Jump to content

Victor Martinez is White Sox target


Feeky Magee

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 10:49 AM)
He is a target that could intrigue me more than any of the other names you mentioned.

Wow, overplaying for a closer in free agency is amongst the worst ways we could spend our money.

 

And how adding a closer intrigues you more than a #2 starter or a 3/4 hitter blows my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 12:09 PM)
Wow, overplaying for a closer in free agency is amongst the worst ways we could spend our money.

 

And how adding a closer intrigues you more than a #2 starter or a 3/4 hitter blows my mind.

I don't see where we're going to find better bullpen help out of our system right now, and I don't think a 36 year old DH or a 34 year old starter are going to remain #2 starters/#3-4 hitters for more than tiny sliver of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

V Mart is an intriguing possibility but we won't be the only ones going after him for sure. It will take plenty of dough. I think we might have an option in our own sstem with Andy Wilkins. I hope he gets called up in Sept so we can see what he looks like against ML pitching. Hahn says he will be aggressive in the free agent market, but where are our real needs right now? I think pitching especially the bullpen is #1 but then again some relievers go under $6M a year and are good consistent closers or set up guys. I wonder what we might have as far as money to spend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 12:43 PM)
I wonder what we might have as far as money to spend?

My best guess is that right now, assuming De Aza and Viciedo aren't back, the Sox have about $60 million in commitments for next season (with the caveat that we don't know how Abreu's signing bonus is budgeted). With the higher draft and international spending this and next year, and decreasing revenues at the gate, my best guess is that the Sox will have up to $30 million to spend next offseason. They could probably push past that for the right guy, but only if they're in a situation where they think a guy is a perfect fit for the next 5+ years or something like that.

 

$30 million isn't bad, but it's not going to land Shields + VMart + relievers. To add to each of those areas the Sox would have to think about pushing the payroll back into the $115-$120 million range next year, and they lost money at $110 million in payroll last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 01:58 PM)
The other thing is Detroit will eventually become a cesspool of bad contracts to broken down players. The White Sox will hopefully be on an upswing. It may be next year.

Like say, 3/$45 to a 36 year old DH? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 01:01 PM)
Like say, 3/$45 to a 36 year old DH? ;)

If I were running things, I wouldn't be thrilled handing that out, but the White Sox don't have the soon to be albatrosses Verlander and Miggy contracts. If they sign Scherzer or lose him that is either another financial hit or blow tot heir staff. The Sox could gamble, they need a LH bat and there isn't much on the free agent market. That said, chances are someone will probably go even crazier and Victor won't be a White Sox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 11:54 AM)
My best guess is that right now, assuming De Aza and Viciedo aren't back, the Sox have about $60 million in commitments for next season (with the caveat that we don't know how Abreu's signing bonus is budgeted). With the higher draft and international spending this and next year, and decreasing revenues at the gate, my best guess is that the Sox will have up to $30 million to spend next offseason. They could probably push past that for the right guy, but only if they're in a situation where they think a guy is a perfect fit for the next 5+ years or something like that.

 

$30 million isn't bad, but it's not going to land Shields + VMart + relievers. To add to each of those areas the Sox would have to think about pushing the payroll back into the $115-$120 million range next year, and they lost money at $110 million in payroll last season.

I hate doing this all over again, but you're absolutely nuts if you think we're limited to a $90M payroll next year. Budgets are always forwarding looking and both Kenny & Hahn have recently expressed optimism for next season. They've hinted at using their financial flexibility to add some key pieces. No way in hell are they tied this season's payroll, which we already know wasn't maxed out by the Tanaka offer made.

 

And how are you getting to this $60M number? What are you expecting the few arb guys likely to return to actually make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 02:16 PM)
I hate doing this all over again, but you're absolutely nuts if you think we're limited to a $90M payroll next year. Budgets are always forwarding looking and both Kenny & Hahn have recently expressed optimism for next season. They've hinted at using their financial flexibility to add some key pieces. No way in hell are they tied this season's payroll, which we already know wasn't maxed out by the Tanaka offer made.

 

And how are you getting to this $60M number? What are you expecting the few arb guys likely to return to actually make?

