Dick Allen

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 09:17 PM) I just don't understand how you could be a CPA and not see the different budgets that are in play here. I am sure each area has a budget and they try to stay within those budgets. Signing Soler would probably come out of a different budget than the one intended for making in-season acquisitions. I know our Organization gets creative with money, and will pull from one area to another and vice versa, but I am not sure what you would have them do. Signing Soler is probably based on payrolls in the future and not necessarily money they have right now from which to draw against. How could you possibly not get your mind around that as an accountant? We have been told every dollar that comes in goes out. Considering the new rules for signing amatuers going into effect in a couple of weeks, wouldn't that $25-30 million that you laughingly are saying is being put aside for these kind of signings and not available for improving the major league club, most likely now be available? Dude, I know you want to argue anything I ever post, but you're really being ridiculous here. If money was available for Soler, and wasn't used, its available to help the team win this year. This has nothing to do with accounting. Do you really think Soler would have signed for no signing bonus this year? Start paying me next year, that's OK. KW: we have a chance to acquire a player that will help us win the division, but to acquire him we will have to use some of that money we were setting aside for Soler. JR: NO WAY. That money is not to be used for in season major league acquisitions. Its only for minor leaguers who may or may not help us in the future.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 08:37 PM) No offense, but why does it bother you so much? Part of his job is creating misdirection. If he always came out telling the truth, he would never have any leverage in negotiations and would be giving his competition unnecessary information. I don't see how him telling the press he has a $25 million rainy day fund just lying around would do any good. Of course it doesn't, but find a different target than your fanbase or don't say anything at all. I just have a hard time with the perception that the White Sox don't get the support they deserve. They charge a lot of money to go to their games. One of the most expensive tickets in baseball before we get into dynamic pricing. Their performance hasn't been top 5 in baseball very often even though that is what they charge. I just wish they would stop finding a way to mention their lack of funds, and sort of ,kind of ,pointing their collective fingers at the fanbase. The reality is, the more money KW has spent in recent years, the worse the team seems to have performed. Maybe that is something he should point out when the press hounds him about finances.

Isn't it a little strange KW rmentioned the attendance perhaps hurting his ability to add to the current roster only days after Peter Gammons reported the Sox offered Soler $25-30 million? Either Gammons is lying or KW is lying about being strapped for cash.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) Outside of the Cubs series...are the tickets usually $90 for bleacher seats? No. I did some checking, they are $45 against the Twins Wednesday afternoon July 25th. It was $33 plus fees for an upper deck box, not even premium. I think that still is a bit steep, but that's just me. I don't think my premium clubs were that much for most games. Last homestand it was at least $50 for at least one of the series. They are $55 against the Yankees in August with a lot of availability. The Sox "save of the week" was $38 plus fees for Mullett Night for the bleachers. Why is it 63% more expensive to see the Sox play the Cubs than the Sox play the Yankees?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) The problem is if they cut the prices at the last minute, what is the incentive to pay even season ticketholder prices, which you claim almost everyone there did? Just wait until the last minute and get the most expensive series of the year cheaper. I understand that, but raising them 50% isn't the answer. Buying early should be rewarded. Season ticketholders should pay the lowest price. The pick 7 people, I can see if there are tickets available to sell, sell them at the price they paid if you can't get more. Wasn't the pricing using the Dynamic model supposed to fluctuate based on all sorts of factors? If the Sox insist on charging what they were charging for those games its a sign they had no problem no one wound up sitting in those seats. Its not on White Sox fans.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 02:04 PM) <!--quoteo(post=2628859:date=Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:39 AM:name=Dick Allen)-->QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:39 AM) <!--quotec-->I'm beginning to think the White Sox actually don't mind this attendance and media talk. It makes people overlook revenue and concentrate on weak ticket sales. If they are pricing tickets at the level they are pricing them, they must be hard to get. Isn't that how supply and demand works? You're overlooking elasticity. Some people are willing to pay any price (within reason) to go to Sox games. If you lower ticket prices in an effort to get more people into the park, then you forego the potential revenues from people who would have been willing to pay more for the same tickets. This trade-off is going to be factored into the ticket pricing model. While it's surprising the Sox keep their prices so high, they obviously know their customers better than we do and have years of financial data to develop their pricing models. I trust that the Sox are making all their pricing decisions with a goal of optimizing profit. No, I understand that, but with this Cubs series, most tickets were sold to season ticketholders, or the people who received ticket plans that aren't considered season ticketholders, and people who bought tickets right away. The pricepoints were nowhere near what they were on ticketmaster the past several weeks. Pricing them ridiculously left those seats empty. I would really love to see an actual comparison from year to year on walk up sales from before they were dynamic, until now. What the Sox are hoping is the people who thought tickets for that game or others were too expensive will buy them in February next year to "get a deal". Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. If it doesn't, I bet bleacher seats against the Cubs won't be $90 next year.If they are optimizing profit, why doesn't KW just say we are doing fine when asked about money available to add payroll. There is no way they really expect a regular guy with a family to spend $90 a ticket to sit in the bleachers do they? The other problem is the person willing to pay $90 a ticket probably isn't a bleacher guy.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 01:00 PM) It's obviously some kind of algorithm they're running which theoretically optimizes revenues. My guess is it is sort of like a production cost model of some sort that they are manipulating on the fly. I don't think they are just pulling numbers out of their asses. Looks like they need a new quant guy. If they are optimizing revenues, KW wouldn't need to say anything.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) It is also common sense. Less people=less revenue=less payroll. I think the question is isn't there a better way to attempt to increase revenue than saying attendance is an issue? It hasn't worked in the past, why would it work now? If its an issue, do something about it. I don't understand how you can give people a discount if they find a code, but can't afford just to make the unsold seat the same price so people don't have to jump through hoops to get it. I'm beginning to think the White Sox actually don't mind this attendance and media talk. It makes people overlook revenue and concentrate on weak ticket sales. If they are pricing tickets at the level they are pricing them, they must be hard to get. Isn't that how supply and demand works? I don't understand why Brooks would rather keep bleacher seats at $90 and lower boxes in the corner at $105 rather than actually sell them and get some revenue. KW shouldn't be discussing this stuff with the media, he should be discussing it with Brooks and his crew. Since its apparently all about dollars "available" let's look at 2011. The Sox were in the top 10 in revenue generated in MLB. Were they in the top 10 in on field performance? Who really is the party not holding up their end of the deal?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:15 AM) I'd love to come up with something new to talk about, but come on. No one questions Kenny or JR? Really? If no one questions them, why the hell are we on like post #200 of this dead horse topic? The entire fanbase knew attendance was going to fall hard this year, yet here we are acting like this is a surprise? Come on. Its no surprise, but then again the team being in contention is. People want to look for reasons. Its pretty simple. Bad year last year. No offseason excitement leads to fewer season ticket renewals and fewer pre-season ticket sales. Dynamic pricing leads to fewer in season ticket sales.

