Chicago White Sox

QUOTE (shysocks @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 09:51 AM) My friends who work for banks today are honoring our veterans the only way they know how - by playing Halo MC Collection for literally the entire day. Hopefully they had more luck with the game than I did. It took me two hours to install the game and once it finally installed the entire match-making system was down. I was really looking forward to playing some Halo 2 multiplayer, hopefully they get the server issues resolved soon.

Syndergaard for Alexei would be an absolute steal. I'd be willing to throw in another piece too if that's what it took. Losing Alexei would suck, but adding a guy like Syndergaard would set up our rotation incredibly well for the next five years. It would also give us more financial flexibility to fix the offense/bullpen and make it easier to trade a guy like Montas or Danish in a package for an impact bat.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Nov 13, 2014 -> 06:39 AM) Plus the team can't sign a player for more then 300k for the next 2 signing periods If they give that much of a bonus. Isn't there talk of going to an international draft in the next couple of years? If so, who knows if these penalties will somehow carry over to the new system.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 11:35 PM) Because most teams have season ticket (guaranteed attendance) in the 8-22,000 range, with some quite a bit higher than the high teens/low 20's. That's already pre-ticket revenue for the entire season before they even open up the gates. If you go back over the last five seasons or so, you'll see that a significant walk-up attendance the day of the game is around 4-6,000 tickets (not counting other single game tickets sold). It might be 75/25 (season ticket to individual/day-of-game), but I'm willing to wager that's pretty close to the breakdown for revenues from ticket sales. I'm not sure about the percentages, but I've always thought walk-ups made up a relatively small portion of our total ticket sales. Maybe it's different for other baseball teams, I can't really say.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 01:00 PM) Winning clearly has a major impact on ticket sales, and I would argue to a larger degree, but to say offseason expectations have no impact on is on a Greg-level of thinking. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 01:06 PM) If the "Selling the team in the offseason" effect matters, it's a lot smaller than the "winning ****ing ballgames" effect.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 10:54 AM) That's what "per cap" means. The sox aren't going to sign Scherzer. It would be a bad business decision. If you think that "showing the fans you're serious" will drive attendance, you haven't been paying attention to the white sox and attendance over the past ten years. Attendance will increase when there is a winner, and not before. If you think adding Scherzer to a 74 win team will do that, then we disagree on a different level altogether. When did I say I want them to sign Scherzer? You keep implying that I said that, when in reality I think it would be a terrible idea. And sorry, expectations always drive ticket sales to some extent, I can't believe you and SS2K are actually arguing against this. Fans purchase single-game and season tickets in the offseason, and those decisions are heavily based on expectations. If the team goes out and spends $40M on free agents and vastly improves the team, those fans will be excited/optimistic and will more often than not purchase more tickets than they would have otherwise. Obviously if the team fails to meet expectations, walk-ups will drop as the season progresses. Winning clearly has a major impact on ticket sales, and I would argue to a larger degree, but to say offseason expectations have no impact on is on a Greg-level of thinking.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 07:35 AM) Ok so, I don't know what Max Scherzer's contract is going to be, but let's assume, conservatively, that it'll cost $25m next year. I'm not even sure what the average ticket price for a Sox game is, but let's assume that it's $20. Reasonable? Per cap. Let's say $10. Might be a little low but people forget that labor cost increases with attendance, so margin is a bit lower too. $10 after adjustments for the sake of easy math. So for the Sox to break even on Max Scherzer's salary next year, from a revenue standpoint, by "energizing the fan base," then Max Scherzer would have to generate 833,333 additional tickets completely by himself. The Sox TOTAL attendance last year was 1.6 million. You can adjust my guesses however you like, but the number at the end is still unrealistic. Wow, if you think the value of a ticket sold is equal to its selling price then I don't know what to say. For each ticket sold, factor in parking, factor in food & beverage, factor in merchandise & souvenirs. Those factors are probably equal to the price of admission on average. And a 50% OP rate on these incremental ticket sales? You realize how much fixed costs there are at a baseball stadium right? Maybe you need a little more security and vendors, but it will be very insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The additional sales would be almost all profit. And most importantly, your Scherzer example ignores our other payroll commitments and what our projected revenues will be without him. Saying "here's last year's ticket sales, adding $25M would require x" is ridiculous. We have $50M or so in payroll commitments at the moment. We could add Scherzer right now and come in below last year's payroll number. So what exactly are you adding Scherzer on top of? What can we afford without him? I never once said if we had a $100M payroll that we could add Scherzer and the deal would pay for itself. That's stupid. All I said was if you can convince the fans you're serious about next year, they will buy more tickets and you should be able to afford a higher payroll. You can argue how much of an impact it would have, but the concept itself is factual. "Energize the fanbase" as you mockingly said and you will sell more tickets.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 06:54 AM) lol. This isn't Finance 101. This is an established business with a long history of doing the same thing over and over again. The next time they go into the season with an expected loss will be the first one. Yeah, clearly you didn't take Finance 101. The rule applies to all businesses, especially the White Sox. Provide a product your customer actually wants or they will have no reason to buy it from you. This means investing in the quality of your product, or in the White Sox's case, trying to build a team that can actually win next year. If the front office can convince Sox fans they're serious about being competitive next year, Sox fans will buy more tickets and the incremental revenue will offset payroll the increase. That will be their basis for increasing payroll and there will be no expected loss. This will all be factored into their budget, which is forward looking, not based solely on history. What happened the year they added Dunn and went "all-in"? Why didn't they have an expected loss that season? I know you think because you read some Forbes valuation article that you're an expert of their financials, but based on everything that's been communicated this offseason I think you're completely in the wrong on this subject. Last year's payroll is not reflective of what they can spend this year or going forward.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2014 -> 06:19 PM) It is also the truth. The White Sox actually have big payroll room for the first time that I can remember. I can't tell you the last time the White Sox had something like $30 million to spend. Multiple reports in the past couple days have said we'll have $40M to spend and I could see it being a little higher than that. While I fully expect a payroll right around $100M if all goes well in free agency, it's not that crazy to think they could go up to $110M if they hit on all their targets. You have to invest in your business to grow it, so if the Sox want to increase attendance and ultimately revenues, they need to commit to winning by spending big up front.

