joeynach

QUOTE (WSoxMatt @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 10:54 PM) if we dump Dye, I can see Pods in LF, Rios in CF, Kotsay in RF with Q at DH and PK at 1B OR Keep Dye, dump PK and Pods in LF, Rios in CF, Dye in RF, Q at DH, Kotsay at 1B I think hes back no matter what I 100% agree with this. I dont think we need to acquire someone to be a fulltime lift and pull power DH. I think those days are over. With an OF of Pods, Rios, Quentin, and Kotsay the DH position will be rotated through that group. Dye is a gonner and he played his way out.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 06:30 PM) $23 for parking and $30 a ticket is a steal compared to Notre Dame football. Parking is $35 and tickets are almost $100 each. I'm sure that Bears and Bulls games are comparable if not higher. Yeah but they have to charge higher prices for football and basketball...they have way less games to draw revenue from. Maybe 6 or 7 home games for college football and 41 for basketball (NBA)

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 01:26 PM) IIRC an injury forced him to retire, he did not choose to retire. I always assumed the contract was written that way so that their was some "pain" for the team. The insurance company paid as long as he was an injured "player" so they kept him on the 40-man roster. Baseball contracts are guaranteed from injuries, unlike football. Im still confused on what happens to a players contract if he retires...or is forced to retire as said by Drs due to an injury.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 1, 2009 -> 09:56 AM) However, Belle ended his career just two seasons later, retiring at age 34 as a result of degenerative osteoarthritis in his hip. However, he was kept on Baltimore's active 40-man roster for the next three years, as a condition of the insurance policy which largely reimbursed the Orioles for the remainder of Belle's contract. Hmm that is confusing. While we all know that baseball contracts are guaranteed if a player retires then I thought he essentially forgoes his contract and is not paid in full. So why did the orioles need an insurance policy to cover paying out Belle is he chooses to retire. I could the insurance policy being there if Belle say had some season ending injuries and rode the DL for a couple years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 1, 2009 -> 11:45 AM) Step 1: Fire ozzie Step 2: Get the Pirates to hire Ozzie Step 3: Cut a hole in a box Step 4: Trade McCutcheon straight up for Wise. Im laughing my ass off!!!!

QUOTE (Drew @ Oct 1, 2009 -> 02:04 AM) I lived in Minneapolis in 2003. That price for Twins parking seems about right. Vikings was triple that. Dodger Stadium is $15, but in a stadium that seats over 50,000 in Los Angeles, that means that you have about 25,000 cars. Angel Stadium is $8. I don't know how Arte Moreno does it, but baseball would be a better place if more people followed his lead. Last summer when I was there I remember parking at Fenway running about $30-some. Staples Center for Kings games runs $20 as of last season. I don't give a damn about basketball but I'd imagine with an average ticket running a bill to see the Lakers, parking is marked up as well. Im pretty sure bulls games are $20.

As long he makes the minimum forget about it. Now as soon as he is eligible to make some serious $$ then yeah of course they will look to trade him.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 1, 2009 -> 12:37 AM) I feel for you guys who weren't around at Old Comiskey when parking and ticket prices were cheap. Steinbrenner ruined it for all fans. Used to be baseball was really affordable before he decided to try to sign all good players (and some mediocre ones) at whatever the cost. I think the economics of the game were changing long before Steinbrener gave out his first $100 mil contract.

QUOTE (earthshiner @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 10:18 PM) I believe parking at the metrodome is $8 bucks. Its $10 here in pittsburgh for Pirates games. Its $12 in florida for marlins. My gut tells me the white sox should be something between $15-$20

You have to ask yourself whether the parking supply and demand curves are efficient. With $23 to park, about $5 of which going for tax, and about 5640 cars parking per game, is the white sox parking being utilized correctly at this price. How many spaces do the sox have at $23 a pop. If they lowered to price to say $16, assume $4 to tax, would they increase demand enough to overtake the loss income of $7 per car. I dont know its all about free market economics. Will lowering the price even encourage more people to park, do people drive or not drive becuase of traffic, parking prices, gas prices, public transit availability; what are the characteristics of the market. You would need to know all this before you can determine what you should price your parking at. Maybe the white sox make the most money off parking at half full lots at $23 a pop than at 3/4 full lots at $18. You just dont know, because we dont have the data and trends.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) As more people being to spend later this year, the excess of money created by the Fed over the past year will flood the system and trigger inflation, and the Fed will have to increase interest rates to combat it (foreign investors will likely demand higher interest rates as well). Both of these factors will curb spending and job creation. The extent to which this happens remains to be seen, but a double-dip recession is a very real possibility. Some of the legislation currently being debated in Congress will also lead to tax increases, which would likely compound the problem. We're not out of the woods at all. Yep, same thing my econ Prof said!!

