Dick Allen

I noticed the game time was 7:10 so I figured 7-11 was out. I do think the Chevy Pride Crew will be back. JR thought Chevy would bail but evidently didn't as I saw in an email they were taking names for a child version of the Chevy Pride Crew.

QUOTE (striker @ Jan 20, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) So what would you all rather hear, nothing? or... - Jones said he's fat and should have retired but why do that when he can sit on a bench and make $500,000 - Greg Walker watched Rios's swing and said we are f#$%^ed. - Jake Peavy said he misses the San Diego weather and wants to go home. He also thinks the Padres pitchers will out hit the White Sox DH platoon in 2010 You would never hear stuff like this at this time of year. I just think the point is read these stories and get excited about the season, but take them all with a grain of salt. Just last year we heard how good Marquez was, he even got some guys out in spring training. We heard that Lillibridge had a long swing in AAA and that's why he hit .220. That would be corrected and he would steal 40 bases. Josh Fields sucked because his knee was bothering him. That was fixed so he would be an All Star.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 20, 2010 -> 07:54 AM) eh, look at his whole career with the Sox - his HR numbers would go up, the AVG would go down, then it would go vice versa. Looks like what most players do, they adjust. He went higher AVG in those years. Nothing in his career shouts PED's, where all his numbers across the board suddenly skyrocketed. Besides, the reason I love these quotes isn't because Fisk didn't do this stuff. I think he probably didn't, but he may have. Its that he's willing to speak honestly, instead of the B.S. we get from a lot of current players. He wasn't even talking about himself anyway. though I did detect a hint of jealousy. And this whole idea that "they all did it" is just silly. Just as silly as thinking none of them did. Some did, some didn't. Around 1985 he had a pulled stomach muscle and really started hitting the weight room. I thought some of his age-related comments didn't make sense because in a way he was incriminating himself, not that I believe for a second he used steroids. I have no doubt steroids helped tons of players. Harold Baines hit a ton of homers after 35. I doubt he juiced. One thing to consider, however is how many pitchers throwing to these hitters they helped. It was only a few years ago almost every pitcher was hitting 90 on a regular basis.That isn't the case anymore. If Jim Parque juiced, the list of hurlers must be very long. Obviously, weight training has really evolved the past 25 years.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Jan 16, 2010 -> 07:57 AM) Konerko should really be looking at a platoon situation, as his dismal numbers vs RHP in recent years are at that kind of level. Yet right now, the alternative at 1b is Kotsay, who should only be a reserve and late inning defensive replacement. If Delgado wouldn't be a huge drop off at 1b from PK [and numbers suggest he wouldn't, but health may] the advantage of Delgado over Thome would be big, as he can provide the power and OBP splits vs RHP that PK at 1b has not in years. You know as well as anyone there is zero chance Konerko gets platooned.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Jan 16, 2010 -> 07:03 AM) What makes sense is getting a guy for DH who can also play a position--something the sox have said all off-season so they can move people around and give them time off, have favorable match ups/ etc. The sox seem to want that flexibility, as they did with the Rios addition last year, which gave guys days off late in the year. Delgado plays 1b, with fielding UZR numbers similar to Konerko. Thome is strictly a DH. If the sox don't add a DH who can also play the field, IMO, they'll stand pat. I wouldn't be against the Sox adding Thome [they need a power bat vs RHP, and I hate the idea of Jones/ Kotsay/ Omar at that spot] But I don't see it, as all the talk from the sox seems to indicate they've moved on from Jim. Delgado at this point in his career, should see most of his time as a DH. But his 2008 year hitting .271/.353/.518 with 38 Hr's in 598 AB's, playing 159 games in the field would seem to suggest he's got something left. As far is his refusal to accept a trade to the sox, situations change. See Peavy. Delgado's situation re: the Sox, was over 5 yrs ago. And Delgado refused a mid season trade to all teams in 2004, as he had his 5 and 10 yr. rights. I can see why Delgado would refuse a trade when he was going to be a Free agent in the offseason anyway. How does anyone know Delgado can play a position at this point? Supposedly he's not moving around so well in Winter Ball. Delgado was terrific in 2008, but he wasn't even hitting .230 on July 1 that year, and was only another bad week or two from being released before he heated up. I'd prefer Thome, you know what you're going to get, and even if Delgado can play the field, its firstbase or bust. Paulie is capable of playing there most of the time. I don't see the big advantage Delgado brings over Thome other than what was stated earlier, he's someone new.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2010 -> 07:34 AM) Well there you go. Myth #1 (The Sox ownership group makes tons of cash) dead. Destroyed. They save money for the new bar and restaurant they don't have to pay for.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 09:35 PM) I just noticed the edit you threw in there after the fact, and that still doesn't change anything. Retained earnings for 2007(and all prior years), would still be on the 2008 balance sheet...as retained earnings. You do understand that right? I haven't opened an accounting book since before half of this board was born, and I understand that much. Where would they get that info? Would they just assume the White Sox throw everything they make back into the team. I'm still trying to figure out how profitability means zero in business valuation. Again and it will be the last time, why would Forbes, if they are using the method you suggest, go on to say they are one of the most profitable teams in baseball if they are not? Beleive what you want. JR said they have money to spend. That's really all I care about.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 09:12 PM) Um, you are the one who is trying to tell me that retained earnings are excluded with no evidence to actually prove that. If retained earnings are included, like I have contended all along, that means your theory about the Sox earning ridiculous amounts of money, is wrong. If they Sox don't retain earnings and instead pay that money out to shareholders in the form of profits, that means that the Sox don't have any extra money to spend, again meaning you are wrong. Either way, you have backed yourself into a corner, and are wrong at some point. There is no evidence Forbes uses retained earnings as revenue for the next season. None. Forbes calls them one of the most profitable. You say Forbes numbers prove they break even. The Spx say every dime that comes in goes into making the team better, they just want to break even. Maybe every dime that comes in goes out, but then some of it goes to the shareholders, and when they get done with some calculations the books say they break even, but you know that doesn't mean they really break even. That's deceiving. Its not the bill of goods they sell when they say it, and you know that as well as anyone. Just remember, MLB could raise what is being estimated to be $5 billion right now, more than $150 million per team if they offered an IPO on MLB advanced media. They won't do it because the owners profits and personal wealth would be exposed. Boras and his buddies would have a field day. Some fans would be irate. I'm just happy JR is on record saying money is available for more players. Hopefully, it will keep KW from talking about having to play day games because they can't pay the electric bill. Previous: San Francisco Giants Next: Atlanta Braves 1-Yr Value Chg. 2% Ann. Value Chg.2 12% Debt/Value3 9% Revenue4 $196 mil Operating Inc.5 $13.8 mil Player Expenses6 $126 mil Gate Receipts7 $71 mil Facility Information U.S. Cellular Field Owner: Illinois Sports Facilities Authority Year Opened: 1991 Capacity: 40,615 Cost To Build: $167 mil Concessionaire: Sportservice Average Ticket Price: $30 Sport: Portion of franchise's value attributable to revenue shared among all teams. Market: Portion of franchise's value attributable to its city and market size. Stadium: Portion of franchise's value attributable to its stadium. Brand Management: Portion of franchise's value attributable to the management of its brand. Revenues and operating income are for 2008 season and are net of revenue sharing. NA: Not applicable. Team Logos Courtesy MLB. Rank Team Current Value 1-Yr Value Change Debt/Value Revenues Operating Income 1Value of team based on current stadium deal (unless new stadium is pending) without deduction for debt (other than stadium debt). 2Current team value compared with latest transaction price. 3Includes stadium debt. 4Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments. 5Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. 6Includes benefits and bonuses. 7Includes club seats. 8Compares the number of wins per player payroll relative to the rest of the MLB. Postseason wins count twice as much as regular season wins. A score of 120 means that the team achieved 20% more victories per dollar of payroll compared with the league average. Photos AP

