Machado signs with Padres 10/300

[Jose Abreu]

Good to know, JMR.

 

[Jack Parkman]

9 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Based on Jacks post, the White Sox are the worst franchise to play for in all of baseball which is clearly absurd. 

A guy with Jack Parkman as his name is calling the White Sox the least known/recognized team nationally... I know it's not the 90's anymore, and the Sox aren't in pop culture as much as they were, but my goodness Jack back off the ledge.

They might not be the worst, but definitely bottom 5. 

[IowaPG]

32 minutes ago, bschmaranz said:

No way, they never would've gotten by LeBron.

That 62 win team was that good though....

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

6 minutes ago, mqr said:

I’m sorry but on no planet do the white Sox provide less exposure than the Padres

The White Sox are in the 3rd biggest market in the country; of course they wouldn't provide less exposure than the Padres, Rays and A's as Jack is stating. 

[Jack Parkman]

4 minutes ago, mqr said:

I’m sorry but on no planet do the white Sox provide less exposure than the Padres

That MIGHT be the one team you have an argument for. 

[Jose Abreu]

4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

They might not be the worst, but definitely bottom 5. 

https://www.mlb.com/news/white-sox-are-perfect-for-harper-or-machado/c-302543664

Quote

This franchise might have baseball's happiest employees. Few outside the organization completely understand it, but it's a significant part of the franchise's appeal to people inside the game. In a city sometimes dominated by Cubs news, the White Sox have an us-against-the-world mentality that unites everyone.

 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

They might not be the worst, but definitely bottom 5. 

Pal, you are losing your mind. How are they in the bottom five?

Padres

Twins

A's

Rays

Marlins

Reds

Royals

There are more, imo, but you can't argue that any of those teams are better for a player to go to. 

 

Definitely bottom 5? 

[Jose Abreu]

In addition to the link I just shared, The Athetic also posted an MLB player poll last summer. For "which team has the best fans", the White Sox were one of 10 teams to receive votes, and for "which team has the worst fans", the White Sox received zero votes. All this, straight from the players and MLB writers, seems a lot more convincing to me than a poster on a message board claiming that the Sox are a bottom 5 team to play for just because. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Jose Abreu

[Jack Parkman]

29 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Pal, you are losing your mind. How are they in the bottom five?

Padres

Twins

A's

Rays

Marlins

Reds

Royals

There are more, imo, but you can't argue that any of those teams are better for a player to go to. 

 

Definitely bottom 5? 

All bigger markets than the Sox. We don't know the numbers for sure, but I believe their market to be 25-30% of greater Chicago, which would put them in the bottom 5 in baseball, smaller than the Twins and slightly larger than the Royals. 

Math: 30% of Chicago metro is 2.85M. KC metro is 2.1, Twin Cities is 3.2, Cleveland is 2.1. Cincinnati is 2.1 by itself, if you include Louisville add around 900k. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Ben Waffleson]

Good night guys love u

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

32 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

All bigger markets than the Sox. We don't know the numbers for sure, but I believe their market to be 25-30% of greater Chicago, which would put them in the bottom 5 in baseball, smaller than the Twins and slightly larger than the Royals. 

Math: 30% of Chicago metro is 2.85M. KC metro is 2.1, Twin Cities is 3.2, Cleveland is 2.1. Cincinnati is 2.1 by itself, if you include Louisville add around 900k. 

Jack, I have literally proven you wrong on this already.

If you think the Padres, Twins, Reds and Marlins have bigger markets (which is outrageous) then why the heck do they have TV contracts that are a fraction of the White Sox, and why are their organizations worth significantly less? Those are facts Jack. The White Sox are worth anywhere between 300-500 million more than all the teams you listed and claimed had a "bigger market." The White Sox had about 45% of the Chicago Metro area fanhood according to the NY Times study I linked prior.

You say they have 25%. 

Serious question, why do you root for such a dreadful organization if this is how you feel? It seems odd. 

25%. So 1/4 of the Chicago Market is worth 1.5 billion. According to Forbes, the White Sox are the 14th most valuable franchise in baseball, but there one of the five worst somehow. Something isn't adding up Jack.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Jack Parkman]

10 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Jack, I have literally proven you wrong on this already.

