sox payroll hike in conjunction with cubs "rebuild"?

[cws0591]

This thought has been rolling around in my head ever since the slogan "all in" was introduced by the Whitesox. The cubs, as was told countless times towards the end of last season, were supposed to rebuild. this of course was the common belief before the cubs traded for Garza.To me this is a perfect opportunity for the sox to attract some of that fan base away from the north side, and really have a bump in attendance. I was just wondering for one if anyone else thinks that the cubs were a reason the sox decided to add payroll, and if so how much of a possibility is it for us to attract some of that fan base if we have a couple good seasons mixed with a couple more failing seasons by the cubs.

Please nothing about not wanting cub fan type people at the ballpark because when it comes down to it who cares if the guy is a dope. He is willing to pay $60 to get in the gates and another $60 for a jersey it will help my team compete.

Edited January 29, 2011 by cws0591

[Disco72]

I think the timing is coincidental. The Sox are at a point where (as many articles and JR himself said), it is time to go all in or rebuild. The Sox have long sought to bring the causual fan over to the "Sox" side of the spectrum, and this type of fan comes over when the team is winning (and stays when the team keeps winning). The Sox know that a rebuilding effort pretty much kills any momentum built up over the last decade and the 2005 World Series title.

 

However, it certainly helps the Sox if casual fans find nothing exciting on the north side and spend their ticket money on the south side instead.

[Brian]

I don't think the Cubs are rebuilding. They should, but they aren't

[cws0591]

I don't think the Cubs are rebuilding. They should, but they aren't

I agree that they are not rebuilding but it was widely thought that they were going too until they got Pena and traded for Garza.

[Quin]

I agree that they are not rebuilding but it was widely thought that they were going too until they got Pena and traded for Garza.

 

Which will do nothing but keep them out of the playoffs and towards the middle of the draft.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Um, I'm fairly certain [more like absolutely certain] that whatever we do or don't do is tied into what the Cubs do in any way shape or form. As far as us taking away some of their fan base, that ship has long sailed. We had our chance at that going in '06 and have failed pretty miserably since then. Basically, until we go on a run, something like what the Twins have done, the Cubs will always be king around here when it comes to sell-outs and popularity. And also, I don't know where one got the idea the Cubs were going into 'rebuild' mode. Soriano isn't going anywhere. Zambrano isn't going anywhere. Fukodome isn't going anywhere. Dempster's due almost 30 million the next two years. Silva ain't going anywhere. I guess Ramirez would be the only real attractive piece of all their high-priced players. But even then you'd have to find a legitimate match. Which wouldn't be easy considering he's only got 1 year and over 14 million due. The Cubs simply have too many horrid contracts to ever go into rebuild mod at least until after the '12 season.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Jordan4life

[Jordan4life_2007]

Which will do nothing but keep them out of the playoffs and towards the middle of the draft.

 

They're a distant 4th behind the Cards, Reds and Brewers. They had their chance in '08.

[Jerksticks]

Do you think their 300M spending spree a few years back was a reaction to our back to back 90 win campaigns? Or was it more of an investment idea for Zell: pumping money into the team to increase attendance, rebuild the excitement, increase the value of the team for the future sale. Either way, that man was a genius. He rode their hearts to hundreds of millions.

[LittleHurt05]

Do you think their 300M spending spree a few years back was a reaction to our back to back 90 win campaigns? Or was it more of an investment idea for Zell: pumping money into the team to increase attendance, rebuild the excitement, increase the value of the team for the future sale. Either way, that man was a genius. He rode their hearts to hundreds of millions.

 

It was 100% a business move by Zell. He basically said spend as much money as needed to get this team as close as you can to the WS, so that it will be worth more when I sell it. Hendry did exactly that, and got back-to-back playoff appearances and the best team in the NL in 2008. They choked in the playoffs and now those big contracts are destroying them.

[knightni]

This is like saying, because the president is of one party, that everyone will leave the other party and join the president's.

[SoxFan562004]

I really don't think so, I think a lot has to do with JR being 74 and realizing he doesn't want to go through a rebuild.

[Quincystandback]

They're a distant 4th behind the Cards, Reds and Brewers. They had their chance in '08.

 

The cubs are going to be distant in that division for a while.

[Quin]

They're a distant 4th behind the Cards, Reds and Brewers. They had their chance in '08.

 

They blew it badly too.

 

I just will never understand the Garza and Pena moves.

