Jim Hendry is objectively a better GM than KW

[BT]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->That payroll was very deceiving - I don't recall if it was Top 5 or not (USA Today's Salary DB would answer that Q if we looked) but it was bouyed by the money that the Phillies and the DBacks/Yanks sent over with Thome/Vazquez. The Sox expenditure during those years was lower than it looked. It was also pumped up, short term, with the extra revenue from the World Series - and the subsequent ticket sales. While they have retained some of it, they have lost a good chunk also.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You understand that all of this is completely irrelevant to your point, right? You wanted to know what KW would do with a large payroll. He's had it for the last 3 years. It doesn't matter who is actually paying for Jim Thome, KW still has him. He has a 15 million dollar player on his payroll. It doesn't matter who is footing the bill. If the Sox were only paying half of Thome's salary, it's not as if they are only getting half of his production.


<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Ok - I'll look it up - I'm curious. #12 with 96mm this year, #5 with 121mm last year (Money from Philly paid for Thome), #5 at 108 in 07 (and a shitty team).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Again, a bit misleading, as the Sox now have at least (I think) another 15 million on for Peavy and Rios. So the Sox payroll this year is at least 110 million which would put them very close to #5 again.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Yeah - not a small market payroll at all. But still 30% smaller than most of the Cubs teams - and they had to take on players who other teams were paying to get rid of (javy and Thome) just to do it. Give a guy like Williams $130mm free and clear - I think he acts differently. Not sure if that would be better or worse...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This makes no sense. Where are you getting the 30 percent thing? This year only? To sum this up, the Sox have had a higher payroll than the Cubs in 2 of the last 3 years, have nearly a top 5 payroll THIS year, but somehow because other people are paying parts of the contracts, Kenny payroll is less? The only way your analysis works is if it's exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are saying. If the Sox were paying the Phillies for Thomes to play for the Phillies, then Kenny's payroll numbers would be misleading. But it's the opposite. Regardless of who is cutting the checks, Kenny has had a top 5 salary roster to work with for the last 3 years.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->That payroll was very deceiving - I don\'t recall if it was Top 5 or not (USA Today\'s Salary DB would answer that Q if we looked) but it was bouyed by the money that the Phillies and the DBacks/Yanks sent over with Thome/Vazquez. The Sox expenditure during those years was lower than it looked. It was also pumped up, short term, with the extra revenue from the World Series - and the subsequent ticket sales. While they have retained some of it, they have lost a good chunk also.

You understand that all of this is completely irrelevant to your point, right? You wanted to know what KW would do with a large payroll. He\'s had it for the last 3 years. It doesn\'t matter who is actually paying for Jim Thome, KW still has him. He has a 15 million dollar player on his payroll. It doesn\'t matter who is footing the bill. If the Sox were only paying half of Thome\'s salary, it\'s not as if they are only getting half of his production.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I disagree BT. The reason Philly sent a ton of money is because Thome wasn\'t worth what he was being paid. Same with Javy. KW didn\'t have 17mm to spend, he had Jim Thome and 8mm in cash. Same with Javy. I'm not curious what he'd do with a large bottom line payroll #. I am curious as to what he'd be able to do with the ability to go out and spend that sort of money on FAs and draftees. There is a difference. Hendry spend big $ on Soriano (over 100mm), Bradley (30mm), Fuk (40mm), Demp (50mm), Lilly (40mm), Aramis (75mm), Lee (65mm), etc. During that time, I think KW spent big money on Buehrle (55mm), Konerko (60mm) and Dye (22mm)

You have to recognize the difference in that...right?


<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Ok - I\'ll look it up - I\'m curious. #12 with 96mm this year, #5 with 121mm last year (Money from Philly paid for Thome), #5 at 108 in 07 (and a shitty team).

Again, a bit misleading, as the Sox now have at least (I think) another 15 million on for Peavy and Rios. So the Sox payroll this year is at least 110 million which would put them very close to #5 again.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


That would be true if they were paying all of those salaries - but they were both acquired in Aug. So prorate them for 2 months of the season and the chunk is much smaller.

Again - there is a significant difference between adding up the annual salaries of all the guys on your team and figuring out how much money you have to make in order to be able to pay your liability to that player. The Sox liabilities in 09 to Peavy and Rios are small.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Yeah - not a small market payroll at all. But still 30% smaller than most of the Cubs teams - and they had to take on players who other teams were paying to get rid of (javy and Thome) just to do it. Give a guy like Williams $130mm free and clear - I think he acts differently. Not sure if that would be better or worse...

