Dick Allen

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 25, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) Cowher extremely interested...check Shanahan extremely interested...check Lovie's dismissal...... I have said planety of times here and stand by it, the only way I fire Lovie is if we get a big time replacememnt. A guy with good experience. No head coach taking his first head coaching job. Shanahan had a crappy team and lost his job with Cutler playing like a Pro Bowler. Sure he's a sexy name, but bringing him would be setting everyone up for dissappointment, like bringing in Orlando Pace. Cowher is a guy I would love the Bears to get, but more than Lovie would have to go to make it happen. No matter who they bring in, if they don't upgrade the talent level, the team is not going to be very good.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 12:17 PM) The Mets may have reduced interest in Carlos Delgado, according to Marty Noble of MLB.com. The slugger won't start playing baseball in Puerto Rico until mid-January; no reason was given for the delay. Sounds like he's still not fully healthy... Supposedly the hip he had surgery on still isn't ready for baseball action. I'm pretty sure I would stay away from him, if he would even consider White Sox offer.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 07:11 PM) Are we really going to scoff at him for being the only good pitcher in 2007? How is that to his detriment? He did his job the team didn't. I don't think a franschise with our tenous history with pitching can really afford to look down on: 33 Starts per year, 200 + K's and innings with an era of around 4 in a hitters park. With years like 2006 29 CHW AL 11 12 .478 4.84 33 32 0 1 0 0 202.2 206 116 109 23 56 2 184 15 0 7 872 98 1.293 9.1 1.0 2.5 8.2 3.29 2007 30 CHW AL 15 8 .652 3.74 32 32 0 2 0 0 216.2 197 95 90 29 50 2 213 7 0 5 882 126 1.140 8.2 1.2 2.1 8.8 4.26 2008 31 CHW AL 12 16 .429 4.67 33 33 0 1 0 0 208.1 214 113 108 25 61 2 200 6 0 2 890 98 1.320 9.2 1.1 2.6 8.6 3.28 I never said he was a superb pitcher, i've said multiple times that i'm glad he's gone, that he couldn't perform in the stretch run, that he's homer-prone, but to argue that he did nothing for this team is absolute bull. It reeks of a flawed mentality that a guy should take a permanent hit for a small sample size. Its not bull. He did nothing for the White Sox except win some meaningless games in 2007. Maybe we shouldn't forget what guys do during spring training either. As for the hitters park vs. pitchers park, take a look at White Sox starter splits the last couple years. Seems most do better at the launching pad. Small sample size? 2 seasons in contention, 2 seasons he came up small. Then everything could be forgotten when he gets the nod in the playoffs but he gets lit up like David Hasselhoff on 2 for 1 night. If anything he should appreciate the $30 million + he was paid for being a mental midget. He also fell apart when the Yankees needed him in 2004.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 23, 2009 -> 06:36 PM) I'd have him pegged for an ERA near 4 next year. I'm not going to argue that Javy's going to dominate the AL, i just don't think he's as bad as everyone says. I don't disagree with any specific point of yours, Javy's a flawed guy, and i agree that the park factor and ERA trends put him in a bad spot, i just hate to see Sox fans forget what he achieved for this team. What he achieved for the White Sox? He was paid handsomely and came up big in 2007 when the Sox were one of the worst teams in baseball for most of the year. When they needed him in 2006 and 2008 he wet the bed.

