Dick Allen

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 02:03 PM) http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/whit...rs-waivers.html Not sure he lasts to long They will waive him when it's their turn to claim Andy Wilkins.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 01:50 PM) Platinum boxes and luxury suites versus partial season ticket plans are clearly the same thing....most White Sox fans must be swimming in so much money they no longer need to budget or plan ahead of time on allocating precious resources on season tickets. Why don't you call your season ticket rep and ask where they are +/- with ticket sales at this point last year. I'm sure they would love to give that information to me. The Sox will lose some of the $207 plans but even if they lost 3000 of them, which they don't even have, that barely covers a minimum salary player. Why don't you call the season ticket office and get to the bottom of it. You are the one who can't stop mentioning selling season tickets. How many posters here have received White Sox season tickets as a Christmas gift. Not tickets to a game or two, but full blown season tickets? I bet you could count them on one hand.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 01:39 PM) I work in the Minor Leagues, and I certainly do not have anything like credible knowledge of MLB teams revenue/finances, but I do end up coming in contact with some of the executives from time to time and have been part of a few interesting discussions. One of my favorite things is how everyone laughs anytime someone brings up the Forbes projections of team value and revenue. It appears there's a pretty clear consensus that those numbers are a joke. MLB teams are never going to admit to making tons of money. The proof is in pudding. Whether the Forbes thing is accurate is obviously debateable, the fact is their team values and where they are actually sold when they are sold usually shows the "value" if you want to define value as what they would get if they are sold is always reported lower than reality. There is no question these teams all make money. How many times did Hawk praise Bud Selig and talk about how everyone is making money? There was one time KW said the Forbes stuff was way off, but then used Forbes when Forbes said they Sox used the highest percentage of its revenue on player payroll.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 01:40 PM) You can go with Balta's argument if you prefer. There's still not enough revenue from last year to justify deliberately going into a loss of $10-15 million unless they felt the potential season ticket gain would be worth it. The closer we get to the regular season, the smaller the bounce. They've already missed the Christmas gift season window. The season ticket Christmas gift. LMAO. Yeah, there are thousands of people who hand out professional sports season ticket packages as Christmas gifts. You know what we should get our 8 year old for Christmas honey? White Sox season tickets. He's been a good boy, lets get him Platinum boxes. I really thought your GM must have at least been a varsity starter on the HS baseball team took the cake, but you still are making even more stuff up that makes no sense every day. Congratulations.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 01:31 PM) Otoh, we paid a premium for offensive potential in Cabrera and didn't get any there, either. But yeah, it's the same reason guys like Heyward and Parra would make less sense...unless we were playing in Old Comiskey. A lot of the value for Cespedes and Gordon is related to their arms and preventing extra bases from being taken...and that's still relevant, as we saw with Viciedo in 2012 as well. Melky has a really good arm. Had 8 assists last year and 13 the year before that. It's one reason the Royals offered him 4 years before last season to play RF for them.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 01:22 PM) Maybe. If there was a profit, it was more related to their 40% ownership and share of Comcast profits related to the Cubs' surge in ratings and advertising rates than those extra season ticket sales. QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 11:36 AM) * And that $31.9 million was invested into LaRoche, Cabrera, Robertson, Samardzija's deal, Duke, Bonifacio and Beckham. There's no way they made a profit last year. They couldn't even get legit offers on a lot of sponsorships and moved on instead of giving massive discounts that would be harder to raise price-wise in the future. Your very next post. No way they made a profit to maybe. And they White Sox don't own 40% of CSN. They own 20%. But if you want to add the Bulls bottom line to the White Sox, that would be more reason for you to never ever mention season tickets or payroll or anything financial again.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 11:17 AM) That's an interesting point. I don't know if that's relevant with the Sox's negotiations with Cespedes or not, but it's interesting nonetheless. I'm guessing that is what it is. And if the White Sox were the competition with KC for Gordon, why would KC have had to offer 4 years with an option for a 5th if the White Sox were only offering 3? That is another thing that doesn't make much sense. So either the Sox were offering 4 or 3 with an easily attainable 4th year vesting option or another team was offering 4.

Just did a twitter check. Nightengale tweeted the White Sox 3 year max thing on New Year's day. Moore said the Royals and Gordon got close on New Year's Eve. So this came out right about the time the Sox realized they had no shot at Gordon.