QUOTE (TheFutureIsNear @ Nov 10, 2014 -> 07:25 PM) You think there is going to be a big market for Carl Crawford and his $62.3M? I don't see it. The Dodgers are going to be choosing between getting a1/2 decent return and paying most of that 62M or getting little in return and freeing themselves of most(but not even close to all) of the $62M. There's not going to be a lot of teams lining up for Crawford. He's 33, really expensive, and due a lot of $ 100% agree. I'm not sure why teams would be that interested in an overpaid, aging speedster. The Dodgers will need to eat a big chunk of that salary if they want to get anything in return for him.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 10, 2014 -> 12:16 AM) Look at Rosenthal's tweets. No one is going to pay Kemp $110M. How about John Danks and Chris Bassitt for Matt Kemp + $40M. Then we pay Kemp $70M over the next 5 seasons, plus we shave off the remaining $29M from Danks contract, and it's like we are paying Kemp $41M over 5 years. If he's a full time DH, he can be a 3 WAR player. Why would the Dodgers ever make this trade? Matt Kemp may be overpaid, but eating $40M and taking on Danks' contract all for Chris Bassitt would be pure insanity. Throw in the fact that Andrew Friedman is their new GM and there is zero chance of this deal happening.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 9, 2014 -> 04:09 PM) Since becoming a starter in 2012 he has the 23 highest WAR among SPs..What a bum. You're saying only 22 pitchers have posted more than 9.5 WAR over the past three seasons?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2014 -> 03:54 PM) But it's virtually impossible that Rodon would outpitch Samardzija this year in a 200+ inning season. If you're all in on 2015, Rodon isn't a middle of the rotation option. Where is this all-in talk coming from?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2014 -> 03:54 PM) But it's virtually impossible that Rodon would outpitch Samardzija this year in a 200+ inning season. If you're all in on 2015, Rodon isn't a middle of the rotation option. Where is this all-in talk coming from?

