WCSox

The local ESPN affiliate out here moved to FM about a year and a half ago. QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 11:35 AM) If it means replacing Farmer, I'm all for it. I've always been a Farmer fan and would hate to see him go (though moving him back to color commentary would be an improvement). QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 12:05 PM) Bring back John Rooney at all costs!!! Yeah I wish. That would be awesome. Rooney and Farmer were an outstanding duo. Too bad it won't happen.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 11:04 AM) Hitting is still the team's weakness. With the budget the sox have it is near impossible to have an outstanding team in all three areas of pitching, defense and hitting. KW chose to go with a very good pitching staff, an average but improved defense and the weakness in the area of hitting. If I had to choose which order to spend the money i would do the same. Since the sox knew they were going to be weakest in hitting they are going with a "create a run" theory on offense instead of power. Will it work? I have no idea and it is a weakness. But given the choice I personally would focus on pitching as well. That was pretty much 2005 in a nutshell. The only semi-elite hitters on that team were PK and JD, and the latter didn't have anything close to an elite year at the plate. IIRC, only two players on that squad posted a .350 OBP or higher. It's not too difficult to make position player comparisons in terms of projected plate production (Beckam, Crede; Rios, Rowand; Pierre, Pods; Teahen, Iguchi; Quentin, JD). Of course, none of that means that 2010 will be 2005 redux (or anything close to it), but the overarching point of valuing pitching and defense over high-priced, veteran sluggers who don't score runs consistently is important. And that doesn't mean that Kenny is off the hook for not bringing in a legitimate DH (Everett/Frank's role in 2005). This team isn't going to score a ton of runs. But I would MUCH rather than Kenny over-spend on pitching and lack a bat in the middle of the lineup vs. the opposite approach. At the very least, I'll take Teahen over Nix/Getz in a second. And I think that a merely decent-but-multi-dimensional player like Pierre is going to help this team a lot more than an inconsistent, aging, one-dimensional dinosaur like JD.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 11:06 AM) http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/09teamsalaries.htm We went from 6th in 2008 down to 12th in payroll in 2009. And if the Sox continue to play mediocre baseball, they may be 18th in payroll in 2012. The Sox treated their fans like gold in the mid/late '90s and offered rock-bottom ticket prices, to boot. Most likely because the Sox MADE THE PLAYOFFS in 2008. And that's the rub: If the Sox don't get it done on the field, the fans don't show up. Gate receipts decline, which triggers an automatic decline in merchandise sales, parking, and concessions, which forces a lowering of ticket prices and gives the Sox less leverage in negotiating media contracts. The logic there is that guys like Peavy and Rios are critical to rebuilding a winning team. If that doesn't pan out, those guys (and/or others) will get dealt to drop payroll. It's happened before and it could happen again.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 10:54 AM) http://www.bizofbaseball.com/ForbesValuations.htm#2009 This is the most recent. In total revenues, the White Sox were tied for 8th with the Giants at $196 million. The franchise was the 10th highest valued at $450 million. That's nice, but franchise value has little to do with payroll. That's like saying that somebody who nets $2,500 a month and has a $1,500/month mortgage has plenty of discretionary income because his house is valued at $400,000. Hell, the Cubs could increase their franchise value by paying less in salary and still draw 38,000 per game. If the Sox's books haven't been audited by a third party, it's difficult to determine exactly what they're earning every year. You forgot about the Sox making the playoffs less than two years ago, which is (sadly) still a huge deal in Chicago. If they go 78-84 for a few straight seasons, I guarantee you that the payroll regresses to the league average as attendance drops below $2M. Just look at the teams that the Sox fielded in the late '80s and late '90s.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 10:42 AM) To me, it seemed like you were saying that it was logical for KW to keep the payroll constrained if our attendance was in the bottom 50%. In other words, if you look at attendance in isolation, then it should be in line with your payroll, more or less? True/false? This was from before the 2008 season, after we hiked prices coming off the playoff appearance. The Red Sox had been first for many years but now it has flipped with the Yankees AVERAGE TICKET PRICES The Chicago Cubs, 100 years removed from their last World Series title, are second at $42.49, up 23.9 percent. The Yankees, in their final season at Yankee Stadium, have the third-highest average ticket at $36.58, up a big league high 26.1 percent. The Yankees' real average is much higher. Jon Greenberg, TMR's executive editor, said the team did not provide data and