Balta1701

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 09:35 PM) Yes. Thankfully I haven't watched his schtick. I think it's pretty rude of him to joke about beheadings when this guy hadn't even been buried yet. I'm all for jokes but ISIS is so horrific a group; they are doing so many bad things it truly should be off limits to comics. Colbert should be ashamed of himself. Seriously. Why not joke about Ferguson and Mike Brown's death as well? He knows he'd get fired over that probably. I think Colbert is an ass to tell you the truth. Hopefully he won't get kidnapped by some ISIS asshole set free in the US and have his own f***ing head sawed off. And I think this post makes you look worse than anything you just said about the other person. You should be embarrassed about yourself. Pathetic.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 09:32 PM) I'm confident in saying Semien is a far superior player to Sanchez and L. Garcia. Counting defense?

One irony? The O's have 3 quality OF's and a couple days ago someone here suggested signing one of their OF/DH types, Delmon Young, this offseason was a good idea.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 09:26 PM) Makes me wonder if they give Viciedo all of the at bats the rest of the way in LF, or if they give them to Sierra or Mitchell. Is sierra even back yet?

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 08:42 PM) Why does someone have to be getting traded? Maybe they are just giving Wilkins these last couple days off before the rosters expand on Sept. 1st as a reward for a tremendous season? I mean, I hope there is a trade, but twitter is dead right now on the rumor front. They can send Surkamp and Bassitt back down and Surkamp won't even have to leave since he'll get called back up Monday.

Bassitt and Surkamp I'd assume?

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 06:18 PM) Can the sox win the World Series with Sale Scherzer Quintana Rodon Bassitt Danks With this offense and bullpen?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 05:40 PM) What is their profit or loss with Silver Chalice? And have they spent or paid out all of their profits over the years? And where were they getting the money to pay Tanaka and his posting fee? Generally over the years I think the White Sox org takes a narrow profit most years, on average. They have had a couple losing money seasons, but last year was the big downside. Presumably the hope with Tanaka would have been that had they lost money again in 2014 with him, the money coming off the 2015 books could help pay for him. They may well have even offered a backloaded deal in that case. The only reason they were willing to do that though is that it was a long-term solution, not a short term stopgap for a guy in his late 30s.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 05:06 PM) Then we should probably close the thread because I can't see the White Sox giving up even a 2nd rounder to sign a 36 year old DH. One thing worth thinking about is that if the Sox did sign another player as well, one of the starting pitchers, then VMart could only cost them their 3rd rounder. They could then potentially go quite a ways under slot in round 1 and still have enough money left to put together a full draft overall.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 04:50 PM) If Victor Martinez gets a Qualifying Offer he will not be a White Sox. Barring injury, the Tigers would be nuts to not give him a QO.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 04:16 PM) Balta, have you ever worked in the business world? You realize they could cut other operating expenses and increase payroll without an increase in revenue right? There's a lot more that goes into the operating profit equation for a baseball team than just revenue and payroll. And how the f*** do you know they have no new revenue streams next year? Where do you come up with this stuff? I have never seen someone infer so much from a basic Forbes article. The large revenue stream increases in MLB are extremely well known. Everyone knew for about 2 years that the entire league would get about $20 million/team in new revenue with the TV deal. It's possible they could have small ones, but the reality is that we've seen them much more commonly losing advertisers for the past 2 years rather than increasing. In MLB, payroll for the team typically makes up >50% of the revenue. The fixed expenses to open and operate the ballpark are difficult to cut - just ask the Cubs how well it worked out for their grounds crew. That basically leaves draft and development spending as the last big pool of money. I could believe the White Sox would be willing to cut that again in order to fund the big league team, they did it for like a decade, but I don't think anyone would prefer we'd gone under-slot this year rather than drafting Rodon. Basically, you should be telling me what these magical expense streams are that they're going to cut. Shuttering the upper deck for 1/2 the games so they don't have to pay ushers? Replacing the grounds crew with minimum wage folks? Cutting the scouting department in half? Which of those provides any reasonable benefit? Which of these did they not do in previous years, preferring to lose money last year for example?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 03:56 PM) Either way, I have no doubt the Sox will be able to afford a $100M payroll next year, regardless of if they actually spend it. While I'm impressed that you have direct access to the Sox's financials, you've yet to convince me that we're approaching some $90M payroll limitation, especially when you have no insight into their 2015 revenue forecasts that their payroll budget will be based on. Based on the Forbes numbers, the White Sox lost ~$5 million last year with a $110 million payroll. They have seen a continued erosion of 1000 tickets sold per game so far this season, a number that is likely to increase before the year ends since we still have the crappy late-september attendances to get through. Their new revenue stream in 2014 is the MLB national TV deal money, which offsets a portion of the erosion in ticket sales since 2013, but they're also reportedly near the bottom of the league in TV ratings and advertising money right now. All of this has worked together to make the White Sox in 2014 profitable at a level of $91 million based on public statements, but there is no new revenue stream coming onto the table next year compared to this year. The continued erosion of revenues at the gate and in the ballpark we're witnessing means that if the team holds steady at $91 million, they're closer to their break-even point than this year and if they go beyond it there's a good chance they go into the red unless they can push ticket sales the other way. I can't give you exact numbers to within a million dollars, but I think it's pretty clear that in 2014 their break-even payroll would be in the range of $100 million and they would have every reason to expect continued erosion of ticket sales by about 1000/game next year, along with little/no boost in ratings or ad sales. If they'd signed Tanaka at what they'd offered him they'd very likely be in the red for another season. I could see them doing that if a 27 year old good fit was on the free agent market. I cannot see them doing that for 34-36 year old stopgaps.