It appears Capps is going to blow off the Cubs for the Nationals. I thought everyone wants to play for the Cubs. I'm starting to wonder about Ricketts. I know Wrigley is a cash register, but he took out a $400 million loan to buy the team and is looking at about $200 million in renovations with a payroll that has a ton of long term committment.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 06:58 PM) So if the Bulls lose to the Knicks tonight, is that going to be the end for VDN? I doubt it although on ESPN tonight they said JR thinks this should be a playoff team and he wants the playoff money. Hiring a new coach would probably cancel out that playoff money if the report was accurate. I do think there is zero chance Vinny is coaching this team next year. If the guy they want to replace him is available now, I say the sooner the better, but I think VDN is going to be around for a while. I hope I'm wrong, this is about as bad as the Bears now.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 07:00 AM) Peavy was acquired on July 31st, so the Sox were only paying for 2 months out of 6. At $8M that means they were paying him something like $2.67M. Alex Rios was acquired on August 10th, 1/3 of the way through August. That's 1 2/3 months of Rios at $5.9M for the season. The Sox paid him something like $1.64M. In total, that's about an extra $4.31M. Not exactly a lot of money in baseball terms. It is very possible that the Sox had this small amount left over going into the season, but they didn't make another signing because they couldn't get much for it. Rather, since the Sox had so many veterans in the last years of their contracts (i.e. so many tradable pieces), they decided to wait and see how they were doing first, and then either dump some veterans if they were out of it or use the little extra cash to make an acquisition that would help the team in 2009 and beyond. Or maybe the Sox really were at their budget like they said, and Uncle Jerry and the rest of the crew decided to take on that whopping $4.31M extra as a means to improve the organization for the next several years afterwards. The Sox DID NOT take on a lot of money this season. All that money starts coming in 2010. Read KW's quote on July 7. He said he couldn't make a big trade because of money, couple that with the fact KW traded for Peavy earlier in the season, but was refused. They had the money then, no? The Sox had money. His quote said their projections were off, which would indicate they had even less than they budgeted. So if they didn't have money in April and May, they had even less in July and August. If the money isn't a lot for 3 Peavy starts and what ever you want to call Rios' performance, how come so many freak out about Linebrink's contract?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:19 PM) It doesn't have to be an attendance spike. If you are really an accountant, you would know that companies deal with projected revenue numbers all of the time. If the Sox did their budget based on a certain percentage fall in revenue, and then came in above that number, they would have accumulated surplus cash that they didn't have according to the budget in Feb, by the time June rolled around. There is nothing to suggest there was a spike from April and May when they said they had no money to June and July when they spent money. KW was crying about the LA Dodgers attendance, calling it an eye opener, and cried about money. I believe that series was in June.. The attendance didn't get much better after that. It doesn't look like they added any sponsors during that time either. “Well, if I’m being completely honest money is more of the issue now. We expected a little more support than we’ve gotten,” he said. “I think it’s a reflection upon the economy of what’s kind of happen with regards to attendance and I don’t know if we’ve played consistent enough, or been exciting enough for people to get behind us. We’re still hopeful.” We’ve been probably pretty short or a little aggressive in our projections and we might have to take a lot closer look at it, because, the Dodgers series was certainly an eye opener for us,” Williams said. The quote was from July 7. Peavy came to the Sox less than 1 month later.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:13 PM) Dick, it's not that I believe everything they say, it's just that I don't think they have any reason to lie to us. I trust, through the behavior of the owner and the GM, that they do everything in their power to win. I am not on some mission or crusade to uncover every unspent dollar that may be in the cushions of their couch. For whatever reason, you are. I'm really not. I just know they screwed White Sox fans last off season. They have every reason to lie. Again its a business, if they want to make a profit, that's fine. I would want to make a profit. But you know as well as I, if they don't spend money but publicize they made $20 million that particular season, its not going to go over very well. As the only major sport without a salary cap, making money and not winning isn't going to fly. They aren't going to tell you they are willing to lose money, because then expectations about spending would reach Yankee level. People wouldn't think the Sox should even have a budget. They tell you they break even. Its something fans will understand. JR's edict is to not lose money. I say, if a profit is what you really want, don't talk about finances all the time. Don't always mention you don't have any money to spend. If its some sort of negotiating tactic, its only going to work with a player only the White Sox are negotiating with anyway. If another team offers more money, the player is going to take it.