Dick Allen

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) The way I see it, both sides have some fault for low attendance. The Sox have not priced tickets, parking, and concessions in a way that works based on the economy and the team's recent performance. For their part, the fans have been slow to respond to the success that the team has had. There are affordable options for going to games if you really want to go. You are correct, but people don't want to go through all the effort. Its probably lazy, but Caulfield had something the other day which basically said one problem is too many choices. They need to simplify ticket prices, not complicate them even more. Most just give up and say its not worth the effort. The Sox knew they would take a hit attendance-wise this year. I read that even back in 2005 when the Sox were in first place every single day of the season, they had 3 September crowds in a row less than 20k. A month in first place isn't going to make people flock to USCF.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) I think the Sox and Cubs epitomize the extremes of stupidity in fanbases. Cubs fans keep going like sheep to Wrigley no matter how bad the product is, creating absolutely no financial incentive to the team to put a winning product on the field. Sox fans insist on seeing some almost-unrealistic string of spectacular seasons before they'll think about buying a ticket. When the team starts having some success, there is no money flowing in to use to try and build on that success. There needs to be a happy medium. Have your base number of games you're willing to go to no matter how bad the team is, and then start going more often as the team enjoys success. Don't sit on your ass and say that a month in first place isn't enough to get you to the park and then turn around and b**** that the Sox didn't spend extra money at the trade deadline. I don't think anyone has been complaining that the Sox won't be spending money at the deadline. I still maintain they will if it makes any sense. Many times after KW or someone else in the Sox organization throws out the attendance issue, they wind up spending money soon after.My beef is the insunuation its the fans fault. Something KW would understand is Sox fans can't spend $1 if all they have is $.50. If its all about attendance, there are several simple things the Sox could do to increase it,. They think its in their best interest to stay the course with this dynamic pricing. That's their decision. I think its costing them money.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 11:50 AM) Thinking people should come out after being a month in first place is a mistake. Some standard of excellence their KW. Well he was patting himself on the back last year for putting together teams that spend a few days in first place during several seasons. He really only said one word about it when he was questioned and that was the "yes" at the end. He shouldn't have said it, he tried not to say it, but it happened. The media should be directing their questions at the Sox sales and marketing departments. They are obviously in a slump.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 08:30 AM) I want the 20 minutes of my life back I just spent reading the past few pages. I'm not even sure where that argument began or what it was about. Something about xBoxes or something? I did pick up on the sniping about the purported Soler bid. To me, there was plenty of evidence showing that the Sox had interest and were involved in the bidding for the guy. Apparently the Sox offered (or were prepared to offer) around $25 million. Why argue that? We (on this board) have been talking about Soler since before the season started. But, just because the Sox may have offered the money doesn't mean they have $25 million to spend to make the team better today. When KW talks to the press and says he has no money to spend on players, that's fine. We all know that more often than not, he uses a lot of misdirection. So, who knows if he's actually willing to spend some money. I would hazard to guess that he will spend the money if there's a deal that could truly make the team better and help get them to the post season. But to blame attendance (or lack thereof) is ridiculous. The Sox have one of the highest average ticket price is baseball, and they are in a city with two freaking teams. And the other team has a cult following...well, more acurately the stadium in which that team plays has a cult following (look at me, I'm at Wrigley!). The attendance at The Cell will always be disappointing until the team that plays there can win consistently. A team that was expected to play at or just below .500 performing slightly better will not cause 10,000 extra people to show up each day. A team making it to the playoffs on a consistent basis and winning the occasional playoff series will increase attendance. Like I (and others) have said, going to a Sox game is a big commitment financially, especially if you're taking a family. I would love to go to a half dozen games a season, but I like cash in my pocket more. I like being able to sit my ass on my couch with my kids and a 6-pack of Blue Moon just fine. Sorry, Kenny. No one suggested they had $25 million available. But if the Soler report is true, they have something available. The funny thing is the guy arguing against us when we said that also pointed out when it was mentioned Forbes said the Sox made $10 million last year, that $10 million was just a sliver of money to the Sox, its a pretty insignificant amount. Since he seems to know so much, and is far more knowlegeble, that means the Sox should have more than enough money to bring in someone this season if they so choose. $10 million is nothing to them. I totally agree with you regarding attendance. People are too focused on attendance and not revenue. The Sox obviously feel their ticket prices are maximizing their revenue or they would do something about them. Brooks has declined.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 08:16 AM) This is a really good point. The signing bonus is a fraction of the total deal, which was likely to run over 4 to 6 years, judging by how the Sox have structured these deals in the past, and what the market looks like now. That was pointed out. The point remains, they were going to have to give him some kind of a bonus, and have to pay him some sort of salary this season. I don't think they will pick up anyone they have to pay a lot of money the rest of the year, but unless they fall apart by the deadline, I think they will upgrade where they can, and would probably do it today if they found the right deal. And if the right player comes along who makes a lot of money, if the deal is right, they will make it as long as there's a legit chance to win. If the Mets were giving David Wright away today for nothing but salary relief, there's no question in my mind KW and JR would jump on it, although I actually agree with Shaq that pitching, IMO starting pitcher, is even more important.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 11:22 PM) Actually, he has been saying this for years, Baron. Ask the people who joined Soxtalk before 2011. Using one of your lines, show me evidence. I'm going to bed. I'll be looking for the evidence tomorrow, and the evidence you were going to dig up for me today.