This makes no sense. Where are you getting the 30 percent thing? This year only? To sum this up, the Sox have had a higher payroll than the Cubs in 2 of the last 3 years, have nearly a top 5 payroll THIS year, but somehow because other people are paying parts of the contracts, Kenny payroll is less? The only way your analysis works is if it\'s exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are saying. If the Sox were paying the Phillies for Thomes to play for the Phillies, then Kenny\'s payroll numbers would be misleading. But it\'s the opposite. Regardless of who is cutting the checks, Kenny has had a top 5 salary roster to work with for the last 3 years.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I completely and totally disagree with you. Williams only could get that kind of money by taking on other people\'s rejects. If the Cubs could send Soriano to Team X, and eat (for arguement\'s sake) 10mm per year of the remaining 5 years, wouldn\'t you think it is reasonable to count that 10mm against the Cubs payroll, as they were the ones paying it? Team X is getting that cash - so they aren\'t spending it out of pocket. They also are not going out there and taking on the risk of the whole contract, and getting the whole upside. They (like the Sox did with Thome, are taking on a less desireable guy and getting paid to do so.

Let me ask a Q. Do you believe KW had the ability to go out on the FA market and spend anywhere close to what Hendry has had over the last three years? Taking on other people\'s rejects and getting paid for it is not that same as being able to go out and get the best of the best. Just my 2 cents. Hendry has had, free and clear, all the money in the world to go out and do whatever he wanted. How many FAs has he signed? Soriano, Bradley, Fuk, etc... During that time, KW hasn\'t gone out once and gotten a big FA. My point was that I\'d love to see what each of them would do in the other\'s shoes.

[rok]

I think BT's point was that the shoes haven't been much different sizes the past few seasons. The Sox always love to act as though they are the penny-pinching stepchild of Chicago, but that really hasn't been the case in recent years. It's not as if KW is Billy Beane.

[Scarey]

Seeing as Williams was going to pay Fuk more money, I don't think you can count that as an instance where Hendry had more money to spend than Williams IMO.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=59225:date=Aug 21 2009, 09:10 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Aug 21 2009, 09:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Seeing as Williams was going to pay Fuk more money, I don't think you can count that as an instance where Hendry had more money to spend than Williams IMO.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Except that if Williams got Fukudome, that would have meant he would have had to cut $40mm somewhere else. Fukudome would not have been incremental to plan. Yes - the Sox offered more. But if he would have come to the Sox, they would have had to cut $40mm somewhere else, and the Cubs still would have spent the $40mm on something different.

Right? I look at this in terms of the whole expenditure, less the parts that are being paid by other teams. I can't see how one could argue that the Cubs haven't had more ability to spend on the best available FA. Williams was forced to be really creative and take on other team's rejects to get where he got. Most of his deals have worked out ok - none yet have really blown up. That's what scares me about Rios and Peavy. He is getting no cash from anyone - and those deals both have MAJOR blowup potential given the high dollars for two guys who weren't having great years.

[BT]

Cherp, how does it matter the method in which guys are procured? Kenny Williams had a roster with a payroll higher than the Cubs for the last 2 years. Saying that Thome shouldn't count as a 15 million dollar player, because KW was taking damaged goods is like me saying that the Cubs shouldn't have Soriano's full 18 million applied against him, because everyone knew he wasn't worth that much, but Hendry had to pay extra in order to get him.

Furthermore, it's even bigger bullshit because regardless of whether or not Thome was somehow considered damaged goods when they got him, he's played up to his contract. Kenny is getting 15 million in value from him, regardless of what they are paying.

Regardless, the amount they were paying Thome and Vazquez barely changes the equation. The Sox were responsible for half of Thome's salary, and more than half of Vazquez's salary in 2007, and ALL of Vazquez's 2008 salary. That comes out to maybe 10 million in 2007 and 7 million in 2008. That's doesn't fundamentally change the fact that both teams had roughly the same payroll. Yet the media will continue to act as if Hendry is Cashman and Williams is Beane.


*I made this Beane comment before seeing Rok's post. Just shows you great minds think alike.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=59224:date=Aug 21 2009, 09:09 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Aug 21 2009, 09:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think BT's point was that the shoes haven't been much different sizes the past few seasons. The Sox always love to act as though they are the penny-pinching stepchild of Chicago, but that really hasn't been the case in recent years. It's not as if KW is Billy Beane.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's definitely true - the gap is exaggerated by some.