Whoever left Griffey off the ballot, no matter what the reason, shouldn't be voting for the HOF. No unanimous entrants ever is a joke. Griffey should have been, but he also should have been nowhere near the first.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 10:47 AM) The one plausible scenario I have seen is if a guy had 11 names he wanted to vote for, he could have left Griffey off knowing he was getting in and used his 10 votes for the others. I wonder if it is the voter who voted for Eckstein.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 10:53 AM) But, due to the fact he did agree to come back, there's at least a 50% chance they exercise it as long as he's still productive. The likelihood of that happening in KC is much higher than with any other team. 5 years before a $23 million mutual option is due, there is more than a 50% chance it is exercised? OK. The only reason this option would have any significance is if it became a player option if he were traded or maintained a certain level of performance. Other than that, everyone whose contract has expired is then on a "mutual" option.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 10:44 AM) Simple economics. $1 today is worth more than $1 in a year. Not that complex. Yes, but these days it $1.01 in a year, and if the Royals are spending that money elsewhere, while it will be less for Gordon overall, but not millions, it will probably wind up costing them more.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 10:36 AM) And that $31.9 million was invested into LaRoche, Cabrera, Robertson, Samardzija's deal, Duke, Bonifacio and Beckham. There's no way they made a profit last year. They couldn't even get legit offers on a lot of sponsorships and moved on instead of giving massive discounts that would be harder to raise price-wise in the future. If they broke even or lost $10 million, they still, even after signing these players, would be up over $20 million over the 2 year period. What were the sponsorships they lost out on? Do you have any links ? And what is the cost say to be the sponsor of the now Home Plate Club or the restaurant/bar in the parking lot?

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 10:27 AM) Most likely, but also have to factor in that the KC didn't have to give up a pick, and there are reportedly significant deferrals which lower the present value of the deal. The "present day value" is a BS tool owners use to try to make a contract look less valuable. Look at interest rates and tell me how deferring $2 million for 2 years, $2 million for 3 years and $4 million for 4 years lowers the actual value of the contract significantly. Besides, that "savings" is apparently being spent elsewhere, therefore not making the Royals anything sitting somewhere.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 10:18 AM) Because if they are second to the punch they likely won't get Cespedes or Upton? As it was, according to all reports here they were first on Gordon and were outbid three days later. But that second/last chance was for a hometown hero, not "mercenary" free agent. So they will sign the minute a team offers them the term they want. They wouldn't go around seeing if that could be topped. Got it. As ss2k5 wrote earlier, you can always increase a bid. Lowering it doesn't work so well. How many teams have moaned they would have offered a player more money but they just didn't get an opportunity to make another offer? I'm guessing not too many.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 10:12 AM) You're right, and most of the whining is just us throwing our thoughts out there because there just hasn't been any news...except for the Sox saying (supposedly) that they won't go over three years. Bottom line is, though, that we don't know what offers are out there, and we don't know what the Sox offered Gordon. But it is concerning when the oldest guy of the big three gets a four year deal at $18 million per year, and the Sox are supposedly not going to offer Cespedes more than three years. The point being that 3 year limit is a media tweet. The same media that said there was virtually no chance Gordon goes back to KC. Things change. Teams throw up a lot of BS when negotiating huge contracts. The Sox were going over $50 million for Abreu but did by almost 40%. It doesn't appear Cespedes would sign for 3 years, but he really doesn't have the relationship Gordon had with KC with any team, and perhaps KC had to go to 4 years with a 5th option because the White Sox stretched out a bit. We really don't know.

QUOTE (spiderman @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 10:09 AM) That could be a reasonable position to take in terms of Gordon, but what if the White Sox have this same standard for Cespedes or Upton? They might, they might not. It could be a negotiating tool. Why complain about it until it's actually proven to be a fact? If it turns out to be true, and neither signs for 3 years, then complain. I just don't get the they won't sign anybody theme going on now because one guy is off the board.

#Royalstalk

How many teams offered Gordon 4 years other than KC? What are the current offers for Cespedes? What are the offers for Upton? What was the Sox best offer for Gordon? If you answered I really don't know to these questions, any whining about the White Sox and how they are NEGOTIATING currently with free agents is premature.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 09:39 AM) Those are two year cycles...2005 going into 2006, and post 2006 into 2007. And those were two of our winningest teams. The point remains, when have the White Sox upped payroll for TWO consecutive years following losing or below .500 seasons with low/marginal profitability? TWO consecutive years. Very simple request. You like to site Forbes. Their numbers from the 2015 season aren't out, but 2014, according to them was profitable by 31.9 million. Can you let us know the P & L for 2015? Why don't you at least take 30 seconds to look something up once in a while? Your built in conclusions are almost always incorrect.

