Dick Allen

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 20, 2013 -> 02:31 PM) This is NOT like what Marty and I were talking about, because this is not a player who will only contribute for 1-2 years and it would be adding a SUBSTANTIAL upgrade rather than a marginal one, so much so that the team's competitive window could actually get a lot closer. While Braun is expensive, he is NOT a market-rate asset -- his level of production offers substantial surplus value. I would support this move because I believe that Braun would remain a star-level producer for at least 4 seasons, and that his decline seasons may see him overpaid but still useful. If you believe otherwise, then I understand why you wouldn't want to add the contract. I don't know how anyone could say he will remain a star level producer. For one thing, he is going to have to carry this weight around for the rest of his career, and another, he supposedly has been using PEDs since college, so chances are we have never seen what he can do clean.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 20, 2013 -> 02:25 PM) Actually, SS2K5 and I have exchanged several posts about just that, I assume it'll drop off -- but it would have to fall a LONG way to make the contract bad. The free agent market pays $5-6m per WAR on average. Braun will make between $16-19m per year for the rest of the contract, so he's being paid like a 3-4 WAR player from here on out. His last two full seasons came in at between 7-8 WAR. So even if he got 25-30% worse and lost like 2 WAR, he'd still be worth something like $10m more than his contract each year in comparison to what else we could get with that money. So, from a purely baseball perspective, you can assume he drops of a ton and it would stil be a boon. The point you made remains, however, that he's a total slime bag. So which outcome you root for depends on what you value more. He is also getting older. Chances of production droppimg without any help, and from what has been publshed, Braun apparently has been cheating since college, there really is no way to know how far he will tail off if playing clean.

QUOTE (chisoxfan310 @ Nov 20, 2013 -> 02:20 PM) To the people who hate on him for cheating....Rienzo and Quintana have both failed drug tests when they were in the minors and people are still supporting them...so there's that Yes but not only did he cheat, he threw an innocent person under the bus. The guy actually got death threats all based on Braun's lies. Besides, if you didn't like the Ozzie circus or the ARod circus, you aren't going to like the upcoming Braun circus. If the Brewers want to get rid of him, it speaks volumes. This is not something that is just going to go away in a month. Is that really something you want to gamble $100 million on if you are the White Sox? He isn't going to instantly make the phones ring in the ticket office unless they are season ticket accounts that are disgusted the team acquired such a chooch.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 20, 2013 -> 02:05 PM) I imagine that the only way Milwaukee would actually move him would be to NOT have to pick up much or any of his contract. But that's the thing, it's a BIG contract but it isn't necessarily a BAD contract. His production has been so high that he has been more than worth the money. Whether the contract is good or bad depends on how you think he'll age. But right now, pending an implosion, it's not an unreasonable price. What is his contract going to look like when he is 35-38? He is signed for 8 more years. 7 if you buy him out. He will make $10 million next year, and if see the responses when Marty mentioned maybe adding that exact figure to the payroll he was told numerous times that is not how you run a business. He wouldn't get nearly what he is guaranteed if he were a free agent right now.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFan05 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 10:28 PM) Well, compared to other Ozzie years, no. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CH...8-batting.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CH...6-batting.shtml I believe the percentage of runs scored via the home run in 2005 was exactly the same or slightly higher than 2004. The 2005 offense relied heavily on the long ball.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 20, 2013 -> 03:06 AM) Yeah, and he never won any of his 6 starts either. In fact, he lost all of them. That is solid?

