caulfield12

http://www.bluejaysnation.com/news/2014/01...smus-conundrum/ UPON FURTHER REVIEW, NO...too big of a regression candidate/buying at a peak risk in the final analysis. Back to the drawing board.

QUOTE (glangon @ Mar 28, 2014 -> 02:42 AM) I agree with this. I can see Scherzer not having as great a year this year. He could be the new Esteban Loiza...... We have a Number 1 in Sale and a number 2 in Quintana, a number 4 in Johnson. I agree that someone like Masterson should be targetted as the number 3 and someone like Snodgrass or Beck as the number 5 for next year. A lot of things could happen before then though. Scherzer could be introduced to Tommy John.... Masterson's definitely more of a 2, he's a "stopper" for lots of Indians losing streaks, and the pitcher they really look to as their ace. He won't come cheap, but nothing like Scherzer's contract. That said, he'll get more than Abreu and more than Sale currently "friendly" deals on an open market, conservatively, around $90 million, but possibly $110-120. He is a sinkerball pitcher, and that's important at USCF, but I once again don't see the White Sox wading into those waters. It's a close call, if you could have Tanaka or Masterson at roughly the same price...the potential is greater for Tanaka, but the floor is lot higher for what Masterson will give you. And nobody knows exactly how many pitches that Tanaka already has on that arm. FWIW, Masterson just turned 29, near that magic cutoff mark of 30 for long-term deals. Snodgress has really fallen off the map recently, the pitching version of Tyler Saladino.

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 11:06 PM) No. why do we keep having these threads? Do you have a DH solution next year besides Andy Wilkins or Viciedo? DeAza? It seems pretty clear they're going to have to acquire a player from another organization. The offense isn't strong enough to go with the Kotsay/Jones approach at DH when some of the guys you're going to have to rotate in are Keppinger, L. Garcia, Sanchez or Micah Johnson. Or the back-up catcher. The idea here would be more like the Freddy Garcia move, where we wouldn't have traded for him were a long-term extension not in the cards. Adam Lind, Adam LaRoche, Melky Cabrera, Ryan Doumit and Victor Martinez are the five best options in FA for DH that can hit LH after Rasmus/Morales. That's another big reason why.

The last time we were in this position was White Flag trade through April, 2000. The 1998 and 1999 seasons, even with Albert Belle/Thomas/Ordonez/C-Lee/Durham around, didn't do much for attendance, particularly after Ventura left.

One of the reasons that Rasmus' name has come up a bit is because there aren't a lot of LH power-hitting options for next offseason. Kendrys Morales would be the more likely sign, fwiw, after the June draft or a theoretical Dunn midseason trade.

This is simply another version of the "acquire Santana/Jimenez/Garza, etc." ahead of time in order to set up 2015-2016 argument. However, the main difference is that the purpose wouldn't be an acquisition to flip him quickly for more young assets/prospects. And the fact that waiting until the off-season makes it nearly impossible for them to win an all-out bidding war.

Who's going to be the first billion dollar player? Half a billion? You'd have to think NFL football players would be looking at these huge contracts and wondering why they're not similarly compensated, guaranteed contracts, NFL even more profitable, much longer average careers (where a good RB is lucky to last 3-4 seasons with the increase in speed/violent contact/strength and conditioning)...and baseball players don't OFTEN face being crippled or traumatized by concussions and mental health issues after age 50.

if Viciedo is underperforming again and/or DeAza is traded, then move either Eaton or Rasmus to LF? What kind of package would it take? Do we have the pieces? Finally, and most importantly, would the advantages of having him in Chicago and in the organization for 2-3 months weigh at all on his decision about free agency? Would JR/Hahn/KW be willing to commit even more money to him than Abreu? Obviously, if they wait until the offseason, the odds of signing Rasmus (assuming he's coming off another 800ish OPS season) would be somewhere between slim and NONE. However, if you did have Rasmus, you'd: 1) Have a much better outfield defensively, with Eaton/Rasmus instead of Eaton and DeAza/Viciedo 2) Address one of the biggest offseason issues, which is LH power and balance in the line-up Obviously, there's a lot of due diligence to be done after the way things ended with LaRussa in StL and the impact of Rasmus' father (sort of like the Nick Swisher situation when he was with us).