that he did not include the price of premium seating -- which covers a large percentage of New York's tickets. Yankees' box seats near the infield had a list price of $250 this year. The Mets, in their final season at Shea Stadium, have the fourth-highest average at $34.05, an increase of 20.5 percent. The Chicago White Sox are fifth at $30.28, up 5.2 percent. Twelve teams raised their averages more than 10 percent, including six with average hikes of more than 20 percent. I don't subscribe to teammarketing.com, or I could get the "Fan Cost Index," which from what I understand would also put the White Sox in that #5-8 spot as well. Then you have to figure in the broadcasting/media rights, there's no reason we shouldn't have a Top 8-12 payroll every year. Except for the fact that the Sox were in the lower half in payroll prior to 2005 and that they never exceeded $70M prior to 2006. While their ticket sales have steadily declined since 2006, their payroll has not. As casual fan interest in the Sox continues to decline from the artificially-inflated post-WS numbers, not only will gate revenue slide, but leverage in future media contracts will subside as well. The notion that the Sox will be able to stay in the top third of the league in revenue (and who knows if that number is accurate) indefinitely is silly. It's never been that way in the past, and there's no reason that it's going to be that way from here on out. This is also notoriously fickle fan base. JR & company can't continue to raise ticket/concession/parking prices on a dwindling number of ticket-buyers while simultaneously convincing media outlets to over-pay for broadcasting rights. It doesn't work that way. If the Sox regress to averaging 22,000 a game for multiple years, their payroll will eventually slide back to the bottom half of the league.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 10:25 AM) That's not quite accurate to say the fans aren't supporting the team. That's an interesting straw man argument, but it's clearly not what I said. You would guess, but you don't really know. I'm not sure that I believe that the Sox are even #8-10 in the league in revenue, as they're not the only franchise with lucrative media contacts and high prices. Were their books audited recently? That would be the only way to truly know. I'll go out on a limb and guess that the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Phillies, Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers, Angels, and Giants haul in more money than the Sox on a regular basis. And I imagine that the Twins will make more money than the Sox next year with their new stadium and recent division title. If I were a guessing man, I would guess that the Sox are probably not in the Top 7 in revenue in MLB (despite carrying a payroll that's will most likely be in the Top 7).

QUOTE (hogan873 @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 10:06 AM) Game changer...no. But having Thome (for a mere $1.5 million) would have only added to the flexibility that KW and Ozzie keep talking about at the DH position. At 39 years old and in declining health, Thome is not an every day DH. I don't know if one of his stipulations was a certain amount of playing time, but he could have easily been in the DH spot 3 or 4 times a week. Then Ozzie could use others in that position for the remainder of those games. I just don't see the reason for not having signed Thome. However, I will have to assume there are reasons we don't know about. Because the alternative is baffling. Given Thome's struggles against LHP, playing time very well may have been a factor.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 09:56 AM) I just don't think it's a very good idea to get worse at any position unless you have a legitimate reason (i.e. not being able to afford good players). Even if you think Thome is declining and due for a big drop off, signing him for Mark Kotsay money is a low-risk move. Overall I haven't been a big fan of Kenny's off season, but with exception to the decision not to sign Thome, I can understand why he did what he did due to money constraints. Obviously, the decision to not bring back Thome had little to do with financial constraints. It probably had to do with the fact that Thome's going to be 39 this year, his OPS has slid significantly over the past four seasons, he's had a history of battling minor injuries, and he clogs up a roster spot during interleague play because he can't do anything other than DH. Granted, I would've taken Thome over Andruw Jones in a second, but we don't know the full story. Maybe Thome wasn't happy in Chicago (despite what he said publicly). Maybe he privately told Kenny that he wanted to move on. Many things happen behind closed doors that we never hear about.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 09:46 AM) If Q isn't all there, then this team is going to struggle a lot again. True dat QUOTE (gatnom @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 09:47 AM) You don't find it at all annoying that we could have at least had as good of a DH as we had last year for less than or equal to the amount we are paying Mark Kotsay? Yeah, I would've liked to have Thome back (though I disagree that a declining Thome would be "at least as good a DH as we had last year"... that's far from a lock). And I don't know why he wasn't brought back. That said, our offense has sucked balls down the stretch in two of the past three years with both Thome and JD in the lineup. I don't see how bringing back a 39-year-old Thome is going to propel us to to a division title. He would've been a nice (and cheap) addition, but was unlikely to be a game-changer.