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 08:45 PM) I have given you all kids of evidence. The Forbes numbers you have given are actually the best proof for my point. I have explained, in detail, how those numbers work, and you have yet to be able to actually refute that. Short of actually having their books, there isn't much more I can give you. I can't help it if you don't understand basic accounting for some reason. Though I suspect the sudden shift in debate tactics has more to do with knowing you can't prove both of your points, so you have given that up and tried to change the argument instead. You have given no evidence. You just assume Forbes uses the White Sox profit from the previous year and restates it as revenue the next season. Why does Forbes call the White Sox one of the most profitable teams in baseball if they are your best example of proof they break even? From Forbes: Team Value1$450 mil The Chicago White Sox are owned by Jerry Reinsdorf, who bought them in 1981 for $20 mil. 2008 Wins-to-player cost ratio8 87 Valuation Breakdown The skinny During the past few years the Chicago White Sox have gone from being one of the most ineffective franchises in baseball to one of the most effective. Owner Jerry Reinsdorf, who bought the Sox in 1981 and is the only current owner to have won a title in two of the four major U.S. team sports (White Sox and the NBA's Bulls), made two crucial decisions that turned his franchise around: hiring Ozzie Guillen to be manager (a .534 winning percentage over five season and World Series title in 2005) prior to the 2004 season and renovating U.S. Cellular Field into a more fan-friendly ballpark (much cleaner and safer and seating with better sightlines). Attendance is up 25% during the past five seasons and the team is among the most profitable in baseball. If that's the best proof of your point they make no money.........................................

