Pre-Winter Meetings Best Course of Action

[iamshack]

Let's face it, the White Sox have the money to spend if they'd like to. They could do what the Tigers have done if they really wanted to. No one is saying the funds aren't there in any given year(s) to acquire players if they feel it can put them over the top. HOWEVER, the White Sox are operated from the standpoint of a business hoping to earn a profit, to gain value over time, and to be successful in accomplishing other goals (winning baseball championships, philanthropy, etc).

 

Indiscriminately spending money for the sake of spending money does not fit within the parameters of achieving those goals.

[southsider2k5]

Are the Cubs highly leveraged?

 

Very much so.

[southsider2k5]

The "All In" was such a lame attempt. I'm weary of this organizations half-measures that don't win anything or grow the fan base.

 

Yet in the same breath, they need to spend $10 million apparently just to spend $10 million.

[Marty34]

Yet in the same breath, they need to spend $10 million apparently just to spend $10 million.

 

Again, you're the one sweating the $10M.

[southsider2k5]

Again, you're the one sweating the $10M.

 

Only because you have the idiotic notion that cash flow is based on franchise value. Repeating it over and over again, doesn't make it any less wrong.

[Marty34]

Only because you have the idiotic notion that cash flow is based on franchise value. Repeating it over and over again, doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

If I had a billion dollar asset I would not sweat an additional $10M expenditure.

[bigruss]

If I had a billion dollar asset I would not sweat an additional $10M expenditure.

Unless, of course, you don't actually have $10 million just laying around.

[Marty34]

Unless, of course, you don't actually have $10 million just laying around.

 

I wouldn't sweat it then either.

[iamshack]

I wouldn't sweat it then either.

The problem is those add up over time, until one day you wake up, and you've got a s***load of obligations, a terrible team, and no money left to improve it.

Edited November 19, 2013 by iamshack

[Marty34]

The problem is those add up over time, until one day you wake up, and you've got a s***load of obligations, a terrible team, and no money left to improve it.

 

I think Sox ownership can swing such expenditures for a bit and be alright.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Marty34

[iamshack]

I think Sox ownership can swing such expenditures for a bit and be alright.

That's a slippery slope...you sound like Jay Mariotti, advocating to sign everyone every year then criticizing the team later for having all these bums on the payroll.

[Eminor3rd]

If I had a billion dollar asset I would not sweat an additional $10M expenditure.

 

Which is probably the best reason that you DON'T have a billion dollar asset.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think Sox ownership can swing such expenditures for a bit and be alright.

 

1. You are just trolling at this point.

 

2. Why don't you say what you actually mean - that you think the team should forgo having any profit, and take on some new debt, to increase payroll. At least then you'd be honest.

 

Which is probably the best reason that you DON'T have a billion dollar asset.

 

Precisely.

 

[Dick Allen]

1. You are just trolling at this point.

 

2. Why don't you say what you actually mean - that you think the team should forgo having any profit, and take on some new debt, to increase payroll. At least then you'd be honest.

 

 

 

Precisely.

On the other side of the spectrum is Jeffrey Loria. He gets ripped for being a poor owner. Yet in Business 101, he gets an "A+"

[Balta1701]

On the other side of the spectrum is Jeffrey Loria. He gets ripped for being a poor owner. Yet in Business 101, he gets an "A+"

Well yeah, he took advantage of dumb politicians to line his own pocket. That's pretty much the only operational business model left in this country.

[Dick Allen]

Well yeah, he took advantage of dumb politicians to line his own pocket. That's pretty much the only operational business model left in this country.

Don't forget, JR got a sweetheart deal from politicians himself. Loria also got revenue sharing to the point where he didn't have to let anyone in to watch Marlins games and still turn a nice profit.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Balta1701]

Don't forget, JR got a sweetheart deal from politicians himself. Loria also got revenue sharing to the point where he didn't have to let anyone in to watch Marlins games and still turn a nice profit.

In hindsight, given that JR was considering moving the team to the Tampa area, I think the Illinois legislature wound up saving him from himself.

[witesoxfan]

How about if you use their revenues? We really have no idea how accurate Forbes is, but it has been SOP for the White Sox to say every dime that comes in goes out, then say they are at their budget limit, only to add payroll later. Maybe it is silly to base a teams' ability to add payroll based on their Forbes value, but it is equally as silly to base it on what the team is telling you.

 

Do you understand what a budget is? Have you ever heard of the term over-budget?

[Dick Allen]

Do you understand what a budget is? Have you ever heard of the term over-budget?