They have just over $45 million committed to 5 players. I'm guessing Flowers, Jones, and Noesi receive arbitration offers, which is about $8 million, with Flowers getting a $3 million chunk and the others at a little below that because flowers is in Arb year 2.

 

That's $53 million for 8 players. It then takes an additional 17 players to fill out a roster. If they were all league minimum, that pushes to just over $60 million. Several of them will have their contracts renewed at slightly higher amounts to reward for good work this year, and so $60 million is a good payroll guess for next year's commitments, again ignoring Abreu's signing bonus. Paulino also has a $250k buyout if you want to count every single dollar.

 

If Viciedo or De Aza were offered arb, that would blow >$5 million for either of them.

 

I don't think we're "limited" to $90 million but I don't think there's anyone obviously available that they'd be willing to risk losing money this season for. if there's another 25-28 year old available on a 5-ish year contract where the team would control him for his entire prime years and he would be a long term building block then perhaps they'd blow through that, but 34 year old pitchers and 36 year old DHs do not compare to Tanaka in that way at all. They may have been willing to go through another season losing money to get Tanaka in the fold for the next 5 years. They are not going to lose money (and a draft pick) to bring Victor Martinez in to fill the DH slot.

 

 

Important Edit: Oh and I forgot, they still owe Jeff Keppinger $4.5 million next year. So the Sox are at closer to $65 million in payroll as a starting point if you count him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Balta, I'm amazed that your able to determine the White Sox's break even-point so accurately, but you can't account for their $46M in payroll obligations next year.

 

John Danks $15,750,000

Alexei Ramirez $10,000,000

Jose Abreu $8,666,666

Chris Sale $6,000,000

Jeff Keppinger $4,500,000

Jose Quintana $1,000,000

Felipe Paulino $250,000

 

The $46M already includes Keppinger's corpse and Paulino's buyout. You're right about the arb guys and the total cost of all the minimum salaries however, so we probably are near $60M to field a full roster.

 

Either way, I have no doubt the Sox will be able to afford a $100M payroll next year, regardless of if they actually spend it. While I'm impressed that you have direct access to the Sox's financials, you've yet to convince me that we're approaching some $90M payroll limitation, especially when you have no insight into their 2015 revenue forecasts that their payroll budget will be based on.

Edited by Chicago White Sox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 03:56 PM)
Either way, I have no doubt the Sox will be able to afford a $100M payroll next year, regardless of if they actually spend it. While I'm impressed that you have direct access to the Sox's financials, you've yet to convince me that we're approaching some $90M payroll limitation, especially when you have no insight into their 2015 revenue forecasts that their payroll budget will be based on.

Based on the Forbes numbers, the White Sox lost ~$5 million last year with a $110 million payroll. They have seen a continued erosion of 1000 tickets sold per game so far this season, a number that is likely to increase before the year ends since we still have the crappy late-september attendances to get through. Their new revenue stream in 2014 is the MLB national TV deal money, which offsets a portion of the erosion in ticket sales since 2013, but they're also reportedly near the bottom of the league in TV ratings and advertising money right now.

 

All of this has worked together to make the White Sox in 2014 profitable at a level of $91 million based on public statements, but there is no new revenue stream coming onto the table next year compared to this year. The continued erosion of revenues at the gate and in the ballpark we're witnessing means that if the team holds steady at $91 million, they're closer to their break-even point than this year and if they go beyond it there's a good chance they go into the red unless they can push ticket sales the other way.

 

I can't give you exact numbers to within a million dollars, but I think it's pretty clear that in 2014 their break-even payroll would be in the range of $100 million and they would have every reason to expect continued erosion of ticket sales by about 1000/game next year, along with little/no boost in ratings or ad sales. If they'd signed Tanaka at what they'd offered him they'd very likely be in the red for another season. I could see them doing that if a 27 year old good fit was on the free agent market. I cannot see them doing that for 34-36 year old stopgaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 03:05 PM)
Based on the Forbes numbers, the White Sox lost ~$5 million last year with a $110 million payroll. They have seen a continued erosion of 1000 tickets sold per game so far this season, a number that is likely to increase before the year ends since we still have the crappy late-september attendances to get through. Their new revenue stream in 2014 is the MLB national TV deal money, which offsets a portion of the erosion in ticket sales since 2013, but they're also reportedly near the bottom of the league in TV ratings and advertising money right now.