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 9, 2014 -> 12:30 PM) I'm sure it's not much of a rarity to trade and extend a player. What's so great about him? How about the fact that he ranked 15th in WAR last year. I'd give up a guy like Semien+. Johnson, Anderson, Rodon, Montas, Adams and maybe Danish are the only untouchables in the minors. A package of anyone else I'm game for. If Shark wouldn't give the Cubs a hometown discount, then he's not going to give us one either, at least of any significance.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 11:56 PM) Morales? What value does a 1 WAR player have? Nothing. He "rebound" will be a 1.5 WAR season. Cameron is such a dumbass at times. Morales will be lucky to get 7 from a deperate Yankees after half their team gets hurt in spring, let alone 9 from Chicago. I think WAR is the wrong stat to use when evaluating DHs. Given the huge decline in the offensive environment, I'm not sure the positional adjustment that's allocated to DHs is very accurate anymore. Furthermore, not all guys can handle the "sit on the bench outside of 5 ABs" that the DH role entails. The idea that you can plop any bat into the DH spot and they'll maintain their production isn't realistic IMO. Therefore, I think replacement level DH is different than just a replacement level hitter. Again, I'm not sure WAR accounts for all of this correctly. I'd much rather just look at an offensive-only stat like wRC+. I simply want the best hitter possible if I'm looking for a full-time DH, and preferably one that has proven they can handle the role. IMO, a guy like Victor Martinez is a lot more valuable than his WAR indicates. And quite frankly, that's why I'm willing to pay him $16M/year when I only expect him to be a 130 wRC+ hitter for most of his contract. WAR might imply that's an overpay, but I don't think finding that level of production is as easy as WAR would suggest.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 07:51 PM) Why don't you tell me why Anderson is the only player you feel will be traded for anyone. Because he is your default prospect in any trade right now Because Caulfield is on one of his negativity streaks and needs Anderson to the centerpiece of a horrible trade to fit his narrative.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 05:35 PM) The more I think about it, the more I want this kid on the Sox. He fills the lefty bat void that would fit nicely behind or in front of Abreu. Plus, he brings tremendous defense in right field. That mean's 2/3s of the OF would be solidified by a gold glover and a gold glove nominee. I then would sign him to a 6 year 90 million dollar contract. Thoughts? 6/$90M won't be nearly enough, probably more like 7/$140M or 8/$160. And honestly, I don't see why he'd sign an extension one year from free agency. As much as I'd love to have Heyward, he's going to cost too much in terms of prospects and money (if we can extend him), at least right now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 7, 2014 -> 12:45 PM) And as I just pointed out in excruciating detail, While his average season would look fine in the middle of the white sox's order, the end result of Scott Downs 2.0 in the bullpen and Bassitt, Noesi, and Danks making up 3/5 of the rotation would leave that bat extremely likely to be wasted. Lol Balta...everything is so black and white with you. I read your entire post and I'm still struggling to understand how adding V-Mart automatically means we'll sign Scott Downs 2.0 and have no money for a SP upgrade. Maybe you have to fill a hole via trade to save some money, but let's not pretend adding V-Mart makes acheiving other offseason needs impossible. $40M is quite a bit of money to fill five holes if you're also willing to trade some minor league talent. And BTW, you're Scott Downs 2.0 point comment is totally off-base. He may have sucked for us, but he wasn't some scrap-heap signing. $3.5M should be able to get you a potentially solid reliever, unfortunately relievers in general are extremely volatile year to year. Throwing even bigger money at the problem isn't likely to lead to a much better outcome.

QUOTE (joejoedairy @ Nov 6, 2014 -> 04:46 PM) Hawkins Beck and Sanchez Assuming the medicals looked ok, I would do this trade in heartbeat. I think certain people are overplaying CarGo's home/road splits here. As Eminor3rd mentioned, a lot of players are significantly better at home and I've read some theories on a Coors Field hangover effect that actually widens the gap. Let's say you make this trade and then sign Melky Cabrera. With no other changes you could be looking at the following lineup: 1. Adam Eaton, CF 2. Marcus Semien, 2B 3. Melky Cabrera, DH/LF 4. Jose Abreu, 1B 5. Carlos Gonzalez, LF/RF/DH 6. Avi Garcia, RF/DH 7. Conor Gillaspie, 3B 8. Tyler Flowers, C 9. Alexei Ramirez, SS As long as you have a platoon partner for Conor, that has the potential to be a very dangerous lineup.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 04:50 PM) (Except for me, I disagree on that date). Why is this in parentheses?

Is WAR really an appropriate tool to value catchers? Defensive metrics are already suspect enough, how can you possibly quantify a catcher's defensive ability accurately? I get that pitch-framing is the big rave right now, but there's a lot more that goes into a catcher's role on the defensive side of the game that should be difficult to measure.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 09:43 AM) If the Sox want to get rid of Viciedo next year at $4.5 million, there will be a team that is willing to take a chance on it. 100% agree. Viciedo is still young and has some pretty good tools. While he's obviously been a huge disappointment, there is still some chance he becomes an above average hitter. That potential alone is worth $4.5M for a team that's a long-shot to win next year and has a need for some power.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 5, 2014 -> 03:20 AM) Let's say they added Rasmus, LaRoche, Brett Anderson and Romo...along with the idea of Rodon joining the team at mid-season. Does anyone believe that's enough to put the White Sox in contention in 2015? We have to face the fact that outside of signing Scherzer, Lester, Sandoval, V-Mart or Hanley Ramirez, there aren't many INDIVIDUAL players who will move the meter until the Sox start winning again. The combination I listed above is going to cost around $37.5-45 million in added payroll, just a guess. No way those guys are getting $40M+ combined.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 4, 2014 -> 07:19 PM) I think he is going to get $25 million, and by my math and guesstimates, we are looking at spending somewhere around 30 to 35 million this year. I'd call that the vast majority. I see no realistic scenario that puts us back over $100 million this winter. Didn't someone just do the math on this? I thought if we non-tender Beli and trade Viciedo, we're sitting on about $52M in payroll commitments. There is absolutely no reason we can't afford a payroll around $100M next year, which means we'd have a good $45M to work with. I agree on Lester though. He'll be too rich for our blood due to contract length.