Tigers Sign Damon - 1 yr, 8 mil; NTC

[gatnom]

Yeah, I would've liked to have Thome back. And I don't know why he wasn't brought back.

 

That said, our offense has sucked balls down the stretch in two of the past three years with both Thome and JD in the lineup. I don't see how bringing back a declining, 39-year-old Thome is going to propel us to to a division title. He would've been a nice (and cheap) addition, but was unlikely to be a game-changer.

 

I just don't think it's a very good idea to get worse at any position unless you have a legitimate reason (i.e. not being able to afford good players). Even if you think Thome is declining and due for a big drop off, signing him for Mark Kotsay money is a low-risk move. Overall I haven't been a big fan of Kenny's off season, but with exception to the decision not to sign Thome, I can understand why he did what he did due to money constraints.

[ThunderBolt]

There's one other thing you're missing when you repeat that 7.5 games we have to make up issue...the big 20.

 

If Carlos Quentin hits like he did last year to open and close the season when he wasn't hurt, that's basically taking a slightly below average LF with the bat and replacing him with an MVP.

 

If Q isn't all there, then this team is going to struggle a lot again.

I think the new nickname for the team should be the "X-Factors." Hell, maybe even the "Q-Factors." We have a lot to hope for coming into this year.

[Pants Rowland]

I just don't think it's a very good idea to get worse at any position unless you have a legitimate reason (i.e. not being able to afford good players). Even if you think Thome is declining and due for a big drop off, signing him for Mark Kotsay money is a low-risk move. Overall I haven't been a big fan of Kenny's off season, but with exception to the decision not to sign Thome, I can understand why he did what he did due to money constraints.

 

Maybe you got worse at DH but you also improved your combined production from 2nd and third base and possibly improved the overall IF defense in the process. Also, by removing Dye from the OF and making the big assumption that Q stays healthy, you have a much improved OF defense as well (other than arm strength, Pierre is much better than Pods, too). I think too many of us are so focused on the DH quandry that we are overlooking the benefits this improved defense will provide, even if on paper they appear to weaken the offense.

[WCSox]

I just don't think it's a very good idea to get worse at any position unless you have a legitimate reason (i.e. not being able to afford good players). Even if you think Thome is declining and due for a big drop off, signing him for Mark Kotsay money is a low-risk move. Overall I haven't been a big fan of Kenny's off season, but with exception to the decision not to sign Thome, I can understand why he did what he did due to money constraints.

 

Obviously, the decision to not bring back Thome had little to do with financial constraints. It probably had to do with the fact that Thome's going to be 39 this year, his OPS has slid significantly over the past four seasons, he's had a history of battling minor injuries, and he clogs up a roster spot during interleague play because he can't do anything other than DH. Granted, I would've taken Thome over Andruw Jones in a second, but we don't know the full story. Maybe Thome wasn't happy in Chicago (despite what he said publicly). Maybe he privately told Kenny that he wanted to move on. Many things happen behind closed doors that we never hear about.

 

[hogan873]

That said, our offense has sucked balls down the stretch in two of the past three years with both Thome and JD in the lineup. I don't see how bringing back a 39-year-old Thome is going to propel us to to a division title. He would've been a nice (and cheap) addition, but was unlikely to be a game-changer.

 

Game changer...no. But having Thome (for a mere $1.5 million) would have only added to the flexibility that KW and Ozzie keep talking about at the DH position. At 39 years old and in declining health, Thome is not an every day DH. I don't know if one of his stipulations was a certain amount of playing time, but he could have easily been in the DH spot 3 or 4 times a week. Then Ozzie could use others in that position for the remainder of those games.

 

I just don't see the reason for not having signed Thome. However, I will have to assume there are reasons we don't know about. Because the alternative is baffling.

[WCSox]

Game changer...no. But having Thome (for a mere $1.5 million) would have only added to the flexibility that KW and Ozzie keep talking about at the DH position. At 39 years old and in declining health, Thome is not an every day DH. I don't know if one of his stipulations was a certain amount of playing time, but he could have easily been in the DH spot 3 or 4 times a week. Then Ozzie could use others in that position for the remainder of those games.

