Interesting article comparing Cubs/Sox on attend vs. development

[caulfield12]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/colum...,6714531.column

 

 

Reading this article, it made me think of all those Sox prospects that have NOT been given playing time in the past like DeAza, Lillibridge (not that he was a "stud" prospect in the same realm as a Brett Jackson or Rizzo) or specifically Dayan Viciedo...

 

Almost the opposite of the article, that the "young phenoms" being promoted wasn't conducive to the "win now/all in" philosophy we've had for much of the Williams tenure.

 

Of course, our former manager had a proclivity for playing veterans over younger players.

 

Some would argue that he was "protecting" them from having too much pressure (like Beckham in 2009/10), others that he was jealous of any new "superstar" threatening his role as undisputed media darling for the Sox. Lots of theories out there as to why Ozzie didn't like MOST young players, exceptions being Beckham in 2009, Fields in 2007 (no choice), Alexei, Chris Sale in 2010, etc.

 

Or maybe it was simply if there was ANY doubt about the relative performance levels, Ozzie would invariably pick the veteran over the younger player.

Edited May 30, 2012 by caulfield12

[kev211]

I love how what you posted has nothing to do with the article you linked.

[caulfield12]

I love how what you posted has nothing to do with the article you linked.

 

 

The argument is that the Cubs can get away without promoting Rizzo or Brett Jackson right away, but that the Sox would need them for attendance purposes or building excitement/enthusiasm about the team.

 

But the White Sox held off promoting Viciedo for most of 2011, even when there was a clear need for his bat.

 

The opposite premise is more the truth...the White Sox can't afford to promote phenoms usually because their growing pains will inhibit the team's ability to compete in a "win now/all in" environment.

 

 

[Jake]

Regarding Caulfield's post, I'm going to go ahead and err on the side of Ozzie not having actual vendettas against young players. I think he was just a poor talent evaluator. I'm guessing that his personal philosophy values experience too highly and it made him almost unwittingly hold back young players.

 

The player that I still think he completely f***ed over was Brian Anderson. He had a horrid first half in that first season as a starter, but his second half was getting much better. Ozzie, though, was insistent on playing Rob Mackowiak at least 3 times a week. Anderson spent the entire season never getting more than 2-3 starts in a row and I can only imagine how hard it is to find an offensive rhythm or stay consistent with anything you're working on when you are habitually missing 30% of your at bats. Even so, the kid batted .250 in that second half but never was seen as a real full time option ever again. Now he's 31 which seems crazy because I still think of him as a young guy...

[Harry Chappas]

Was watching CSN last night and hoping for some more Sox coverage as MLBN had the Yanks on and ESPN was covering something silly.

 

What do I get to see. A 5 minute piece on Brett Jackson. So I am thinking he is having a great year and he Castro and Rizzo are on the cusp of greatness. After this piece up come the stats....I would not be in to big of a hurry to bring up Brett Jackson. Still makes me ill that the lowly Padres gave the cubs Rizzo.

[caulfield12]

Regarding Caulfield's post, I'm going to go ahead and err on the side of Ozzie not having actual vendettas against young players. I think he was just a poor talent evaluator. I'm guessing that his personal philosophy values experience too highly and it made him almost unwittingly hold back young players.

 

The player that I still think he completely f***ed over was Brian Anderson. He had a horrid first half in that first season as a starter, but his second half was getting much better. Ozzie, though, was insistent on playing Rob Mackowiak at least 3 times a week. Anderson spent the entire season never getting more than 2-3 starts in a row and I can only imagine how hard it is to find an offensive rhythm or stay consistent with anything you're working on when you are habitually missing 30% of your at bats. Even so, the kid batted .250 in that second half but never was seen as a real full time option ever again. Now he's 31 which seems crazy because I still think of him as a young guy...

 

 

And the counter-argument will always be, what did Brian Anderson or Josh Fields or Joe Borchard or whoever do after they left the White Sox?