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 07:54 PM) So you know, but you don't know what they do with the money, that makes no sense. Either the money goes back into the team, or it leaves the organization never to be seen again, as you stated very clearly prior to this point that you know they never do any capital raises. If the money does leave in the form of profits, as you keep asserting how much money everyone is making off of the team, it is NOT available to the team the next season. You can not have it both ways. It is either reinvested, or it isn't. Also I want to see exactly where Forbes states that reinvested funds are not included in annual profits. I looked again at their statements for each line, and none of them says anything like that. The explanation for operating incomes is this... Nothing is stated about retained earnings. Finally as an accountant you have got to understand that the valuation of a business has zero to do with its profitability, right? Take Ford for example. They are valued at billions of dollars, and they are very clearly not making a dime. That is a complete non sequitor to the statements you are trying to assert here. Again, what is your evidence they don't make money? Its the 3rd time I have asked. Nothing is stated about retained earnings because those aren't considered in their estimates. As far as profitability having zero to do with a valuation of a business, wow. If Ford was making a billion dollars a year wouldn't they be valued higher than they are right now? After all if they liquidated everything they owned, they would have some cash.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 07:01 PM) Because logic says that one of your two assertions is completely wrong. If you believe that the Sox do not put their profits back into the team annually, that means the money goes back to the partners/shareholders as profit. If this is the case, that also means that there isn't any "extra" money around from year to year, because that money is gone out of the organization. If they do reinvest the profits and do have money available when they say they don't, then your assertion that they have made all of this money over the years, asserted by you to be all of the years single profit totals added up together, isn't really true because it would skew by the total of the money added back into the system. For example, starting with what I will call year one, say the Sox make $20 million, which seems to be pretty typical. If they don't pay out that money, and they do reinvest it into the team in the form of a cash infusion, it goes back on to the ledger as cash. If they make $25 million in year two, they actually only made $5 million in actual profit this year, because they still have the first $20 million in cash from year one, and so on down the line. So you tell me, which of your assertions is wrong? I'm not wrong at all. I don't know what they do with the profits but they don't spend them on the baseball team. Maybe they divvy them up, maybe they buy bonds or something else with them. But if every dime is supposedly going in the baseball operation, that money should be available to spend on players. If the money is around to pass out to partners or place in some account somewhere, it certainly could be made available to pay for players.Forbes has the White Sox making a collective $135 million in profit from the 1999 season through the 2008 season. They had one season where Forbes said they lost $4 million and one where Forbes said they made $1 million. According to them, the White Sox have made $87 million in profit, that's after raising payroll and paying all expenses from 2005-2008. The profit Forbes estimates doesn't include the supposed profit they held onto from the year prior. These profits are separate from each other. A $20 million profit one year, than raising the payroll $20 million but a $25 million profit the next year isn't a $5 million total profit, or a $25 million total profit. Its a $45 million total profit. The higher payroll is included in the figures. The franchise value has gone from $315 million right after they won the WS to $450 million estimated on opening day 2009. Doesn't sound like a break even business to me. Again, show one thing, just one, other than a White Sox employee insisting its true, that they truly only break even.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2010 -> 10:02 AM) As opposed to those who despite all of the evidence otherwise, still swear that they don't? All the evidence otherwise? The only evidence is KW spewing the $.50 thing. All evidence indicates JR and his partners do OK. JR's quote that he would never lose money to win games. Forbes calling the White Sox one of the most profitable teams in baseball ,estimating their profits between 10-25 million per season the last 5 or 6 years. Even JR spokesman Hawk saying Bud Selig is great because everybody is making money. Match the quote about not being willing to lose money to win games with the quote in this article and it tells you he pulls a profit. They aren't up against the magical break even budget number they speak of. Show me one neutral source, like Forbes, who says the White Sox break even before you talk about all the evidence that supports that claim. The White Sox have nothing to gain letting the public know they make a lot of money. Its a business, that's what businesses try to do. I don't blame them for making money. I just don't like the crying about it all the time. Saying they break even placates everyone.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 09:01 PM) /waits on the arrival of one Dick Allen... hell I'll make the post... Sound about right? No, the company line would be there is no money available. JR and KW have some brainwashed they always spend every penny they ever get. Damon makes the White Sox a lot better. I think he would be perfect. The only problem I see is Boras which presents a couple of problems. He drags things out, like JR said, and the Sox win bidding wars about as often as the Cubs win the WS, if there even is one here, and Boras also reps Jones. The White Sox acquiring Damon probably cuts into Jones potential playing time.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Jan 11, 2010 -> 07:21 PM) I would much rather us have someone help us for a whole season, rather than 2 months. I agree. The Sox got Rios for a couple of months and all his boys made excuse after excuse for him. He wasn't for 2009, he was for the future. He needed time to adjust. BS. The Sox need more offense in April, May, June. Wait until July, it may be too late.

If the Sox biggest problem in 2010 is the pinch runner, it will be a great summer.