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 09:02 PM) A baseball team is under no obligation to spend more than they make and are under no obligation to simply break even. It's a business. It isn't a public trust. That said, I still have an incredibly difficult time understanding how people can still call this organization cheap, despite the cascade of hard evidence that proves otherwise. It's almost like arguing that Yao Ming isn't tall. Here's the reality, and where I believe the argument should cease: for the last several year, the Sox payroll is exactly in line (and sometimes even higher) with their attendance for a given season. When they have middle-of-the-road attendance, they have a middle-of-the-road payroll. It happens EVERY year -- except for years like 2006 when they were 10th in attendance, yet 4th in payroll. Hell, you could go back to 2001 when they had the 22nd highest attendance but their payroll was 16th in MLB. There is just no disputing this. This is fact, not opinion. True, but the White Sox have advantages some other teams do not, they have a sweatheart lease deal and pay nothing for ballpark upkeep. In fact, if their full price ticket attendance falls below a certain threshold, they don't even pay rent. Those half priced Mondays killed two birds with one stone. They increased the attendance on a normally slow night and those tickets didn't count towards their rent, at least not fully.They also make more than most for local TV and radio rights. I can call them cheap last off season. They obviously had money. They spent more than they ever had in June and July. There is no way Dewayne Wise should have been leading off on opening day. There is no way Brent Lillibridge should have been playing in MLB in 2009 and especially not leading off occassionally. There were bargains available and the Sox said they had no money to spend. Read Forbes. They claim the White Sox make a decent amount of money, and that's after paying all these salaries.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:35 PM) Without actually knowing their budget, it is hard to say exactly, but it is very commonly done by other organizations and corporations all of the time. Quite honestly I really believe it was a capital raise by the investors who were not willing to put forth any more money until they KNEW was the season was going to bring. These people didn't get rich by blowing all of their money during complete financial chaos. It makes total sense to me that the investors of the club would not be willing to put more money on the table until some of those uncertainties cleared up, the biggest being, would people still go to baseball games. If this is common, how come you argued with me last year when I suggest the exact same thing concerning the $5 million they spent to get out of Tucson?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:32 PM) I refuse to believe that you could be an accountant and still be this unsophisticated about how a professional sports team actually operates. I think you pretend to try and advance your crusade. I'm unsophisticated and you believe everything KW tells you about White Sox money. The proof is in the pudding. They said they had no money and then in June the trade for Peavy and claim Rios. They obviously had money. If they had all this money laying around that was earmarked for player development, like you throw out as a possibility, I ask have they not learned their lesson? If they could develop some players. they wouldn't have the holes they have. I'm sorry but ballpark improvements would be inaccurate for the White Sox. They don't own the park. They don't pay for improvements. They started their other business. It was money for that. There was no cash call. I know that for a fact. Do some research on the IPO non offering. Its pretty interesting, and its not just JR, its every owner. Many of the same guys who own the White Sox also own the Bulls. Look how they operate. They can't even play with a full roster because the organization, one that Forbes estimates made $51 million in profit last year, refuses to sign a minimum wage guy because it will take them over the luxury threshold and while not turning them unprofitable, it will cut into the profit a couple of million. What's funny is when the White Sox paid $5 million to Tucson so they could move to Phoenix, you guys used that as $5 million that couldn't be used on the payroll. I suggested it came from a different source than payroll and was talked down to.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:32 PM) The funny part of your first paragraph is I remember very specifically an argument we had on this very topic sometime around late May or Early June were I posted the attendance numbers being down as justification of why the Sox were justified in cutting payroll, and you couldn't accept that. Now apparently it is OK because attendance was down? The Sox knew attendance would be lower, and tried to protect themselves by raising more money, which apparently was wrong. Then the Sox end up having lower attendance, like they thought, but they should have spent more money all along? I don't know about you, but I when I have lost my job in the past, I go out and spend all of my money, because I have it. I don't plan for the future, or the worst case scenario... And there is nothing I have ever read that said the money was available in Feb that was there in June. You don't know that for a fact, and you have zero proof of it. Without having any idea how the season was going to go, there very well could have been money approved in June that was not available in Feb because, I don't know if you noticed or not, but we were in the biggest economic freefall in this country in about 80 years. Without some common-sense, we could be the Tigers right now, selling off parts to the highest bidder. Instead in that environment our management team put us in a position of strength that the organization put together extra money to be able to add to this team. I know it makes for better drama if the Sox are always wrong, but it doesn't make any sense the way you present it. As for the rest of it, it gets personal as usual. Could you do me one favor though... If you are going to go that route, come up with some new ones. Every single time we have this argument you pull the three year old tactic of "you like them better" out. I have posted to that multiple times. Google it, rinse, and repeat. Or I can just pull out, "Did Kenny run over your dog and is that why you hate him so much?" for every time that BS gets posted by you? As for the attendance, where was the spike to lead to an increase?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:26 PM) Player development, funds earmarked to pay for ballpark improvements, funds from other investment projects, such as Silver Chalice Ventures, future budgets, etc.,. There are a myriad of other areas they could have taken funds from. But wouldn't that go against the every dime that comes in goes out line they like to use, especially when they try to make it seem like its for players? If they have extra millions for player development not being used, I would have to question why. BTW, they don't pay for ballpark improvements.

