Where did that $175M profit go? Asset is up 2900% AND you need $175M profit?

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unreal...p#axzz2Hz5uqPJL

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unreal...p#axzz2Hz5uqPJL

 

And

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_name...into_a_business

Once again...I'll repeat.

 

The White Sox scored the 4th most runs in the American league last year. They outscored the Tigers. They outscored every other team in the AL Central.

 

They did so with a .600 OPS out of their 3b slot. That's cumulative, over the full season...a .600 OPS. Counting Youkilis.

 

Getting >.700 OPS out of the 3b slot would be like Viciedo turning into an all star for what it would do to the offense.

 

Yes, we lost AJ and his .830 OPS. Flowers could do that, but if all he does is put up a low-.700 OPS, the Sox will, on paper, be exactly where they were last year in offense.

 

If they're expecting "Just enough offense", then they're expecting substantially worse seasons from Rios, Konerko, etc, with no improvement from Viciedo or Beckham to offset it. Because last year, the Sox had substantial offense.

 

It was the middle-of-the-pack pitching staff that cost the Sox last year, not the offense.

 

The "awful" 2012 offense is going to go down in history with the "small-ball" 2005 offense that never hit home runs.

And

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_name...into_a_business

 

Also want to throw out there that if they averaged $17.5 million a year profit, on a team worth $600 million, that is a less than 3% rate of return.

Using Forbes numbers since 2003 Sox revenue is uo 101.8%, their payroll is up 102.9%, and their franchise value is up 157%. Moreover during this time the Sox have made $175M. When the value of the asset goes from $20M to $600M, more of that profit should be spent on payroll.

The 175 is operating income not profit. The franchise value and asset value has absolutely nothing to do with the liquid budget. You cannot spend an asset unless you sell it. If they sell the team they would realize this increased in asset value but then they couldn't spend it on what they don't own.

 

 

Go Rick!!!

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1480298...icago-white-sox

Also want to throw out there that if they averaged $17.5 million a year profit, on a team worth $600 million, that is a less than 3% rate of return.

 

That's a dividend and not rate of return. The business went from being valued an an est. $233M in 2003 to an est. $600M in 2012 for an est. 157% rate of return.

That's a dividend and not rate of return. The business went from being valued an an est. $233M in 2003 to an est. $600M in 2012 for an est. 157% rate of return.

 

You chose to ignore the most important thing in that the Sox investors don't take profits, they invest them, so they sit on the books. That means you can't add annual profits up, because none of them ever become realized. Profits are reinvested backl into the organization. The Sox didn't actually make $175 million over 10 years.

The 175 is operating income not profit. The franchise value and asset value has absolutely nothing to do with the liquid budget. You cannot spend an asset unless you sell it. If they sell the team they would realize this increased in asset value but then they couldn't spend it on what they don't own.

 

Operating income is defined as: "The amount of profit realized from a business's operations after taking out operating expenses - such as cost of goods sold (COGS) or wages - and depreciation."

You chose to ignore the most important thing in that the Sox investors don't take profits, they invest them, so they sit on the books. That means you can't add annual profits up, because none of them ever become realized. Profits are reinvested backl into the organization. The Sox didn't actually make $175 million over 10 years.

 

Sox investors don't take profits? Where is that written.

That was also right during the steroid era, in a home run hittinig ballpark. Their team ERA+ was 125. For comparison, Mark Buehrle's career ERA+ is 119.

 

Think about that. As a whole, the 2005 starting rotation pitched "Better than Mark Buehrle in a normal year".

 

The best ERA+ in the league last year was Tampa, at 120.

 

That's the best ERA+ in baseball since 2003. It's been 9 season since any team put together that good of a pitching campaign. The last team that was better? The 2003 Dodgers...with their part human, part testosterone injection closer.

 

I'm finding it amazing looking at how good that pitching staff really was compared to the rest of the league for the last decade.

I think alot of the surprising success from the pitching staff came from Cotts and Politte. Who had two shut down middle relievers who had unbelievable career years and they happen to do it together on the same team. The starters knew that these guys would shut anything down if they came into the game. This has always been the part of the team that has amazed me.

Operating income is defined as: "The amount of profit realized from a business's operations after taking out operating expenses - such as cost of goods sold (COGS) or wages - and depreciation."