I'm no KW fan but he's been the GM 12 seasons and the minor leaguers he's given up that have done anything at the major league level are Gio, Chris Young, a pretty good player, but definitely has had his share of issues, and Daniel Hudson who is pitching a lot like Phil Humber this year. Francisco and Rauch would count I guess, but its not exactly a who's who of MLB stars. KW has made many mistakes, but his track record dealing minor leaguers has probably been as good as any GM.

Ratings are up both on televison and radio and attendance is down. Prices are the problem. If this was 2006, Dynamic Pricing would probably make the White Sox a lot more money. Its not 2006. Its costing them.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 08:50 AM) Bottom line is, you're going to achieve this by default. The rate of attrition for minor league prospects is so great that if they are valued highly by the market, you can almost come out ahead by default sheerly by dumping them all if you're getting back proven veterans. I agree with this. If anyone has a Baseball Prospectus from 5 years ago, go look at the top 100 prospects. The majority, unless you're in an intense fantasy league, you will have forgotten ever existed.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) No Dick, I have seen the statements before, I just didn't save them on my hard drive for immediate production at your whim. I worked 14 hours yesterday, so I sure as hell wasn't going to spend the few hours remaining after I got home seeking to provide "evidence" for you. Fact is, you don't have any evidence either, outside of these flimsy Forbes reports every year. With the certainty in which you discuss White Sox finances, one would think you are the damned Corporate CPA. My evidence is such quotes don't exist. Teams have always cried poor, but the White Sox are the only team I've ever heard of that actually points to their attendance with the premise they deserve more support, and will be able to improve their team once that support is given. The latest quotes aren't too damning, but KW shouldn't be answering those questions. Why do they even talk about finances publicly?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 08:02 AM) The Marlins are counting on someone taking that on. They wouldn't have written the contract that way if they weren't. I think Loria was hoping for a title run and then finding a buyer to pay a premium price.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 07:32 AM) It hasn't been a topic since 2005. Sox attendance and how it means the Sox can't spend a dollar if they only have $.50 hasn't been a topic since 2005? The Sox were a top ten revenue team last year, and may have dropped a little this year, but even with the attendance not being very high, they probably are in the upper half in terms of revenue in MLB. If they want to use attendance as an excuse not to add payroll, I think its weak. I wasn't expecting any payroll to be added anyway, and I think the majority of Sox fans thought like me. Crying poor hasn't brought out the fans. They need to try something else.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 10:44 PM) At some point I will go find you this evidence, Dick...tonight I do not have the time nor the energy. That being said, yes, we have a high revenue because we are in a major market. We also correspondingly spend a high dollar figure on payroll. This is obvious and has been pointed out numerous times. The fact remains that will more attendance dollars, more money can be put into payroll. The Rangers, who we both mentioned, have increased their payroll from $65 million in 2010 to $92 million in 2011, and $121 million in 2012. Meanwhile, ours decreased from $128 million in 2011 to $98 million in 2012. These figures are at least partially tied to attendance. You don't decrease your payroll 30 million from one year to the next for s***s and giggles. That is directly a response to attendance and decreasing revenues. You don't have any evidence, yet know I can't possibly be right. Everyone talks about their fans not showing up, you just have no examples. My point is charging less than $90 for a bleacher seat would increase White Sox revenues.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:34 PM) Comparing a mlb franchise to a restaurant is such a great analogy... What another great post.