Far more than than you. And you do understand why the White Sox would never say "hey, we came in second but made a $15 million profit" don't you? And why they always say they are at or over budget, but always seem to add payroll? JR's orders are to not lose money. If , and I am not saying they should, they went over budget $10 million, that isn't all that much to them. You yourself told me $10 million a year for Salty really isn't a lot of money. I agree with Marty, $10 million to the White Sox is no sweat. You do have to watch for it spiraling.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Far more than than you. And you do understand why the White Sox would never say "hey, we came in second but made a $15 million profit" don't you?

 

Far more than you.

 

When the Sox say "we are at our budget," then they are at their budget. Smart teams save money in case they need to go over budget. Sometimes it makes sense to go over-budget. But, in this exact instance in the 2013-14 offseason, there is absolutely no need to lose money when you can make money. Would you not agree with that idea?

[iamshack]

They absolutely do go over budget when they feel it is worthwhile to do so. Let's be very clear here, the budget is not some hard line number that must be reached at all costs or cannot be eclipsed at any costs. It is a fluid number that is set with the intention of achieving their short and long term goals.

 

And let's be honest, there is no absolute correlation between spending money and success on the field or at the box office. If there was, there would be a lot more merit towards spending the money for the sake of increasing the success of the on field product or the revenues.

 

We all know it doesn't work that way.

 

If they find a player that they feel helps achieve their short and long-term goals, they will spend the money. They've always shown this. They just signed a guy for $68 million that has never played an mlb game before.

[Balta1701]

Far more than you.

 

When the Sox say "we are at our budget," then they are at their budget. Smart teams save money in case they need to go over budget. Sometimes it makes sense to go over-budget. But, in this exact instance in the 2013-14 offseason, there is absolutely no need to lose money when you can make money. Would you not agree with that idea?

There's also an opportunity/cost discussion here as well. Had the White Sox invested $10 million a year last offseason in, I don't know, Edwin Jackson or something like that to fill a minor role...they could have found themselves having less in the budget this year when a potential all-star 1b suddenly defected from Cuba and became available. Having that money to spend hopefully has enabled us to plug the biggest hole in our lineup in one fell swoop.

[iamshack]

There's also an opportunity/cost discussion here as well. Had the White Sox invested $10 million a year last offseason in, I don't know, Edwin Jackson or something like that to fill a minor role...they could have found themselves having less in the budget this year when a potential all-star 1b suddenly defected from Cuba and became available. Having that money to spend hopefully has enabled us to plug the biggest hole in our lineup in one fell swoop.

Right, that is essentially the entire point of having a budget.

[Dick Allen]

Far more than you.

 

When the Sox say "we are at our budget," then they are at their budget. Smart teams save money in case they need to go over budget. Sometimes it makes sense to go over-budget. But, in this exact instance in the 2013-14 offseason, there is absolutely no need to lose money when you can make money. Would you not agree with that idea?

Not necessarily. In 2009, when they were at their budget, they traded for an injured Jake Peavy, and then claimed Alex Rios. Just because they said they were at their proverbial break even point doesn't mean that was the case. Forbes always has them as one of the more profitable teams in baseball. Maybe it isn't accurate, but i know the white Sox aren't always accurate when they say they are at their limit either. They brought in Edwin Jackson, paid Manny $4 million for one month when they were over their budget. Then it was time to say goodbye to Paulie and AJ after they signed Dunn. Yet both came back. When JR was asked where the money would come from, he said you save a little here, save a little there, which really doesn't make sense if the team was breaking even, and spending every nickel that came in, like they claimed.

 

As for losing money this year, it depends. I would have to know the specific instance to give my opinion. JR said there still is money to be spent. I assume they will spend it.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Not necessarily. In 2009, when they were at their budget, they traded for an injured Jake Peavy, and then claimed Alex Rios. Just because they said they were at their proverbial break even point doesn't mean that was the case.

 

Are you sure you understand what a budget is? Because it is not the same thing as the break even point.

 

Forbes always has them as one of the more profitable teams in baseball. Maybe it isn't accurate, but i know the white Sox aren't always accurate when they say they are at their limit either. They brought in Edwin Jackson, paid Manny $4 million for one month when they were over their budget. Then it was time to say goodbye to Paulie and AJ after they signed Dunn. Yet both came back.

 

As for losing money this year, it depends. I would have to know the specific instance to give my opinion.

 

It's a business that needs to be sustained. If you are not making money, you are losing money. Thus, if they are one of the most profitable teams given the circumstances presented to them, they are doing something right and setting budgets so that they can make a good amount of money while spending most of it on the team. That is not a bad thing, no matter the people calling Jerry (and the remainder of the board) cheap.