the ground he misplayed. i love the guy and what he's done but im sure they gave him a reasonable offer to come back, and he decided to move on. what he took on the market now doesnt mean the sox didnt offer that much. look at what polanco got, if he signed now he might only get half that, and he signed about 2 months ago?

 

if it's true that dye is looking for 3 million 1 year, then I say we take that route. i dont see him being through and he's perfect for the cell. he wants to play some field...earn it. you're gonna have to beat out some decent fielders, JD, so earn it. otherwise we've got a rotating DH.

 

i ask this next thing for all sox fans who understand the game.

 

please stop pretending that you know something because some computer stat system or projection method tells you something.

 

the making of a successful team is much more complex than you think it is. let kenny and ozzie, who have more GM and managing experience than the rest of us will ever have, COMBINED, do their jobs and try to bring us another world series.

 

go sox

 

Dye didn't ask for that amount. It was offered by Texas and he didn't take it.

[NorthSideSox72]

and to get this back on white sox baseball, although staying in a negative light, i sometimes think we have cubs fans on this board pretending to be sox fans. at least that is what some of your baseball opinions show me.

 

juan pierre is not the worst hitter on this team. period. you can throw all the stats at it all day long, but he will be a valuable member of this team, and at worst a disapointment at $4 mil a year, which isnt going to kill us.

 

pods is one injury away from being done and one bad streak away from being back looking for a minor league job. not to mention he's 20 feet away from the fly ball about to hit the ground he misplayed. i love the guy and what he's done but im sure they gave him a reasonable offer to come back, and he decided to move on. what he took on the market now doesnt mean the sox didnt offer that much. look at what polanco got, if he signed now he might only get half that, and he signed about 2 months ago?

 

if it's true that dye is looking for 3 million 1 year, then I say we take that route. i dont see him being through and he's perfect for the cell. he wants to play some field...earn it. you're gonna have to beat out some decent fielders, JD, so earn it. otherwise we've got a rotating DH.

 

i ask this next thing for all sox fans who understand the game.

 

please stop pretending that you know something because some computer stat system or projection method tells you something.

 

the making of a successful team is much more complex than you think it is. let kenny and ozzie, who have more GM and managing experience than the rest of us will ever have, COMBINED, do their jobs and try to bring us another world series.

 

go sox

 

This is only as stupid as the other side. You can't dismiss stats and what they tell you, nor can you say stats tell you everything. You saying people "pretend" to know because they use stats, is just as narrow minded as what you are accusing them of. Its also a little insulting.

 

 

[caulfield12]

thanks joeynach for explaining that. you're absolutely correct. not sure why that is such a suprise to people to hear, but it always is. Truth is as much as people talk about sports and think they know what's going on and how it works, they have no idea.

 

Here's most people's idea of how it works:

 

Billionare Owners

- Salarys (Players on the 25 man only)

+ Ticket and Sponsorship Revenue (which is way over valued)

+ Food and Beverage and Parking

---------------------------------------------

= Lots of money for the owners

 

if your team sucks, people just assume that the owners arent making money and that they should throw more of their money at the problem to fix it.

 

Among other things, people never take into account front office salaries (from GM to scout to ticket rep to guys who pull the tarp), minor league salaries, spring training costs, travel, insurance, commission for sales reps, taxes, utilities, stadium costs, and a million other things.

 

Running a sports franchise and making money off of it is a VERY rare thing. Unless it's the NFL, you might have 10 teams in the other 3 leagues that turn a mentionable profit.

 

There are things like salary and stadium depreciation and tax shielding, dont get me wrong. The owners still find ways to make it beneficial, but these myths about how baseball economics work have gotta stop...

 

 

You're not mentioning the tremendous amount of franchise value appreciation (think the Shanghai/Hong Kong/Shenzhen real estate market) that has happened over the last 20 years or so. Buying and then selling shares of the Rangers was the best business decision former President Bush ever made.

 

Then you have the revenue sharing making it profitable for the bottom 5-7 teams to stay in operation...in fact, for some of them, like the Pirates or Marlins, they've shown that they have no desire to improve as long as they can field teams with mostly league minimum salaries and shed most of their players in the arbitration years. What they really need to do is to put in a provision about teams in the bottom tier putting together "competitive" teams that are at least 76-86 or something like that so there would be an incentive for teams to at least try.

 

I'm sure the only teams struggling are those like the Royals, Blue Jays, Astros, Orioles, Padres, Indians, etc., that...