Per the NY Post: Apparently, MLB Advanced Media, which we’ve reported before as heading for an IPO, won’t be doing so anytime in the near future, reports NYP. The reason: the baseball team owners were afraid to reveal too much about their wealth right before contract talks with the players... Despite months of pitches by Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, First Boston and J.P. Morgan, the baseball team owners couldn’t be convinced that reaping a few billion dollars was worth the light that would be shone on their business operations and personal fortunes. Some stats on MLBAM: each of the 30 teams team kicked in $1 million a year for four years. But only $70 million to $75 million of the pledged $120 million was ever used before the site started generating excess cash in only its second year. That means each team’s $3 million investment in Advanced Media could now be worth $100 million if the valuation comes in at only $3 billion, which is not unlikely.

I understand the White Sox aren't going to come out and say, we run a business and want to make some money. That wouldn't go over very well. What does work is the break even line they use. The reality is that while JR might not mind if they didn't turn a huge profit, he would be livid if they lose money. According to Forbes, they seem to make between $10 million and $20 million just about every year.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 08:04 PM) IIRC, Kenny said this back in May, when it was obvious that the Sox weren't going to take a massive hit in attendance. This is the best example that I can think of that NOTHING that comes out of the Sox front office can be taken at face value. Their official position is always whatever it takes to give them an advantage. There's almost no way that Kenny would've gotten salary relief for Rios after he claimed him. He would've had zero leverage at that point. Kenny would've had to have taken on a second player to get salary relief in return. That would've involved taking on another expensive contract (which would've been counter-productive) or taking a prospect in return (not a good idea for the Jays, who were clearly entering a rebuilding process). Therefore, Kenny absolutely had to know that the chances of him getting any salary relief after claiming Rios was close to nil... because everybody knew that. Not on a waiver claim, but I think he really didn't believe Toronto would let him go for nothing. It was reported he was trying to get him earlier and obviously whatever he was offering wasn't as good as just eating his contract. So either KW thought they wouldn't move him and try to work out a trade or he was trying to block him from going elsewhere. Detroit may have claimed him and waived Maggs. Considering what they would have saved with Maggs off the books, it made a little sense.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:34 PM) I was pretty clear on the economy reality of the situation that the Sox were preparing for. In fact, I have been borne out pretty correct in most of my predictions about how much teams that weren't as prudent would get into trouble, and you only have to look at our division to see that playing out now. The Sox were very smart and ahead of the bell-curve in being ready for the problems. So much so that they have been able to take advantage of the situation of other teams to get guys like Peavy and Rios. Also after that same argument a million times you do realize that in the world of absolutes a few different things could have happened with the Sox. The first and most obvious is that the Sox prepared for a worst case scenario that did not happen. Like always the Sox invest their extra cash back into the team. The other is that revenue ended up being higher than anticipated. Another is that at the request of Kenny Williams, Jerry went back to the board and got extra cash from the investors that hadn't been there before. Another is that they moved funds over from other areas to pay for payroll raises. None of those scenarios means the Sox were cheap, like you said a million times. They said they had no money. None. Then they said they extended themselves for Peavy which was BS because you know JR doesn't lose money. Then they claimed Rios who I still believe they really didn't want, at least without any salary relief. KW said fans came to the park. It was the $9 Buerhle tickets he referred to. It was BS. The Sox know how many tickets they have sold. They drew 400k less last year than 2007. It was the worst attendance in 5 years. They were cheap. If the money was available in June, it was available in February. They had some guys playing that had no business being in the major leagues and there were bargains last winter with one year committments. Not the crazy 5 year deal they are now stuck with a guy who scouts say packs it in. Isn't it at least possible in your mind that the Sox were sitting on money when they said they had none and spend some or all of it on Peavy and Rios? I'm a guy who had thousands invested in the team via tickets and basically because of the playoff ticket refund policy was held with thousands of others hostage laast off season. I guarantee if the Sox didn't have that money in hand, they never would have pulled the stunt they pulled. But then again the next time you disagree with any thing KW says, it will probably be the first. You probably agree with him more than any other human being. I bet you JR and Rick Hahn disagree with his moves more than you do. You used to use Forbes as a guide for White Sox payroll. What do you say about their estimated $70 million profit the past 4 seasons? As I said before, I don't have a problem with JR turning a profit, but don't say you aren't making money and moan about lack of funds when you are doing a lot better than most.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 07:21 PM) You spent pretty much at least the last year calling the Sox cheap. It has become a running joke because of how many threads you jumped into and mentioned how cheap the Sox were being. Now you are slamming the Sox for probably the biggest financial acquisitions in their history. Seems to me I am dead-on balls accurate on your moving positions. I called them cheap at the beginning of last year.You said they had no money, yet Peavy gets added and then the curious acquisition of Rios. Sounds like a team that had some money to burn to me. Of course you will never admit to that. I chided the acquisition of Rios immediately. If they have that money to spend, it could have been spent a lot more wisely. In fact, if they hadn't been so cheap the winter before, they probably wouldn't have claimed Rios, saving the team having to pay him $60 million+. Did you call out any of the other season tickeholders on this board who were dismayed at an increase in season ticket prices and a decrease in payroll?

