Dick Allen

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.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 10:01 PM) And this proves my point that some fans need to be treated as children, because they are incapable of understanding the complexities of real life. Yeah, I don't understand life. I wish I could learn from you.

The position I do take is that I do not need to audit the team's financials to understand their general financial position. How do you do that? Every team is unique. Its not the NFL. And you know for a fact the White Sox don't have money to acquire a significant player or 2 this season. You're so smart.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 09:49 PM) It's a very good analogy. If it is, you're saying JR has money to spend, but not to be used to help the team win this year. Its really a dumb argument. Do you realize JR wants to win as much as anyone, and he knows his time will be up fairly soon?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 09:49 PM) It's a very good analogy. If it is, you're saying JR has money to spend, but not to be used to help the team win this year. Its really a dumb argument.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 09:52 PM) You opened the nitpicking pandora's box, not me, my friend. No, you simply can't take a little blurb that says we were in on Soler to mean we have a secret cache of funds that Kenny is instead using to buy furniture for his home with instead of improving the club. We have a history as good as any team in baseball of adding players at the deadline for the sake of improving the club, even when it's probably against fairly long odds that we will win the division. If you have an issue with that, as many do, it should be that we are squandering available funds trying to improve the club, not hoarding potential funds for other reasons. Yet you take KW saying the Sox have no funds to spend as gospel. LMAO. Just so you know he said the same thing right before he traded for Peavy, and claimed Rios, and claimed Manny and traded for Jackson. But that's because JR found some money. They can't use money they were going to pay Soler, that's for the future. Have another drink. Actually, while KW seems to make a lot of in season trades, not many of them have helped the team win that particular season.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 09:45 PM) Because my assumptions are based on all the things that are actually happening....actual payroll numbers, attendance figures, our Club's behavior compared to those similarly-situated, while yours are based entirely on your own conspiracy theories which belie almost everything that is actually occurring in reality. Their general behavior pretty much matches what they say and what the publicly available numbers say. If you're going to propose the conspiracies, it's up to you to provide a little more evidence than "Forbes said they made $14 million last year and they claim they have no money! Liars!" What are the payroll numbers? What is the Sox revenue? What are they projecting for the rest of the season? There are no conspiracy theories. I'm just sick of Sox fans taking the blame for not going to games when the Sox do fine financially. The Sox are in he top half in revenue year after year. Forbes calls them one of the most profitable teams in all of baseball the last decade. They even claim they made $10 million during last season's debacle. Yet you seem to know more because you believe KW when he tells you he can't spend a dollar when he only has fifty cents. Well good. I don't care if he spends a dollar. His in season help has been nothing but busts. But if you really believe the Sox won't use any that money they were earmarking for Soler if the right player becomes available and they have a legit shot to win, you're even more crazy than anyone thinks.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 09:37 PM) Do either of you two have children? If your kids ask you for a new XBox do you feel obliged to tell them that you have the money because you could possibly take a loan out or put it on your credit card or pay for it with cash intended to fix the garbage disposal? Just because it is possible that you could scrape up the money in a pinch does not mean you are lying to them when you say "I don't have the money for a new XBox right now." Wow. Worst post ever.

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. Why is it you always argue things like its a privately owned company we know nothing, yet you claim to know everything? If we have no idea what we are talking about, neither do you.

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.