Balta1701

10+ pages and I haven't seen anyone face this setup from a business aspect. For a comparison - the northside franchise sold for a high price, but because of continued team cost inflation and the seemingly successful rebuilding project, plus playing hardball on renovations, that looks like they've turned that into a strong business asset. So what do the White Sox have? They look to me like an extremely undervalued asset. They are at the bottom of the league in both attendance and in TV ratings, but just like the Cubs - they have a revenue stream that does not die when they lose. The Cubs still fill that ballpark even if they are losers, the White Sox still have the parking lot revenues even when they are losers, and they throw in continued revenue sharing growth. Therefore, they have a franchise that has a large potential market, substantial potential for growth, and a revenue stream that makes it difficult for them to truly lose money even if they make poor decisions. Basically, if they do a terrible job at managing the baseball side of things, they still break even unless they chose not to. Throw in the ability to sign a new TV contract in 3 years and the reality that they're already in one of the oldest ballparks in MLB and if you're a 20-year investor this franchise looks to me like a huge medium- and long-term growth opportunity. You've got multiple revenue streams that could be substantially grown on a 5-year basis - without endorsing him, that's exactly what Cuban did with the Mavericks, taking them from a team averaging 14,000 tickets/game to a team averaging 20,000 tickets/game - a huge boost in interest which corresponded with boosts in media ratings and money. A team averaging 50% of its tickets sold is a bigger revenue growth opportunity than the Mavericks. In the long term, this team has a stable stadium setup for 10 years with a revenue stream that, like the Cubs, supports the franchise even if they're losing, and they then have the ability to gradually start pushing towards a new stadium. While right now Illinois is in no shape to be any part of that, medium-term revenue growth by filling seats and improving the media contracts could be the basis of a multi-year lobbying campaign. That will not be easy, that will take playing politics well, that will take some luck on the state of the Illinois and Chicago budgets, that will not be pretty, but in the 10+ year window the right owner(s) could start getting close. And let's face it, there's a nonzero chance that won't happen. However, if you get in right now and are in baseball's good graces, then if the state of Illinois refuses to set the clock back to before whatever ultimatum you give them, you could be the first franchise to relocate in decades. Right now baseball is hesitant on both expansion and relocation. If the Rays are able to do something about their stadium before their 2027 lease comes up, then it's hard to see which team would actually be a candidate to move. If MLB doesn't expand before that time (something that, as an owner you would have a strong voice in), then markets like Vegas (esp. if the NFL opens it up), Portland, and other markets could be strong candidates to take on the franchise. Finally, again even if they do a terrible job, they have continued growth of franchise value and continued growth of shared revenue streams on top of all that. If I had a couple billion to play with...this franchise would be an extremely tempting asset. The current ownership has been getting by and surviving, but successful franchises are several Ledecky's ahead of them. The Sox are an asset that will not lose money because of established deals and it's an asset that you can project multiple lines of revenue growth over the long term. If you're an effective ownership group, there are billions of dollars of unrecognized revenue potential here.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jul 28, 2016 -> 12:22 PM) You've been noticeably much more silent on your Melky sucks agenda this year. People got annoyed enough with it. We would be a better organization if we had never signed him.

QUOTE (NCsoxfan @ Jul 28, 2016 -> 11:47 AM) We all want a solid contender to be built, right? The overwhelming consensus here (whether we're right or wrong) is that bringing in veterans to plug holes hasn't worked & won't work if we try it again (definition of insanity right?). Do I doubt that some move veteran addition could be made that looks good in itself? Of course not. But we don't believe that the aggregate product will look much different than right now. However, last offseason, people convinced themselves of exactly that. Hence why I said this. Remember where we are now and how we got there when judging the next batch of moves.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 28, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) I'm confident history will be favorable to Obama. When they look back and aren't feeling the sluggishness, but look globally at a world that economically played like the White Sox, the economic management of the US while also implementing a disruptive but important healthcare law is significant. I'm stealing back into that classical education for this one. When the Constitution of the United States was first presented, Benjamin Franklin's remarks on it included the phrase "Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best." Over the last 8 years I expect none could have done better, and I am not sure that the job done was not the best.

