Marty34

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 03:49 PM) 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.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) 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.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:18 AM) 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?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 07:37 PM) 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.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 07:15 PM) Unless, of course, you don't actually have $10 million just laying around. I wouldn't sweat it then either.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 07:03 PM) 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.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 06:52 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 03:54 PM) Only person in a better position if the White Sox sell are the sellers, not the fans or the buyers. If you do not think this is the case look up north where the debt on that team is stifling. Now if papa ameritrade wants to give sonny Ameritech some Ameritrade assets, you have a different story. What can happen is the White Sox can leverage some worth in the hopes that such leveraging (increased spending) will increase cash flow, which I think is Marty's point, this was the All In mantra, it did not work so they are pulling back somewhat since that failed experiment, and while not blowing things up like the ivy covered genius squad they are modeling their plan differently. 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.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 04:30 PM) You are the one basing cash flow on net valuation. Let's just say we disagree about how to run a business.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 04:05 PM) I am arguing that expecting someone to have their payroll based simply on their net value is one of the dumbest thing that a baseball fan can say. You're the one saying they should sweat $10M not me.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 03:45 PM) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/6-free-onlin...-120015557.html Are you advocating Chairman Reinsdorf sell the team? I mean you're making a good case that's he's undercapitalized.

You're making the case for Chairman Reinsdorf selling.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 02:17 PM) Not the franchise valuation thing again. Come on. I think we should look at the Sox as a billion dollar business and not a mom and pop outfit.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 12:53 PM) We are also looking at losing a ton of money due to ticket drops, ticket price drops, and loss of advertisers. The value of the franchise is ~$1 BILLION sweating $10M in revenue is penny wise and pound foolish.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 06:16 PM) Yeah, when you predict failure every year eventually you're going to be right. I certainly did not predict 90 wins for 2013.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 05:50 PM) As usual, you've done nothing to explain how 2012 was the fluke and 2013 was not. You could darn well be right...if this team's focus and defense level is as bad as it was in 2013. IMO, aside from Konerko, that was the biggest difference between the 2 seasons; one year they actually wanted to be there, the next year they couldn't possibly have cared less. I never said 2012 was a fluke. 2013 collapse could be seen from miles away though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 05:41 PM) And now that we've replaced the key guy who underperformed from that group with a guy who could be a real stud, we're right back to that level, correct? Not even close. They've gone from an aging offensive core to having no offensive core.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 05:33 PM) Were the 85 wins the previous year a fluke? Aging offensive core that had one last gasp.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 05:21 PM) This team was competitive in 2012 without insane things like that happening. 99 losses last year was not a fluke.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 01:50 PM) With Abreu in the fold, they can put a roster out there where they can legitimately say "if everything goes right this roster can compete". If they sign Paul Konerko, and especially if they dump Dunn to clear a spot for him, that's a move saying they aren't even going to try to field a competitive roster. How are they different from every other team? As far as Dunn goes, he's not very good and he's expensive. I'll take my chances that they'll be a better team without Dunn than with him.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 12:26 PM) Thereby putting the Sox in a position to scramble for a replacement or waste their whole offeseason not looking for a better option ? I hope this is the last thing that happens and he decides not to return . He's already taking too long to make up his mind. You have the Sox contending in 2014?

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 12:00 PM) So you either think Konerko will suck and then renege on his committment to another full year or get hurt and be out for the year. Or maybe the Chicago Nice Sox management which said he's earned the right to be on the team if he wants will suddenly realize what a huge mistake they made and jettisoned him to the scrap heap ? If he isn't hitting by the middle of May he'll retire.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 17, 2013 -> 12:28 AM) I have no idea at all why you would expect the payroll NOT to be lower. 99 loss team, seven straight years of declining attendance. 6 probably 7 years of profitability too. Mismanagement of the farm system is a big reason why the Sox are where they are. They have the ability to spend money to make up for that mismanagement. It will be disappointing if the payroll is cut.

Since the end of 2013: 1. Abreau signed 2. Payroll expected to be less than last year's $109M. 3. Sale, Quintana, Garcia said to be untouchable. 4. Per chairman Reinsdorf money available for another signing (presumably impact.) Given the points above do you feel better about the Sox direction now than at the end of the year? I have mixed feelings. I think the Abreau signing was a must, but the signing itself isn't enough. They have to be right about him to restore faith in their scouting operation. I'm disappointed that the payroll will be lower and that Sale and Quintana are untouchable. Fortunately, I think Hahn is employing some gamesmanship with the availability of players. If the payroll is indeed going to be lower given the state of the Sox farm system Sale and Quintana should not be untouchable.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2013 -> 12:18 PM) Paul Konerko is not the difference between someone coming here or not this year. That is just silly. Exactly. The ONLY thing Konerko will cost the Sox is a roster spot for 6 weeks.