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 04:48 PM) I'm pretty sure I've said this before, but I still think the team needs another hitter. And while I like the idea of 9 guys getting just about all of the at-bats with the DH spot rotating from player to player (meaning a group of 2 or 3 players get days off from the field while remaining in the lineup...Podsednik was a HUGE fan of that idea, by the way), if they acquire a guy that is unable to play the field and only DH, that would be better than leaving the team as is. I agree. In the AL if you use a bench quality player every day which is what the Sox would be doing under the current plan, if its really a plan, as Bo Jackson would say, they would be a bat short.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2009 -> 10:15 AM) Now why is it that you love to challenge people, but it bothers you to be challenged so much? If it bothers you so much, you are probably in the wrong place. Besides, you are the one trying to slam the organization for things you criticize them for not doing at other times. You didn't challenge me. You just came up with some silly comment that didn't even portray my position accurately. Its actually a tactic I have seen you scold others for doing. If you're going to rip me, be accurate about my position.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 09:22 PM) Duh. The tag team mods. If I bother you guys so much with logic, just ban me.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 09:17 PM) So they are crazy if they spend, and cheap if they don't. Got it. Yeah that's exactly what I wrote. Get the chip off your shoulder man, and leave me alone. Alex Rios for 5 years is crazy especially if you cry you don't have any money. The other day I was cleaning up some things and came across a 2007 media guide. Of the 56 players the White Sox had in major league camp, 7 are still with the team. 5 years is a long time. Rios was given away. For nothing. Take him. The Sox did, so apparently they have more money than they told you they have, because don't forget, this was after they picked up Peavy. As to cheap, I have only called them cheap at the beginning of 2009. I said they were sitting on money, and all evidence points to me being correct. There is nothing to suggest Jerry Reinsdorf likes to go deep into the red for waiver claims.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 06:59 PM) I gotta say.. if this is true from Jerry, then it gives most of us Bear fans some optimism. The problem is Angelo knows once he gets rid of Lovie, he's next and with no picks in the first 2 rounds next year, the 2010 season isn't looking too promising right now. Change coaches and still suck, JA is looking for work. Keep Lovie another year, let him be the scapegoat next year, then he may have high picks and look like a genius, and get an extension.

QUOTE (Ranger @ Dec 20, 2009 -> 05:16 PM) Yeah, it says Toronto wanted to get out of the contract. It says Toronto was no longer able to afford having Wells, Rios, and Halladay's contracts at the same time. They were not in position to be able to afford it. They would've loved to ship Wells, too. Look, Rios underperformed last year and it's possible he doesn't duplicate 2006 again. But even if he doesn't, I think people are overstating how much Rios would be overpaid. Let's assume Rios has an OPS next year of .800 (not out of the question since he's been over .850 twice in the last 4 years and .798 in another of those) to go along with very good defense in CF. Meanwhile, let's say Torii Hunter has an OPS of .820 (which is also very possible as it's almost 20 points better than his career average) which, of course, goes along with very good defense in CF. Now, given the numbers in that scenario, would you say that Hunter would be worth twice as much as Rios? Would you say that Hunter's numbers would justify him being paid $18 million dollars while Rios gets just under $10? I don't think you can reasonably say that. I'm not arguing that Rios is better, because he has not been a better player than Hunter has over his career. I'm merely using Hunter as a reference point for value. What I am arguing is that if Rios performs to even something like what he's capable, he won't be all that overpaid. In fact, he may not be overpaid at all compared to what others will be getting in his position. If they just owed him the $9.7 million or whatever it is for 2010, he's worth the gamble, but considering how they seem to always be up against a wall with their budget and you really can't count on an attendance spike, especially in this economy, $5 years, $60 million is a crazy committment. He obviously has the tools to live up to the contract, and perhaps even make it look like a bargain, but he also seems to be a threat to be a poster boy for people who just deteriorate after they get the money.