QUOTE (LDF @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 08:55 AM) b/c the sox will not go out and get a marque players via fa's..... all this talk in the fa market is just lip service from the FO ... just my opinion and it will not change until they do sign someone. but in ref, these are posters of looking at 3 or 4th tier options. the sox org has trained the fans to look for those options, b/c of .... oh well i have ranted on this, i will stop here. it is really hard in being a die hard sox fans. when mgnt does not care. I haven't once heard Hahn or KW or JR say they were going after Gordon or Cespedes or Upton. The only thing I see leaked is a 3 year max requirement. I think your FO lip service is misguided. There are a lot of assumptions being made by everyone including myself. But what is actually happening we really don't know and may not ever know. The hope was they would sign one of these guys. Two guys are still on the board and the consensus now is they have no chance on anyone, and it's based on Alex Gordon going back to KC after KC significantly upped their offer and made him leaving about as likely as Konerko leaving after 2005. People need to relax and see how this plays out. There are 2 huge guys still on the board.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 08:45 AM) What is your solution, other than the obvious? Waiting with bated breath...as for Duensing, he is good friends with Gordon and I would have invited him to come in and compete with Jennings, Carroll, Beck and Turner as a non roster invitee. No guaranteed salary. Your proposal, as unrealistic as it was, was to sign Latos for $10-12 million, sign Parra for $8 million, sign Desmond in June for $10 million. Now you say JR doesn't have the appetite to raise the payroll to $140 million. Your proposal raises it to $150 million. Pick one side of your mouth to argue.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 08:30 AM) Are you still in the camp that really believes we're getting Cespedes or Upton? I'll ask this. Other than maybe 2005-2007, when has the White Sox payroll expanded 10-15% over two consecutive seasons...in this case, losing seasons where the team profits were low or marginal compared to that time period? 2009, when we added Peavy and Rios, we were coming off a playoff appearance. 2011, we were coming off a season where we led the division for a large chunk of time. The only other time would have to have been 2013-2014 with Abreu (and then last offseason), but I'm pretty sure overall payroll decreased significantly despite that addition. I hope so. And stop with the payroll. You guys who said the Sox have no money where shocked last year, and then you point to Forbes but then ignore the PROFITS this team has made every year except one. Where is that money Caulfield? You have all the answers. Did it vanish? The Sox are still talking to these guys. Its funny, the Sox are in on all 3. Gordon signs back with KC after they apparently increased their offer about 50%. Now, they supposedly aren't signing anybody because they have no money, but, but, Nick Markakis at $11 million a year for the next 3 years makes sense. NO IT DOESN'T. It's just spending $33 million more that could have been spent on something actually useful that vanished with all of the White Sox $200 million + in profit Forbes has claimed over the years. But I will add him to your list of horrible players you want the Sox to spend their, in your mind, limited resources. Latos, Parra, Markakis, Duensing, and Desmond in June. The list is growing.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 7, 2016 -> 08:16 AM) In all fairness to Cy, it's only a back-up option probably #15-20. Mainly, if we could get rid of Danks' salary and or get salary and prospects (someone that came over from Arizona or Olivera, etc.) back. It's obviously easier to say Gardner, Span, Parra, Fowler, Inciarte, any one of the Rockies, Ozuna, Ethier...but at what cost? Honestly, JR probably doesn't have the appetite for two marginal upgrades that simultaneously boost payroll to $140 million plus. Adding bad, declining players, owed $33 million does nothing to help the White Sox. If that is the only choice, you might as well see what Avi can give you, as Steamer projects a 0.3 difference in their 2016 WARS. As to the payroll, once again, despite all your claims to the contrary, you have zero idea what JR is thinking. None of us do.

Markakis' defense has been bad for years, now he's slappy at the plate, and some want to pick him up for the next 3 seasons of decline? If he was a guy that stole bases, his walks would be valuable, but he only gets a couple of those a year. The White Sox can do so much better. Steamer projects a 0.6 WAR in 2016.