Rex Hudler

You tell 'em, MSF. LOL Dransfeldt and Bell are likely the left side of the infield in Charlotte.

Well DUH, if he was healthy, proves he can stay healthy and is still an all-star caliber player, there THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO TRADE HIM. His contract would actually be a good one in today's market!

You smoking those funny cigarettes again Jas?

You mean everything on WSI isn't true?

Good thing they don't use beach balls in games up here, huh?

Color me unimpressed w/ Dransfeldt and Bell.

There you go making sense again, MSF. Stop it, will you?

How do you infer from that article that Tejada is interested in the Sox. Sounds more like the Sox are interested in him if they can clear payroll. Big difference, my friend.

To clarify, we never released him. He was chosen in the Rule 5 draft last year. If there is room on the 40-man roster, why not protect that from happening again? Even after adding these four, the Sox have 4 or 5 slots left.

Honestly I would rather see us keep another speedy OF or IF instead of the leadfoots. We have plenty of guys who can play first. Hell teach Carlos how to play first, if need be. I just see Gload as a classic AAAA guy. Who knows, maybe I will be wrong. Some classic AAAA guys, turn out to be nice role players in the bigs. Perhaps Gload can.

Ankiel pitched in AA & AAA before going to the Majors.

great find.....

The concept of a "Presenting Sponsor" is fairly new in sports marketing and many teams are trying it. Personally, I am not a big fan of it and I am not sure how fans would respond. Like your Bears example, it would be a ".... Presented by X Sponsor" rather than a Bank One Chicago Bears. To answer your question, yes it is possible. Strong marketing can be a boost to a club's revenue, but in the grand scheme of things, it is pretty small when related to TV revenue (although that is considered marketing) and ticket sales. The problem, and you can probably guess it, is that the amount of marketing dollars a team can bring in or charge for opportunities is generally set by the attendance. A simple example is that the Cubs (based on $3 million in attendance) can get more money for the same kinds of sponsorships than the Sox can get based on numbers. If you were advertising your business, and you had to choose, would you pick an opportunity that would get you exposure to 3 million people or 2 million if costs and details were the same? If you wanted to do both, would you not expect the opportunity with only 2 million fans to be cheaper? So you can see how increased attendance has a domino effect on revenue streams in addition to tickets.

Here's the scoop.... some of this may be repeated information, but some of the other posts got off track a bit so I figured I would just answer yours in total, which may mean duplication of some info. The naming rights $$ have been covered, so I won't get into that. The Sox are increasing their payroll this year. No one knows to what exact level. There has been all kids of speculation and numbers thrown out from $55 mil, to $58 mil, to $60 mil or even higher. The final number will likely depend on what players they are able to get and if it makes financial sense. The Sox are trying to move players to give them more flexibility. The Maggs example is if you can get 2, maybe 3 Major League ready players, and save several million which can be spent on other players, you could in theory at least get 4 or 5 players for the price of one. If you are building a team and have limited resources, that gives you much more flexibility. The Sox either can't or don't want to afford Gordon. If Gordon wants $5 million or $10 million or any number that the Sox feel is too high, then refusing to offer him that doesn't make them cheap, it just means they aren't paying that price for something they think is worth less. Don't bring up Jose and his $5 mil, because I am still scratching my head on that one. The bottom line is the Sox are trying to get better, but with Buehrle set to get approximately a raise of $3 million or more, and Maggs due an extra $5 million, and Carlos likely an extra $3 million That's $11 million extra right there, not counting other raises players will get. If the Sox only increase payroll $5-$10 million, then they don't have enough to honor those contracts. Hence, everyone talking about the Sox "cutting" payroll. Lastly, and please don't take this as me talking down to you, but there is a business lesson here that needs to be learned. Just because attendance goes up 15%, doesn't mean payroll should be adjusted accordingly. First of all, announced attendance numbers include comp tickets, so an extra 250,000 fans does not necessarily they all paid or paid full price. That also brings us to the half-price nights and other discount offers that may have caused the attendance to rise. So understand, that increased attendance does not necessarily mean an equal and proportionate increase in revenue. Also, increased revenue does not mean increased profit. Operating expenses have to be considered. Think of it this way... if you go into McDonald's and but a Big Mac for $2.50 (or whatever they cost), only $1.00 (or less) of that may go to the bottom line. There is the cost of the burger, the cost of the employees cooking and serving the burger, the building, the electricity, the lease, maintenance, and so on. This applies to the Sox as well. If ticket revenue increased say $20 million dollars in a year, that does not mean that is $20 million in free money to be added to the payroll. There are expenses to be paid and costs incurred. Yes, some of those costs are fixed and would not go up, but most are variable meaning that as ticket sales rise and the number of people in attendance rise, so do the costs. I wish it were as easy as you stated, but there is much more to it.

To clarify, it equates $2 million in REVENUE with each 100,000 in attendance. Revenue does not equal bottom line profit. It does not take into consideration the costs associated with the revenue.

Problem is, the owners don't have the complete say. The player's union is too strong for the owners to be able to implement their own program unilaterally.

We already have a SS, at $5 million. He'd have to be traded first.

Only problem is he is a SS.

We're splitting hairs here, but Rauch is not and was not considered a power pitcher. There is a middle ground between a finesse pitcher and a power pitcher. The bottom line is he has a chance to contribute and this is his year to step up. I hope he does well, but based on concerns mentioned earlier, I have my doubts he will be as good as expected. Could he be a solid #5 starter? Hope so.

Gonna have to tighten the anti-spam controls, Jason.

Did I just agree with Brando??? Maybe I should re-think this.....

The MVP can be interpreted in different ways. Some people consider the award one for the best player. Others think in terms of value. Generally the MVP comes from a winning team and I have no argument with that. But sometimes the best player isn't on a winning team and if you look at the history of the award, you will most often find that the best player was indeed on a winner. With no real specifics or definition of the award, I don't have a problem with him winning it. There was no real clear cut choice and I think it can be easily argued that he was the best player this year. I also don't think how much money he makes should come into play with an award at all. I know the game is different than it once was, but to me that is about business. The award is about performance. I have no problem with it and say congrats to ARod.

Brando, however you want to slice it, Rauch was never really a power pitcher, in the classic sense. He was never really overpowering. His advantage was his height and his command. Although his command in the strikezone wasn't perfect (whose is?), he had the ability to throw strikes. He coudl run it up to 93-94 on occasion, but that is not where he was most of the time. I agree with you that he may never get back to his old form because of his injury, but whether he does or doesn't, I don't think you will find him to be "dominating". He can very good, but in my mind I think that will be a stretch. I hope he proves me wrong. I have nothing against the guy, but I do think that he was overhyped somewhat.

I agree MSF. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to get into a radar gun war again.

Guess that should have been in green.