<!--quoteo(post=59232:date=Aug 21 2009, 09:23 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Aug 21 2009, 09:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Cherp, how does it matter the method in which guys are procured? Kenny Williams had a roster with a payroll higher than the Cubs for the last 2 years.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If you don't think there is a difference between KW taking on 3 years and about 50mm, but getting 25mm back in cash, and Hendry going out and spending the way he has, then we will agree to disagree BT. Think about the raw dollars of FA contracts and extensions that the two have spent. It really isn't close. Do you not think that Jim Hendry has had more money to spend in the past 5 years than KW?

<!--quoteo(post=59232:date=Aug 21 2009, 09:23 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Aug 21 2009, 09:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Saying that Thome shouldn't count as a 15 million dollar player, because KW was taking damaged goods is like me saying that the Cubs shouldn't have Soriano's full 18 million applied against him, because everyone knew he wasn't worth that much, but Hendry had to pay extra in order to get him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You can think that if you desire - I think that's silly. I disagree that it is the same taking on a 50mm contract, and getting 25mm back in cash and going out on the FA market and spending $50mm. If you don't - that's of course your right.

<!--quoteo(post=59232:date=Aug 21 2009, 09:23 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Aug 21 2009, 09:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Furthermore, it's even bigger bullshit because regardless of whether or not Thome was somehow considered damaged goods when they got him, he's played up to his contract. Kenny is getting 15 million in value from him, regardless of what they are paying.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Which is a testament to a good decision. But the market value at the time, was different. Right? Assuming the Phils shopped him, and got the best possible deal they could, it was not full contract value - Thome was worth less. So Williams did well for himself. A deal that didn't blow up in his face. It easily could have.

<!--quoteo(post=59232:date=Aug 21 2009, 09:23 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Aug 21 2009, 09:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Regardless, the amount they were paying Thome and Vazquez barely changes the equation. The Sox were responsible for half of Thome's salary, and more than half of Vazquez's salary in 2007, and ALL of Vazquez's 2008 salary. That comes out to maybe 10 million in 2007 and 7 million in 2008. That's doesn't fundamentally change the fact that both teams had roughly the same payroll. Yet the media will continue to act as if <b>Hendry is Cashman and Williams is Beane.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Up until this year, Hendry had the ability to go out and sign a lot of guys to very big contracts. See my post above. Williams has only done that with two guys - Buehrle and Konerko. Everything else he did was getting guys willing to come on shorter term deals, for less money. I'm really surprised you think the playing field is tilted in Williams favor in this discussion.

Take the Cubs and Sox out of the equation. If you had a choice as a GM between having the ability to go to the FA market and spend about 300mm on 7 FA/retainees of your choice, or the ability to spend much less, on guys willing to take shorter deals, and having to take on other team's rejects and their salary, which would you choose?

I have always that i wish the Sox had the ability to spend money the way Hendry did - but not in the results he got for them. Past the Yanks and the Red Sox, how many teams have gone to FA and spent like the Cubs have? The White Sox have not done that.

[Butcher]

Both sides are sort of right here.

Williams has never had an open checkbook like Hendry had when he signed Lilly, Soriano, and Fukudome. On the other hand, Williams likes to pretend he's on a shoestring budget for some reason, when he really isn't.

The question is, would Williams spend recklessly if he had the budget to do so? Or would he continue to operate as he has done in the past?

That said, there are a ton of small market teams who would be thrilled if they had the cash to drop $55M on Buehrle, $60M on Konerko, and $22M on Dye.

[BT]

This conversation is getting surreal. You insistence that budgets are only spent on free agents is puzzling.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I'm really surprised you think the playing field is tilted in Williams favor in this discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't think that, which is the main reason I never said that. You said you would like to see KW with Hendry's payroll. I've given you reams of examples showing you that he has had that opportunity. It's not tilted to Williams. It's pretty much even. Hendry might have a slight advantage, but the differences are minimal.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->If you had a choice as a GM between having the ability to go to the FA market and spend about 300mm on 7 FA/retainees of your choice, or the ability to spend much less, on guys willing to take shorter deals, and having to take on other team's rejects and their salary, which would you choose?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is a totally loaded question. Teams are not put together solely by going out and signing free agents. And that example is CLEARLY not what has happened.

The legitimate way to ask this question is if you were a GM and your owner gave you 115 million to spend to stock the team, and another owner gave his GM 120 to stock the team, would you think it's completely unfair?

It doesn't matter if KW spent his 115 million by getting contracts half paid for by the Phillies, or by resigning Beurhle, Dye, Konerko, Contreras, Pierzynski, and Floyd, and spending the rest on Free agents like Dotel and Linebrink. He still spent 115 million. The fact that Hendry was spending his 120 million on free agents, and KW was spending his on resigning his own guys doesn't make any difference. They both had the same amount of money to spend. They both had roughly the same budget. They simply spent it in different ways.

