Pre-Winter Meetings Best Course of Action

[Dick Allen]

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

 

 

 

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.

Yes I do. They White Sox have always claimed they set their budget to break even. That every dollar that comes in, goes out. There hasn't been a spike in attendance or anything like that in recent years for them to be off that much between their original break even number to actual. It shows they have some money in the bank, which is fine. Again, i'm not saying they should spend an extra $10 million for the hell of it. I'm just saying it more than likely is there if they wanted, and it made sense.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Yes I do. They White Sox have always claimed they set their budget to break even. That every dollar that comes in, goes out.

 

Maybe it is. You want to make money, but you can also take a loss overall and still take home and give out paychecks.

 

I'm sure if they wanted to go nuts, they could spend up to the luxury tax for about 3-5 years, but then they can't spend anything and then what do you do? You cut the payroll to an Oakland or Cleveland like level.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

Look at how many teams have spent years being boned because of their financial stupidity. How would you like to be the Mets for example?

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

The Sox also cut their payroll $20 million from 2008 to 2009.

[Dick Allen]

The Sox also cut their payroll $20 million from 2008 to 2009.

I know that because that was the one time I complained as they held season ticket holder money hostage and raised ticket prices. But they still had the same break even claim and that they were at their limit which turned out to obviously not be true.

 

Just another example of the only source that says the White Sox break even every year being inaccurate with what they were claiming earlier.

 

I do totally understand not using your money if the player isn't the correct fit, just don't use the old can't spend $1 if you only have fifty cents.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

Look at how many teams have spent years being boned because of their financial stupidity. How would you like to be the Mets for example?

 

 

Like the Rangers?

 

Sometimes it's better to be lucky or in the right place at the right time.

[Dick Allen]

Look at how many teams have spent years being boned because of their financial stupidity. How would you like to be the Mets for example?

Aren't the Mets problems more Bernie Madoff related? I don't know if being his victim falls under stupidity.

[Balta1701]

Aren't the Mets problems more Bernie Madoff related? I don't know if being his victim falls under stupidity.

That hit them but it wouldn't have mattered if they had a solid team on the field. They've spent money anyway, but they've wound up spending it on guys like Johan Santana and Jason Bay who totally, completely underperformed what they were paid to do. Until 2012 their payroll was one of the top 6 in baseball every year since 2000. They have finally started clearing out the bad contracts over the last 2 years. They might not be spending money right now because of Madoff, but that's not why they're hurting, they're hurting from the terrible contracts they gave out.

[southsider2k5]

I'm sure SS2K5 was referring to Johan Santana, Oliver Perez, Jason Bay, Pedro Martinez, Carlos Beltran (albeit to a lesser extent), Scott Schoenweis, Kaz Matsui, Luis Castillo and so on.

 

And even if you want to point to Madoff, it is worth pointing out that the Mets are FAR from the only team to experience non-baseball related payroll raiding. There are professional franchises that have ended up in bankruptcy. Heck take a look at what happened to the Dodgers before they were sold.

[Eminor3rd]

And even if you want to point to Madoff, it is worth pointing out that the Mets are FAR from the only team to experience non-baseball related payroll raiding. There are professional franchises that have ended up in bankruptcy. Heck take a look at what happened to the Dodgers before they were sold.

 

But those franchises are billion dollar assets, money should be no object!

[Marty34]

Maybe it is. You want to make money, but you can also take a loss overall and still take home and give out paychecks.

 

I'm sure if they wanted to go nuts, they could spend up to the luxury tax for about 3-5 years, but then they can't spend anything and then what do you do? You cut the payroll to an Oakland or Cleveland like level.

 

Dick Allen made the best point in this thread. How do you feel when the Sox make $15M and finish second?

[southsider2k5]

Dick Allen made the best point in this thread. How do you feel when the Sox make $15M and finish second?

 

I would call it more of a Non Sequitor.

[Marty34]

Look at how many teams have spent years being boned because of their financial stupidity. How would you like to be the Mets for example?

 

How unlike are the Sox and Mets? Mets problems were all Madoff anyway.

[southsider2k5]

 

 

How unlike are the Sox and Mets? Mets problems were all Madoff anyway.

 

And even if you want to point to Madoff, it is worth pointing out that the Mets are FAR from the only team to experience non-baseball related payroll raiding. There are professional franchises that have ended up in bankruptcy. Heck take a look at what happened to the Dodgers before they were sold.

 

[Marty34]

And even if you want to point to Madoff, it is worth pointing out that the Mets are FAR from the only team to experience non-baseball related payroll raiding. There are professional franchises that have ended up in bankruptcy. Heck take a look at what happened to the Dodgers before they were sold.

 

The Dodgers and Rangers are far better off after going through bankruptcy then they were before.

[iamshack]

Dick Allen made the best point in this thread. How do you feel when the Sox make $15M and finish second?

Again, if the correlation was stronger between payroll and performance, it would be a stronger case.

[Marty34]

Again, if the correlation was stronger between payroll and performance, it would be a stronger case.

 

And that's the Sox problem. It's never been money. Their goal is to build a competitive team and hope it gets a few breaks. It's been a great strategy for the investors over the last 30+ years, but not so much for the fans.

 

[iamshack]

And that's the Sox problem. It's never been money. Their goal is to build a competitive team and hope it gets a few breaks. It's been a great strategy for the investors over the last 30+ years, but not so much for the fans.

You don't seem to answer counter arguments. You just move the goalposts.

[Marty34]

You don't seem to answer counter arguments. You just move the goalposts.

 

Was your counter argument that there is no correlation to payroll and winning? I thought that was common knowledge.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Marty34

[iamshack]

Was your counter argument that there is no correlation to payroll and winning? I thought that was common knowledge.

There is a correlation, but it isn't necessarily strong.

 

If you concede that, on what basis are you arguing that the $10 million should be spent? To achieve what?

[Marty34]

There is a correlation, but it isn't necessarily strong.

 

If you concede that, on what basis are you arguing that the $10 million should be spent? To achieve what?

 

Not arguing it should be spent. Arguing that they can spend it if they want to.

[Chicago White Sox]

There is a correlation, but it isn't necessarily strong.

 

If you concede that, on what basis are you arguing that the $10 million should be spent? To achieve what?

Dan Uggla of course!

[iamshack]

Not arguing it should be spent. Arguing that they can spend it if they want to.

I don't think anyone disputed that, like ever.

[Marty34]

I don't think anyone disputed that, like ever.

 

Earlier in the thread.

[Chicago White Sox]

Not arguing it should be spent. Arguing that they can spend it if they want to.

How much OP did the Sox make in 2013?