Obsessed with (the lack of) Sox off-season moves?

[southsider2k5]

Because he signed with the Reds, fortunately. And it can be argued, and it has been argued pretty much to nausea here (to the point where I just gave up on certain threads).

 

For $6 million over two years, I'd rather go with Owens at $400k.

[Princess Dye]

Why do you guys think Kenny didn't pull the trigger and get Willy Taveras to fill the lead off and center field void....can't argue with 68 stolen bags and a decent defensive center field

 

either

 

1) he has something else great up his sleeve, but that he's waiting for everyone's market value to sink like a stone (ie hudson in cf idea)

 

2) they dont want to do a thing to payroll

 

 

 

 

 

and the point here isnt that Taveras is great, but that we already know KW wanted him once

Edited December 31, 2008 by Princess Dye

[NorthSideSox72]

Our attendance can fall in a hurry. We went from 3rd in 1993 to 9th in 1995.

Not a good example. The Sox won a pennant in 1993, then the strike happened (which effected some teams more than others), plus it was no longer a new stadium honeymoon. And a drop from 3rd to 9th isn't terribly dramatic anyway.

 

The Sox had a waiting list for season tickets going into 2009. From what I am told, they are getting all those seated, but I don't think they will be much under their season ticket ceiling of low 20's average. So, you will automatically end up with an average in the 20k+ range with JUST season ticket holders over the course of the year.

 

Attendance, season-long, will not fall to 16 or 18k as some are saying. At worst, low to mid 20's.

 

[bmags]

I don't think the sox are going to be the only team with attendence issues this year, anyways.

[Hatchetman]

Not a good example. The Sox won a pennant in 1993, then the strike happened (which effected some teams more than others), plus it was no longer a new stadium honeymoon. And a drop from 3rd to 9th isn't terribly dramatic anyway.

 

A drop from 2.5 to 1.6 isn't terribly dramatic? The point is if you piss off the fans they will stop coming...in a hurry. And raising ticket prices, lowering payroll, and putting a sub-.500 team on the field is a pretty good way to piss of the fans.

 

[lostfan]

For $6 million over two years, I'd rather go with Owens at $400k.

Hell, me too, if our standards are that low. There is not nearly enough difference between them statistically to justify that.

[RockRaines]

I dont see us having a big drop off in attendance this year at all, season tickets renewed at about 100 percent plus walk up and weather fans. I think the team will be in it into the summer which helps as well. I dont forsee a huge drop off.

[Dick Allen]

A drop from 2.5 to 1.6 isn't terribly dramatic? The point is if you piss off the fans they will stop coming...in a hurry. And raising ticket prices, lowering payroll, and putting a sub-.500 team on the field is a pretty good way to piss of the fans.

I'm pretty sure they have 2 million pretty much a lock for 2009. I don't know about suite renewals. That is one area that probably will take a huge hit. I do agree that they are playing with fire IF KW is being straight and they do lower payroll as much as they have. If they don't win, it will bring attendance back to "The Kids Can Play" era.

 

Talking about being broke and asking people who are facing losing a job and/or other financial crisises for more money usually doesn't work. If the Sox don't win, the $.50 vs. $1.00 argument will be one heard by every ticket rep a year from now when the renewal rate goes bad.

[RockRaines]

I'm pretty sure they have 2 million pretty much a lock for 2009. I don't know about suite renewals. That is one area that probably will take a huge hit. I do agree that they are playing with fire IF KW is being straight and they do lower payroll as much as they have. If they don't win, it will bring attendance back to "The Kids Can Play" era.

 

Talking about being broke and asking people who are facing losing a job and/or other financial crisises for more money usually doesn't work. If the Sox don't win, the $.50 vs. $1.00 argument will be one heard by every ticket rep a year from now when the renewal rate goes bad.

If attendance lags early for walk up sales, they will put back in the half price nights, family deals, etc which will always help numbers. The Sox have been through hard times with the team, the economy and the competition from the cubs and have always come out ok.

[Hatchetman]

If attendance lags early for walk up sales, they will put back in the half price nights, family deals, etc which will always help numbers. The Sox have been through hard times with the team, the economy and the competition from the cubs and have always come out ok.

 

What are you talking about, "always come out ok?" This team drew a paltry 1.3 million in 98 and 99. the team failed to hit 2 million from 1994-2004. We're already off 500,000 since 2006.

[NorthSideSox72]

A drop from 2.5 to 1.6 isn't terribly dramatic? The point is if you piss off the fans they will stop coming...in a hurry. And raising ticket prices, lowering payroll, and putting a sub-.500 team on the field is a pretty good way to piss of the fans.

You cannot look at 93 to 95 attendence numbers in gross fashion like that - its ignoring a huge polluting factor, specifically the strike. ALL of baseball fell off.

