Robertson Claimed by Yankees, pulled back by WS

[Knackattack]

If you go to the Baseball-Reference version, they've got just under $90 million committed to 9 players in 2016. They have 2 guys, possibly up to 4, who are likely to be offered arbitration: Jones, Garcia, Jennings, and Flowers. The first 3 guys all probably would come in around under $2 million while Flowers probably would be close to $4 million. If all 4 of those are offered arbitration that's close to $10 million, maybe a tiny bit less but close enough.

 

Offering arbitration to those 4 thus puts the White Sox at $100 million.

 

If, as some have noted, the White Sox pick up the option on Alexei Ramirez, which I think they will personally, that's $110 million for 14 players. Filling out the roster with minimum salary guys takes the roster up to $115-million ish with 0 additions, which is almost exactly where the total payroll was this year.

 

If the White Sox decline Alexei's option, they will have about $9 million to play with to get back to this year's payroll-ish.

Seeing these 4 names combine for 18M would make me sick.

 

Garcia and Flowers should be DFA and offered 1M a piece, Ramirez can go somewhere else and I'm sure Jennings can be easily replaced through the system.

 

See if you can pay 50% of LaRoche's salary to give him away and try the same with Danks.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Knackattack

[greg775]

Why wouldn't they dump Robertson when given the chance? They certainly don't need him at this stage of rebuilding and have other candidates to close by committee?

[chitownsportsfan]

Why wouldn't they dump Robertson when given the chance? They certainly don't need him at this stage of rebuilding and have other candidates to close by committee?

 

Because it's very hard to get a better closer at the price. Robertson is the least of their problems. If they are actually good soon, he'll be an asset. He's had some tough BABIP luck and some control problems but for the most part he's been very good. Worst case they suck next year and they get more for him at the deadline.

[greg775]

Because it's very hard to get a better closer at the price. Robertson is the least of their problems. If they are actually good soon, he'll be an asset. He's had some tough BABIP luck and some control problems but for the most part he's been very good. Worst case they suck next year and they get more for him at the deadline.

We never move guys at the deadline. Just save the money, dump him given the chance and give Nate a tryout as closer.

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

I feel like dumping a guy like Robertson would waive the white flag for this organization for the next 2-3 years at the very least, and I'm not sure KW and Hahn would want to give that given that Sale, Abreu, and Q are in their primes while Rodon, Fulmer, Anderson, etc will be entering their primes relatively soon.

 

 

[Balta1701]

This is a good post.

 

 

The bolded is just your opinion going into last season. Let's not act like you had some army behind you arguing the same.

 

In any case, you were doing this same pseudo accounting last year that as you are doing now. It didn't work last offseason and it doesn't make sense here.

 

1.) Additional revenue =/= profit =/= additional payroll

2.) The capital-labor split is not 0/100.

3.) You are using multiple years of unaudited estimates as the basis of your pseudo accounting.

4.) You say ticket sales are down but this year attendance is up by almost 3K on average. That will go down in September but regardless, at this point, attendance is up this year.

5.) You act as if each revenue/expense account is reset after the World Series and teams are only subject to the prior year's comparative statement's increase/decrease. That's not how businesses work.

The bolded was what really got me because it's actually showing that you replied without reading my posts. I have 100% said that ticket sales increased this year and even stated that it happened in large part because of the moves they made last offseason. They had a large surge of season ticket and ticket package sales after the Samardzija deal. Here are my own words from the previous post where I said "Ticket sales went up substantially":

I believe based on their attendence figures that they saw roughly 2000 extra season ticket packages sold this year, in addition probably to a number of smaller packages. Based on the 2015 season I find it difficult to believe that many of them will renew and they will likely also lose some of the old ones, so my expectation remains a revenue decrease rather than increase. They were expecting that being competitive in 2015 would give them the gradually growing ticket sales base to extend Samardzija; a failed season = a much bigger revenue drop than anticipated.