 

It was 100% a business move by Zell. He basically said spend as much money as needed to get this team as close as you can to the WS, so that it will be worth more when I sell it. Hendry did exactly that, and got back-to-back playoff appearances and the best team in the NL in 2008. They choked in the playoffs and now those big contracts are destroying them.

 

Zell was a genius.

 

Also, didn't he own part of the Sox before the Cubs?

[soxrwhite]

Too much talk about the National franchise from Chicago.

[Disco72]

Um, I'm fairly certain [more like absolutely certain] that whatever we do or don't do is tied into what the Cubs do in any way shape or form. As far as us taking away some of their fan base, that ship has long sailed. We had our chance at that going in '06 and have failed pretty miserably since then. Basically, until we go on a run, something like what the Twins have done, the Cubs will always be king around here when it comes to sell-outs and popularity. And also, I don't know where one got the idea the Cubs were going into 'rebuild' mode. Soriano isn't going anywhere. Zambrano isn't going anywhere. Fukodome isn't going anywhere. Dempster's due almost 30 million the next two years. Silva ain't going anywhere. I guess Ramirez would be the only real attractive piece of all their high-priced players. But even then you'd have to find a legitimate match. Which wouldn't be easy considering he's only got 1 year and over 14 million due. The Cubs simply have too many horrid contracts to ever go into rebuild mod at least until after the '12 season.

 

Rebuild or not, the Cubs likely won't be very good this year.

 

Also, I think you overly focus on the "world series" bump and not on the bigger picture. The Sox need to keep winning to keep their fan base engaged and buying tickets. The Sox have had one of the better decades in their history, and there is a "bump" that comes from that, even if they did squander an even greater opportunity by fading in 2006 and bombing in 2007.

 

Third, nobody is claiming the Sox are going to take any hard core Cub fans, but there is a group of casual baseball fans in Chicago, not to mention bandwagon fans, whose tickets sales are up for grabs.

[cws0591]

Rebuild or not, the Cubs likely won't be very good this year.

 

Also, I think you overly focus on the "world series" bump and not on the bigger picture. The Sox need to keep winning to keep their fan base engaged and buying tickets. The Sox have had one of the better decades in their history, and there is a "bump" that comes from that, even if they did squander an even greater opportunity by fading in 2006 and bombing in 2007.

 

Third, nobody is claiming the Sox are going to take any hard core Cub fans, but there is a group of casual baseball fans in Chicago, not to mention bandwagon fans, whose tickets sales are up for grabs.

this is mostly what i meant. I'm not saying that the only reason the sox increased payroll was for this. that would be ridiculous. I'm saying that for one the sox have a chance here to take on a larger market, and i would imagine that when discussing a possible payroll increase this was brought up.

[ScottyDo]

this is mostly what i meant. I'm not saying that the only reason the sox increased payroll was for this. that would be ridiculous. I'm saying that for one the sox have a chance here to take on a larger market, and i would imagine that when discussing a possible payroll increase this was brought up.

I wouldn't be surprised if it entered the equation. In your basic risk-reward analysis, the Cubs' rebuild-ish thing adds a little reward to the balance sheet if you go for it. The benefit might not be THAT sizable, and I doubt it was a centerpiece in their decision, but it's a nice little bonus.

[joeynach]

I think what u are talking about is pure coincidence. Consider all the facts. The sox had something like $80M committed coming into this offseason for 2011. A huge chunk of that was built around our pitching staff, which over the next couple years will see guys like Danks, Buehrle, Peavy, and Jackson become free agents so when you have the pitching core now, generally you go for it. Even if the sox made marginal or no additional FA signings, with their arbitration eligible players their payroll still would have been about $90-$100M. So JR was presented with two scenarios for this off season, pay $90M minimum for a 78 win team and play the kids at 1B, C, DH, bullpen, etc, or add an additional $25-35M to your payroll bring back PK, AJ, get Dunn, sign some bullpen guys and build a 90 game winner on paper. Obviously he choose the second option. I really dont think the cubs and their off season or strategy have anything to do with anything.

[Disco72]

I think what u are talking about is pure coincidence. Consider all the facts. The sox had something like $80M committed coming into this offseason for 2011. A huge chunk of that was built around our pitching staff, which over the next couple years will see guys like Danks, Buehrle, Peavy, and Jackson become free agents so when you have the pitching core now, generally you go for it. Even if the sox made marginal or no additional FA signings, with their arbitration eligible players their payroll still would have been about $90-$100M. So JR was presented with two scenarios for this off season, pay $90M minimum for a 78 win team and play the kids at 1B, C, DH, bullpen, etc, or add an additional $25-35M to your payroll bring back PK, AJ, get Dunn, sign some bullpen guys and build a 90 game winner on paper. Obviously he choose the second option. I really dont think the cubs and their off season or strategy have anything to do with anything.