When did I say they had to spend every dime? Give me evidence. I've only stated they claim they spend every dime. When I pointed out for years that really wasn't accurate, you argued with me about that. You say $10 million isn't a lot of money, that would indicate they should be able to acquire a pretty good player since they only have to pay him for half a year. Perhaps a $20 million a year guy. Since you are so tuned into White Sox finances, how much are they looking to recoup from last season?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 11:09 PM) I think they do so just to piss you off, DA. To run the franchise as you would suggest would be reckless, irresponsible, and lead to the White Sox being buried with unmovable contracts every year. You criticize the acquisitions of Peavy/Rios/Dunn enough. To follow the standards you seem to want to hold them to would lead to even more of those type of contracts. Actually I always loved the Peavy trade. Maybe you can find evidence I criticized the acquistion. Rios was a stupid acquistion. Dunn was an overpay because of the Thome/Kotsay fiasco. I would not have these obligations on the books if I ran the franchise. I don't know how that could be considered reckless. But keep going. Its funny you say I'm against the acquistions of the White Sox immoveable contracts, and then say running the team the way I suggest would lead to more immoveable contracts.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:59 PM) No, my evidence would show that they are trying to recoup funds from last year by slashing this year's operating budget. It is a widely undertaken measure in the business world, DA. What was their bottom line last year? Forbes claims they made $10 million. What did you come up with?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:55 PM) It IS a factor. And he is not using the Sox fans as a pawn. Please explain how he is using them as a pawn. Regardless of what your argument all along has been, that certainly does not make it my argument all along. We have been raising many different points on this same topic for probably 6 years now and the crux hasn't changed. You demand the Club spend every penny they can possibly scrape up in any scenario, or else they are not entitled to mention attendance as a factor in making future acquisitions. I claim that is a ridiculous assertion. Again, I have never demanded they spend every penny. They have claimed numerous times they spend every dime that comes in. JR finally came clean when he was questioned about where they got the money for Dunn, Konerko and AJ when he said they save a little here, save a little there. I would imagine Forbes numbers are a lot more accurate than the claims White Sox employees make concerning finances, and Forbes calls them, despite Sox fans apparently not supporting the team, one of the most profitable franchises in baseball. I've only called them cheap in 2009 when they had all my non refundable playoff money, raised ticket prices, and then lowered payroll and cried poor. They eventually brought in Peavy and Rios. Other than that, I've never really had a problem with their payroll. In fact, I actually argued against the $4 million for 1 month waste of money for Manny Ramirez. I only have a problem with them crying poor if they are not, and claiming to spend every dime that comes in, when they don't. I don't know know why they feel its so important to tell everyone these things.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:52 PM) There certainly is. I'll give you a hint, despite the continued assertions that "I always do" this and that. I'll give you a hint: All you have to do is look at the payroll versus attendance and the performance of the team over the course of that last 7 years and you can see all the evidence you need. Payroll is down 24 percent from last season. Attendance is down 9%. I guess your evidence would show funds are available.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:44 PM) Dick, I see you are having trouble quoting the posts, so I will respond here. I certainly am not denying that is a point of the argument, but it certainly is not the whole argument. I would characterize the "whole" argument as being that simply because Kenny has said that the attendance is hurting his ability to make in-season acquisitions does not mean other money does not exist, or that an acquisition may be forthcoming, or that he is necessarily lying if said acquisitions were to be made. I certainly would argue that Soler and our financial position going forward this season are not necessarily linked, which does seem to be one of the arguments you are making. We have been having this very same argument far before either you or I even knew who Soler was. My argument all along tonight has been if they have money for Soler, they have money to add to this year's roster, and I don't like KW using Sox fans as a pawn when asked about finances. He can cry poor all he wants, a lot of teams do, but don't imply it has anything to do with attendance. He really tried not to, I'll give him that, but in the end, he said it was a factor.