 

I just don't see the reason for not having signed Thome. However, I will have to assume there are reasons we don't know about. Because the alternative is baffling.

 

Given Thome's struggles against LHP, playing time very well may have been a factor.

 

[hogan873]

Given Thome's struggles against LHP, playing time very well may have been a factor.

That was kind of my thinking. But if he was aware of his own struggles and the Sox were aware of those struggles, I would think they would agree on curtailed playing time. I'm inclined to agree with you that there were things behind the scene we don't know about.

[RockRaines]

Game changer...no. But having Thome (for a mere $1.5 million) would have only added to the flexibility that KW and Ozzie keep talking about at the DH position. At 39 years old and in declining health, Thome is not an every day DH. I don't know if one of his stipulations was a certain amount of playing time, but he could have easily been in the DH spot 3 or 4 times a week. Then Ozzie could use others in that position for the remainder of those games.

 

I just don't see the reason for not having signed Thome. However, I will have to assume there are reasons we don't know about. Because the alternative is baffling.

So you are in favor of wasting a roster spot for a part time DH that cant even play the field?

[Kalapse]

Between the Twins, Tigers, Royals and Indians there's only 4 left handed starters in the AL Central as of today and none of them are particularly good (though Liriano is a wild card): Sowers, Huff, Laffey and Liriano (the 3 Indians are all on shaky ground with righties Carlos Carrasco and Mitch Talbot right in the mix as well with Talbot out of options.)

[hogan873]

So you are in favor of wasting a roster spot for a part time DH that cant even play the field?

 

That's not necessarily was I was saying. I see your point, but if Thome plays 60% of the time as the DH, I see value in that. However, I'm not the GM...which is probably a good thing.

[caulfield12]

It's also quite possible that Jones gets DFA'd at some point during the season. If he's not producing or isn't healthy, dumping him would free up a roster spot.

 

 

 

Over the past 6 months, Kenny has added Peavy, Rios, Pierre, Putz, Teahen, Jones, and Vizquel. I would've preferred Orlando Hudson over Teahen/Vziquel, but it's difficult for me to find much fault with the rest of those additions. Their payroll is currently just under $100M and they're in the lower half of MLB in attendance, so I'm not sure what else you want him to do.

 

 

That's not quite accurate to say the fans aren't supporting the team.

 

Attendance isn't as important as total revenue generated, and that was around #8-10 in the majors (because of our higher ticket prices/parking/concessions and media rights).

 

In fact, if you look at total revenue generated, I would guess we're even closer to #1 in that category as we are to having the biggest payroll in baseball.

[WCSox]

That's not quite accurate to say the fans aren't supporting the team.

 

That's an interesting straw man argument, but it's clearly not what I said.

 

Attendance isn't as important as total revenue generated, and that was around #8-10 in the majors (because of our higher ticket prices/parking/concessions and media rights).

 

In fact, if you look at total revenue generated, I would guess we're even closer to #1 in that category as we are to having the biggest payroll in baseball

 

You would guess, but you don't really know. I'm not sure that I believe that the Sox are even #8-10 in the league in revenue, as they're not the only franchise with lucrative media contacts and high prices. Were their books audited recently? That would be the only way to truly know.

 

I'll go out on a limb and guess that the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Phillies, Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers, Angels, and Giants haul in more money than the Sox on a regular basis. And I imagine that the Twins will make more money than the Sox next year with their new stadium and recent division title. If I were a guessing man, I would guess that the Sox are probably not in the Top 7 in revenue in MLB (despite carrying a payroll that's will most likely be in the Top 7).

Edited February 16, 2010 by WCSox

[caulfield12]

That's an interesting straw man argument, but it's clearly not what I said.

 

 

 

You would guess, but you don't really know. I'm not sure that I believe that the Sox are even #8-10 in the league in revenue, as they're not the only franchise that has raised ticket prices in recent years. Were their books audited recently? That would be the only way to truly know.

 

 

To me, it seemed like you were saying that it was logical for KW to keep the payroll constrained if our attendance was in the bottom 50%.

 

In other words, if you look at attendance in isolation, then it should be in line with your payroll, more or less?

 

True/false?