 

The Sox did not make the decision because of the Cubs situation, but you cannot ignore that the Cubs are the Sox's biggest competition for ticket sales. Putting a winning product on the field while the Cubs are not certainly helps the Sox significantly, especially as the Sox continue on their quest to build the Sox into a team that is not the "second" team in the city.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

The Sox did not make the decision because of the Cubs situation, but you cannot ignore that the Cubs are the Sox's biggest competition for ticket sales. Putting a winning product on the field while the Cubs are not certainly helps the Sox significantly, especially as the Sox continue on their quest to build the Sox into a team that is not the "second" team in the city.

How do you figure? Sox-Cubs is one of the biggest rivalries in baseball. If anything, the Brewers are competition for the Sox, not the Cubs, since Sox fans can easily make the drive to Miller Park and watch a good baseball game in (IMO) a better atmosphere with better prices. There can't be too many better places to tailgate than Miller Park.

 

The Sox are there for the diehards, but they need to win. The Cubs, if anything, actually help the Sox. Cubs series tickets are always the hottest tickets at the Cell, and no matter what the Cubs are doing, just the fact that they're there helps keep the focus on the game of baseball itself. If there were no Cubs in Chicago then nobody would care about baseball when the Sox are bad. I also think the rivalry is a great thing to have, and it generally encourages Sox fans and Cubs fans to take more pride in their respective teams than maybe they otherwise would have. Sox and Cub fans wear their allegiances like a badge of honor because of the rivalry, so I think both actually benefit each other.

 

Going to see the Sox can be a big commitment for a lot of people in the burbs considering the commute and the pricing, so understandably they have to have a reason to make the trip. If the Sox can win something this year (at least make the ALCS), and if JR & co. can get enough money back to keep a $130M payroll heading into 2012, then there's definitely reason for optimism re: an even higher payroll in the future, as early season fan interest + a season of good baseball = fans showing up and spending money. But no matter what the case is, I don't think the Cubs success or failure will ever have much if anything to do with it.

 

BTW I'm not really a fan of all the Sox-are-the-2nd-team stuff either. They get a lot of support from the suburbs, more than enough to pack the house to the degree necessary to support a top-6/7 payroll, but they just have to win to do that. The Cubs OTOH attract a s***load of fans all the time, but Wrigley Field and the establishments around it have a whole lot to do with that. Take that away and IMO it would be pretty close, and sooner or later the need for a more modern facility is a reality the Cubs will have to face. The Cubs however are without question the first team nationally, but the Sox are very capable of picking up some more fans nationally (or retaining transplants) given the greater number of national broadcasts now. In short, I think the "2nd team in the second city" stuff, at least in current times, is mostly a product of Wrigley's value and the Sox ugly little habit of choking on the Twins when it counts. It's also an excuse for not winning. Blaming the fans for not showing up to watch a crappy/water-treading team is blaming the consumer for not purchasing an inferior product, and that's just retarded.

[Disco72]

How do you figure? Sox-Cubs is one of the biggest rivalries in baseball. If anything, the Brewers are competition for the Sox, not the Cubs, since Sox fans can easily make the drive to Miller Park and watch a good baseball game in (IMO) a better atmosphere with better prices. There can't be too many better places to tailgate than Miller Park.

 

It is pretty basic business strategy. If someone is going to buy sports tickets, they have the option of buying tickets to any of the major sports teams in Chicago. Milwaukee is not a substitute product except for those in the northern suburbs. If you want to buy tickets to a summer sporting event, you choose between Sox and Cubs.

 

One anecdote....a friend of mine works for the Braves. His biggest "rivals" from a ticket sales perspective are the other sports teams in Atlanta, and to a lesser extent, other means by which people can spend their entertainment dollars (movies, concerts, etc). For casual fans, the Sox and Cubs are substitutes for each other. As I've stated above, this is not about die hard fan bases, but instead about the bandwagon type fans that take attendance from 30,000 to capacity.

 

Further, I think your argument tends to ignore that the Sox have outdrawn the Cubs many times in the past, just not much in the recent past. The more the Sox can appeal to the casual fan as well as non-baseball fans that they can draw to the sport, the better off they'll be.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

It is pretty basic business strategy. If someone is going to buy sports tickets, they have the option of buying tickets to any of the major sports teams in Chicago. Milwaukee is not a substitute product except for those in the northern suburbs. If you want to buy tickets to a summer sporting event, you choose between Sox and Cubs.