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:40 PM) DA and I posted the source for our argument. Its right there all written down. You can view it at any time if you wish. Great so no evidence at all.You havent supplied any throughout this entire thread. He doesn't need evidence. He's shack. He's lighting us up.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:35 PM) That has not been my argument. 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? First Base Coach Group: Members Posts: 21,291 Joined: May 7, 2003 Member No.: 385 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 09:35 PM) First of all we don't even know they made an offer on Soler. Secondly, I am sure the investors of the Club have money they can pull from when it is necessary. That does not mean it is considered generally available rather than utilizing traditional revenue sources such as gate revenues. You guys are both being incredible. This is not a publicly traded corporation, it's a freaking privately owned baseball franchise.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:27 PM) I stopped arguing his original post when I originally responded to it. This whole argument has been if they had money for Soler they have money for an upgrade or 2. You argued that isn't the case. Fine. When they acquire someone your apology will be accepted as long as its sincere.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:23 PM) Throughout the thread you've stated several times, in perhaps every way possible, that the White Sox have money to spend right now. Are you honestly trying to amend that now to be a conditional statement? That was my orignal post at 8:09

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:20 PM) That's honestly the best you can do? Because I can keep lighting you both up all night long... Yeah, you're really lighting me up. Grow up.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:19 PM) That the White Sox have money to spend right now. Learn how to read. Here's my original post you started arguing. 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. I really have no idea how it got you so riled up, but its hard to argue it isn't accurate.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:18 PM) No, it's what I do when I realize the audience I am debating with is incapable of understanding the argument I am making. Because there is no audience on the planet capable of understanding your argument.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:16 PM) You're making an affirmative statement which requires an assumption to be made if it is to be considered valid. I'm pointing out that there is no information available to us today which allows us to make that assumption, and thus, your affirmative statement is invalid. Do you understand the distinction? What affirmative statement. I mentioned Gammons report. I said one of them is lying. I didn't say which one. I did say if Gammons was accurate, KW's crying poor is, once again, BS like it was before Peavy, Rios, Jackson and Ramirez, and for that matter Dunn, Konerko and AJP. The word IF is big there.

QUOTE (Baron @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:12 PM) Every watched Pulp Fiction? I guess not. Im typing in perfect English. If you cant read thats not my fault. This is what he does when he is out of bullets. I think he's starting to realize his ridiculousness.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:12 PM) I don't need evidence, Dick. All I stated was that one cannot use our rumored interest in Soler as evidence that we have money to spend on player acquisitions for this year. That does not require evidence. As I said either Gammons or KW was lying. Maybe you have evidence the Sox didn't make Soler the offer Gammons claimed. If the Sox had money for Soler, they have money to pick someone up. They only have to pay them for half a season. Soler would require some sort of bonus and salary this season, so your future payroll argument is moot.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:10 PM) Well I am certainly glad you are enjoying this. However, the fact that you are laughing certainly is not anything to suggest I am wrong. Not in itself. But you are wrong. And you're argument is gettin even more ridiculous.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:07 PM) What is your evidence? What is yours? For someone who always demands evidence, you certainly never back up your goofiness with evidence.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:03 PM) At no time have I made that statement. You said you know their general finanical position, and are arguing that even if they offered Soler $25-30 million they don't have money available to acquire players, because the point I was making was if they have money for Soler, they have money to upgrade. You are saying no. That money isn't for in season acquisitions. Every post you're making on this is making me laugh even more.