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) There was also an 11% across the board ticket price hike, no? And I think a 10% increase in parking fees? So a 9% dropoff isn't that bad. Losing the sponsorships and advertising is probably more of a concern. Of course, it's hard to pitch your park for advertising when your attendance went down--so there's that. Isnt this just going to be a simple supply demand function now. Prices went up and demand for tickets and parking fell off. Now to offset the excess in supply of parking and tickets, prices will come down. This will also increase the demand for complimentary goods such as concessions, souvenirs, and other game day purchases.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) didnt the sox have to take 2 games with a 0 official attendance figure because of rainout/makeup dates? well i got the info from ESPN here http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

The information I have shows our total home attendance for 2009 at 2,284,164. An average of about 28,200 per game. Last year we drew about 2.5 Mil so this year we saw about a 9% drop in attendance. Not sure quite what to make of that. I do believe MLB was warning teams to expect attendance to be down at least 10% across the board due to economic conditions. If thats the case I guess the drop off was expected and acceptable. However, our 2009 attendance figure is the lowest since we have had since 2004. Given the needs of our team, desire to have a high (competitve) payroll, and the recent economic conditions, I wonder what the drop off will really do in the off season. Will this force the sox to reduce payroll from last year? Can losses be recouped from say spring training tickets. Should both spring and regular season games ticket prices be reduced in order to attract more attendees? Some tough business things for the sox to consider it will be an interesting off-season. My personal opinion is that if KW was really "a bit over extended" as he claimed to be after Peavy and Rios, and he said he was 'counting on continued contention and support down the stretch', something that obviously didn't happen, the sox could be in for more of a contractor off season. I think given the previous realization as well as a drop off in attendance, payroll will be reduced a bit and ticket prices fall as well. Usually when something goes really right or really wrong, it gets reflected in the next seasons figures (like the attendance and payroll boom after the 05 WS, even though 05 attendance was rather modest).

QUOTE (striker62704 @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) Here is what I have for 2010: Obligated ($68.05) Peavy $15 Buehrle $14 Konerko $12 Pierzynski $6.25 Linebrink $5 Floyd $2.75 Rios $9.7 Viciedo $2.25 Ramirez $1.1 Arbitration Eligible Jenks Danks Quentin Betemit Options Thornton $2.25 Garcia $1 Not Sure Pena Carrasco Williams Pre Arbitration Beckham Getz Nix I'm sure I'm missing other minor league contracts we have to cover. Betemit is not on the roster man, they released him months ago.

QUOTE (SoxPride56 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) Maybe we can trade for Michael Wuertz instead. I would be down for that...especially if I can swap Pena for Wuertz.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 25, 2009 -> 11:13 AM) although his numbers havent changed too much, I never felt comfortable or confident in him coming in this year, he just always seemed like he was hittable. I didnt feel that way too much last year until later in the year when he tired. Im not too down about it, as we always say bullpens are really volatile from year to year and its time for some new blood Yeah will I hope the new blood isn't Randy Williams or Tony Pena. We won in 2008 because of the lights outness of our pen's back end. For most of the season we had Jenks/Dote/Line/Thornton all throwing like studs. If we go into next year with just Thornton along with the agining Line and perhaps no Bobby then what. You better bring in someone who can automatically be relied on.

I basically took all the guys who could or could not be back based on performance, contract, or team direction. So of this group of guys who would like to see return to the team for next year?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 05:23 PM) I've got an idea. DON'T TRADE FOR OAKLAND A'S RELIEVERS IT NEVER WORKS OUT WELL. Unless you get Huston Street. Hes not really an A's reliver. He is basically a cubs reliver having spend about 85% of his playtime there, and only 1 season with oakland.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 08:52 AM) Why wouldn't we be in the running? This is the type of deal Kenny specializes in. He loves to load up his prospects to get a guy on the verge of greatness. Yeah cuz Nick Swisher, Alex Rios, and Tony Pena are all on the verge of greatness. Hell you might as well throw Roberto Alomar and Carl Everett in there too huh.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 01:31 AM) Your prayer will not be answered. And in regards to Wuertz...its generally never a good idea to trade for a reliever at his peak value. The Sox gave up Allen for Pena...what do you think they'll have to give up for Wuertz? When the A's look at trimming payroll this year and see an arb eligible raise for Wuertz they will deal him.

I have wanted this guy on our team ever since the cubs put him in the doghouse for no reason and then traded him. All he has done since coming over the AL, with the A's, has been get better. He throws hard, throws strikes, and has good stuff. He made $1.1M this year and is eligible for arbitration. 2009 Stats: 6-1, 2.80 ERA, 0.99 WHIP, .195 BA, 95 K, 22BB, 22 HLD, 4 SV I think KW should make a play at Wuertz, not necessarily to close but to replace Dotel, the late inning RH setup guy, though I do think he has closer stuff. I pray Kenny doesn't go into 2010 relying on anyone named Pena, Williams, or Linebrink. In fact I would mind seeing Pena or Williams start the year in AAA to try and figure things out, they appear to more closely resemble guys from the 2007 bullpen clown car than quality revilers. Perhaps even a swap of Pena + Prospect to get Wuertz. We do know how the A's love to shed payroll, especially when its escalating, whenever possible.

I wouldnt mind upton if he didnt take a whole lot to get. We could then have an outfield of CQ, Rios, Upton. I would prefer Crawford but I am going to assume that he would cost a lot to get and since he is a free agent after 2010 I wouldnt give up talent just for 1 year of his service.

White sox news = YAWN

"Last winter, for example, he traded off starter Javier Vazquez and nominal center fielder Nick Swisher. The former ranks among the National League leaders in strikeouts, innings and fewest baserunners per inning." This is kind of a very bland statement to make. Vazquez had many many problems be counted on here, and his move to the weaker NL and pitcher friendly Turner Field was a sure fire way to induce the appearance of improvement without actually doing anything. Same with Swisher, he posted career worst numbers here with the sox, how on earth could he go to the yankees with their better lineup, hitters haven to RF, and fresh start and get worse. Of course he didn't, his #'s show that he got better, or at least moved back towards his mean statistics. That doesn't really say a whole lot, when someone goes from terrible to back to average.