Too bad they're no longer stuck with Fielder's deal as well...wish they would have been able to come to an agreement with Scherzer. Those two deals, in addition to Verlander and Cabrera, could have really doomed the franchise five years from now. They're also going to have to pay Austin Jackson at some point. It's probably one of the reasons they sacrificed Fister, who was their most underrated starter IMO.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 07:52 PM) I get what your saying, BUT- teams are putting a great premium on draft picks these days- this may shy some of the buyers away from going after him. Will this lower his asking price? Maybe... NO. Boras is his agent. But Reinsdorf is more likely to put the team up for sale than sign Max Scherzer.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 07:40 PM) MLB.Com had a nice piece on Cleto. How Cooper changed his delivery, bring his glove higher and doing away with the dreaded slide step. He managed to pitch his way out of a pretty nasty situation against the Cubs today...all things considered, he's been very good this spring.

We used to be 8th in total value as recently as two or three years ago. Besides the Angels/Dodgers, Giants, Rangers, Cubs, Mets/Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies and Cardinals....who else has passed the Sox? A lot of this has to do with those regional sports broadcasting networks, and the fact that ours isn't going to change again until 2019. The Braves, Mariners and Nationals. I can understand the Braves, sort of, but the Mariners, based on the last decade? WHAT? They just took on a huge amount of future obligations in the Cano contract, legitimately, the White Sox should be 12th or 13th. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhause...on-goes-global/ How the Red Sox are changing the future of the business/marketing of team sports.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 09:29 AM) Since Forbes just released their valuation of all MLB's franchises something interesting popped out to me. It's the fact that the White Sox have high payroll and relatively high revenue, and what we all know, woeful attendance. So does that mean another longtime generational standing tradition of baseball, that is, attendance & ticket sales equate to revenue & thus payroll a complete and utter myth. Forbes says the White Sox are the 11th most valuable franchise in MLB, worth $692M. Their revenue last year was $216M, good for 14th in MLB, their operating Income last year was $22.9M, good for tied for 9th in MLB, yes their attendance last year was a tick below 2M and good for 24th in MLB (was 2M in 2011, good for 20th). However, their payroll was $118M, good for 7th highest in the league ($129M in '11 good for 5th). So at the organizational level there must be an explanation. We know a few tidbits that help keep expenses low and thus operating income high; they pay just $1.5 million in fixed rent plus $3-7 for every ticket sold above annual attendance of 1.9 million at U.S. Cellular Field, but keep all ticket, parking, concessions, signage and merchandise revenue. Ok, so that helps, but they have to be doing something fundamentally different, something that really does break the myth that high revenue's and payroll's are dependent upon good attendance. So what is it? They have excellent marketing? They have a crazy amount of luxury suites contracted out? They get a ton of money from Radio and TV? They get the most of any team from ballpark signage? Im really just picking at straws here. This is an old post I made about 3 years ago.... Assuming the Sox play 32 WGN games as they did in the regular season last year, 18 WCIU and 112 CSN games I have estimates the total revenue: 32 WGN games (@ ~$350K): $11,200,000 18 WCIU games (@$200K): $ 3,600,000 112 CSN games (@ $450K): $50,400,000 ---------------- $64,800,000 Sox Average ticket price was $38.65 and average attendance was 27,091 giving you an estimated: $1,047,067 per game or $84,812,435 for the 81 games at home. That's a total of $149, 612,435 revenue just from TV and attendance. This does not include concessions, parking, merchandise, advertising, spring training revenue and revenue form their Silver Chalice digital media firm among other things. And of course it does not take into account expenses such as their lease, operating costs for the stadium and staff etc. But you could confidently say they bring in well over $200M in revenue. You can also add in $14.3 million per team for national broadcast rights, shared equally (7 year agreement pays $3 billion, or $429 million per season and will at least double if not triple when it's renegotiated after the 2012 season). So you have $64.8 million from local/regional and $14.3 million from national rights (ESPN/TBS/TNT), so that's $79.1 million alone. The average ticket price this year is $40.67. (http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=6281410) Right now average season attendance is at 22,180. Even in any WORST case scenario (let's say we continue to average only 22,000 for the remainder of the season), the White Sox will STILL generate at least $72.5 million from ticket sales alone. So right there, you're talking $72.5 million + $79.1-89 million=$151.6-161 million. If we average the 27,000 of 2010, it's $89 million from ticket sales alone. For concessions/parking/merchandising or souvenirs, I'll throw out 3 numbers and try to come up with some type of average. The cost to take a family of four to a Cubs game, using the Fan Cost Index formula, is $305.60, and the White Sox is $258.68, the third- and fourth-highest totals in baseball. Let's say the average family of four goes to a game (father/mother/2 kids)....that's an average of $65 per person entering the stadium, essentially $25 X 4=$100 over the average ticket price of $40.67. So let's say 40% of the attendance at Sox games is families, 20% are the type who may or may not pay for parking/buy food before the game or bring it in, don't buy souvenirs, maybe they buy 1-2 beers, etc. (we'll put them at $10) and the other 50% spend let's say, $17.50 on average above their ticket prices.... 40%=$25/person above ticket prices 20%=$10/person 40%=$17.5/person That's another $35-40 million booked in revenue (based on 2010 attendance). So you're looking at somewhere between $185-195 milllion for total revenues. Minus $129 million payroll, of course you've also got insurance (for example, Peavy's contract), running the minor league system, draft/scouting, front office/admin, security for games, the stadium lease (pretty negligible), etc. Then there's $68 million/20 years for US Cellular naming rights, or $3.4 million per season (about one stupid Manny Ramirez contract). That doesn't even take into account a litany of corporate sponsorships, promotional events and tie-ins, stadium signage/billboards, executive suite rentals, etc. As cws05champs guessed, the overall revenues have to be in the $200-220 million + range. Are the White Sox capable of spending $70-80 million in other areas??? How? We certainly know it's on not the draft or our Dominican and Venezuelan operations, since they and Jerry Krause seemingly haven't produced any results yet. Ozzie and KW don't make THAT much. Although Ozzie would like to, I'm sure. He keeps reminding us that he has a new house to pay for and his twitter feed to maintain. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseba...Sox_334758.html Forbes has us at $26-28 million for EBITDA and overall revenue of $210 million.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Mar 27, 2014 -> 08:02 AM) We need another bat next season as the DH spot will be open. Sandoval could either DH or 1B, Davidson is a considered a marginal defender at 3B and could be a candidate to move to either DH or 1B. I think if you have have Headley, Abreu, and Davidson to fill the three spots in whichever arrangement, the Sox are a better team. Generally not a great idea to buy a free agent coming off a great contract season...you end up overpaying 90-95% of the time.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/...d-sundae-helmet Well, at least we made the front page of ESPN, there's that.