All I want to say in this thread is...if management goes the other way, declares that they're not sellers, tries bringing in veterans to plug holes again this offseason, please remember how we got there come the offseason when you're tempted to say "Hey we got an all star at position x this is awesome!".

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 28, 2016 -> 10:22 AM) I don't know if there has ever been a team in this position. Strong seller's market (especially for pitching) with two young, left-handed aces under control that teams are banging down the door for. A stud in RF. Four BP arms that can draw interest. Two veteran hitters (Frazier and Melky) that could draw interest. To note - apparently the market for OF/DH types has been pretty limited for Beltran, so I wouldn't expect much for the bolded.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 27, 2016 -> 01:55 PM) "Two bit groups" meaning they were just too small to matter on a national scale. They were still legitimate conservative groups and there were a number of them suddenly audited because of their names. You know if this happened under W you wouldn't be justifying it. But, #itsdifferent, as usual. They were NOT audited in the so-called IRS scandal. They requested IRS guidance on whether or not they met the standard of having their "primary purpose" be something other than politicking, and the IRS is compelled to provide an opinion on that. Larger groups who can afford their own lawyers knew that the IRS and FEC were toothless as long as they filed the right forms, but when the IRS was asked to provide an opinion on something they (gasp) asked for some documents to verify the primary purpose standard. They did this from groups that sounded political, from both sides of the aisle, but the side that thinks Americans United for Trump can be a non-political organization had an issue with someone determining that name was political and asking anyone to verify it. The entire scandal was people daring to use judgment on saying that the 9/12 project groups might be political because their name implied it, and the IRS having no means through which to actually answer questions filed by groups after the Citizens United ruling dismantled all campaign laws. Basically they apparently are required to rubber stamp those applications in all cases and so it doesn't matter whether the group actually follows the law because the law has been rendered unenforceable.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 27, 2016 -> 01:23 PM) Just like Sale and Quintana. Those 2 reach FA in different years so one of those statements is incorrect.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 27, 2016 -> 01:09 PM) That's the offseason after the 2018 season, not before it, makes a big difference. The offseason after next year will still be terrible for buying free agents. The bonanza is still three offseasons away, and who knows who will be locked up/declined by then. You're right - that makes it even harder to see how the White Sox will turn this mess around, but it does offer them some hope if they were to hold out next year, finish .500 again, and then decide to move guys.

QUOTE (TheTruth05 @ Jul 27, 2016 -> 11:46 AM) Did anybody catch the Vin Scully story about Chris Archer during the LA game last night? Well now you have to tell.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 27, 2016 -> 12:28 PM) This year has the benefit of 3-4 teams that have graduated a lot of successful talent that has a group of top prospects behind them. Sale?Q are obviously going to be targeted by a great team already, one that puts them over top. The other top farm systems are relying on those guys to get them over the top. WE don't know what next year looks like. We actually kinda do, because we can see how the FA market shapes up. Pre-2017 it is terrible, perhaps the worst FA market in decades. Literally everyone but Cespedes who would deserve big money is under contract. Josh Reddick has a shot at $100 million because if your revenue grew this year there's literally no where to spend it. That means, if your team is thinking that they can make one last run in 2017...you better be prepared to pay a fortune. Since the FA market is that bad, you can also expect the trade market to be an incredible seller's market because everyone will be buying from any team willing to part with their guys. In the 2018 offseason that's going to turn around. It will be the biggest free agent period we'll ever see. The Yankees will have cleared $100 million from their payroll compared to this season by then. Counting guys who got opt-out clauses like last year, it's going to be an absolute bonanza. Bryce Harper will set the market with whatever he gets from the Yankees, but then it will seem like everyone is out on the market. Cespedes will be the best FA on the market in 2017 and he wouldn't be in the top 10 in 2018. It'll wind up somewhat like last offseason, but perhaps worse - there will be a number of guys available to fill slots as free agents that teams just don't want to spend money on. If you're trying to rebuild that year by selling players, you're going to run into a buyer's market. Teams that want to rebuild at that time, who have hit a wall - they're going to find they're SOL if they try to sell that offseason because why give up prospects when you can just give up money?