 

If Ozzie ruined them so easily, what does that say about their mental fortitude to make it as big league ballplayers?

 

Wouldn't at least some of those guys be able to make an impact, if only in a Ryan Sweeney-esque, 4th outfielder kind of way?

 

Won't it be argued that BECAUSE Dayan was protected so much from adverse pitching match-ups against tough RHPers, it helped his career somehow?

Edited May 30, 2012 by caulfield12

[Iwritecode]

The Cubs market an experience and have for many years. Wins and losses don't matter. It's all about the sunshine, beer, girls and partying. Their season ticket base has been high for a long time but I think it's starting to come down.

 

The Sox on the other hand have to market the team on the field. Wins and losses matter very much.

 

[ptatc]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/colum...,6714531.column

 

 

Reading this article, it made me think of all those Sox prospects that have NOT been given playing time in the past like DeAza, Lillibridge (not that he was a "stud" prospect in the same realm as a Brett Jackson or Rizzo) or specifically Dayan Viciedo...

 

Almost the opposite of the article, that the "young phenoms" being promoted wasn't conducive to the "win now/all in" philosophy we've had for much of the Williams tenure.

 

Of course, our former manager had a proclivity for playing veterans over younger players.

 

Some would argue that he was "protecting" them from having too much pressure (like Beckham in 2009/10), others that he was jealous of any new "superstar" threatening his role as undisputed media darling for the Sox. Lots of theories out there as to why Ozzie didn't like MOST young players, exceptions being Beckham in 2009, Fields in 2007 (no choice), Alexei, Chris Sale in 2010, etc.

 

Or maybe it was simply if there was ANY doubt about the relative performance levels, Ozzie would invariably pick the veteran over the younger player.

This is true for most managers trying to win. You cannot have too many rookies on a team and win. It's a fine line but teams that win the the World Series do not have too many rookies on them.

[ptatc]

The Cubs market an experience and have for many years. Wins and losses don't matter. It's all about the sunshine, beer, girls and partying. Their season ticket base has been high for a long time but I think it's starting to come down.

 

The Sox on the other hand have to market the team on the field. Wins and losses matter very much.

I think this is true in more ways the one.

[Jake]

And the counter-argument will always be, what did Brian Anderson or Josh Fields or Joe Borchard or whoever do after they left the White Sox?

 

If Ozzie ruined them so easily, what does that say about their mental fortitude to make it as big league ballplayers?

 

Wouldn't at least some of those guys be able to make an impact, if only in a Ryan Sweeney-esque, 4th outfielder kind of way?

 

Won't it be argued that BECAUSE Dayan was protected so much from adverse pitching match-ups against tough RHPers, it helped his career somehow?

 

Josh Fields and Joe Borchard really both got pretty legitimate shots to be MLB regulars and floundered in those chances. Fields had a nice run for a while until they found out he couldn't hit a fastball. I feared for a bit that DV may have been having a Fields-esque run with his struggles hitting fastballs for the early part of the season and even the early part of his hot streak. Glad to say Dayan has been covering the fastball well by going the opposite way, something Fields was never capable of. Enough about that though. Those players were clearly too one dimensional to make it once we saw them in the MLB.

 

Anderson was certainly NOT mentally tough. My issue with Ozzie was that (at least with information we have as fans) he didn't develop him properly. Knowing that he was a bit sensitive to the frequent benchings should have motivated Ozzie to give him regular playing time, but Ozzie was insistent on punishing him for poor play. I think Ozzie didn't like how BA spent his free time and that's fine, but he held it against him when it came to playing time. In that important developmental time I would have liked to see a manager literally baby a player like that, so that he can get some success under his belt and possibly deal with adversity in the future. From what we know it seems that Ozzie interacted with him very little and didn't give him any consistent playing time. He needed to do one of those two things.