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 09:39 AM) It's not semantics, it's fact. (Almost) Every trade that's ever been made has been made with the idea of improving the team towards the future. A lot of teams make deals down the stretch, and a lot of teams make huge deals to insure the future of a team. KW doesn't get a free pass for having made the Peavy and Rios moves, he get's a thank you from the fanbase and then the mandate to improve the team around these pieces. Two moves, big or small, does not an offseason make. Only on Soxtalk would Kenny get ripped for not spending much in the off-season after committing over $100M to two star players just 6 months ago. Unbelievable.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 09:19 AM) The unwavering optimism that some people have for this team is shocking considering we had Rios for the back end of the year, and we still finished 7.5 games behind the Twins. A whole year of Peavy and a Rios recovery will be a significant improvement to the team, but it is unlikely to be one worth 7.5 games. By all objective assessment our offense will either be of minimal improvement or exactly the same depending on what projections you want to believe, and what rebounds you want to factor in. Our defense is questionable, but I’m willing to believe that with Getz, Pods, and Dye being gone we will improve, minimally. Factoring in all of these we still have to deal with the problem that the Twins have gotten better too. We’ve lucked into the Tigers taking a dramatic step backward, and the Royals and the Indians content with stewing in mediocrity (albeit, the Indians doing it with a very competent new manager.) These divisional issues will allow us to be a factor. A Damon signing would push the gap between the two teams to well within any statistical margin of error. I think it would assure a damn good chance of taking this team to the top of this division. The bottom line is that the Sox are in the middle of a re-tooling movement and aren't building their team around a one-shot chance at the 2010 division title. Most of the moves they're making are looking into the future. When you're trying to get younger and are building your team around guys like Peavy, Rios, Quentin, Beckham, Floyd, Danks, etc. and are maxed out on payroll, over-spending on 36-year-olds who can't do anything other than DH is often not part of the picture. Granted, I would love to have Damon on the roster, but I can understand why bumping the payroll up to $107M (after several years of $95M+ payrolls with very few playoff victories to show for it) isn't a part of the plan.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 09:12 AM) Jim Thome stats, 2007-2009 Pre all star OPS: .913 Post all star OPS, .876. Thome's OPS was .798 in August of last year and .471 in September/October. In September/October of '08, it was .712 (his August was solid). I admit that his '07 post-ASB numbers were good (my memory is apparently failing me), but he's obviously declining. While I would've liked Kenny to bring Thome back for one more year, I don't see him putting up an .850 OPS through the latter half of this year.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 08:53 AM) No, but i can blame a GM for going into a season with a GAPING HOLE in his lineup. I can also question the logic of a GM for failing to address these issues AFTER obtaining a top of the line starter and an above-average OF, and thereafter choosing not to make any significant upgrades to the team. We can't be content writing off problems with last years victories. I'm not willing to say we got two good guys last year so we should say, "f*** it," and rest on our laurels. Last year is last year. The problem with that logic is that the Sox payroll dictates that they can't add much more. What "gaping hole" is this? DH? I would've liked to have Thome back, but you also need to consider his age-induced declining skills and injury potential. Look at it this way: The Sox have arguably the best rotation in the majors, a legitimate CF, and replaced Dotel with Putz. Even if that means that they suffer at DH, I still see that as a net gain. And considering how Thome and JD weren't exactly tearing it up in August and September over the past few years, I fail to see how we suddenly have a "gaping hole" in the middle of the lineup. Those two contributed significantly to that hole post-ASB from '07-'09.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) Peavy and Rios were midseason pickups. They should not be used in any objective look at the offseason moves. Of course they should, as they obviously affect what can be spent in the off-season. Did you honestly expect Kenny to add $25M in payroll after that spending spree? Agreed about Vizquel, Jones, and Putz. If Putz is healthy, he's going to be effective. I'm not so high on Teahen (nice player and all, but little upside).

