I don't know what the optimal solution is. I know it was disappointing to see the Sox finish 3 games behind the Tigers while having operational income of $22.9M.

 

Should have hired more churro vendors

You don't say you made money and cut payroll. I believe Forbes numbers.

 

It isn't about believing or not believing Forbes' numbers. It is that OI is not the same as NI, or is it the same as true profit. You keep forgetting that.

 

You can't spend $1 when you have $0.50.

 

Again - the Sox have a budget for payroll. Like virtually all teams do in any given year. You are somehow contorting that into meaning the Sox have no money, or are saying they have no money.

 

Let's also remember the Sox almost always find some money at the deadline if they're competitive. So yes, the team may start any given season at its budgeted payroll, but when things go well and there is more money at the gates, the organization puts some of that money back into the team. The rest most likely goes towards future payroll or other operating expenses. I seriously doubt this profit is being given out to the owners in the form of dividends.

 

 

Also, at the worst, you're accusing the 11th most profitable team of stinginess for having the 11th highest payroll.

 

(http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries)

It isn't about believing or not believing Forbes' numbers. It is that OI is not the same as NI, or is it the same as true profit. You keep forgetting that.

 

I'm saying that if a team's operating income was $22.9M they easily could have afforded a higher payroll.

 

 

Again - the Sox have a budget for payroll. Like virtually all teams do in any given year. You are somehow contorting that into meaning the Sox have no money, or are saying they have no money.

 

As I wrote earlier in this thread, The White Sox are comfortable with how they operate. That's part of their problem.

Also, at the worst, you're accusing the 11th most profitable team of stinginess for having the 11th highest payroll.

 

(http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries)

 

and the 7th best record in the AL.

Sounds like they're doing a good job. I think we have just enough to spend that we could really bring in a big name if the time and player was right -- the nice thing about the way we do things is we don't like to bring on huge salary commitments just because. No Michael Bourns or Kyle Lohses here. We could make a big dollar acquisition via trade this year to put us over the top or we could really do some adding in the next offseason if we want with a lot of money coming off the books.

Maybe they could invest those profits into cutting ticket prices for 2013? That'd help a lot of fans.

 

The sleeping giants is the fan base.

Sounds like they're doing a good job. I think we have just enough to spend that we could really bring in a big name if the time and player was right -- the nice thing about the way we do things is we don't like to bring on huge salary commitments just because. No Michael Bourns or Kyle Lohses here. We could make a big dollar acquisition via trade this year to put us over the top or we could really do some adding in the next offseason if we want with a lot of money coming off the books.

 

Manny Ramirez was a waste of money, but, otherwise, most of our mid to late season additions have been pretty good.

What if I'm wrong? They could easily afford another $30M on this payroll.

 

 

No you have a point if spending money on one player ors maybe two is the right way to go. I just look at A-Rod and J Santana and others being paid lots of money to sit out with injuries. Johan Santana's is not covered by insurance according to the Mets. I prefer spending less to fill spots with talented types needing a chance to show what they can do and by building from within. Not quite a Bill Veeck approach but similar