 

One anecdote....a friend of mine works for the Braves. His biggest "rivals" from a ticket sales perspective are the other sports teams in Atlanta, and to a lesser extent, other means by which people can spend their entertainment dollars (movies, concerts, etc). For casual fans, the Sox and Cubs are substitutes for each other. As I've stated above, this is not about die hard fan bases, but instead about the bandwagon type fans that take attendance from 30,000 to capacity.

 

Further, I think your argument tends to ignore that the Sox have outdrawn the Cubs many times in the past, just not much in the recent past. The more the Sox can appeal to the casual fan as well as non-baseball fans that they can draw to the sport, the better off they'll be.

I just can't buy this at all.

 

Imagine a family of four having a desire to watch a live MLB game but yet not one individual in the group has his/her desire backed by even a passing interest in a particular team, which would be enough to make a clear decision with regards to what team to go see. The only thing I could think of would be a family where maybe the father and the son are fans of one team, and the mother and daughter are fans of the other, so maybe they decide to go with the better team that year. But how many times would that happen?

 

I disagree also that Miller Park is only an alternative to people in the Northern burbs. If you're only planning on going to game or two per year, and you're as much interested in the tailgating as the game itself, then the extra bit of driving required probably doesn't mean a whole lot anyway considering you're already taking an entire day out of your schedule and devoting it to the game.

 

The idea of sitting around deciding how to divvy up entertainment dollars is pretty nuts to me too. Baseball games are going to be separate for most people. Movies, trips to arcades, going out to eat, going to the mall, etc. are generally quite a bit cheaper than baseball games, and these things happen spur of the moment, or are maybe planned a day or so in advance. But baseball games people will plan for well in advance, months in advance sometimes, and their financial states may decide how many games they'll take in per year. A baseball game would IMO be a lot like Six Flags or a water park, a concert, going to the museum/aquarium, etc. where if you can afford it maybe you go/take your kids several times per year, but generally you'd plan to hit it at least once no matter what, and it's always a separately budgeted thing. I just don't think people would ever say "Well it costs me $350 to take the family out to the game so instead of doing that we'll just go see a movie a few more times, because several trips to the theatre is a reasonable substitution for a baseball game." It's more like "I don't have the money to go to the game now, and I suck at saving my money, so we'll just go to the movies because there's really no other option."

 

I agree that the more the Sox appeal to the casual fan the better they'll do, but even the casual fans assert their allegiances, and at least in my experience they seem to be even more assertive about what team they prefer. Usually the overly boisterous "Cubs/Sox suck!" people don't know a whole hell of a lot about either team. So I can see how, for instance, adding to the area around the Cell would get more casual Sox fans to come see the Sox, but I can't see how improving the area around the Cell would attract casual Cub fans to see the Sox, at least not unless there is some other circumstance, like dating a Sox fan, or having a Sox fan friend, etc.

[Disco72]

I just can't buy this at all.

 

I understand your point of view, but let me counter with this: when a team is winning (any team) and the stadium is suddenly full, are these latent fans of the team (e.g., the Sox) that just hadn't spent the money on the team and now decide to come to more games? Or is there a significant number of "casual" and "bandwagon" fans that fill the stadium? (Ok, that's a false dichotomy since I think it is some of both.)

 

Also, how do you build a fan base? How do you engage that family of four so that they spend their entertainment money on a few extra Sox games per year instead of something else? So that when the sons/daughters of that family grow up, they also bring their kids to games on the South side?

 

I think the Sox are doing what Anaheim is doing, albeit in a less publisized way: trying to move the long term fan base in the area towards a Sox orientation. I think you do that by consistently winning (and also with lesser things like making the park more family friendly).

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I understand your point of view, but let me counter with this: when a team is winning (any team) and the stadium is suddenly full, are these latent fans of the team (e.g., the Sox) that just hadn't spent the money on the team and now decide to come to more games? Or is there a significant number of "casual" and "bandwagon" fans that fill the stadium? (Ok, that's a false dichotomy since I think it is some of both.)

 

Also, how do you build a fan base? How do you engage that family of four so that they spend their entertainment money on a few extra Sox games per year instead of something else? So that when the sons/daughters of that family grow up, they also bring their kids to games on the South side?