They absolutely received a ticket sale boost and a revenue boost from it this year. The point I'm making is that boost is extremely likely to evaporate. The lack of interest in this ballclub is amazing - even with a big season ticket boost we still are doing extremely poor on mid to late season single game ticket sales - we started from more season tickets sold and still had our worst midsummer attendance since before the world series. There's no interest for people to buy single game tickets and I think expecting that to carry over to the people who bought season tickets last offseason is entirely reasonable. Half of them are just bored with this team, the other 1/2 are pissed that they wasted their money on this and are in "we won't get fooled again" mode.

 

With regard to your other points...yes, of course the split between revenue going to ballplayers and going to run the ballpark isn't 0/100, but the costs of opening the ballpark don't change by all that much whether you're selling 12k tickets or 25k tickets per game, they change slightly. And yes, it's pseudoaccounting because we don't have exact figures, but that doesn't mean they're not useful. If you've followed this team's behavior, their spending tracks the Forbes numbers very very well. If you said "In 2013 the white sox were probably close to breaking even or even losing money", then you counted revenue drop from ticket sales losses in 2014, payroll cuts, and the extra $25 million in national TV money, you could have come up with a number very close to how much they spent in 2015.

 

It's not perfect. They absolutley could go into the red if they wanted. But if you've followed the Chicago White Sox...that is something this franchise historically does not do. The Chicago White Sox historically do exactly what you say in your last point - their payroll reflects revenue growth or revenue decline. They set themselves up in the offseason to operate at a small but solid profit every year and adjust payroll during the season if the numbers change. If you want an estimate of how much they have to spend and you're trying to figure out "can they afford Heyward under their normal behavior", the answer is "they need to move some salary or go into the red to do it". They may choose to do so, but that is not how this team typically behaves.

[Chicago White Sox]

Regardless of their revenues today, at some point the organization is going to ramp up its spending and try to build some legitimate interest in the team prior to their TV deal expiring at the end of 2019. The potential payoffs from a long-term TV deal will far outweigh the incremental payroll in the short-term. May not happen this offseason, but it will happen in the near future if these guys have any idea what they're doing.

[LittleHurt05]

We never move guys at the deadline. Just save the money, dump him given the chance and give Nate a tryout as closer.

 

How about that, I agree with greg!

[LDF]

The bolded was what really got me because it's actually showing that you replied without reading my posts. I have 100% said that ticket sales increased this year and even stated that it happened in large part because of the moves they made last offseason. They had a large surge of season ticket and ticket package sales after the Samardzija deal. Here are my own words from the previous post where I said "Ticket sales went up substantially":

They absolutely received a ticket sale boost and a revenue boost from it this year. The point I'm making is that boost is extremely likely to evaporate. The lack of interest in this ballclub is amazing - even with a big season ticket boost we still are doing extremely poor on mid to late season single game ticket sales - we started from more season tickets sold and still had our worst midsummer attendance since before the world series. There's no interest for people to buy single game tickets and I think expecting that to carry over to the people who bought season tickets last offseason is entirely reasonable. Half of them are just bored with this team, the other 1/2 are pissed that they wasted their money on this and are in "we won't get fooled again" mode.

 

With regard to your other points...yes, of course the split between revenue going to ballplayers and going to run the ballpark isn't 0/100, but the costs of opening the ballpark don't change by all that much whether you're selling 12k tickets or 25k tickets per game, they change slightly. And yes, it's pseudoaccounting because we don't have exact figures, but that doesn't mean they're not useful. If you've followed this team's behavior, their spending tracks the Forbes numbers very very well. If you said "In 2013 the white sox were probably close to breaking even or even losing money", then you counted revenue drop from ticket sales losses in 2014, payroll cuts, and the extra $25 million in national TV money, you could have come up with a number very close to how much they spent in 2015.

 

It's not perfect. They absolutley could go into the red if they wanted. But if you've followed the Chicago White Sox...that is something this franchise historically does not do. The Chicago White Sox historically do exactly what you say in your last point - their payroll reflects revenue growth or revenue decline. They set themselves up in the offseason to operate at a small but solid profit every year and adjust payroll during the season if the numbers change. If you want an estimate of how much they have to spend and you're trying to figure out"c an they afford Heyward under their normal behavior", the answer is "they need to move some salary or go into the red to do it". They may choose to do so, but that is not how this team typically behaves.

