Dick Allen

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 08:11 PM) He needs location and is not getting it. The value that they could have gotten for him is pretty decreased now so there is no reason to trade him. I just turned the mgame on after the homer. This game resides squarly on the offensive bargae that has been shut out the 4 innings...... I will say it yet again, they have scored more than 4 runs once this entire trip. I blame the bullpen trouble on the fact that every inning of every game is stressful. Don't give us this BS. This game is on Jenks. He had a 2 run lead and needed 3 outs. He supposedly can't pitch in non save situations because he can't get motivated enough to get guys out.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 08:10 PM) I dunno, are you talking about 2007? Even in 2005-2006, it seemed like the one thing you could do against him was hit it out of the park, you just had to swing early and have the fastball happen to be where your bat was. Coming into this season, he gave up 13 homers in 236 innings. He's given up 9 in 53 innings this year.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 08:06 PM) If games like this convince the Sox to not bring Jenks back, then it's well worth it. His stuff isn't even close to what it used to be. His fastball is down 4 mph from where it was a few years ago, and his curve isn't even 50 pct of what it used to be. I think his ballooning paycheck will convince them. It actually might be better if he looked lights out these last couple of weeks. Someone may actually give up something useful for him. One thing is for certain, if they pay Jenks and have Rios in CF, any crying about lack of funds will be laughable.

If the Sox pay Jenks $7 million next year, they are crazy.

If Jenks is still a White Sox next year, I hope he improves.

Considering the title of the thread, the answer is no. There has been no midseason move by KW that has backfired more than Rios. He hasn't helped them win a pretty bad divison next year, and he's has a contract that will cost the Sox $60 million the next 5 seasons. He's Alfonso Soriano lite. His contract isn't market value for what he's done, and judging by his comments, he already has given up on this season, which, if you listen to scouts, isn't surprising. So I think Peavy is KW's best trade ever, and Rios is his biggest blunder even though I believe Rios will be a decent player. The problem is he's not much of a presence. He's apparently not a leader. He gets paid money that the Sox are probably going to need to spend elsewhere. At least there doesn't appear to be any juggernauts forming in the AL Central any time soon, although I am worried with Peavy for a whole season next year, the Sox may be prohibitive favorites, and it seems when that happens, dissappointment always follows.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 09:31 PM) If it means he won't be so bad come the start of the season, okay. I can't stand watching him play in April and May. I think it has everything to do with the cold weather. Until last season, I wonder if he ever played a game below about 65 degrees.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:23 PM) I think so. They appear to actively go and hang out together, with AJ taking more of a mentor/wingman role to Gordon then he ever took with Crede. I think Beckham is closer to AJ on this team then he is with anyone else, with Getz and Dye bringing up the rear. AJ is putting up with the Georgia Bulldog for the chicks. Seriously, the thing I noticed right away about Beckham even when he was 0 fer, was how all the veterans treated him like they know he will be the man.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 08:30 PM) Agree with all of this. And as I read it, I immediately thought of Jeff Cirillo. He was an 11th round pick who made the Majors, played a long career as a starter and a bench player, and finished with a .296 career average. Here's a brief interview I just found off google: http://www.hallofverygood.com/2009/08/talk...ff-cirillo.html This part interested me: He played in both leagues for 6 different teams for 14 seasons combined, so I imagine he's learned a thing or two about helping youngsters with their problems. He's a dedicated baseball man, so as long as he's a good communicator I think he could work. The interview says he's been working as a scout for the DBacks since retiring. Finally, a well thought-out replacement. I personally don't think he'd be better than Walker, but I applaud you for coming up with the name of someone who looks legit and the Sox, if they did get a new hitting coach, probably could lure.

If his fielding problems were due to inexperience, I would love to see him play. I just think his problems are from a lack of concentration, and positioning, both things that can be fixed immediately. I would think the Sox would want him to take a break and lift some weights, maybe drink a few milkshakes.

I'm hoping Walker leaves because that will mean Lillibridge will hit .340 next season.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 05:30 PM) Clint Hurdle is available. Carney Langsford is well thought of. Except on White Sox fan message boards, Walker is highly thought of.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 05:11 PM) If Hriniak wanted a permanent job right now, he'd have one. Doubtful. He was known as a very grumpy guy and the reason the Sox canned him was because the most of the players hated him and vice versa.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:39 PM) That's the direction i think we're leaning in too. Although i wouldn't mind inviting Gerald Perry to an interview. Wasn't Perry fired by the Cubs because they couldn't hit?