If you think the Padres, Twins, Reds and Marlins have bigger markets (which is the most outrageous thing I've read) then why the heck do they have TV contracts that are a fraction of the White Sox, and why are their organizations worth significantly less? Those are facts Jack. The White Sox are worth anywhere between 300-500 million more than all the times you listed and claimed had a "bigger market."

They only have a "bigger market" because their games are on NBCSN-CHI and they share it with the Blackhawks and Bulls. Those two teams draw from the whole city. If the Sox were the only team on a sports channel it wouldn't surprise me if they had the smallest TV contract in baseball. The Sox have been bottom 5 in TV ratings in baseball for the better part of this decade. The TV contracts are about how many people have access and decide to pay for a channel. Most people aren't subscribing to NBCSN-CHI for the Sox, they're subscribing for the Bulls and Blackhawks. This will be interesting if/when the Sox start winning again. The Sox are, at best, a lower end mid-market team. In 2017 and 2018 they were 29th in baseball in consumption of the team. (TV/Radio) 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

6 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

They only have a "bigger market" because their games are on NBCSN-CHI and they share it with the Blackhawks and Bulls. Those two teams draw from the whole city. If the Sox were the only team on a sports channel it wouldn't surprise me if they had the smallest TV contract in baseball. The Sox have been bottom 3 in TV ratings in baseball for the better part of this decade. The TV contracts are about how many people have access and decide to pay for a channel. Most people aren't subscribing to NBCSN-CHI for the Sox, they're subscribing for the Bulls and Blackhawks. This will be interesting if/when the Sox start winning again. The Sox are, at best, a mid-market team. In 2017 and 2018 they were 29th in baseball in consumption of the team. (TV/Radio) 

Well they didnt sign a joint contract last deal so I have no idea why any of that matters. Jack this is all nonsense. Facts and stats prove it. Merchandise sales prove it. Team worth proves it. TV contract proves it. Enough dude.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Jack Parkman]

8 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Well they didnt sign a joint contract last deal so I have no idea why any of that matters. Jack this is all nonsense. Facts and stats prove it. Merchandise sales prove it. Team worth proves it. TV contract proves it. Enough dude.

They don't but it doesn't change the fact that regardless of whether or not people watch Sox games, NBCSN-CHI is in every household in the area with cable/satellite. That is where the money comes from. If they didn't have the other teams(especially the Bulls) along with the Sox, they wouldn't get as big of a contract. 

Also, the article you cited only talked about the Sox' share of Cook County, which is only 60% of the metro area. Even if they have 47% of Cook, they probably only have 10-15% of DuPage, Kane, Will Etc. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

They don't but it doesn't change the fact that regardless of whether or not people watch Sox games, NBCSN-CHI is in every household in the area with cable/satellite. That is where the money comes from. 

No. NBC doesnt just give money away because they get money from the cable companies. They sign deals based on perspective eyes on that program. The white Sox TV contract had nothing to do with the Chicago Blackhawks. I have no idea where you got that idea.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Jack Parkman]

7 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No. NBC doesnt just give money away because they get money from the cable companies. They sign deals based on perspective eyes on that program. The white Sox TV contract had nothing to do with the Chicago Blackhawks. I have no idea where you got that idea.

It has to do with # of subscribers to the channel in the viewing area. It is an indirect relationship. The Hawks, Bulls and Sox own 80-90% of NBCSN-CHI. NBC only owns 10-20% of the channel. JR can give the Sox as much of the money made from the network as he wants. He's stealing revenue from the Bulls to give the Sox more. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

It has to do with # of subscribers to the channel in the viewing area. It is an indirect relationship. 

No. That is not how it works Jack. I cant go to NBC and say I have a killer softball league based in Chicago and since so many people are already signed up for the channel, I should get a cut of that to broadcast my league there because I'm in Chicago too.

They pay you based on what you bring viewer wise, not based on their subscription total. That would be absurd.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Jack Parkman]

4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No. That is not how it works Jack. I cant go to NBC and say I have a killer softball league based in Chicago and since so many people are already signed up for the channel, I should get a cut of that to broadcast my league there because I'm in Chicago too.

They pay you based on what you bring viewer wise, not based on their subscription total. That would be absurd.

You do know that The Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks are overwhelming majority owners of that channel, right?? NBC only owns a small minority for licensing rights. Reinsdorf will own roughly 60% of that channel between the Sox and Bulls,  so he's the majority owner as of 2020. He can do whatever he wants.

