southsider2k5

I can't wait for the Preds home and home. It would be nice to get some space after that, all though we do have a ton of games in hand.

Duh.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:44 PM) I always thought he would be Mark Buehrle before Mark Buehrle in terms of numbers.. sad to see that injury ruined what could had been a promising career. And that is a great comparison. He is another one of those guys who had no plus pitches, but managed to get guys out somehow.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 10:31 PM) I'm aware of Forbes articles on the subject. Forbes is the same publication that determined the Sox spend a higher percentage of their revenue on payroll than any other team in baseball except for the Nationals, who were equal at 79%. It also doesn't say anywhere that the profits from one year aren't reinvested into the team next year.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:28 PM) There is nothing to suggest there was a spike from April and May when they said they had no money to June and July when they spent money. KW was crying about the LA Dodgers attendance, calling it an eye opener, and cried about money. I believe that series was in June.. The attendance didn't get much better after that. It doesn't look like they added any sponsors during that time either. “Well, if I’m being completely honest money is more of the issue now. We expected a little more support than we’ve gotten,” he said. “I think it’s a reflection upon the economy of what’s kind of happen with regards to attendance and I don’t know if we’ve played consistent enough, or been exciting enough for people to get behind us. We’re still hopeful.” We’ve been probably pretty short or a little aggressive in our projections and we might have to take a lot closer look at it, because, the Dodgers series was certainly an eye opener for us,” Williams said. The quote was from July 7. Peavy came to the Sox less than 1 month later. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:17 PM) Actually according to your argument, the organization would have less money, not more. I, and others here, have argued for years that those profits go back into the team annually. Your argument has always been that they do not reinvest that money, which means the money goes back to the shareholders/investors. If it does, that money is gone, unless the organization raises more capital somehow. You can't argue it both ways. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:19 PM) It doesn't have to be an attendance spike. If you are really an accountant, you would know that companies deal with projected revenue numbers all of the time. If the Sox did their budget based on a certain percentage fall in revenue, and then came in above that number, they would have accumulated surplus cash that they didn't have according to the budget in Feb, by the time June rolled around. Kenny Williams said that. Not Jerry, not someone from the board, it was Kenny. Kenny had to go to Jerry, who had to go the board to get approval for Kenny to add anyone. That came from Jerry himself. That doesn't prove that the Sox as an organization were holding out. All that proves is that either Kenny doesn't sit in on the board meetings, or it means is that Kenny is saying the same stuff that Kenny always has said. It also still doesn't prove that the Sox aren't reinvesting profits into the team, and it still doesn't prove that the Sox held a ton of money back. I still want to know where you get the idea that the Sox aren't taking the profits them make annually and applying them towards the next years team, because there is nothing to indicate that money goes back to the shareholders/investors.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:44 PM) As for the attendance, where was the spike to lead to an increase? It doesn't have to be an attendance spike. If you are really an accountant, you would know that companies deal with projected revenue numbers all of the time. If the Sox did their budget based on a certain percentage fall in revenue, and then came in above that number, they would have accumulated surplus cash that they didn't have according to the budget in Feb, by the time June rolled around.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:07 PM) True, but the White Sox have advantages some other teams do not, they have a sweatheart lease deal and pay nothing for ballpark upkeep. In fact, if their full price ticket attendance falls below a certain threshold, they don't even pay rent. Those half priced Mondays killed two birds with one stone. They increased the attendance on a normally slow night and those tickets didn't count towards their rent, at least not fully.They also make more than most for local TV and radio rights. I can call them cheap last off season. They obviously had money. They spent more than they ever had in June and July. There is no way Dewayne Wise should have been leading off on opening day. There is no way Brent Lillibridge should have been playing in MLB in 2009 and especially not leading off occassionally. There were bargains available and the Sox said they had no money to spend. Read Forbes. They claim the White Sox make a decent amount of money, and that's after paying all these salaries. Actually according to your argument, the organization would have less money, not more. I, and others here, have argued for years that those profits go back into the team annually. Your argument has always been that they do not reinvest that money, which means the money goes back to the shareholders/investors. If it does, that money is gone, unless the organization raises more capital somehow. You can't argue it both ways.