Texsox

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 15, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) Per the White Sox Twitter, JD is appealing his suspension and will be in the lineup tonight. Good choice.

Naw.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ May 15, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) This will give us a couple of games to try Lillibridge in right field. Maybe they took that into account also and cut the suspension in half

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ May 15, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) I know, Im saying he is going to get a suspension no matter what. just like if you bounced your bat off the ground and it happened to hit the ump in the leg or foot, I dont think the suspension would be the same as something like Delmon Young got for intentionally throwing the bat at the umpire. Dye is definitely responsible for the helmet and where it goes, but it doesnt seem like he was really trying to hit the umpire. I thought we were both basically agreeing.

When he threw the helmet, he had to take responsibility for where it goes. There is no other reasonable way to write or adjudicate a rule. Intent is just to hard to determine with total certainty. You can factor in character by the number of previous fines and suspensions. But above all it should be objective evidence, not subjective, that trumps.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:39 PM) I don't think so. Maybe another game or two, but look at what Milton Bradley got. Which is why I was thinking longer. They don't want this to get out of hand. But you are probably right.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) Heh. A little too easy maybe. As easy as shipps after a couple drinks . . .

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) That is a little ridiculous, considering there was no intent. This better get reduced to a game via appeal. Especially when you consider Dye's history (ie, being a classy ballplayer). I believe intent was factored in, imagine if he intended to hit the ump with a helmet. He'd be out a few weeks or longer, even as classy as he is.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 15, 2009 -> 01:28 PM) No word on whether he will appeal the suspension or not. damn rookie you should always post a link http://cbs2chicago.com/sports/jermaine.dye....2.1010621.html

At what point should the probable success rate come into play? 25% successful? 50% successful? 75% successful? 99% successful? And what about the possible side effects? Shouldn't that also be balanced?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2009 -> 12:59 PM) http://thesportseconomist.com/2005/05/mone...win-fallacy.htm Things like this have been done many times before...the problem is that Oakland A's, Twins or Rays usually "win" this competition, but they're not necessarily successful in terms of winning playoff series or getting to the World Series. GM's like Epstein, Cashman, Minaya, Lynch, etc., will never have a chance because they HAVE to win and they have the budgets to be competitive every year, so they really could care less about cost per win, the only thing is the bottom line of winning the the World Series or not. Exactly, which is why for Sox fans the bottom line is not winning the World Series or not but the cost per player and how that will affect the chances of winning a World Series.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 15, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) If they refuse treatment and the child dies, can the government put them in jail? Yes, and they have. Shouldn't the parents be allowed to make that decision? Knowing full well what the consequences are? I'd rather my parents make this decision for me than a judge.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ May 15, 2009 -> 12:47 PM) Abortion is a little different because there is actually a debate as to whether a fetus is life. There is no debate as to whether a child is life. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 15, 2009 -> 12:49 PM) And there's another key point...the difference with an abortion is that the fetus is relying on the mother's body for life. After birth, the child is no longer doing so. That's key to the entire court decision...its always different, I know, but in this case it's important. And I believe it is the government that gave that "right" which was the question. And it will be the government to decide this. Is the government also going to pay for the treatments? This would be a great way to get the government to pay for treatments.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 15, 2009 -> 12:46 PM) It's medical neglect. No, it is a choice of two treatments. If the child still dies, can the parents sue the government for making the wrong decision?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 15, 2009 -> 12:44 PM) What gives them the right to choose to end their child's life in that manner? That would be the government, same way they allow a parent to end it with an abortion.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) All teams have that "cost/benefit" analysis way of looking at their rosters. Some use VORP and mix it in with salary to get an "overall efficiency" factor for any given player. A perfect example of this is Wilson Betemit versus Juan Uribe. We didn't have anyone (maybe it's Nix now) who could play 3B, SS and 2B AND hit just a little bit. Lillibridge can't hit, Betemit can't field. So the question is do you go with Juan Uribe at $3.6 million or Wilson Betemit at $1.3 million. Personally, with how our pitching has been, I would rather have Uribe's defensive abilities and occasional power (he's also sure to get runners in from 3rd with less than 2 outs, a big weakness for the Sox) than a player in Betemit who's not being used correctly and is a defensively liability at any position on the field. One of the keys to making the playoffs last season was having an experienced/veteran bench player like Uribe to fill the void when Crede went down. Our bench this year is the worst it has been in many years. Before, we had Ozuna, who could give you a spark offensively and play adequate defense. I'll give Nix the benefit of the doubt that he can replace Uribe, though. That's turning out to be a pretty astute pick-up by KW, because if Fields fails to make it, Nix will be the first player they turn to. I'm not sure Ozzie will be able to trust Betemit's defense at 3B, although a platoon of Nix/Betemit might be the best overall option offensively. I was thinking about a stat like ERA, RBI, etc that could be easily calculated. There are too many variables, but I'd love to see someone print standings based on cost per win. That would be interesting and perhaps a partial way to evaluate a GM.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 15, 2009 -> 11:54 AM) Depends on what you're doing at the other positions. If you're strong in lots of places, one or two revolving doors can be tolerated. What I was thinking was around a dollar figure like many businesses calculate. Generally it runs into the thousands to recruit and train someone. Just shuffling rosters and getting some one from one level to another has to cost a bit.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 15, 2009 -> 11:34 AM) Huh? 18mil is what he took, that's what it took to acquire him. Some amount some other team tried to acquire him for is irrelevant. exactly. Is there much of an indirect cost to a revolving door at any position?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) Torii Hunter would have been a huge mistake at anything over $10 million per year for 3 years. He'd already lost a couple of steps defensively, and his numbers offensively aren't overwhelming. He's very, very streaky and he strikes out way too much. It would have been great to see him beating the Twins after so many plays (running over Jamie Burke, robbing Carlos Lee, etc.) against us in a Twins' uniform, but we're really fortunate not to have been stuck with Fukudome, Rowand or Hunter. We are stuck as well, but with flea market finds. It would be interesting if there was a cost/productivity stat that could be developed.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 15, 2009 -> 10:46 AM) I guess we should change the title of this thread to "Are the White Sox really broke or not?" Not necessarily broke, but how close to breaking even are they each year? They have some serious assets, which would keep them from being "broke" as long as they stay realistic.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 15, 2009 -> 10:37 AM) Barry Rozner had a column about a partner with the Bulls several years ago when they were winning 13 games a year. I forgot the guy's name or even if Barry mentioned it, but the guy was quoted as saying he was "embarrassed" by all the money they were making with the team being so bad. Doesn't basketball have a salary cap? I'm not certain it is fair to compare MLB and the NBA. Plus, I was just thinking the NBA has smaller rosters and without the extensive farm system. I'm not certain how much that comes into play. The finance guys have left the discussion, but it would seem that it is easier to make money in the NBA and the hardest in baseball. I'd rank it NFL > NBA > MLB > NHL