 

 

This was from before the 2008 season, after we hiked prices coming off the playoff appearance. The Red Sox had been first for many years but now it has flipped with the Yankees

 

 

AVERAGE TICKET PRICES

The Chicago Cubs, 100 years removed from their last World Series title, are second at $42.49, up 23.9 percent.

 

The Yankees, in their final season at Yankee Stadium, have the third-highest average ticket at $36.58, up a big league high 26.1 percent. The Yankees' real average is much higher.

 

Jon Greenberg, TMR's executive editor, said the team did not provide data and that he did not include the price of premium seating -- which covers a large percentage of New York's tickets. Yankees' box seats near the infield had a list price of $250 this year.

 

The Mets, in their final season at Shea Stadium, have the fourth-highest average at $34.05, an increase of 20.5 percent. The Chicago White Sox are fifth at $30.28, up 5.2 percent.

Twelve teams raised their averages more than 10 percent, including six with average hikes of more than 20 percent.

 

I don't subscribe to teammarketing.com, or I could get the "Fan Cost Index," which from what I understand would also put the White Sox in that #5-8 spot as well. Then you have to figure in the broadcasting/media rights, there's no reason we shouldn't have a Top 8-12 payroll every year.

Edited February 16, 2010 by caulfield12

[gatnom]

Maybe you got worse at DH but you also improved your combined production from 2nd and third base and possibly improved the overall IF defense in the process. Also, by removing Dye from the OF and making the big assumption that Q stays healthy, you have a much improved OF defense as well (other than arm strength, Pierre is much better than Pods, too). I think too many of us are so focused on the DH quandry that we are overlooking the benefits this improved defense will provide, even if on paper they appear to weaken the offense.

 

The point is that we could have done both at the same time. This organization had the money for Thome, and decided against it because they wanted to rotate mediocre to borderline bad hitters in the DH spot.

 

Obviously, the decision to not bring back Thome had little to do with financial constraints. It probably had to do with the fact that Thome's going to be 39 this year, his OPS has slid significantly over the past four seasons, he's had a history of battling minor injuries, and he clogs up a roster spot during interleague play because he can't do anything other than DH. Granted, I would've taken Thome over Andruw Jones in a second, but we don't know the full story. Maybe Thome wasn't happy in Chicago (despite what he said publicly). Maybe he privately told Kenny that he wanted to move on. Many things happen behind closed doors that we never hear about.

 

Once again, Jim Thome for $1.5 million is worth the risk of him declining a bit, and, realistically, Thome would have to decline a lot to be a worse hitter than Kotsay. He seemed to pretty clearly prefer the Sox to any other team that had interest in him as well. Maybe that was just a charade for Kenny or something, but that really doesn't make any sense.

[caulfield12]

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/ForbesValuations.htm#2009

 

This is the most recent. In total revenues, the White Sox were tied for 8th with the Giants at $196 million.

 

The franchise was the 10th highest valued at $450 million.

 

I stand by my point that we have no reason (especially with the advantage of WGN) NOT to be between 8-12 in payroll every season. Second, the fans really supported the team in 2006 (and 2008 was pretty good) when we had one of our largest payrolls. However, as expected, the attendance has been going down every season for two reasons, the fact that we're now five years removed from the positive ancillary effects of winning the World Series AND the disappointing 2007/2009 seasons, not to mention the end of 2006.

[WCSox]

To me, it seemed like you were saying that it was logical for KW to keep the payroll constrained if our attendance was in the bottom 50%.

 

In other words, if you look at attendance in isolation, then it should be in line with your payroll, more or less?

 

True/false?

 

 

This was from before the 2008 season, after we hiked prices coming off the playoff appearance. The Red Sox had been first for many years but now it has flipped with the Yankees

 

 

AVERAGE TICKET PRICES

The Chicago Cubs, 100 years removed from their last World Series title, are second at $42.49, up 23.9 percent.

 

The Yankees, in their final season at Yankee Stadium, have the third-highest average ticket at $36.58, up a big league high 26.1 percent. The Yankees' real average is much higher.

 

Jon Greenberg, TMR's executive editor, said the team did not provide data and that he did not include the price of premium seating -- which covers a large percentage of New York's tickets. Yankees' box seats near the infield had a list price of $250 this year.