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Feb 16, 2010 -> 08:41 AM) Of those though, Peavy and Rios were acquired midseason, while the others are fairly mediocre/bad. His comment was about the offseason, which has not gone well for KW, especially if he ends up with Jones/Kotsay at DH. "The offseason" is affected by the s***-tons of money that were spent on an elite starting pitcher and a potential five-tool CF this past summer. I thought that would be obvious, but apparently not. Blaming a GM for a "bad offseason" when his team went into it with an nearly maxed-out payroll is ridiculous. Money doesn't grow on trees. You can't run up a $100M payroll with a below-average attendance and expect the GM throw another $7M at Johnny Damon or some other over-priced FA. It's a good thing that Soxtalk didn't exist back in the late '90s, when the Sox were *truly* a bunch of cheap-asses who didn't bother to put together a competitive team.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 15, 2010 -> 06:35 PM) That would be unlikely, but not as unlikely as a manager boarding a plane for a 7-game roadtrip without a healthy backup IF on the roster. It's also quite possible that Jones gets DFA'd at some point during the season. If he's not producing or isn't healthy, dumping him would free up a roster spot. QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 15, 2010 -> 07:13 PM) hell of an offseason kenny Over the past 6 months, Kenny has added Peavy, Rios, Pierre, Putz, Teahen, Jones, and Vizquel. I would've preferred Orlando Hudson over Teahen/Vziquel, but it's difficult for me to find much fault with the rest of those additions. Their payroll is currently just under $100M and they're in the lower half of MLB in attendance, so I'm not sure what else you want him to do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2010 -> 02:49 PM) I think you have to go with an 11 man pitching staff and keep the extra IF if you bring in Damon and still hold onto Kotsay. Given the strength of our rotation, a six-man bullpen should be doable. It's not optimal, but four of the five starters will likely throw 180-220 innings. If Freddy doesn't get the job done in the #5 spot, (1) his contract doesn't render him a roster-clogging albatross and (2) Hudson will be able to step in.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Feb 12, 2010 -> 01:07 PM) He is Balta. I don't think I've ever heard Damon as a good to average OF from anyone. Any average fan would actually say he blows donkey balls with his girly arm. Read back a page or two and I explain why. Indeed. He has the range to play LF, but his arm is in Pods territory. Unless there are inferior options for LF, he's a DH now. That said, he'd be the the solid leadoff hitter that this team has been lacking for most of the past 3 years.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Dec 24, 2009 -> 12:01 PM) They were not better than the 98 Yankees and it really isn't close. The 98 Yankees are easily the best team in the last 20 years. Agreed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 08:01 PM) They have to be the team of the decade. They were in first every single day of the year, plus they tied a record 11-1 in the post season. In other words there was exactly one day all season long where they weren't either in first place, or leading a playoff series. That is the very definition of total dominance. Not to mention that their regular season stats were very impressive as well (tied for the league-low in ERA, hit 200 HRs, etc.). Similarly, I'd say that the '98 Yankees and '84 Tigers were tops in their respective decades.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 06:09 PM) Supposedly the hip he had surgery on still isn't ready for baseball action. I'm pretty sure I would stay away from him, if he would even consider White Sox offer. Didn't know that. If he's still rehabbing right now, forget it.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) Hmmm... showing your age alittle bit WC? Tell me about it. I found two more gray hairs in the mirror this morning.

Excluding the strike year, I consider the '84 Sox to be the most disappointing in my lifetime. We had almost all of the same tools in place plus Tom Seaver, but Greg Luzinski was done, Britt Burns was nearing the end of his career with that degenerative hip, LaMarr Hoyt's drug problem had caught up with him, Julio Cruz was no longer a prolific base-stealer, and Floyd Bannister had a below-average year. Not that we would've beaten the Tigers in the ALCS, but it would've been fun to watch them try. The '97 season was also massively disappointing on multiple levels, but Jamie Navarro, Danny Darwin, Doug Drabek, and Robin Ventura's injury tempered my expectations going into April.

QUOTE (soxfan-kwman @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 11:36 PM) I agree, Crede as DH would be good. If we didn't already have Jones and were desperate for a DH, a one-year flyer on Joe for the league minimum might've been a decent idea. But I don't think that Jones and Crede could both fit on the 25-man roster. Moreover, Joe is most likely done. A back injury that doesn't respond to two different surgeries isn't going away.

I really liked JD and JT and the veteran leadership that they brought to the clubhouse. That said, both are declining and were overpaid. In addition to the benefit of removing their inconsistent bats (famous for fading down the stretch) from the middle of the lineup, I think that the '06-'09 roster was getting a bit stale. I don't ever want to think that any of these guys stopped trying (after all, they're professionals), but it sure appeared that way back in August. At the very least, I think that a sense of complacency set in. Sometimes, a change of scenery brings about a better attitude in the workplace. Agreed that clubhouse chemistry is important, but that tends to work itself out if you have the right type of players. Kenny goes out of his way to bring in good character people. And we still have Mark, Paulie, and A.J., so I'm not that worried about chemistry or leadership next year.