QUOTE (venom4789 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 03:36 PM) ok i dont know a lot about war but why is josh donaldson leading the league in it. offensively his numbers are not outstanding. Fangraphs has Mike Trout leading the league in it.

QUOTE (1dog @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 03:04 PM) For those who want VM, please give me a list of 36 year old guys that just signed big contracts and their subsequent stats. It just never seems like it's worth it to me. As a 35 year old, Paul Konerko signed for 3/$37.5. During that contract, he put up 2.8 fWAR, worth about $15 million. He was a solid player in the first 1.5 seasons of that deal. I think that's a great example of what is required for this deal to work. It's likely to overpay the guy overall and really hurt in years 2+ but you need to be close enough in 2015 that he puts you over the top.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 02:16 PM) I hate doing this all over again, but you're absolutely nuts if you think we're limited to a $90M payroll next year. Budgets are always forwarding looking and both Kenny & Hahn have recently expressed optimism for next season. They've hinted at using their financial flexibility to add some key pieces. No way in hell are they tied this season's payroll, which we already know wasn't maxed out by the Tanaka offer made. And how are you getting to this $60M number? What are you expecting the few arb guys likely to return to actually make? They have just over $45 million committed to 5 players. I'm guessing Flowers, Jones, and Noesi receive arbitration offers, which is about $8 million, with Flowers getting a $3 million chunk and the others at a little below that because flowers is in Arb year 2. That's $53 million for 8 players. It then takes an additional 17 players to fill out a roster. If they were all league minimum, that pushes to just over $60 million. Several of them will have their contracts renewed at slightly higher amounts to reward for good work this year, and so $60 million is a good payroll guess for next year's commitments, again ignoring Abreu's signing bonus. Paulino also has a $250k buyout if you want to count every single dollar. If Viciedo or De Aza were offered arb, that would blow >$5 million for either of them. I don't think we're "limited" to $90 million but I don't think there's anyone obviously available that they'd be willing to risk losing money this season for. if there's another 25-28 year old available on a 5-ish year contract where the team would control him for his entire prime years and he would be a long term building block then perhaps they'd blow through that, but 34 year old pitchers and 36 year old DHs do not compare to Tanaka in that way at all. They may have been willing to go through another season losing money to get Tanaka in the fold for the next 5 years. They are not going to lose money (and a draft pick) to bring Victor Martinez in to fill the DH slot. Important Edit: Oh and I forgot, they still owe Jeff Keppinger $4.5 million next year. So the Sox are at closer to $65 million in payroll as a starting point if you count him.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 02:03 PM) It's Josh Phegley time next year again. Flowers could be trade bait and we keep Nieto as back up or sign a FA. Maybe AJ comes back for a year. Sale on the other hand has had a bit of trouble the last few starts. Tired maybe They're clearly not confident in the least with Phegley behind the plate.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 01:58 PM) The other thing is Detroit will eventually become a cesspool of bad contracts to broken down players. The White Sox will hopefully be on an upswing. It may be next year. Like say, 3/$45 to a 36 year old DH?

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 01:52 PM) It would be interesting to know just how bad Flowers has to do the rest of the way to lose his starting spot for next year? I don't think Tyler Flowers has anything to do with whether or not Tyler Flowers is the starting catcher next year. He's clearly done enough to be offered arbitration, which will push him up to ~3 mil-ish next year and that's ok even if he's just a backup. The question will be whether something better becomes available, most likely on the trade market unless they really go for it and target someone like Russell Martin.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 12:43 PM) I wonder what we might have as far as money to spend? My best guess is that right now, assuming De Aza and Viciedo aren't back, the Sox have about $60 million in commitments for next season (with the caveat that we don't know how Abreu's signing bonus is budgeted). With the higher draft and international spending this and next year, and decreasing revenues at the gate, my best guess is that the Sox will have up to $30 million to spend next offseason. They could probably push past that for the right guy, but only if they're in a situation where they think a guy is a perfect fit for the next 5+ years or something like that. $30 million isn't bad, but it's not going to land Shields + VMart + relievers. To add to each of those areas the Sox would have to think about pushing the payroll back into the $115-$120 million range next year, and they lost money at $110 million in payroll last season.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 12:09 PM) Wow, overplaying for a closer in free agency is amongst the worst ways we could spend our money. And how adding a closer intrigues you more than a #2 starter or a 3/4 hitter blows my mind. I don't see where we're going to find better bullpen help out of our system right now, and I don't think a 36 year old DH or a 34 year old starter are going to remain #2 starters/#3-4 hitters for more than tiny sliver of time.

QUOTE (LDF @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 11:51 AM) In a perfect world, baseball clubs will find the perfect right / left hitting lineup. the players to choose from, what will be available, is not all that enticing. I see the sox having to fill those empty holes by picking a player who can produce rather than having perfect right / left hitting lineup. Their manager will respond by forcing whatever players they acquire into the closest thing he can find to a left/right lineup. This should be expected when acquiring players.

QUOTE (LDF @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 12:01 PM) sorry to see Carroll sent down. at least he can say he made it to the "show" not a lot of players can say that. He'll be back in like 2 days.

QUOTE (JoshPR @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 11:49 AM) James Shields and Vmart would be a nice off season. If they really wanna spend add David Robertson to that He is a target that could intrigue me more than any of the other names you mentioned.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 11:38 AM) Agreed. You sign him, then what was your reasoning for letting AJ go? Not saying that wasn't the right decision(in fact, it was) and this would be the same one. The time to get Victor was his last go around IMO. Let the Red Sox bid for him. Victor Martinez isn't a catcher any more, he's a DH.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2014 -> 11:01 AM) My question is why would Victor Martinez want to leave Detroit for Chicago? Presumably you'd have to make the answer "money".