FWIW, Abreu is projected by most to be an All-Star/MVP-caliber player, at worst to be Paul Konerko Lite. Nobody's expecting that out of any of those free agent pitchers. He's a true impact player...versus rotation filler. And he's in the very prime of his career. That's why comparing AAV of contracts is meaningless, especially against veteran pitchers with tons of wear and tear on their arms.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 02:53 PM) (I actually can see a scenario where this happens...if Gillaspie has a really solid year, maybe adds 4-5 more HR and pushes his all-around performance upwards, since he's a lefty he'll fit the lineup a lot better than Davidson and we'll have a real bugger on our hand. Trade the established player who fits the lineup better, or trade the more talented guy who might need more development time, is RH in a lineup loaded with righties, and is higher risk due to strikeouts. Again, that presupposes Gillaspie shows solid improvement this season, which I stress is just a scenario, not an expectation or guarantee) I thought you were B, what happened? Actually, if that were to occur, the solution might be to move one of them to DH...depending on how bad Davidson's defense is, and/or to move one of them to LF, although that's Josh Fields territory. You have a feeling Conor COULD be okay out there, but I wouldn't bet on it. (This is assuming that DeAza was traded or Viciedo underperformed). Of course, there's the equal possibility of moving Micah Johnson off of 2B (to LF) if they decide Semien's not suited for major league SS and/or that Micah Johnson can't make enough improvement to play second at least average defensively.