Well, Freddie Gray officially didn't matter.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 27, 2016 -> 12:56 AM) I just think the family is elitist and Chelsea will be groomed by Hillary the final five years to be ready to run and win in a landslide. I expect Chelsea to get some big-time government job in either the third to fifth year, or maybe run for governor somewhere and win that first. I just don't like the Clinton's getting 24 full years of the Oval Office during a relatively short period of time in our country's history. There's no reason for Chelsea to not start being groomed for President.

College buddy of mine got into the Washington Post today on those leaked emails:

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 06:39 PM) I'm still backing Sale 100 percent on this; I just acknowledged ptatc made a good point. I'd choose sale over management/Robin anyday. And trading him would be asinine. I'm not gonna flop to Hillary. I feel she is despicable and I am anticipating 8 years of her immediately to follow will be 8 of chelsea. You wait.OH MY GOD 2 WOMEN IN A ROW. THIS COUNTRY WOULD END.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 05:33 PM) You never know with Reinsdorf, but I really do hope we sell. But if we don't, I'd rather buy than stand pat. Doing nothing is the worst thing we could do, and I fear we'll end up doing it for 2 years in a row, especially if we keep up this hot streak. Doing nothing was a terrible idea last year because the White Sox had a big price player who was a free agent at the end of the season, and if he walked for nothing they'd find themselves really in need of more MLB-ready talent in 2016 (which is what happened to the letter). This year, if they do nothing, it is not as harmful as last year because no major players leave as free agents. A couple guys have their clocks tick more and might be worth less next offseason in trades for that reason, but there's no reason to think a team won't pay a fortune for Sale or Quintana next offseason if they stand pat. The problem, of course, is that they'll stand pat, then convince themselves that one more Rick Hahn special trade to win the offseason by bringing in a big name will finally be the move that puts them over the top, and we'll get to have this conversation again next July. That's the part where it becomes a mistake.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 04:46 PM) If the Sox hold onto the core pieces, I would agree. But if they move Sale and/or Quintana, there's no reason not to trade everyone IMO. At the very least, if they did move either of those 2, they have to move Frazier, Cabrera, and Lawrie by this offseason.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 04:38 PM) Hey Aroldis, it isn't that hard. 1. Throw really hard 2. Don't beat your wife. 3? 4. Profit 3 = dont' fire guns at or near people.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 04:41 PM) I agree but more along the lines of 55-45 not 90-10 or something really lopsided. However, Jill Stein could very well be 90-10, so the 4 way race delivers us President Trump.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 03:18 PM) 4 way polls involving who? Stein, the Green party candidate is the 4th.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 02:43 PM) They obviously tried Sale's method of keeping it quiet and in the clubhouse before now, because the only thing we knew about was the LaRoche blow up. They seem to be trying something different now with the suspension. Well, considering team property was actually destroyed it also seems like this incident was by far more deserving of a suspension than any previous one, so at least "is he getting worse with this" is now a concern also.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 02:26 PM) So Shaun King, what, like a week after encouraging everyone not to vote for hillary and to make a new political party, is now voting for Hillary. I have no idea who that is and don't know why I need to google this.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 03:01 AM) Bernie got screwed so badly the Democrats should be happy he wasn't on the attack during his speech. It's criminal what was done to him by his own party. Cruel. I have no idea why the DNC fixed it for Hillary. Every speaker at the Democratic convention gets high grades. It's the way the analysts roll. This is the time of year they amp it up to make sure Hillary wins in a landslide. OMG the reviews of her speech are going to be "Best speech ever." "Hillary Clinton is one of the finest speakers to ever grace a convention floor. What a speech! Historic (cue tears)."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 02:07 PM) Sale strikes me as the kind of guy who would have issues under a lot of managers. It is my guess that if you had someone more controlling of the clubhouse it would make things worse, not better, as he would have more to rebel against. The report before was that this was the 4th incident in about 2 years time. However - if you've got 4 incidents in only 2 years time, you've made a strong case to try something different, because clearly what is being tried right now is failing to deal with the problem and instead seemingly allowing it to get worse.

QUOTE (heirdog @ Jul 26, 2016 -> 01:18 PM) http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2016/7/26/1228...e-jose-quintana This article seems to quantify Q value ($99 mill) vs. Sale value ($110 mill) Worth noting - that actually undersells Quintana since it only counts the next 3.5 seasons and he has an extra year remaining on his deal beyond that.