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:06 PM) Explain what other areas they could have possibly relocated money from to pay for mid season acquisitions. Without actually knowing their budget, it is hard to say exactly, but it is very commonly done by other organizations and corporations all of the time. Quite honestly I really believe it was a capital raise by the investors who were not willing to put forth any more money until they KNEW was the season was going to bring. These people didn't get rich by blowing all of their money during complete financial chaos. It makes total sense to me that the investors of the club would not be willing to put more money on the table until some of those uncertainties cleared up, the biggest being, would people still go to baseball games.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:46 PM) They said they had no money. None. Then they said they extended themselves for Peavy which was BS because you know JR doesn't lose money. Then they claimed Rios who I still believe they really didn't want, at least without any salary relief. KW said fans came to the park. It was the $9 Buerhle tickets he referred to. It was BS. The Sox know how many tickets they have sold. They drew 400k less last year than 2007. It was the worst attendance in 5 years. They were cheap. If the money was available in June, it was available in February. They had some guys playing that had no business being in the major leagues and there were bargains last winter with one year committments. Not the crazy 5 year deal they are now stuck with a guy who scouts say packs it in. Isn't it at least possible in your mind that the Sox were sitting on money when they said they had none and spend some or all of it on Peavy and Rios? I'm a guy who had thousands invested in the team via tickets and basically because of the playoff ticket refund policy was held with thousands of others hostage laast off season. I guarantee if the Sox didn't have that money in hand, they never would have pulled the stunt they pulled. But then again the next time you disagree with any thing KW says, it will probably be the first. You probably agree with him more than any other human being. I bet you JR and Rick Hahn disagree with his moves more than you do. You used to use Forbes as a guide for White Sox payroll. What do you say about their estimated $70 million profit the past 4 seasons? As I said before, I don't have a problem with JR turning a profit, but don't say you aren't making money and moan about lack of funds when you are doing a lot better than most. The funny part of your first paragraph is I remember very specifically an argument we had on this very topic sometime around late May or Early June were I posted the attendance numbers being down as justification of why the Sox were justified in cutting payroll, and you couldn't accept that. Now apparently it is OK because attendance was down? The Sox knew attendance would be lower, and tried to protect themselves by raising more money, which apparently was wrong. Then the Sox end up having lower attendance, like they thought, but they should have spent more money all along? I don't know about you, but I when I have lost my job in the past, I go out and spend all of my money, because I have it. I don't plan for the future, or the worst case scenario... And there is nothing I have ever read that said the money was available in Feb that was there in June. You don't know that for a fact, and you have zero proof of it. Without having any idea how the season was going to go, there very well could have been money approved in June that was not available in Feb because, I don't know if you noticed or not, but we were in the biggest economic freefall in this country in about 80 years. Without some common-sense, we could be the Tigers right now, selling off parts to the highest bidder. Instead in that environment our management team put us in a position of strength that the organization put together extra money to be able to add to this team. I know it makes for better drama if the Sox are always wrong, but it doesn't make any sense the way you present it. As for the rest of it, it gets personal as usual. Could you do me one favor though... If you are going to go that route, come up with some new ones. Every single time we have this argument you pull the three year old tactic of "you like them better" out. I have posted to that multiple times. Google it, rinse, and repeat. Or I can just pull out, "Did Kenny run over your dog and is that why you hate him so much?" for every time that BS gets posted by you?