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 03:57 PM) How can you say Konerko has more longevity? Dunn is 4 years younger. We don't know yet. Konerko stopped producing at 35. The book on Dunn has yet to be written. Hell, in 20 years, Dunn might be viewed as the best clean power hitter of his generation. He pales in comparison to Jim Thome.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 03:56 PM) Beside the point. Konerko after his 34 year old season put himself in position to get paid and get paid well. We will not be able to say that about Dunn next offseason. Basically Konerko got a bunch of injuries and crashed during his 36 year old season. Dunn has a had huge a dip following his 30 year old season. And depending on if Paulie plays anymore, he has only made $15 million more than Dunn after 2014.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) Look at how many teams have spent years being boned because of their financial stupidity. How would you like to be the Mets for example? Aren't the Mets problems more Bernie Madoff related? I don't know if being his victim falls under stupidity.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 03:18 PM) Has Konerko ever been more talented than Dunn? Seriously. He has been a better player.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 03:05 PM) I don't think the Sox liked him so much as a backup that they gave him the starting job. It was more of well, you've been a backup for a bit now AJ is getting old and Flowers showed power , that he could take a walk and was cheaper that the circumstances combined to give him a shot. They're in a position now to give Phegley every chance to prove he can be that the #1 catcher. Flowers K's at a rate even higher than Dunn without showing he can get hot for a 3 month period like Dunn can. If Phegley can hit .250 ( which seems realistic ) and increase his walk rate , provide some power the position will be his for 3-4 years given how bad the market is for catchers. Just need that LH veteran backup behind him. If they can't give Phegley a chance at being #1 what's the sense of going young ? I don't know about going young. Phegley is only 2 years younger than Flowers.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) I don't get that at all . Flower's is getting a bit long in the tooth ( 28 when the season starts) for the Sox to be higher on him than Phegley and that 34% K rate was really high. Injuries comments aside I haven't read a thing to think Flowers is preferred over Phegley. I think they realize neither is a #1 catcher. Flowers has shown in the past he can be a good back up. They liked him so much as a back up they gave him the #1 job, and as you pointed out, had zero back up plan.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 02:15 PM) For a team like the Astros or Marlins? I don't think it'd be that big of a deal. If you think his ceiling is, say, .300/.350/.400 and he can play a serviceable 2B or SS in the future, you can stash him as a 2B/SS/3B utility guy and let him struggle to the tune of a .225/.275/.300 season so long as he's getting ABs and getting better. Yeah, those teams would definitely be a threat to take him. There seems to be plenty of room on the 40 man. I just wonder how good someone really can be at this point if they can't basically "make" the White Sox 40 man. Also if Hahn is making trades, you would think there could be some 2 for 1 s or 3 for 2s opening up a space. Maybe he pulls the trigger on something and makes some more room that way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 02:04 PM) Yeah, that's what I meant. Those quotes definitely did suggest that the Sox could have soured on him, and the fact that they're constantly linked to every catcher who is available (not just by us) could suggest that as well. Then again, they could just be doing their due diligence as well. I won't know the answer to that question until mid-Feb. I agree. From what I have read, they still seem much higher on Flowers than Phegley. As I have stated before, I still think Flowers is a fine back up.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 10:32 AM) The Sox also cut their payroll $20 million from 2008 to 2009. I know that because that was the one time I complained as they held season ticket holder money hostage and raised ticket prices. But they still had the same break even claim and that they were at their limit which turned out to obviously not be true. Just another example of the only source that says the White Sox break even every year being inaccurate with what they were claiming earlier. I do totally understand not using your money if the player isn't the correct fit, just don't use the old can't spend $1 if you only have fifty cents.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 09:04 AM) Are you sure you understand what a budget is? Because it is not the same thing as the break even point. It's a business that needs to be sustained. If you are not making money, you are losing money. Thus, if they are one of the most profitable teams given the circumstances presented to them, they are doing something right and setting budgets so that they can make a good amount of money while spending most of it on the team. That is not a bad thing, no matter the people calling Jerry (and the remainder of the board) cheap. Yes I do. They White Sox have always claimed they set their budget to break even. That every dollar that comes in, goes out. There hasn't been a spike in attendance or anything like that in recent years for them to be off that much between their original break even number to actual. It shows they have some money in the bank, which is fine. Again, i'm not saying they should spend an extra $10 million for the hell of it. I'm just saying it more than likely is there if they wanted, and it made sense.