 

The Mets, in their final season at Shea Stadium, have the fourth-highest average at $34.05, an increase of 20.5 percent. The Chicago White Sox are fifth at $30.28, up 5.2 percent.

Twelve teams raised their averages more than 10 percent, including six with average hikes of more than 20 percent.

 

I don't subscribe to teammarketing.com, or I could get the "Fan Cost Index," which from what I understand would also put the White Sox in that #5-8 spot as well. Then you have to figure in the broadcasting/media rights, there's no reason we shouldn't have a Top 8-12 payroll every year.

 

Except for the fact that the Sox were in the lower half in payroll prior to 2005 and that they never exceeded $70M prior to 2006. While their ticket sales have steadily declined since 2006, their payroll has not. As casual fan interest in the Sox continues to decline from the artificially-inflated post-WS numbers, not only will gate revenue slide, but leverage in future media contracts will subside as well.

 

The notion that the Sox will be able to stay in the top third of the league in revenue (and who knows if that number is accurate) indefinitely is silly. It's never been that way in the past, and there's no reason that it's going to be that way from here on out. This is also notoriously fickle fan base. JR & company can't continue to raise ticket/concession/parking prices on a dwindling number of ticket-buyers while simultaneously convincing media outlets to over-pay for broadcasting rights. It doesn't work that way. If the Sox regress to averaging 22,000 a game for multiple years, their payroll will eventually slide back to the bottom half of the league.

 

[WCSox]

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/ForbesValuations.htm#2009

 

This is the most recent. In total revenues, the White Sox were tied for 8th with the Giants at $196 million.

 

The franchise was the 10th highest valued at $450 million.

 

That's nice, but franchise value has little to do with payroll. That's like saying that somebody who nets $2,500 a month and has a $1,500/month mortgage has plenty of discretionary income because his house is valued at $400,000. Hell, the Cubs could increase their franchise value by paying less in salary and still draw 38,000 per game. If the Sox's books haven't been audited by a third party, it's difficult to determine exactly what they're earning every year.

 

I stand by my point that we have no reason (especially with the advantage of WGN) NOT to be between 8-12 in payroll every season. Second, the fans really supported the team in 2006 (and 2008 was pretty good) when we had one of our largest payrolls. However, as expected, the attendance has been going down every season for two reasons, the fact that we're now five years removed from the positive ancillary effects of winning the World Series AND the disappointing 2007/2009 seasons, not to mention the end of 2006.

 

You forgot about the Sox making the playoffs less than two years ago, which is (sadly) still a huge deal in Chicago. If they go 78-84 for a few straight seasons, I guarantee you that the payroll regresses to the league average as attendance drops below $2M. Just look at the teams that the Sox fielded in the late '80s and late '90s.

Edited February 16, 2010 by WCSox

[ThunderBolt]

So you are in favor of wasting a roster spot for a part time DH that cant even play the field?

I'm not going to speak for him, but i'm okay with that. I don't think a DH has to to be able to play the field, it's nice, i mean it's an added bonus, but it's not needed.

[ptatc]

It's not semantics, it's fact. (Almost) Every trade that's ever been made has been made with the idea of improving the team towards the future. A lot of teams make deals down the stretch, and a lot of teams make huge deals to insure the future of a team. KW doesn't get a free pass for having made the Peavy and Rios moves, he get's a thank you from the fanbase and then the mandate to improve the team around these pieces. Two moves, big or small, does not an offseason make.

 

it is semantics because what is the difference if he makes the team better in July or if he makes the team better in November. The only answer is the time frame. Those moves make the team better. KW is not getting a free pass on where the team is still weak. Hitting. He should get credit for improving the team's pitching and defense.

 

if you still want to talk timeframes he still improved the team's pitching in the offseason with Putz and improved the bench and defense with Jones, and Vizquel.

 

Hitting is still the team's weakness. With the budget the sox have it is near impossible to have an outstanding team in all three areas of pitching, defense and hitting. KW chose to go with a very good pitching staff, an average but improved defense and the weakness in the area of hitting. If I had to choose which order to spend the money i would do the same. Since the sox knew they were going to be weakest in hitting they are going with a "create a run" theory on offense instead of power. Will it work? I have no idea and it is a weakness. But given the choice I personally would focus on pitching as well.