 

1) are in the bottom 10-12 for local media rights

2) have middle-tier payrolls

3) have created a losing tradition for their fans, with no incentive for the fans to have hope after trading many stars away

 

I'm sure the Top 10-12 teams in MLB are doing very very well. The other thing to take into consideration is the national/MLB media rights that have exploded over the last decade or so, since the McGwire/Sosa duel and the resurgence of the Yankees (coinciding with the rise of the stock market).

 

Even if 1/2 the major league teams weren't making a profit, if you look at their losses versus franchise appreciation over the period of investment, they're still going to get a decent payoff in the end. Drayton McLane or the Moores/Padres immediately come to mind. Look at how much he paid for the Astros less than 20 years ago and how much they're worth now.

 

Yes, NASCAR and the sagging economy have cut into the NBA and NHL to an extent, but there are surely more than 10 profitable franchises among those 60 or so teams as well. If there weren't, the salaries would be coming down in the NBA...or more teams would be going out of business or relocating, or the dreaded contraction would be heard. Look at the Blackhawks, they're tremendously successful now...after years of mismanagement. I would guess that at least half the NBA/NHL teams have to be profitable of the leagues would be going the way of women's professional soccer or the WNBA.

 

When's the last time you heard the word contraction in connection with MLB? Not long ago, they were going to get rid of the Twins, remember that?

Edited January 14, 2010 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

This is only as stupid as the other side. You can't dismiss stats and what they tell you, nor can you say stats tell you everything. You saying people "pretend" to know because they use stats, is just as narrow minded as what you are accusing them of. Its also a little insulting.

 

 

I think BOTH situations are amazingly annoying, because if there's anything more aggravating than someone saying "I go with what I see," it's making analyses of players that not-too-rarely posters have never even see play once.

 

For example, minor league players. Look at Derek Jeter's error totals from 1993 at Greensboro. Now he's not exactly a Gold Glove defender these days, but going by his minor league stats, you would have thought he never would have been a major league shortstop or Hall of Famer.

 

You can't take two months of success for Jordan Danks or two months of "failure" by Dayan Viciedo statistically and write them off just based on statistical analysis from behind a keyboard. Especially with pitching...because scouts have a lot better idea about "repeatable" and stress-free deliveries and which ones will hold up over a career and which ones seem more doomed to failure and injury (see Wood, Kerry). That's why I always enjoy reading minor league reports by posters and writers who have actually seen the players play.

 

Not only seeing them play, but watching them on a day-to-day basis. You'll still get many posters arguing that Valentin was a better shortstop than Royce Clayton, for example, because Jose's range and throwing arm made up for a tremendous amount of errors. But even KW got caught up in the error totals and media focus on that specific number and made a change that turned out to have negative overall consequences to the team.

 

And some of the SABR/STAT "geeks" also tend to take a holier than thou attitude that they're right, they know they're right, and everyone else needs to see the light and stop hiding underneath that rock of ignorance that is the "old school" Grady Fuson/Moneyball tradition of going with your eyeballs...what you actually see in front of your eyes. And then part of it's generational warfare, the posters who've been around White Sox baseball for decades and could care less about OPS, VORP or fielding indexes, versus the Internet-era posters usually around age 18-34.

 

So of course the best posters will draw from both...no mountain of statistics will convince anyone otherwise.

 

Take a look at Tadahito Iguchi, one of the most important players to the White Sox this decade. Looking at him statistically, almost NOTHING stands out (although his stats, overall, are still 'better' than Chris Getz, for example)...but unless you watched those 05/06 teams on an everyday basis, you might come to the average he has an average player. Actually, he was the perfect player for our club and made a good team great at times. But no SABR report will ever come to that conclusion. Heck, a computer doesn't "feel" the terror that Pods put into opposing teams in the first half of 2005 and how that threat affected the tenor of many games from the get-go. That's why when I read about having a Swisher or Youkilis leading off, I recall the days of Tim Raines, Willie Wilson, Rickey Henderson and Vince Coleman/Willie McGee, when speed would literally run another team off the field. Teams like the D-Rays and Angels are more modern examples of this approach, although it changed because of the steroids error.

Edited January 15, 2010 by caulfield12

[Kyyle23]

You're not mentioning the tremendous amount of franchise value appreciation (think the Shanghai/Hong Kong/Shenzhen real estate market) that has happened over the last 20 years or so. Buying and then selling shares of the Rangers was the best business decision former President Bush ever made.

 

LMAO, what?