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 08:44 AM) Far more than you. When the Sox say "we are at our budget," then they are at their budget. Smart teams save money in case they need to go over budget. Sometimes it makes sense to go over-budget. But, in this exact instance in the 2013-14 offseason, there is absolutely no need to lose money when you can make money. Would you not agree with that idea? Not necessarily. In 2009, when they were at their budget, they traded for an injured Jake Peavy, and then claimed Alex Rios. Just because they said they were at their proverbial break even point doesn't mean that was the case. Forbes always has them as one of the more profitable teams in baseball. Maybe it isn't accurate, but i know the white Sox aren't always accurate when they say they are at their limit either. They brought in Edwin Jackson, paid Manny $4 million for one month when they were over their budget. Then it was time to say goodbye to Paulie and AJ after they signed Dunn. Yet both came back. When JR was asked where the money would come from, he said you save a little here, save a little there, which really doesn't make sense if the team was breaking even, and spending every nickel that came in, like they claimed. As for losing money this year, it depends. I would have to know the specific instance to give my opinion. JR said there still is money to be spent. I assume they will spend it.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 08:24 AM) Do you understand what a budget is? Have you ever heard of the term over-budget? Far more than than you. And you do understand why the White Sox would never say "hey, we came in second but made a $15 million profit" don't you? And why they always say they are at or over budget, but always seem to add payroll? JR's orders are to not lose money. If , and I am not saying they should, they went over budget $10 million, that isn't all that much to them. You yourself told me $10 million a year for Salty really isn't a lot of money. I agree with Marty, $10 million to the White Sox is no sweat. You do have to watch for it spiraling.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 08:16 AM) Well yeah, he took advantage of dumb politicians to line his own pocket. That's pretty much the only operational business model left in this country. Don't forget, JR got a sweetheart deal from politicians himself. Loria also got revenue sharing to the point where he didn't have to let anyone in to watch Marlins games and still turn a nice profit.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 08:01 AM) 1. You are just trolling at this point. 2. Why don't you say what you actually mean - that you think the team should forgo having any profit, and take on some new debt, to increase payroll. At least then you'd be honest. Precisely. On the other side of the spectrum is Jeffrey Loria. He gets ripped for being a poor owner. Yet in Business 101, he gets an "A+"

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 05:04 PM) Oh come on, you work in accounting, right? That is net income. There are shareholders involved, and that is a pretty small margin as a %, so you can't cut it in half or by 100% and expect that to go over. They have a simple model, and the flexibility goes plus/minus into net income after player-related payroll, and that is estimated based on all other predictable cost. What are you basing they don't have $10 million to take a chance on?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 04:57 PM) The one thing I will say is that the Forbes numbers have seemingly done a really good job over the last few years of predicting where the White Sox total payroll will wind up. When Forbes says they lose money, they cut back on payroll, when Forbes says they made money we see a payroll increase the next year. They've seemed to be good estimates of money balance to within $10 million or better. According to Forbes, they usually make between $10 million and $20 million a year, so if it is $10 million that is being argued about, if they did add it, I don't think any checks would bounce.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 04:41 PM) It should also be noted that when Forbes values a team... say the White Sox at $900M or so... they are NOT using book value. This is not assets minus liabilities, or even just naked assets. It is valuation to market, meaning, what is the team WORTH, which is assuredly much more than their net book value. You cannot spend money that something is worth, that you do not have. So Marty's argument is even more silly than it seems on its face. Not only can a company not spend money based on it's accounting value, they CERTAINLY can't spend money it MIGHT generate if it sold itself. How about if you use their revenues? We really have no idea how accurate Forbes is, but it has been SOP for the White Sox to say every dime that comes in goes out, then say they are at their budget limit, only to add payroll later. Maybe it is silly to base a teams' ability to add payroll based on their Forbes value, but it is equally as silly to base it on what the team is telling you.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 04:27 PM) And here I thought he was going to argue that by not calling time outs it potentially limited the Ravens play calling because they had to worry about time running out. Odd explanation. It did work out that way.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) You will probably need to explain with really small words... You might want to read this article. I think his liquid assets are better than most. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/201...ts-even-sweeter