The point is, you have already received your wish. Kenny has had a similar budget to Hendry. You've seen the results.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=59257:date=Aug 21 2009, 10:11 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Aug 21 2009, 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This conversation is getting surreal. You insistence that budgets are only spent on free agents is puzzling.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That's not what I said. You really don't understand my point?

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I'm really surprised you think the playing field is tilted in Williams favor in this discussion.

I don't think that, which is the main reason I never said that. You said you would like to see KW with Hendry's payroll. I've given you reams of examples showing you that he has had that opportunity. It's not tilted to Williams. It's pretty much even. Hendry might have a slight advantage, but the differences are minimal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

To clarify then - I would like to see Williams with Hendry's ability to spend $ on FA.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->If you had a choice as a GM between having the ability to go to the FA market and spend about 300mm on 7 FA/retainees of your choice, or the ability to spend much less, on guys willing to take shorter deals, and having to take on other team's rejects and their salary, which would you choose?

This is a totally loaded question. Teams are not put together solely by going out and signing free agents. And that example is CLEARLY not what has happened.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The Cubs have spent about 300mm in the recent few years on a small handful of big ticket FA.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The legitimate way to ask this question is if you were a GM and your owner gave you 115 million to spend to stock the team, and another owner gave his GM 120 to stock the team, would you think it's completely unfair?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Nobody said "completely unfair". And I disagree with your analogy - that the difference between their ability to spend is 4%. You are discounting a lot of things that go into this.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The point is, you have already received your wish. Kenny has had a similar budget to Hendry. You've seen the results.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

At this point - I'm going to back off. We aren't going to see eye to eye on this if you really think the Sox have had a similar amount of money to spend and the same amount of leverage to use it as the Cubs. No worries.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=59255:date=Aug 21 2009, 10:04 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 21 2009, 10:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Both sides are sort of right here.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

As usual - that's probably true.

[Butcher]

Did the Grinder Rules ad campaign count against payroll? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]

By the way, has anyone noticed the White Sox's "Sox Traditions" ad playing on an endless cycle on the TV monitors at the Addison L stop? I'm waiting for my train at the Wrigley Field L stop, for fuck's sake, and I can't escape the ongoing Sox marketing campaign...

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=59268:date=Aug 21 2009, 10:54 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 21 2009, 10:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Did the Grinder Rules ad campaign count against payroll? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]

By the way, has anyone noticed the White Sox's "Sox Traditions" ad playing on an endless cycle on the TV monitors at the Addison L stop? I'm waiting for my train at the Wrigley Field L stop, for fuck's sake, and I can't escape the ongoing Sox marketing campaign...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those are some of the corniest and unfunny ads I've ever seen. I think they rival the Grinder Rules in sheer stupidity.

The radio versions of those ads where they include the least charismatic Sox players (and Chris Rongey) in an attempt to create a playful series of running self-deprecating interviews are disturbing and beyond painful.

[BT]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->To clarify then - I would like to see Williams with Hendry's ability to spend $ on FA.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't understand this. Why do you care if Buerhle is being signed as a Free Agent, or if he is simply resigning with the team? Isn't all that matters is that he is on the team? Aramis Ramirez counts the same against the Cubs budget as Soriano does. They were simply procured in different ways.


<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->The Cubs have spent about 300mm in the recent few years on a small handful of big ticket FA.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And the Sox have spend 130 mm in the last few weeks on 2 trades. And again, it's all within their respective budgets. Which are similar.

This isn't just bringing it up tit for tat either. Fully one quarter of that 300mm was the 75 million to resign ARam. So if we are going to include his 75 million on the Cubs FA spree, can't we also include the 60 mm the Sox spent on Konerko? The almost 60 million given to resign Buerhle? The 70 mm to resign Dye, Contreras and AJ?

The point is, the two teams approaches aren't even that different. Soriano sticks out like a sore thumb, but his FA acquisition is essentially offset by the trades for Peavy and Rios.

The two teams are spending similar money in fairly similar fashion.

[SandbergMVP1984]

I must be missing something here. Let's take some fake but maybe close numbers. If the Sox have a $115 payroll, and $25 million of it is being paid by another team, then really they have a $90 million in commitments because they would not (or could not) pay the salary otherwise. If the Cubs have a $140 million payroll and are paying it all, then they have a $140 million in commitments.

The bottom line is how much money a team is paying to put it's team on the field. The "payroll" moniker seems like some stupid accounting trick and is pretty much irrelevant if you're looking for information that matters to a team.