Marty34

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Apr 6, 2013 -> 07:34 AM) The handling of the bullpen is bad already. Jones in the opener and why no reed last night? Lindstrom (or Crain) should not be used when they are 5 runs down. Their usage has to be watched more carefully.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Apr 6, 2013 -> 01:15 AM) Not to mention the awesome work by Jones giving up those 2 runs. I understand why he was in last night, but Jones with a game on the line is asking for trouble. He's a project not a back-end of the bullpen guy.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 5, 2013 -> 08:41 PM) Cause the long man went yesterday. Someone like Jones is going to have to give them 2 innings tonight. Jones should be the long man until further notice. He needs to give them three.

Why burn an inning from Lindstrom here? He's only got ~55 of them a year.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 04:10 PM) Viciedo and De Aza I understand. You want to see them play better, especially De Aza. Keppinger has a career .687 OPS against RHP. He's been around for a while. He's not going to hit them well. Do not throw Keppinger in there. Do not past go. Do not collect $200. We know what we have in Keppinger. He's a lefty murderer, a liability against righties, and a guy who doesn't strike out and so help me god if you say he strikes out a lot because he's struck out twice in three games I'm going to snap. You don't sign Keppinger for 3 years to platoon.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Mar 30, 2013 -> 04:14 PM) I would say guys like Scott Merkin, Mark Gonzales, Scott Gregor,etc can look at these Forbes numbers and say yeah looks about right or no no way off. And if it was no no way off you would see an article in the paper. Merkin works for the Sox, Gonzalez and Gregor are more likely to tweet a picture of an empty park 20 minutes before an April game than do actual journalistic work on the Sox. Forbes main competitors would be the ones who would be the first to say those numbers were wrong and to my knowledge they've never done so.

Haven't seen much of spring training, but I don't like Beckham's stance. Looks like he's more concerned with just making contact rather than driving the ball. Really is a shell of who he was when he first came up.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 29, 2013 -> 04:16 PM) He was, admittedly, before my time, but I have to imagine Raines was pretty damn good in LF too I'd put Raines as the second-worst LFer ahead of only Sax. He played about a step or two in front of the track everything dropped in front of him.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 29, 2013 -> 02:49 PM) I'll go so far as to say decent, I won't say good. He's still not going to cover a lot of ground, but Rios + De Aza out there will make up for some of DV's issues with that, and he'll probably get better jumps on the ball with more experience. His strong, accurate arm makes up for his only decent range. I'm going to say he's the best defensive LF'er the Sox have had since moving to the new park.

Be skeptical of defensive stats. Viciedo was a good defensive LF'er last year.

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 07:51 PM) Also, at the worst, you're accusing the 11th most profitable team of stinginess for having the 11th highest payroll. (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries) and the 7th best record in the AL.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 03:59 PM) It isn't about believing or not believing Forbes' numbers. It is that OI is not the same as NI, or is it the same as true profit. You keep forgetting that. I'm saying that if a team's operating income was $22.9M they easily could have afforded a higher payroll. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 03:59 PM) Again - the Sox have a budget for payroll. Like virtually all teams do in any given year. You are somehow contorting that into meaning the Sox have no money, or are saying they have no money. As I wrote earlier in this thread, The White Sox are comfortable with how they operate. That's part of their problem.

Santana has probable re-tear of shoulder capsule

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 01:44 PM) Marty, what you're always advocating is adding extreme risk in the hopes that you will get extreme rewards. Operating at a loss in the hopes that the attendance gain is enough to offset it is an extreme risk financially, and your alternative plan is to proceed with a complete teardown which carries extreme risks in its own right. Numerically, if risks and rewards are even in magnitude, you'd need greater than a 50% shot at the upside to even CONSIDER using the plan. In reality, a wise and risk-averse organization would need much better odds than that. Which makes me ask: what's your paradigm here? Because I can name you a dozen teams that have failed to rebuild after a teardown in a timely fashion, or that have failed to compensate for a spending spree with increased ticket revenues. How many can you name that have succeeded in these endeavors? Which among them is your ideal performer? I don't know what the optimal solution is. I know it was disappointing to see the Sox finish 3 games behind the Tigers while having operational income of $22.9M.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 03:00 PM) Show us. Show us where you have seen, in the past few years, the Sox trying to make people believe that. At worst, I've see Hahn and/or KW say they have a budget to work within (like ALL teams do), but that there is flexibility there for special circumstances. As far as I can tell, "the public" is only you, because only you seem to believe they are saying that. You can't spend $1 when you have $0.50.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 02:58 PM) Reinsdorf said they lost money. Why are you so confident he's lying? You don't say you made money and cut payroll. I believe Forbes numbers.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 01:37 PM) They went above and beyond anything they'd spent in 2011 and that was a disaster. That was the calculated risk you talked about, and it cost them money, which is why they cut costs last year. You can only do that so often and remain operational. 2011 was not a financial disaster. The Sox have done a great job making the public believe they have no money.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 11:37 AM) Why the hell would it make sense for them to operate at a loss of $8m-$12m? You're assuming they would not be a better team, draw more fans, and make a postseason.

The Sox aren't cheap, they're comfortable. Comfortable promoting from within, putting together a team that is above average, and comfortable with the profit they make. Nobody gets on their case to spend more money because the perception in the media based solely on ticket sales is the Sox don't have any money. It's a nice position for a large market owner to be in. No pressure.

Don't you think that $23M could have gotten them a division title if it was used last year?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 07:06 PM) If they are as bad as you say they are, an extra $20 million wasn't going to save them. The problem is that cutting the other way would have hurt them for a decade or more. What if I'm wrong? They could easily afford another $30M on this payroll.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 06:51 PM) So if they can do something they have done once or twice (depending on if you want to use the 3 or 4 year standard) in the franchise's history, everything will be great. Well that kinda goes without saying. If housing prices went back to the 2007 levels, things in our economy would be great too. There's no point to being in the middle as they have been. Bump the payroll and compete for the division.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 06:02 PM) Again, that's operating income, not net income. Regardless, what is your point? They can raise payroll by $20 million? I still don't see how we're a "sleeping giant". When the Sox put 30K a night in that park for a 3-4 year stretch they'll be swimming in money. Operating income of $23M with an average of 24K while having a $115M payroll is pretty impressive.

With the way this team makes money there's no excuse for the playoff drought they've been in. Team is a sleeping giant. Complete List

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 06:53 PM) And you weaken two positions, instead of just one. Do you need three lefties in the pen? Santiago should be developed as a starter.