BTW, when you do the website, and I know you will, I would find a hosting company like Kap has. A friend can help a lot when you run into issues. I've been down the road with "cheapest" host and when your website feature is not playing nice with the hots' system, life sucks. That is unless you have a good relationship and not some 1-800 number and a customer service rep to whom you are just another call.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 15, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) Totally agree with the bottom line, which is why I'm not wanting to invest TOO much into this. I don't expect to use the website as a marketing tool to bring in business, but more of a if i'm networking/throwing out my business cards it'll allow people to check out my firm and what I do. So I guess in a sense it is for marketing if that causes a client to call my office, but really it's more "here's who we are and why we can help you" than *flash cheap legal work here! click now! *flash My experience is in civil litigation (contract disputes, personal injury/medical malpractice, discrimination, etc) but I've always wanted to get into helping businesses from formation to dissolution and everything in between. I was just sent a referral for a guy who has just started his own company which could become huge thanks to Obama's green energy initiatives, so there's potential it could be a very long deal. That was the basis for wanting to get a website going and actually get the firm established. I think I'll look into Wordpress. Any other ideas on hosting? Specific things I should be looking at (like the Linux/Windows issue)? You could start with a blog and it would achieve most of what you want. You want the phone to ring and the cash register to jingle. Here is a thought. In the next hour you could make 12 phone calls to potential clients or work on a web site. Which will net you some income quicker? Work through the process, would you rather talk to someone, preferable face to face about your experience and skills, or send them to your website? You do not have an impressive list of clients, etc to make that kind of impression. Initially, your clients will come directly from your efforts and who you are. To get the web placement high enough that a web search for "Hometown Attorney Civil" hits you takes additional money and work. Perhaps some well thought out and written blogs in the area you want to practice will get you the phone calls you need. I could be reading this all wrong, but I've seen too many business start ups think all they need is a really good website and clients will beat a path to their door. Do an internet search right now for your competitors and analyze what you find and think about how easy it will be for a potential client to find you.

Another comment on the overall profitability of sports franchises. Every owner made their money in other arenas before becoming an owner. I don't think anyone believes a sports franchise is a great way to earn profits each year. The real profit taking only occurs when you sell, and most of these guys enjoy their sport too much. And even a not-for-profit charity budgets to have a surplus at the end of the year. You can't stick around for long when revenue does not meet expense.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 15, 2009 -> 09:32 AM) And the only teams who cost more to go see are the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and Cubs. Another thing to keep in mind regarding ad revenue. Ed Sherman in his blog on Crains mentioned how Comcast Sportsnet's rating are up for all its programming due to the success of its teams. He said it will lead to increased ad revenue. I think the White Sox own 20% of that station. Its just not the Cubs and Hawks and Bulls games that are higher. Their own shows, like Chicago Tribune Live are up almost double. There are a lot of issues that go into that. Just like the same movie costs differently to watch based on the theater, etc. Stadiums have different structures. I would not necessarily assume profit percentage is the same.