I wish JD would move down in the line-up. The problem is there really is no one to move up.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 01:19 PM) Oh, ok. So when you run your household on a monthly basis, do you look at your net income as your operating income, or do you use net income plus all available credit as your operating income? So JR took out a loan for Rios and Peavy? Please state your source. I think he's too wise to do something like that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 12:52 PM) Then you are being even more incredibly stubborn about this than I thought was possible. No I'm not. Read your post. You are saying when they say there is no money available, there actually may be money available. Its precisely the point I've been making. Regardless, the bottom line is $60 million committed to Alex Rios whether they can afford it or not, and I'm assuming his checks will clear, and regarless of the money coming off the books, at the very least it seems to be $60 million that could have been allocated towards something else. The good news is, usually when you judge a trade or move so quickly as a bust, they seem to turn themselves around after a while. Rios is better than he's played and could be a star. You have mentioned several times about how the White Sox do business. Getting a guy like Alex Rios and taking on a contract his size without even giving any money back is definitely new ground for JR and KW.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 12:45 PM) Of course they have budgets. I am sure they have budgets that span the life of all existing contractual obligations. That does not mean they are all as defined as others, nor does it mean that they don't keep them fluid and flexible. These budgets also include all sorts of speculation and prediction, such as attendance, future contracts, planned price hikes, and probably even inflation. I am not an accountant, nor am I an employee of the White Sox FO, but my guess is that the team has an account that is designed to cover operating expenses, such as player payroll, staff payroll, rent, travel, etc. When KW or JR refer to their available funds, they are probably refering to this account. That doesn't mean money can't be borrowed from other sources if a situation presents itself to improve the ballclub (i.e., a star player becomes available via trade because of another team's dire financial situation, etc.). However, that also doesn't mean there is money available which has been earmarked for player payroll. Again, my guess is KW and JR decided to borrow money from other sources to acquire Peavy and Rios, whether those sources be planned future expenditures, in lieu of future captial improvements, etc.. If that is the case, no one is lying to you at all, DA. They are simply trying to make you and the rest of the fanbase happy by making some unforseen acquisitions that can theoretically improve the ballclub. However, aren't elated about that like some other fans are. Instead, you want to roast them over the coals for it. I am an accountant, I understand the game.