A poster on another site hit the nail on the head regarding White Sox attendance. He wrote if no one is laughing at a comic, its not the crowd. Considering this is an annual topic, maybe JR needs to find someone who can do something about it.

Will they be hoisting the BP Cup after the game? I hope CSN shows all the festivities.

Bacon's a keeper.

Hopefully this is the beginning of Floyd's annual summer run.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 08:30 PM) Castro just rubs me the wrong way. Every time the camera goes on him he's either chewing or spitting or looking like a doofus He seems like one of those guys that is going to really start to suck as soon as he signs a huge contract.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 03:24 PM) I could not possibly agree with you more Brotha! It's been several years (I think Maggs was in right), but I could not believe what a lousy experience I had the last time I sat in the lower level. I think my company at the time bought the tickets. When I go to a game, I for some unknown reason, want to actually watch a game. We were about 10 - 12 rows from the field along the right field line, slightly behind 1st base. People were constantly getting up and down, in and out of their seats, even during pitches. I don't know why people have such rude baseball, or any public event, behavior. I'm a very mild mannered man, and it takes a lot to get me angry; but boy was I pissed. I bet you I missed half of the game because someone was standing up to get in and out in front of me, usually right when the pitcher was starting his wind up. At that time I swore I would never sit in the lower level again and have not since. This is exactly why my seats were in the club level. You can actually watch a game there most of the time. Its amazing. Baseball is at least 95% dead time, but the guy in front of you or the guy with the cotton candy always seem to be up and in your way as the pitch is headed towards home and Dunn is at the plate. If you can get a premium club level seat, they are pretty reasonable on stubhub usually, its the ticket to none of that.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 06:27 PM) Taking bets on how many innings Floyd gets before he's pulled. Over/under is set at 4. I don't like Floyd, but I'll take the over. He's due for a good game, and it is the Cubs.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) How much do you follow other team's local beat writers? As if you would even know if they were crying about funds. Secondly, I would love to hear the PR campaign you would have where money was never mentioned as an answer to "are you going to go out and acquire "Player X?" Team's cite money as a consideration all the time in this instance. You're just not a fan of theirs, so you don't pay it any mind. As for the attendance problems being overblown, do you really think that there is no additional revenue to be made from filling up your stadium? If not, why does every single team clamor for a new stadium? Do you not wonder what the money that a team like the Red Sox or the Rangers spends that money on? Do you think they pass it on back to their fans in the form of free beers or something? That is real money that could be applied to payroll, the draft, scouting, etc. OK, show me another team who cries about not being able to acquire players because attendance isn't up to snuff. Just one. You mention the Rangers spending money. You may be interested to know according to Forbes, the White Sox had more revenue than the Rangers last season. Attendance is overblown. Its not how many are at the games, its how much was paid to be there. If the Sox really wanted to sell the last 7000 to 10000 seats to last nights game, they would have had no problem doing so. They picked pricing them to where they would not be sold. The fact is its on the White Sox to draw fans. No one has an obligation to go to games. A restaurant doesn't say we will get you better food if you buy this crap first. They shouldn't even be publicly discussing it. They should be spending time trying to figure out how to fix it. Saying you would get better but can't because you're not getting enough business in a way is just showing you agree that your product should be better. Seriously, the franchise could probably be sold for close to $1 billion right now. If they don't feel they have the funds to properly run it, maybe they should sell. The other thing is, we have heard this so many times in the past, then Peavy gets traded for. Rios gets claimed. Manny get claimed. Edwin Jackson is acquired. Enough answering attendance questions KW. The Sox revenue was top 10 last year. That's the number that matters, not the total attendance figure. I just maintain if they lowered some prices, they would get more people into the stands and those extras would more than make up for the loss on the higher priced tickets.