 

I think the question kind of answers itself in a way. If the fans are there when the team is winning, but they're absent when the team is losing, then the winning is clearly attracting the fans. And if that's the case, they must be fan enough to recognize and appreciate the difference between a good team and a bad team, and they clearly care enough to apply specific conditions to their attendance, meaning they're there for more than just "a day at the park" or whatever. So with that said I couldn't see how someone who would attend Sox games based on their on-field performance could interchangeably attend Cubs games, which is kind of what the "Cubs as competition" theory depends on.

 

BTW I'm not disputing what you're saying in general practice, because it makes a lot of sense, and most of the time I think you'd be right on the money. But I just don't think it applies to the Cubs-Sox relationship. Even people who don't know a damn thing about baseball (and there are a lot of them) seem pretty eager to identify with one or the other, often for family reasons, and would be considered casual fans because they actually have a reason to buy tickets. The other people who don't identify with a particular team and probably don't care about baseball at all are not bandwagoners though, they're not even fans, they're just people who are brought along for the experience. And those people can't be reached anyway, so there's no point in spending money trying to, because they can think of a thousand other things to spend their money on than tickets to a baseball game, and they only matter in the sense that ownership must find ways to make money off these people while they're at the park. The idea is to market to the casual fans who have their allegiances, and then get these people to bring the non-fans to the game. The non-fans can then develop allegiances and become casual or hardcore fans simply by association with a relative/friend/significant other who is a fan, but there's no use in the team going out of it's way to advertise to these people, because their fandom is likely to be the result of a close personal relationship and therefore mostly emotional anyway.

 

So I just don't think you're going to be able to appeal to Cubs fans unless there's, again, some special circumstance, like cheap tickets, a Cub fan friend/family member, etc. I wouldn't call the Cubs competition because they're not out there for the taking IMO. Being a Cubs fan to them is an identity the same way being a Sox fan is to us. I guess it's kind of like politics and being a staunch democrat or republican, except that most people fall somewhere in the middle as it is and therefore can be swayed depending on a particular stance on a particular issue, and also, the subject matter is far more important in real life than sports, so switching allegiances becomes ideological, financially motivated, etc. This differs from the Cubs-Sox dynamic because there's no real ill effects for the casual fan during a bad baseball season, so there's no real reason to switch to a currently superior product - especially when the state of the product is always in flux, and there are family connections to boot. There are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of Cubs/Sox fans out there who would say "My (mother/father/grandparent/etc) would turn over in his grave if he/she ever saw me in a _____ jersey." And many if not most of the people who would say these things probably couldn't even name the starting rotation of their favorite team.

 

I think the Sox are doing what Anaheim is doing, albeit in a less publisized way: trying to move the long term fan base in the area towards a Sox orientation. I think you do that by consistently winning (and also with lesser things like making the park more family friendly).

 

I think the Angels have to go about things differently than the Sox because LA was always a Dodgers town. Chicago OTOH has a rich history with both clubs. There are multiple generations of Sox and Cubs fans all over the country, I mean my own family's Sox fandom spans 4 generations. There are lots of people like that. The Angels I don't think ever had the support the Sox have had historically. Maybe they draw great now. Maybe there are a lot of diehard Angels fans out there now. But I just can't see it comparing to the Sox. That franchise was established in 1961 and didn't finish in first until 1979. They've gone through 3 name changes, and watched as Oakland and the Dodgers and the Giants ran out the biggest names in California. They had Nolan Ryan, but my god look at all the legends that came through those other places. Look at the Dodgers. They moved from Brooklyn to LA in 1958 but date back to 1884. Sandy Koufax, Fernando Valenzuela, Kirk Gibson's walk-off etc. just look at all the history there. The Dodgers are 5-4 in World Series appearances since moving to LA, while the Angels are 1-0 in franchise history.

 

On the Sox side of it, they have the history, they have the deep roots, everything. The Cubs weren't exactly the Dodgers either. They have got about as much publicity around the world that you can ask for a sports team just because so many people love their colors, and because the Black Sox scandal was one of the biggest sports stories ever. All they need to do is win and the fans will be there.

[ScottyDo]

I can say from experience that there are quite a few people out there who purport to cheer for "any Chicago team", and given the choice between a competitive team and non-competitive team, will choose the competitive one. While I agree that the relationship is adversarial amongst much of the fanbase, there are the ever-elusive few who can go either way and whose money is still green. I think there's got to be some competition for their dollar sign, albeit less than in Los Angeles. Why wouldn't you try to get their support if you could?