QUOTE (BlackBetsy @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 12:34 PM) True. But my guess is that profit as a % of revenue was much higher in say 1986 than it is today. Here's an interesting link to TV revenue (I think this is the combined TV figure) http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haupert.mlb They have average salary of $410k in 1986, meaning the average team spent $10.6 million on payroll. At $6.21 per ticket x average attendance of 1.79 million, average ticket revenue is $11.0 million. TV revenue logged in at $12.4 million per team. Let's assume that includes the revenues from the cable royalty fund. I'll assume food/beverage/parking net income (i.e., price of food and parking minus costs) of $2 million per team. That's fairly conservative. Let's assume $500k in net income from licensed merchandise. Again, fairly conservative. So we have revenues of $11.0 + $12.4 million = $22.4 million. Salary cost of $10.6 million. Let's assume the team pays rent or stadium maintenance costs of $1 million per year and pays its non-baseball staff another $2 million (that's 70 employees at $30k per year...remember this is 1986). Baseball staff and minor leaguers are maybe $4 million per year more (this is wildly high - 150 minor leaguers making $20k per year plus $1 million to GM + scouts). $22.4 million minus $17.6 million expenses (10.6 + 1 + 2 + 4) = $4.8 million profit. Add back in $2.5 million net income for the food beverage parking and licensed merchandise and you are talking about a business with $7.3 million in profits per year. Given that the Sox were purchased for $20 million in 1980, you can see that it was a pretty profitable operation in the 1980's. I was reading an article by someone a few weeks ago talking about some of the teams whose payrolls are really becoming ridiculously low. He claimed each team gets a $35 million infusion each year from MLB from licensing agreements. There will be a team or 3 next year that will make money if they locked the doors and didn't let anyone into their games.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 11:45 AM) How does the fact that the extensions didn't affect the payroll in-season somehow mean they were budgeted for? JR doesn't give them the budget figure for next season until after this one is over. Didn't you say they don't have budgets, they just fit contracts in? The fact is many obligations expire and many are easier to rid yourself of in the offseason. Plus you give Garland an extension. He goes from $6 million or so to $8-9 million, you are finding space for $2-3 more , not the amount you owe Rios and Peavy. Next year its not so bad with all the money coming off the books. This year, they spent money they said they didn't have whether you want to admit it or not. Money didn't suddenly pop up. Remember KW commenting about the attendance for the Dodgers series? The Boston series was worse and they know the advanced sale and have a pretty good understanding of what realistically to expect as a walk up. Using one of your tactics, isn't it even slightly possible they did have money to spend this year and spent it on Rios and Peavy?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 10:39 AM) Again, from my post: However, the organization will step outside of that mode of operation if it sees an impact player that can be acquired at a reduced price, whether that be in terms of cash or players. The organization will also step up the degree of risk it will assume if it sees an opportunity to make the postseason. As for specific players, I'm thinking many of the additions we have made in the second half of seasons over the past 5 years. Additionally, many of them we are still committed to or have recently traded. 1) Jon Garland 2) Jose Contreras 3) Mark Buehrle 4) Javy Vazquez 5) Paul Konerko 6) Jermaine Dye None of the above extensions added anything to the payroll in-season. Just give me some examples that busted the current (at the time) payroll except technically Konerko, but it was after a WS and money was aplenty. It would have been hard to play the $.50 card then.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 10:05 AM) I could see JR being pissed. But Peavy wasn't going to be ready for a month. And Rios alone wasn't the missing peice. Making the playoffs for 2009 rested on the offense and defense being more consistent, with additional rest, growth, etc, and the pitching staying strong. So far, the offense hasn't fully responded. That is on Dye, PK, Carlos, etc. Peavy and Rios were mostly for 2010. Kenny could sell the deals to possibly improve this year's team [and hence, improve the attendance- though Peavy was known not to be ready for at least a month from the deadline] and make the Sox set for 2010 and beyond. The 5 year $60 million committment he has to Rios probably is reminding him of Julio Cruz.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 09:47 AM) Or Jerry being the business man that he is recognized that there was going to be a time that the prices on these players dropped a lot, because the economy was going into the dumper and he knew there were going to be franchises in trouble. So instead of going after some guys for one year fixes, he waited to see if he could find guys that could be a part of the franchise for years to come. That may very well be, but then he shouldn't be pissed about Peavy and Rios not helping win this year, although there is still a chance. I think they would have to get it down to a 2 or 3 game deficit before the final 9 games for it to be realistic. He also stated when contacted about trading for Peavy a second time, his initial response was "no thank you".

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 09:42 AM) I don't know how obvious the pattern has to be for you to recognize what it is, especially for someone who goes on and on about being a 20 year season ticket holder. The organization does not take financial risks if they can be avoided. However, the organization will step outside of that mode of operation if it sees an impact player that can be acquired at a reduced price, whether that be in terms of cash or players. The organization will also step up the degree of risk it will assume if it sees an opportunity to make the postseason. Otherwise, the organization will operate in a fiscally responsible manner. I don't think KW means literally when he says they have no money that they have no money. It means things are tight and the budget is basically accounted for. If you want to interpret that as meaning there are no funds available, nor are there any funds available in the future, nor will there ever be, that is your prerogative, but that doesn't make Kenny a liar either. Who have they gone out on the limb for, breaking budget to acquire in the past? And if they don't take financial risks if they can be avoided, taking on $115 million worth of contracts with no money left in the budget, would be a huge financial risk.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 09:26 AM) Again, you are being incredibly naive with HOW THE TEAM's FINANCES WORK. They picked up roughly $7 million in contracts for the second half of the season. They've since ditched $2 million in contracts. Do you really find it incredible to believe that they went out and found an alternate source of funding in order to add Peavy and Rios? Or that maybe they were REALLY keeping their fingers crossed that these guys would get us over the hump and pay for themselves by getting us into the postseason? Or that they will have to account for adding this payroll this year by adding less in the first half next year? Will you admit that any of those possibilities exist, instead of your conspiracy theories? Wouldn't the same premise work for some of the bargains available last offseason? They saved $1 million on Thome, they are paying Contreras all but the minumum which is about $65k a month. There are no conspiracy theories. They just weren't being straight when they said they had no money.