Dick Allen

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

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 03:22 PM) Yes, but the Sox also own a lot of real estate that other teams do not as well. The valuation is based mostly non-liquid assets. The Sox have a pretty poor TV contract for a team in a market of this size and that is a major hindrance from the team being able to spend a lot of money. What real estate do they own?

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 03:16 PM) And looking at it as a business, there is nothing out there worth investing in currently. Any game changing free agents are going to impact future fluidity of the business while bringing no guarantee of increasing revenue. The FO is doing things the right way, the Abreu signing was a lot of risk, but the potential rewards are enormous, and two years from now that asset could look like a bargain. The Sox are better off investing that money in developing future assets, through the draft and international free agency, and carrying any excess revenue over into next offseason where there are going to be three legitimate 3b options to complement a team that should have a majority of the rest of the roster in place by then. The best course of action is to sit back and make everyone available and see what return you can get for your current assets, if you feel you can get someone in the open market place to pay a premium for some of your current assets, you can make a deal, but making a deal just to shuffle the deck makes little sense. That to me is the most difficult thing when hou really aren't developing your own guys. In free agency, there may be better guys available next year or the year after but things can change. They might not be as desirable in a year or two, and other teams may have a need and depending on who they are, drive the price up. If the Yankees or Dodgers really needed a firstbaseman, does anyone really think the Sox would have gotten Abreu? Timing plays a huge role, and a lot of it is just luck.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 02:49 PM) There are things that could be used as valid arguments for spending. The franchise valuation is absolute non-sense when it comes to what a team can/should spend. It is like saying "That farmer is rich, his land is worth a million dollars!". No its not. Teams' values are evaluated and estimated by evaluating all of their known assets and liabilities. There is a reason a team is worth close to $1 billion. It isn't because they lose money or break even every year. They always seem able to add money to the payroll when they claim they are maxed out. The key here is the White Sox have very little debt, unlike a lot of teams.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 09:19 AM) Because there would be no offense to pick up the slack. OK. I thought you were implying the defense would be worse.w

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 09:06 AM) It is not get rid of Cutler, it is, is Cutler who will hopefully play 12 games for you a season as he is injured often, worth the contract he will be looking for and will likely receive. He will be looking at 13-15M a year. I still can not figure out how Trestman was never given a head coaching job. Mel Tucker is earning his money and the defense is looking serviceable. If the Loveman was running that defense with those injuries it would be a really bad state of affairs right now. How can anyone conclude the defense would be worse if Lovie were here? That is just total BS.

The only guy that made Bartolo Colon look in shape....Carlos Castillo

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 08:07 AM) I don't want to be that fan, btw, but at what point do you start thinking about keeping McCown next season and letting Cutler walk? I'm not about to argue that McCown is actually a better player, but we're rapidly approaching salary cap hell and Cutler is likely to be really f***ing expensive. If Trestman is going to turn any ol' asshole into a starting caliber QB, how much do you want to invest in Cutler? I have to think it has at least crossed the minds of Emery and Trestman that maybe, just maybe, it could make sense to keep McCown, draft a QB high, and invest in the defense. Either way, I'd really hesitate investing in Cutler long term. Franchise tag seems like the smartest way to keep him. I would franchise tag him myself. I wouldn't get too carried away with McCown just yet, although it does start to make you wonder. Franchise tag gives you the best of both worlds IMO.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 18, 2013 -> 07:08 AM) So you are saying that we should all root for Purdue? Purdue's only win was a 6 point victory over Indiana State, who is 1-10 and has only beaten Quincy College. Illinois State blew them out by 40. It would be funny if Beckman's fate hung on this one game against this one pathetic team. If the reason Beckman is back next year is because they beat Purdue, Illinois football is even more lame than it appears.