[caulfield12]

http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/09teamsalaries.htm

 

We went from 6th in 2008 down to 12th in payroll in 2009.

 

The White Sox public relations and marketing efforts were basically abysmal or non-existent in the 80's and 90's. The main marketing tool was the new stadium, and we know how well that turned out (especially the immediate reaction and comparisons to Camden Yards, not positive ones).

 

I don't see how you can argue that we can't stay in the top 10 in revenue when we were 8th in 2008, three years removed from the World Series and following a disastrous 2007 season.

 

It's simply a matter of producing a winning and entertaining product...if we're going to consistently be outspent by the Twins and the Tigers from here on out, that means we have to rely on either trades or our farm system. KW has been great with the first part of that equation, below average with the second facet of running a lower-payroll organization.

 

YES, we did win the World Series in 2005 with a $65 million dollar payroll, but going back down to $75-80 million isn't going to cut it. If he wanted to do that, he never should have acquired Peavy and ESPECIALLY Rios anyway.

 

 

[ScottyDo]

I'm not going to speak for him, but i'm okay with that. I don't think a DH has to to be able to play the field, it's nice, i mean it's an added bonus, but it's not needed.

Full-time DH's who put up strong numbers do not need to be able to play the field. Part-time DH's who put up questionable numbers and cannot play the field are literally not worth a league-minimum contract (maaaaybe as PH's in the NL) in my opinion. The roster spot is worth more dollars than the player at that point. Especially with us missing an infield-backup.

[caulfield12]

it is semantics because what is the difference if he makes the team better in July or if he makes the team better in November. The only answer is the time frame. Those moves make the team better. KW is not getting a free pass on where the team is still weak. Hitting. He should get credit for improving the team's pitching and defense.

 

if you still want to talk timeframes he still improved the team's pitching in the offseason with Putz and improved the bench and defense with Jones, and Vizquel.

 

Hitting is still the team's weakness. With the budget the sox have it is near impossible to have an outstanding team in all three areas of pitching, defense and hitting. KW chose to go with a very good pitching staff, an average but improved defense and the weakness in the area of hitting. If I had to choose which order to spend the money i would do the same. Since the sox knew they were going to be weakest in hitting they are going with a "create a run" theory on offense instead of power. Will it work? I have no idea and it is a weakness. But given the choice I personally would focus on pitching as well.

 

 

There's a BIG if if if in your equation.

 

Putz. Because I'm sure not very many people feel comfortable right now with Pena, Linebrink and there's a pretty high amount of trepidation about Jenks as well. Williams? The long man. We have the POTENTIAL to be a great bullpen but more likely we'll be average.

 

Second, it would have been impossible NOT to improve the defense, no matter what moves were made. I'm not sure that we can determine what we have with Jones in terms of his defense until Spring Training comes around and we see what his playing condition is...

 

 

 

 

[RockRaines]

Full-time DH's who put up strong numbers do not need to be able to play the field. Part-time DH's who put up questionable numbers and cannot play the field are literally not worth a league-minimum contract (maaaaybe as PH's in the NL) in my opinion. The roster spot is worth more dollars than the player at that point. Especially with us missing an infield-backup.

 

If DH'ing keeps Quentin healthy most of the season, I would say rotation is a good thing IMO. Quentin doing what he can do is better than pretty much all of the primary DH's out there.

[caulfield12]

Full-time DH's who put up strong numbers do not need to be able to play the field. Part-time DH's who put up questionable numbers and cannot play the field are literally not worth a league-minimum contract (maaaaybe as PH's in the NL) in my opinion. The roster spot is worth more dollars than the player at that point. Especially with us missing an infield-backup.

 

 

Let's just see what numbers Thome puts up in 300-375 at-bats with the Twins this year and then we compare his "value" with what we get out of Kotsay or Jones on their deals.

 

 

[ScottyDo]

Let's just see what numbers Thome puts up in 300-375 at-bats with the Twins this year and then we compare his "value" with what we get out of Kotsay or Jones on their deals.

Both of them can, and likely will, play the field at some point during the season, and probably will do so with adequate defense and at a very cheap price.