As of 2020, Wirtz will get his cut of the profits and JR can do whatever he wants with the rest. I don't doubt he's stealing from the Bulls to fund the Sox there.  

Edited February 15, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

You do know that The Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks are overwhelming majority owners of that channel, right?? NBC only owns a small minority for licensing rights. 

NBC owns the same amount as the white Sox- 20%. The ownership of said channel was NEGOTIATED last TV deal. It was part of the offer. If anything it makes a stronger case for my argument. Owning a stake in the network is even more valuable than a regular deal.

And yes, I knew that.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Jack Parkman]

4 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

NBC owns the same amount as the white Sox- 20%. The ownership of said channel was NEGOTIATED last TV deal. It was part of the offer. If anything it makes a stronger case for my argument. Owning a stake in the network is even more valuable than a regular deal.

That was the deal when the Cubs were involved. It is probably somewhere around 27% for the teams themselves and 20% for NBC after the exodus for the Cubs. It still doesn't change that JR has the option of robbing the Bulls to give the Sox a better TV deal. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

1 hour ago, Ben Waffleson said:

Good night guys love u

Love you too, Ben

[Chicago White Sox]

5 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

They don't but it doesn't change the fact that regardless of whether or not people watch Sox games, NBCSN-CHI is in every household in the area with cable/satellite. That is where the money comes from. If they didn't have the other teams(especially the Bulls) along with the Sox, they wouldn't get as big of a contract. 

Also, the article you cited only talked about the Sox' share of Cook County, which is only 60% of the metro area. Even if they have 47% of Cook, they probably only have 10-15% of DuPage, Kane, Will Etc. 

Your business acumen is poor to quite poor.  The White Sox receive money for the broadcast rights to their games.  That is something that has to be negotiated with the owners of the network, which includes three groups that aren’t the Bulls.  The White Sox may get a slight benefit from being packaged with the Bulls, but Comcast, the Cubs, & the Blackhawk ms are NOT going to agree to something that is completely unfair and costs them a ton of money.

Also, we’ve been over your market share nonsense numerous times.  There is no rule you can only watch one team or the other.  My father is a former Sox season ticket holder who occasionally puts on a Cubs game.  My father-in-law is a Cubs fan who casually watches the Sox.  There are many people in Chicago who follow both teams, which can help bolster rating when things are going well.  And the ability / potential to touch many consumers at once is incredibly valuable for marketing folks and why we having a bigger TV contract than many other franchises.  No one with any amount of intelligence says “the Sox only have 30% of the market, so they should get paid what the Indians do” because when Cleveland is doing well they’re still a tiny little b**** of a market. The same does NOT apply when playing in Chicago.

[Chicago White Sox]

5 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

It has to do with # of subscribers to the channel in the viewing area. It is an indirect relationship. The Hawks, Bulls and Sox own 80-90% of NBCSN-CHI. NBC only owns 10-20% of the channel. JR can give the Sox as much of the money made from the network as he wants. He's stealing revenue from the Bulls to give the Sox more. 

This may be the single dumbest post I have ever seen in my life.  Like you are fucking clueless bro.  Go back to your “the Sox only have 30% of the market based on twitter follows” because that at least gave me a good chuckle.  This just makes me angry.  

You do know the Bulls & Sox are separate ownership groups right?  Jerry Reinsdorf can NOT give the Bull’s claim to the earnings of the business to the White Sox under any circumstance.  Also, Comcast owned 20% of the network before, not sure where it’s been mentioned their stake is decreasing with the loss of the Cubs.  Regardless, the Sox make money off the network first & foremost from the $50M+ they receive for their broadcast rights.  I will guarantee any dividends they take from owning a stake in the actual network is much smaller.

[Chicago White Sox]

5 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

I don't doubt he's stealing from the Bulls to fund the Sox there.  

So much wrong with all your posts on this, but this is just wow worthy that anyone could actually believe this.

[Chicago White Sox]

5 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

That was the deal when the Cubs were involved. It is probably somewhere around 27% for the teams themselves and 20% for NBC after the exodus for the Cubs. It still doesn't change that JR has the option of robbing the Bulls to give the Sox a better TV deal. 

?