 

So, now, that drop (RELATIVE, 3rd to 9th) was not terribly dramatic.

 

[bmags]

haha, do you all remember how poisonous that 94 strike was? My dad didn't watch a single game until Ripken broke the streak, then he took another few years off.

 

edit: so my point is that isn't a great analogy.

Edited December 31, 2008 by bmags

[caulfield12]

What are you talking about, "always come out ok?" This team drew a paltry 1.3 million in 98 and 99. the team failed to hit 2 million from 1994-2004. We're already off 500,000 since 2006.

 

This phenomenon has been studied year after year in terms of World Series teams...usually the "benefit" of that championship wears off after only five years. We're now into the fourth season, although the 2008 playoff appearance will spike it back up a little...with the countervailing force of the economy pulling it back down. We also tacked into a headwind with the Cubs becoming the dominant story in town over the last couple of seasons...and yet we're still going very strong. There's never been a huge crossover...like KW had hoped, in terms of pulling even with the Cubs as Chicago's team. I'm not sure that winning another World Series in 2006 would have done the trick, although it would have been interesting to see the effects 10-20 years later with those teenage fans who grew up with a championship team staying "brand loyal."

 

Yes, 500,000 is a lot, but there have been a few times in Old Comiskey (70's and 80's) they struggled to draw 1,000,000 fans for an entire season. Now it's only a 20-25% drop (only being relatively), but you have to expect to lose some of the "fair weather" ticket plans and also some of the walk-up generated by the promising start to that 2006 season, which lasted until August or so of that year when the team died on us.

 

The White Sox have always been one of the teams more driven by a winning product than by the stadium experience, although that has certainly improved over the last five years as well....Brooks Boyer also deserves a lot of credit, although, as Bill Veeck would always say, the greatest promotion at the major league level is simply a winning team.

 

[Hatchetman]

You cannot look at 93 to 95 attendence numbers in gross fashion like that - its ignoring a huge polluting factor, specifically the strike. ALL of baseball fell off.

 

So, now, that drop (RELATIVE, 3rd to 9th) was not terribly dramatic.

 

going from top quartile to bottom half is dramatic to me, but hey, whatever.

[NorthSideSox72]

going from top quartile to bottom half is dramatic to me, but hey, whatever.

There are 30 teams in baseball. 3rd to 9th is not dropping to the bottom half.

 

[lostfan]

haha, do you all remember how poisonous that 94 strike was? My dad didn't watch a single game until Ripken broke the streak, then he took another few years off.

 

edit: so my point is that isn't a great analogy.

I didn't watch any baseball until 1998 when I went to a Sox game with my HS baseball team, then not again until 2000. I paid passing attention to the Sox, and to players I liked like Griffey.

 

There is a giant black hole in my baseball memories thanks to the strike.

Edited December 31, 2008 by lostfan

[caulfield12]

going from top quartile to bottom half is dramatic to me, but hey, whatever.

 

Was that 3rd to 9th overall MLB attendance or just the American League?

 

No matter what happens, we have the minor league talent and payroll flexibility this year to make moves throughout the season to keep us in the race and competitive...unless we're just totally out of it like 2007.

[Hatchetman]

Was that 3rd to 9th overall MLB attendance or just the American League?

 

that is just the AL (14 teams).

 

[NorthSideSox72]

that is just the AL (14 teams).

And 17th in all of baseball, mid-pack.

 

Using a period over the strike year for any sort of attendance trend or comparison just doesn't mean anything.

 

Anyway, bottom line is still that the Sox have a floor of somewhere in the low 20's in attendance for 2009. They won't be dropping off into oblivion.

 

 

[Hatchetman]

Using a period over the strike year for any sort of attendance trend or comparison just doesn't mean anything.

 

Anyway, bottom line is still that the Sox have a floor of somewhere in the low 20's in attendance for 2009. They won't be dropping off into oblivion.

 

OK. let's go back the previous time the sox made the playoffs. after winning the division in 1983, attendance peaked in 84, which was third in the league. two years of suckitude later they had fallen down to 10th.

 

Over the past 43 years, the sox have only had attendance in the upper half of the league 13 times. WE DO NOT DRAW UNLESS WE WIN!

 

if the sox suck for a couple of years, we'll be right back at the bottom with a payroll of about $50 mil. of course we'll draw OK in 2009, most of the tickets are already sold.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK. let's go back the previous time the sox made the playoffs. after winning the division in 1983, attendance peaked in 84, which was third in the league. two years of suckitude later they had fallen down to 10th.

 

Over the past 43 years, the sox have only had attendance in the upper half of the league 13 times. WE DO NOT DRAW UNLESS WE WIN!