It's only profit for the investors if it is not put back into the team.

It's only profit for the investors if it is not put back into the team.

 

It's profit regardless of what ownership does with it. Maybe they put it back in to the business, maybe they take it as a dividend.

Once again...I'll repeat.

 

The White Sox scored the 4th most runs in the American league last year. They outscored the Tigers. They outscored every other team in the AL Central.

 

They did so with a .600 OPS out of their 3b slot. That's cumulative, over the full season...a .600 OPS. Counting Youkilis.

 

Getting >.700 OPS out of the 3b slot would be like Viciedo turning into an all star for what it would do to the offense.

 

Yes, we lost AJ and his .830 OPS. Flowers could do that, but if all he does is put up a low-.700 OPS, the Sox will, on paper, be exactly where they were last year in offense.

 

If they're expecting "Just enough offense", then they're expecting substantially worse seasons from Rios, Konerko, etc, with no improvement from Viciedo or Beckham to offset it. Because last year, the Sox had substantial offense.

 

It was the middle-of-the-pack pitching staff that cost the Sox last year, not the offense.

 

 

 

 

Sox offense

 

4.8 runs per game in the first half, 4.5 runs in second

 

Sox pitching

 

3.91 ERA in the first half, 4.15 ERA in the second

 

 

 

DET offense

 

4.4 runs per game in the first half, 4.46 runs in the second

 

DET pitching

 

3.97 ERA in the first half, 3.50 ERA in the second

 

defense

 

Sox 70 errors total, DET 99 total. that helps the ERA but not that much for DET. It was our pitching getting tired and the weather cooling down silencing our power hitters. So Balta has a point here.

Edited January 14, 201313 yr by RadioHost

The Sox were also 12th in runs scored and 8th in pitching in September. So both shut down especially towards the end.

Edited January 14, 201313 yr by RadioHost

It's profit regardless of what ownership does with it. Maybe they put it back in to the business, maybe they take it as a dividend.

I disagree.

It's profit regardless of what ownership does with it. Maybe they put it back in to the business, maybe they take it as a dividend.

If they choose to put the money back in, then what are you b****ing about?

I think alot of the surprising success from the pitching staff came from Cotts and Politte. Who had two shut down middle relievers who had unbelievable career years and they happen to do it together on the same team. The starters knew that these guys would shut anything down if they came into the game. This has always been the part of the team that has amazed me.

 

Even crazier due to the fact that they never really did anything special any other year.

If they choose to put the money back in, then what are you b****ing about?

 

The Sox have very little debt to no debt. I don't know what they would "put the money back in" for (where does it show?). My guess is they take it as a dividend.

If they choose to put the money back in, then what are you b****ing about?

Yeah, I don't even get Marty's point anymore. This is starting to sound like a baseless grudge against Reinsdorf.

Yeah, I don't even get Marty's point anymore. This is starting to sound like a baseless grudge against Reinsdorf.

 

The point is the White Sox can easily afford a higher payroll than they claim.

The Sox have very little debt to no debt. I don't know what they would "put the money back in" for (where does it show?). My guess is they take it as a dividend.

What about the millions in player salaries? They may not be your typical liability, but they are guaranteed contracts and ultimately a claim against their assets. Having some cash and/or other liquid assets on hand is a good way to protect themselves in case your revenue structure changes.

The point is the White Sox can easily afford a higher payroll than they claim.

You've shown nothing that says they don't put every "profit" back into the team. The only number you've stated that shows what they have for a profit is the 175 million. If that is the case a 100 mil team payroll is very reasonable, considering that means only 75 mil for running the rest of the organization.

The Sox have very little debt to no debt. I don't know what they would "put the money back in" for (where does it show?). My guess is they take it as a dividend.

 

 

The point is the White Sox can easily afford a higher payroll than they claim.

Therein lies the disconnect. If someone a little less biased and with a solid understanding of business can analyze your resources (Scott Boras' opinions aside) and determine that they are, in fact, making profit that could not possibly be re-entering the business, then I will concede your point.

You've shown nothing that says they don't put every "profit" back into the team. The only number you've stated that shows what they have for a profit is the 175 million. If that is the case a 100 mil team payroll is very reasonable, considering that means only 75 mil for running the rest of the organization.

 

You're mixing up revenue and profit or rather operating income.