Hahn wants to keep Cleto, for sure. That's why they let Boggs go. So Webb's probably ticketed for Charlotte until one of Cleto/Guerra blows up. With Guerra starting last year for awhile, he undoubtedly becomes the long man.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 09:34 AM) Are you implying when KW or JR said it they were saying it with hopes that Boyer and the marketing team would pick it up? It's the market department's decision. I am sure JR has insight or the last word, but it's the marketing team's responsibility to pick the slogan. Let's not nitpick. Just like "The Will to Win," which was jumped on by the marketing department before it became more or less a joke around baseball. Maybe the marketing department needs to stop piggybacking off others' ideas or saying and think outside the box.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 07:27 AM) This is a perfect way to overdraft a person that just so happens to get hot at the right time. Jared Mitchell has been anything but good. I was referring more to collegiate pitchers, but there are always going to be exceptions...pitchers that peak at the right time, the Matt Ginters of the world.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 08:54 AM) Very convenient position indeed. He might want to rethink the effectiveness of the marketing department, but 90% of marketing the White Sox has always been about winning. It's not like hiring Mike Veeck or the guys who run promotions for the Rays are going to have more than a 5-10% effect, and that would just be a temporarily blip. For the longest time, the only really effective promotional technique was fireworks nights.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 26, 2014 -> 08:36 AM) Clayton Richard, Aaron Poreda, Adam Russell, and Dexter Carter still does not seem prohibitive to me. Nor does Miguel Olivo, Jeremy Reed, and Michael Morse. Nor does Esteban Loaiza. Nor does Antonio Osuna, Jeff Liefer, and Rocky Biddle. These packages acquired Jake Peavy, Freddy Garcia, Jose Contreras, and Bartolo Colon. Given the improving state of the minor league system, the idea that trading for a #2 pitcher is prohibitive is absurd. So, as pointed out, there are numerous ways. 1) Taking on contracts that become cost-prohibitive to smaller market teams...like SD or the Marlins or the Expos. 2) Peddling prospects that are highly rated but have a high bust rate (Morse was the 3rd most important part of the trade and the one who actually had the best career) 3) Taking on contracts of guys like Contreras who are disappointments to big-market teams but can't, for whatever reason, seem to handle the pressure 4) The draft 5) Cuban, Japanese and Korean pitchers

We were willing to spend money on McCann, Abreu and Tanaka, to name a few. Just not on Santana or Jimenez.

Go back to chisox.com from 2001-2004, especially after the Todd Ritchie trade blew up. There were probably only 10-20% of posters who consistently defended the Reinsdorf regime. 2005 changed a lot of things in terms of fan frustration, disappointment and the ever-popular "he's too cheap" refrain.

In Chicago, spending money to bring in superstars has never driven attendance or created additional revenues. It has ALWAYS been about having a winning team, and not only a winning team, but one that the fans believe can actually go far in the playoffs. Otherwise, they'll tune out or be afraid to believe in that team, for fear of being disappointed, as we saw in 2012. If nothing else, most White Sox fans know that having 2-3 superstars hasn't equated to having a successful team...it's when all the small/complementary parts come together like 2005, along with solid starting pitching, that true and lasting success is possible. Nobody's going to come out to watch Jimenez/Santana/Garza pitch specifically, but fans would support that team if the addition of one of those pitchers made a 90+ win season possible, along with a deep playoff run. After 2005, it's not enough for White Sox fans unless they have a team capable of advancing deep in the playoffs and winning it all again. To do that, you can't take mostly short-term steps at the cost of long-term fixes/solutions. Hahn is definitely taking the right approach this time. Whether it will work or not, we can't be sure, but the methodical process is the correct one in this situation...especially the idea that the fanbase isn't going to wait 5 years, they need to see results within 2-3 seasons.