Jim Hendry is objectively a better GM than KW

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=59269:date=Aug 21 2009, 10:58 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Aug 21 2009, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=59268:date=Aug 21 2009, 10:54 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ever since they fired their old agency that did the original Grinder Rules, I have been less excited about their marketing. And their in-park promotions/giveaways are TERRIBLE. You should see the giveaways this year...just awful. No bobbleheads and very few hats. Hardly any giveaway days anymore. The Cubs have much better giveaways and worlds better marketing/promotions. That is not in doubt.

[cherp]

<!--quoteo(post=59287:date=Aug 21 2009, 12:20 PM:name=Sandberg)-->QUOTE (Sandberg @ Aug 21 2009, 12:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I see it the same way you do Sandberg. And, in fact, the Cubs are also on the hook this year for 11mm for Viz, Freel, Gaudin, Marquis, Gathright and Bako. Sox on the hook for 3mm for McDougal and Ozuna. That doesn't count against their respective payrolls if you just add up the guys on the roster. But it is a liability they have for players.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=59287:date=Aug 21 2009, 12:20 PM:name=Sandberg)-->QUOTE (Sandberg @ Aug 21 2009, 12:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


It depends on what point you are trying to argue. If you are arguing which ownership group is "more commuted" to putting money into the team, then who is paying what salaries is important. You can't say the Sox are paying 115 million if they are actually only covering 90.

However, if you are arguing how much talent (if you can judge talent by salary) the team is able to pay for, then the Sox would be paying for 115 million and the Cubs would be paying for 140. Who is paying what portion of the 115 million is irrelevant, as there is still 115 million in "talent" on the team.