 

 

ref first bold, i agree, if they, the sox goes in the red this yr, to est a core of good players and good results on the field, the second yr the fans will come out, the commercial sponsor will jump on the bandwagon, everything will be growth. but the stipulations or specific point is, if the manger and the FO appear to show they know what they are doing and are competent.

 

second bold, they, the team on the field needs another marque player to help bring in fans.... sale once in every 5 starts, and the

Edited September 1, 2015 by LDF

[Jose Abreu]

ref first bold, i agree, the sox can go in the red and acquire the players needed to help build the core. the core that will perform on the field. show the fans that this team is serious and the fans will come out. a little in the red is not bad, when building for the future. then, when the sox have success on the fields, the following yr the fans will be coming out. ..... book it.

 

the stipulation the specific point is if the sox show that they have competent manager and FO personnel running the ship.

 

second bold. the sox i agree and i will even go further by stating that the sox needs to acquire one more marque player. Sale is a one in 5 start player and then it is Jose A..... the sox needs another star potential player to help bring out the fans. they need to feel as they are getting their money worth.

ref first bold, i agree, if they, the sox goes in the red this yr, to est a core of good players and good results on the field, the second yr the fans will come out, the commercial sponsor will jump on the bandwagon, everything will be growth. but the stipulations or specific point is, if the manger and the FO appear to show they know what they are doing and are competent.

 

second bold, they, the team on the field needs another marque player to help bring in fans.... sale once in every 5 starts, and the

I have a feeling their idea of a star player to bring fans to the games is Yasiel Puig, and if it is, I sure hope the asking price is too high (for the team's sake, not the attendance).

[LDF]

I feel like dumping a guy like Robertson would waive the white flag for this organization for the next 2-3 years at the very least, and I'm not sure KW and Hahn would want to give that given that Sale, Abreu, and Q are in their primes while Rodon, Fulmer, Anderson, etc will be entering their primes relatively soon.

 

i don't know if i would go that far.

 

the sox fans would realize that the minor league teams do have the players to help the parent team.

 

the white flag was when the sox appeared to be in contention for a playoff spot, it might not have tough, but the battle could have been wage.

 

selling Robertson after the fact is different.

 

 

[LDF]

I have a feeling their idea of a star player to bring fans to the games is Yasiel Puig, and if it is, I sure hope the asking price is too high (for the team's sake, not the attendance).

 

i agree, but at this point.... who knows what they think on what is needed to help the team.

[Balta1701]

I am sure those in payroll are just painting the entire White Sox fan base with a broad brush and saying, "We should bring our estimates down because our fans are either "bored with this team" or unwilling to be "fooled again" so there's no way we can increase spending this offseason."

No, in a couple weeks what they're going to be saying is "this year's season ticket renewals are a bloodbath."

[Dick Allen]

Balta has said the White Sox won't be relevant the rest of this decade. He also stated the Cubs reaching the wild card will pay all by itself for Jon Lester's bloated contract, and Balta is never wrong, just ask him. Seems like perfect motivation for going for it again. If you arrive a year too early it's worth over $150 million. Think about what it's worth if it's 3 or 4 years too early.

[Balta1701]

Balta has said the White Sox won't be relevant the rest of this decade. He also stated the Cubs reaching the wild card will pay all by itself for Jon Lester's bloated contract, and Balta is never wrong, just ask him. Seems like perfect motivation for going for it again. If you arrive a year too early it's worth over $150 million. Think about what it's worth if it's 3 or 4 years too early.

And you've never made an incorrect call either right? So either tell me where my logic is wrong, tell me where this extra money is, go through the numbers and do it yourself, or I get to bring up your predictions about how well Victor Martinez will age because all you're willing to do is make it personal.