 

if the sox suck for a couple of years, we'll be right back at the bottom with a payroll of about $50 mil. of course we'll draw OK in 2009, most of the tickets are already sold.

You are missing some factors here, which will keep the Sox from getting that far down anytime soon...

 

--The stadium renovations have made for a ballpark experience much greater than the Sox have ever had before

--The excellent marketing programs, particularly those aimed towards families and kids, have permanently added draw

--The World Series factor is still important

--The Sox have really raised the amount of solid, young talent in the system the last few years, that will allow the team to be more competitive for less money in 2010 and forward

--Lots of expensive contracts drop off after 2009

--The new Metra station, and the dramatically improved neighborhood aspects near the park, make the area much more appealing to casual fans

--The relative recent success of the Sox - 3 divisions, 1 WS, and only one really bad season in the last 9 - has bred a new group of fans that won't all just drop off

--The kids-specific marketing and park aspects that have been added are breeding many more young fans than before - and this is a huge win for the future

 

Yes, the Sox are a team that draws based greatly on winning. But the floor is now much higher than it was.

 

[Dick Allen]

You are missing some factors here, which will keep the Sox from getting that far down anytime soon...

 

--The stadium renovations have made for a ballpark experience much greater than the Sox have ever had before

--The excellent marketing programs, particularly those aimed towards families and kids, have permanently added draw

--The World Series factor is still important

--The Sox have really raised the amount of solid, young talent in the system the last few years, that will allow the team to be more competitive for less money in 2010 and forward

--Lots of expensive contracts drop off after 2009

--The new Metra station, and the dramatically improved neighborhood aspects near the park, make the area much more appealing to casual fans

--The relative recent success of the Sox - 3 divisions, 1 WS, and only one really bad season in the last 9 - has bred a new group of fans that won't all just drop off

--The kids-specific marketing and park aspects that have been added are breeding many more young fans than before - and this is a huge win for the future

 

Yes, the Sox are a team that draws based greatly on winning. But the floor is now much higher than it was.

There still were a lot more empty seats in late August/ early September of this year than I'm sure the White Sox would have liked. I think maybe if the economy wasn't so bad, you would be dead on, but its something that could easily bring this team back to the mid 90's/early 2000s where even winning didn't guarantee good seats weren't available. They will be fine this season win or lose. But if they lose and they go with what they have now, I see a huge dropoff especially if a lot of people are correct and the economic situation is even worse a year from now. At least they are set up for that possibility with all the money coming off their books. They won't have to be pawning stuff off for pennies on the dollar or paying parts of contracts to unload guys.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Dick Allen

[lostfan]

Whenever I see DA post and he's agreeing with someone and isn't arguing with 10 people at once I laugh for some reason.

[NorthSideSox72]

There still were a lot more empty seats in late August/ early September of this year than I'm sure the White Sox would have liked. I think maybe if the economy wasn't so bad, you would be dead on, but its something that could easily bring this team back to the mid 90's/early 2000s where even winning didn't guarantee good seats weren't available. They will be fine this season win or lose. But if they lose and they go with what they have now, I see a huge dropoff especially if a lot of people are correct and the economic situation is even worse a year from now. At least they are set up for that possibility with all the money coming off their books. They won't have to be pawning stuff off for pennies on the dollar or paying parts of contracts to unload guys.

The economy will defintely play a role. Although, who knows what the economy will look like in the summer of 2010.

 

And I'm not saying that if they have a lousy 2009 that 2010 will be some huge attendance year. I'm sure it would drop off. I just don't think it will drop off as much as some people are saying, certainly not relative to other teams.

 

[caulfield12]

You forgot the Barack Obama factor in the attendance and merchandising, lol.

 

Well, that's a pretty extensive/good list of reasons not to fret. This is not the late 1980's, and Ivan Calderon is not our best player anymore. Young kids growing up with the World Series title in the back of their minds will start to identify more with the Sox if their allegiance wasn't already formed a childbirth.

 

All things considered, KW is going to be in a much more flexible position than he would be had he kept Cabrera, Swisher, Crede, Uribe, Griffey and Vazquez. With all of those players returning, would we be again favored to win the AL Central? I don't really think so. Obviously, there's so much love out there for Cabs, Crede, Uribe and Griffey that it might be until February before they find teams, and I wouldn't be surprised if they (some) didn't even received guaranteed major league contracts. We won last year with pitching, surprise offensive performances from Ramirez/Quentin and a lot of smoke and mirrors.

 

Just think of the Cubs as another big Ponzi scheme (contracts for Soriano, Harden, Ramirez, Lee, Zambrano, Dempster, etc.) that will collapse/implode on itself at some point in the near future.

Edited December 31, 2008 by caulfield12