QUOTE (BaseballNick @ Jan 10, 2010 -> 10:01 AM) I don't think we can count on Big Jim to be the hitter the Sox need at this point in his career. Branyan's health (back) and career numbers give me reservations about signing him as well. I don't see the answer to the White Sox DH vacancy anywhere on the free agent market. Matsui would have been an ideal fit, but with him gone, there's no great or even good LH option still out there. Johnny Damon. Dye wouldn't be bad either with a cheap contract if he would realize he was a DH. There's no reason to think he can't hit if anyone thinks guys like Rios and Jones and Kotsay will be good in 2010. JD had a bad second half. He was pretty damn good in the first half. .302 AVG. 20 homers .942 OPS.

Branyan basically put up the same numbers Thome put up last year and it was considered a breakout season for him at 33. Who knows about his back. Thome is older between the 2 but has a far superior track record and probably is the better bet matching the 2009 numbers or at least being close to them of the two. I'd pass on Branyan.

The rotation looks good going into 2010. Hopefully it looks just as good when the season is over. That's really all that matters.

The front page of espn.com right now features Thomas Jones with the Jets and Ced Benson with the Bengals. As Steve Rosenbloom would say, "That is so Bears."

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 9, 2010 -> 10:08 AM) Vlad isnt off the market yet. He may of been offered, but he hasnt signed yet(that I can find) It appears Texas is offering Vlad and JD a similar package and if either bites the other one is available. It appears that they would prefer Vlad. I think JD could still be very solid if he would embrace being a DH.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 8, 2010 -> 11:15 PM) Vinny needs to take all the players, and have them shoot 3's at practice. When you get 100 3's you can go home. They would still be shooting at game time.

QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Jan 8, 2010 -> 09:12 PM) Podsednik denied a report that he and agent Ryan Gleichowski had turned off the White Sox by pushing for a two-year contract. "There was no demand on a two-year deal. Our phone lines were open and ready to communicate for anything. I don't know who started that," he said. "I was open to working on a one-year deal as much as a two-year from the very beginning." Full article here: http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/artic...sp&c_id=mlb Does anyone else find this interesting? I think most people would have been MORE than happy to signing Scotty Pods to the contract that KC signed him to before of course picking up Juan Pierre. I am thinking now the talk of Pods and his agent demanding a multi-year deal was nonsense and in fact it was a smoke screen the White Sox put out there because they wanted Juan Pierre to begin with. It would make sense as well that perhaps KW had some type of understanding they would get JP in the offseason from LA as a payback for the gratuitous Thome trade and never had any real intentions of resigning Pods, but just gave that impression that they were considering the option since he tends to be a fan favorite. On the other side, Pods may have over estimated the demand for his services in November and simply lowered them considerably once he realized ST is coming in less than 8 weeks and it was time to get a job. Thoughts? The White Sox really didn't want Pods back even at the price he signed for. Fan favorite means squat. He wasn't a fan favorite in 2006 and 2007, and I don't think that would have anything to do with it anyway. As Bobby Knight once said, if you start listening to the fans, you will wind up sitting with them. The Sox probably would have brought him back if he signed something like Andruw Jones, but even $1.75 million is kind of high considering his track record.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 8, 2010 -> 08:21 PM) The White Sox think paying Juan Pierre 2/$8 is a good idea. You're saying it's not a reasonable argument to say Scott could have gotten somewhere close to that? Yes. The White Sox don't want to pay Pods in 2010 for what he did in 2009. Pierre is a much better bet to play at a higher level in 2010, although I think they overpaid for Pierre. And if it was reasonable then he and his agent are dumb if they played it out and signed what he eventually signed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 8, 2010 -> 08:06 PM) Probably because this was the best offer he's gotten recently, and if the Royals signed someone else he'd lose money. The fact is everyone has a limit. To say Pods wouldn't have been available at the price he signed for if there were 2 teams involved, probably is correct. To say his price could easily have gone up to $8 million, most likely is wrong. That said, I shed no tears Pods is no longer a White Sox and actually am happy he will be patrolling CF for another Central Division foe. We aren't talking about a big time player here. Pods had zero suitors last year. He had to call to get a minor league job. To his credit he made the most of it, and I don't blame him for trying to get a boatload of money. The worst thing that can happen is the team could say no, which apparently they all did.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 8, 2010 -> 07:50 PM) Right, discipline, the strongest trait of the average American... How do you know the White Sox weren't prepared to give him $8 million? How do you have any clue what they were or were not willing to give him? How do you have any clue they would have gotten into a bidding war? They moved on. They didn't want him at a fraction of $8 million. If they were willing to give Pods $8 million, they would have given him $8 million. His agent isn't stupid enough to believe he would have done better than that. And if that's what Pods insisted on playing for why did he sign the contract he signed? Its not like the season starts tomorrow.