[southsider2k5]

Balta has said the White Sox won't be relevant the rest of this decade. He also stated the Cubs reaching the wild card will pay all by itself for Jon Lester's bloated contract, and Balta is never wrong, just ask him. Seems like perfect motivation for going for it again. If you arrive a year too early it's worth over $150 million. Think about what it's worth if it's 3 or 4 years too early.

 

Uh-oh, personal attack.

[Dick Allen]

And you've never made an incorrect call either right? So either tell me where my logic is wrong, tell me where this extra money is, go through the numbers and do it yourself, or I get to bring up your predictions about how well Victor Martinez will age because all you're willing to do is make it personal.

Do you use Forbes to determine your money totals? If you do, and you trust their figures to be correct, they are sitting on about a quarter of a billion dollars in profit the last 15 years or so. So any logic about how they have no money is out the window.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Dick Allen

[Harry Chappas]

People on this board and the city of Chicago need to temper the crowning of the cubs and more importantly relax on over blowing how bad the White Sox are.

 

This year the cubs are well over the skis and everything has gone right. That doesn't happen often.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Do you use Forbes to determine your money totals?

I use it as a guideline. I also keep an eye on where their actual spending sits every year and when they start crying poor.

 

The 2015 logic was:

 

Their payroll for 2014 was right around $90 million. That was a cutback from 2013 when they started the year at $115 million and sold off Peavy and Thornton during the season. That didn't count $5 million or so in bonuses to Abreu and a couple million in extra signing bonuses for draft picks.

 

2013 it sure looks like they acted as if they crossed their limit. They cut back on salary during the season and did a big cutback during the offseason. That was with a total actually paid out that was around $110 million.

 

Since 2013 they saw continued ticket sale erosion in 2014 and a boost of $25 million in extra national TV contract money. If you add in that extra $25 million and then imagine some ticket sale erosion, they could get themselves probably with a decent margin of error to a break-even point around $125 million.

 

In 2015 they then spent $118 million on payroll as their opening day number. They presumably don't have to book Jose's signing bonus now that he's been here for >1 year in the same way, although that might have been in there as well. They also saved a little bit by giving away 2 draft picks.

 

When they got past $110 million they started saying they were close to their limit and that they only were able to afford Melky because of additional season ticket sales, which I believe because it is consistent with their overall behavior.

 

That puts their break even point in 2015 probably close to $120-$125 million. That's consistent with $25 million extra compared to the 2013 revenue from the national TV deal, some extra money into the draft compared to that year, but also some erosion of ticket sale and ad revenue. They haven't sold off anyone this season so it's clear they're not above it, but they also have not seen the revenue growth that they were talking about during the offseason from being competitive either.

 

If they were to sustain the extra 2000+ ticket packages I believe they sold last offseason, that would keep their payroll break-even number in that range, maybe with a small boost from revenue sharing moneys and a small drop from not yet having given away their draft picks.

 

However, if their season ticket sales do what I think they're going to do, which is decline substantially after the 2015 season, that will likely push their break-even point back below $120 million.

 

If you add up the guys they already have committed to, and assume the arb guys and Alexei comes back, they're at $110 already committed for 1/2 a roster. That puts them very close to that proposed break-even point. If they don't bring Alexei back, or they cut Flowers loose, that leaves them extra room, but also leaves them an additional position that needs filled.

 

The White Sox have traditionally pushed their opening day payroll very close to but not over their believed break even point while turning roughly a $10 million profit, give or take. If you follow that guideline, you can get a fairly good guess and it really is reasonably well followed most years. They clearly undershot in 2014, but that was likely following a year where they overshot and so they were making up part of the difference.

 

They could change that behavior any of these year, but it's been a very good guideline for what they have to spend since before the ticket price drop. For them to be a serious player for Jayson Heyward, they would need to break that guidance.

 

None of this relies on the Forbes numbers, it can all be done with the team's payroll, trades, and contract signings. However, it is also, notably, consistent with what the Forbes numbers say.