67 point first half? Wow. Is VDN now a genius or something?

Get out.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:27 PM) I called them cheap at the beginning of last year.You said they had no money, yet Peavy gets added and then the curious acquisition of Rios. Sounds like a team that had some money to burn to me. Of course you will never admit to that. I chided the acquisition of Rios immediately. If they have that money to spend, it could have been spent a lot more wisely. In fact, if they hadn't been so cheap the winter before, they probably wouldn't have claimed Rios, saving the team having to pay him $60 million+. Did you call out any of the other season tickeholders on this board who were dismayed at an increase in season ticket prices and a decrease in payroll? I was pretty clear on the economy reality of the situation that the Sox were preparing for. In fact, I have been borne out pretty correct in most of my predictions about how much teams that weren't as prudent would get into trouble, and you only have to look at our division to see that playing out now. The Sox were very smart and ahead of the bell-curve in being ready for the problems. So much so that they have been able to take advantage of the situation of other teams to get guys like Peavy and Rios. Also after that same argument a million times you do realize that in the world of absolutes a few different things could have happened with the Sox. The first and most obvious is that the Sox prepared for a worst case scenario that did not happen. Like always the Sox invest their extra cash back into the team. The other is that revenue ended up being higher than anticipated. Another is that at the request of Kenny Williams, Jerry went back to the board and got extra cash from the investors that hadn't been there before. Another is that they moved funds over from other areas to pay for payroll raises. None of those scenarios means the Sox were cheap, like you said a million times.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:12 PM) You didn't challenge me. You just came up with some silly comment that didn't even portray my position accurately. Its actually a tactic I have seen you scold others for doing. If you're going to rip me, be accurate about my position. You spent pretty much at least the last year calling the Sox cheap. It has become a running joke because of how many threads you jumped into and mentioned how cheap the Sox were being. Now you are slamming the Sox for probably the biggest financial acquisitions in their history. Seems to me I am dead-on balls accurate on your moving positions.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 03:50 PM) I didn't know that many people still watched Survivor. I watched part of an episode during a Sox rain delay years ago. It felt so much like a soap opera that I turned it within 10 minutes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2009 -> 01:56 PM) 720 is supposedly ok for anything that's about 42 inches and below; smaller than that and the difference in resolution doesn't matter. Above that, 1080 is supposed to be worth it. Even our sales person said anything 37 inches and below is negligible to the human eye.

So we are talking about 4 million dollars to go pitch in Texas? Those numbers are going to explode down there.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 06:13 PM) Jason Marquis got $15 million in 2 years from the Nationals. Totally not necessary. So stupidity is recession proof.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 05:38 PM) I am probably in the minority on this, but, I predict Jones has a big year. Even still, I think the team is much more potent and complete with one more LH power bat. He is down to a minimum wage contract. It is now or never for the guy.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 06:37 PM) Sirotka was my favorite all-time Sox pitcher (granted i only go back til the late 80s). Not sure why, other than the fact that he was pretty much the ace for awhile. My hero Siro! (Zero)

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 05:11 PM) Do you remember in 2001 when people were calling for HERM'S head because of all the injuries? It's amazing the lack of injuries our pitching staff has endured with the pairing of Cooper and Schneider. They were a perfect match. Yeah, something really changed. I don't know if it was the pitching coach, or the scouting, or what, but we have gone to the extreme opposite. Now it is incredibly rare for something like that to happen. Andy Sisco was the last one, and he wasn't even a product of our system.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 04:26 PM) That kind of post compensation should be banned. I don't mind giving former Congresspeople access to the health care plan, or giving them free passes to the building, etc. - cheap little stuff that says "thank you". But $40,000 a month doesn't say "thank you", it says something else inappropriate for this forum. That's half a million a year for a job he doesn't do, at all. Hell, the annual salary for these guys was less than half that, he's actually making much MORE money, effectively, than he was in office. That is f***ed up. We do the same thing for ex-Presidents and VPs, including pay for life and protection for life.

I resemble that remark.

QUOTE (dmbjeff @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 04:07 PM) 2009 was by far and away Rios' worst season of his career. He reminds me of PK, who one of out of every 5 years, has a real bad season. Look for Rios to get back to a .825-.850 OPS. He is still very young and has a boatload of talent. Interesting comparison.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 03:12 PM) Kip Wells, Jon Garland, Jon Rauch were all some of the best pitching prospects in baseball. Add in Keith Foulke, Lorenzo Barcelo, Aaron Myette, Jason Stumm, Dan Wright, etc and you are talking about a team that was absolutely loaded. Than there were the solid vets like James Baldwin. So I don't know how you are talking about a ton of career years. That was a young team that was rated to have one of the best farm systems of all time. Turns out BA was completely wrong and a lot of the guys fizzled out, but people in baseball absolutely raved about the Sox stable of prospects. You had a young Ordonez/Lee/Konerko in your lineup too. All suffered major injury problems. They just decimated the system, and turned the Sox mentality into an extremely conservative one, which set us back a decade in terms of minor league production.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 01:32 PM) Assuming Floyd is healthy, he's an absolute stud. I really think he had his best season to date last year. He was flat out filthy after his early struggles. And his ability to pitch deep into games is what I really like. Those innings sure make a bullpen look better as well.