 

All of this has worked together to make the White Sox in 2014 profitable at a level of $91 million based on public statements, but there is no new revenue stream coming onto the table next year compared to this year. The continued erosion of revenues at the gate and in the ballpark we're witnessing means that if the team holds steady at $91 million, they're closer to their break-even point than this year and if they go beyond it there's a good chance they go into the red unless they can push ticket sales the other way.

 

I can't give you exact numbers to within a million dollars, but I think it's pretty clear that in 2014 their break-even payroll would be in the range of $100 million and they would have every reason to expect continued erosion of ticket sales by about 1000/game next year, along with little/no boost in ratings or ad sales. If they'd signed Tanaka at what they'd offered him they'd very likely be in the red for another season. I could see them doing that if a 27 year old good fit was on the free agent market. I cannot see them doing that for 34-36 year old stopgaps.

Balta, have you ever worked in the business world? You realize they could cut other operating expenses and increase payroll without an increase in revenue right? There's a lot more that goes into the operating profit equation for a baseball team than just revenue and payroll.

 

And how the f*** do you know they have no new revenue streams next year? Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

I have never seen someone infer so much from a basic Forbes article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 04:16 PM)
Balta, have you ever worked in the business world? You realize they could cut other operating expenses and increase payroll without an increase in revenue right? There's a lot more that goes into the operating profit equation for a baseball team than just revenue and payroll.

 

And how the f*** do you know they have no new revenue streams next year? Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

I have never seen someone infer so much from a basic Forbes article.

The large revenue stream increases in MLB are extremely well known. Everyone knew for about 2 years that the entire league would get about $20 million/team in new revenue with the TV deal. It's possible they could have small ones, but the reality is that we've seen them much more commonly losing advertisers for the past 2 years rather than increasing.

 

In MLB, payroll for the team typically makes up >50% of the revenue. The fixed expenses to open and operate the ballpark are difficult to cut - just ask the Cubs how well it worked out for their grounds crew. That basically leaves draft and development spending as the last big pool of money. I could believe the White Sox would be willing to cut that again in order to fund the big league team, they did it for like a decade, but I don't think anyone would prefer we'd gone under-slot this year rather than drafting Rodon.

 

Basically, you should be telling me what these magical expense streams are that they're going to cut. Shuttering the upper deck for 1/2 the games so they don't have to pay ushers? Replacing the grounds crew with minimum wage folks? Cutting the scouting department in half? Which of those provides any reasonable benefit? Which of these did they not do in previous years, preferring to lose money last year for example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 02:56 PM)
Balta, I'm amazed that your able to determine the White Sox's break even-point so accurately, but you can't account for their $46M in payroll obligations next year.

 

John Danks $15,750,000

Alexei Ramirez $10,000,000

Jose Abreu $8,666,666

Chris Sale $6,000,000

Jeff Keppinger $4,500,000

Jose Quintana $1,000,000

Felipe Paulino $250,000

 

The $46M already includes Keppinger's corpse and Paulino's buyout. You're right about the arb guys and the total cost of all the minimum salaries however, so we probably are near $60M to field a full roster.

 

Either way, I have no doubt the Sox will be able to afford a $100M payroll next year, regardless of if they actually spend it. While I'm impressed that you have direct access to the Sox's financials, you've yet to convince me that we're approaching some $90M payroll limitation, especially when you have no insight into their 2015 revenue forecasts that their payroll budget will be based on.

 

I think we end up moving Danks somehow this off-season. Even if it you attach a prospect like Sanchez to him (I've seen people post the idea of going with Johnson and Semien on the roster next year and moving Sanchez so I kinda just added a little to that idea) you may be able to move Danks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 02:50 PM)
If Victor Martinez gets a Qualifying Offer he will not be a White Sox.

 

 

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 02:52 PM)
Barring injury, the Tigers would be nuts to not give him a QO.

 

Right, he DEFINITELY will. He's the perfect 1 year deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...