[Balta1701]

Again with the 25 million in extra TV revenue = 25 million extra to the payroll. That's totally how Jerry Reinsdorf runs his businesses. So off-base.

I'm not even sure what you're suggesting here. The extra $25 million in TV revenue would be allocated somewhere other than revenues? There's a cost associated with that not being included somewhere and thus the White Sox's break even point is even lower than I've suggested? They're going to get $25 million in extra TV revenue and somehow that will result in $40 million in extra payroll spending?

[greg775]

The more I think about this the more mad I get. If the Yankees claimed him, why not let him go?? He is an unnecessary expense and this team needs to revamp its lineup and needs the cash. He has been an average closer and there are other candidates to close. Why does a lousy team need a closer? Sox blew this one. Trade him.

[Dick Allen]

I'm not even sure what you're suggesting here. The extra $25 million in TV revenue would be allocated somewhere other than revenues? There's a cost associated with that not being included somewhere and thus the White Sox's break even point is even lower than I've suggested? They're going to get $25 million in extra TV revenue and somehow that will result in $40 million in extra payroll spending?

Weren't you saying last year the payroll would be $100 million at best?

 

Just remember JR's quote during the infamous "all in" press conference where everyone assumed AJ gone, Pauly gone, no one signed. Dunn signed, AJ back, Pauly back. JR's response to reporters who asked how he could afford it, "You save a little here, a little there". They supposedly are one of the most profitable teams in baseball, and the owners supposedly haven't been taking anything out. They have plenty of money.

[2nd_city_saint787]

The more I think about this the more mad I get. If the Yankees claimed him, why not let him go?? He is an unnecessary expense and this team needs to revamp its lineup and needs the cash. He has been an average closer and there are other candidates to close. Why does a lousy team need a closer? Sox blew this one. Trade him.

 

Didn't the Sox blow it when they traded Reed in your eyes?

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Weren't you saying last year the payroll would be $100 million at best?

 

Just remember JR's quote during the infamous "all in" press conference where everyone assumed AJ gone, Pauly gone, no one signed. Dunn signed, AJ back, Pauly back. JR's response to reporters who asked how he could afford it, "You save a little here, a little there". They supposedly are one of the most profitable teams in baseball, and the owners supposedly haven't been taking anything out. They have plenty of money.

Given that the $25 mil in new TV money starting in 2014 was known at the time I struggle to think that I would have said that was the limit. Feel free to find a post of mine saying that we couldn't go past that number if we wanted to. I don't think I'd have said that but I could be wrong.

 

Instead I would have said that I wouldn't have gone past that number...because I didn't think the White Sox had an organization that was anywhere close to competitive and there was nothing on the FA market for the amount they had to spend that would turn them into contenders. Given that statement, pushing close to your max payroll would do serious harm to your ability to compete for more than just that season because you wouldn't have much money left to fill any major remaining holes the next year.

[Balta1701]

Weren't you saying last year the payroll would be $100 million at best?

 

Just remember JR's quote during the infamous "all in" press conference where everyone assumed AJ gone, Pauly gone, no one signed. Dunn signed, AJ back, Pauly back. JR's response to reporters who asked how he could afford it, "You save a little here, a little there". They supposedly are one of the most profitable teams in baseball, and the owners supposedly haven't been taking anything out. They have plenty of money.

I managed to track down my manifesto in the VMart thread last year outlining how I couldn't figure out any way to fill the number of holes on this roster at either $100 million or at $120 million because they would wind up counting on guys like Flowers, Noesi, Gillaspie, Danks, Garcia, and Sanchez. About the only things I think look poor in hindsight from that post is having too much confidence in Noesi despite offering a ton of caveats and failing to account for the fact that some of our FA signings would screw up and leave us well below 80 wins.

 

I think that's basically the game I played last offseason - if you're going to spend $120 million, which is what I thought was close to our max, then you still need to make a big deal trading Anderson and Montas and everyone else to really bring in a major contributor because the FA spending wouldn't be enough. And I think hindsight has worked pretty good on this.