 

I know this is speculative and that's how it has to be since we are limited in info and we can't predict what would have happened had things changed. What we do know is that Brian hated hitting so much after leaving the White Sox that he became a pitcher. Maybe that type of attitude was unavoidable, but I like to think that a good coach could have at the least kept him from (more or less) leaving baseball.

 

Think of this year so far and how rarely Robin has given time off to Gordon and Brent Morel. Brent was by far the worst player in baseball and wasn't getting benched until he needed to for injury. We are seeing that confidence paying off in the case of Gordon.

[caulfield12]

Josh Fields and Joe Borchard really both got pretty legitimate shots to be MLB regulars and floundered in those chances. Fields had a nice run for a while until they found out he couldn't hit a fastball. I feared for a bit that DV may have been having a Fields-esque run with his struggles hitting fastballs for the early part of the season and even the early part of his hot streak. Glad to say Dayan has been covering the fastball well by going the opposite way, something Fields was never capable of. Enough about that though. Those players were clearly too one dimensional to make it once we saw them in the MLB.

 

Anderson was certainly NOT mentally tough. My issue with Ozzie was that (at least with information we have as fans) he didn't develop him properly. Knowing that he was a bit sensitive to the frequent benchings should have motivated Ozzie to give him regular playing time, but Ozzie was insistent on punishing him for poor play. I think Ozzie didn't like how BA spent his free time and that's fine, but he held it against him when it came to playing time. In that important developmental time I would have liked to see a manager literally baby a player like that, so that he can get some success under his belt and possibly deal with adversity in the future. From what we know it seems that Ozzie interacted with him very little and didn't give him any consistent playing time. He needed to do one of those two things.

 

I know this is speculative and that's how it has to be since we are limited in info and we can't predict what would have happened had things changed. What we do know is that Brian hated hitting so much after leaving the White Sox that he became a pitcher. Maybe that type of attitude was unavoidable, but I like to think that a good coach could have at the least kept him from (more or less) leaving baseball.

 

Think of this year so far and how rarely Robin has given time off to Gordon and Brent Morel. Brent was by far the worst player in baseball and wasn't getting benched until he needed to for injury. We are seeing that confidence paying off in the case of Gordon.

 

 

Where was Greg Walker in all this?

 

Except then we're back in the 1) in 2005-06, we weren't anywhere close to "rebuilding" and 2) before Orlando Hudson, there was no other option for the manager to play (Escobar and Lillibridge showed zero signs of life offensively), just like KW's the one responsible for giving up (in a way) on Anderson by acquiring Mackowiak and going away from the "one hitter in the line-up doesn't matter when the other 8 guys are hitting so well and he's playing such good defense" response to why they were sticking with BA in spite of his offensive woes.

Edited May 30, 2012 by caulfield12

[The Beast]

This is all sad but true. Cubs draw an increase of 2% with fewer wins. White Sox draw 2% fewer fans and have 5 more wins at this time last year. Given the amount of people in this city and the amount of following for the Cubs, how likely is it for the Sox to increase average attendance by 5,000-10,000 more fans by the end of the season? Is it logical to think there will be an increase if they can stay hot or are we not a large enough fan base to make it out to the park for Boyer and Co. to make their quota?

[Jake]

This is all sad but true. Cubs draw an increase of 2% with fewer wins. White Sox draw 2% fewer fans and have 5 more wins at this time last year. Given the amount of people in this city and the amount of following for the Cubs, how likely is it for the Sox to increase average attendance by 5,000-10,000 more fans by the end of the season? Is it logical to think there will be an increase if they can stay hot or are we not a large enough fan base to make it out to the park for Boyer and Co. to make their quota?

 

I don't know...we have had some very decent attendance years. There was even a time when nobody went to Cubs games. Winning will cure our ills, I have no fears of being a team like Tampa that wins and still nobody cares.

[caulfield12]

They said that Boyer and the marketing people were having to come in early these days to deal with new season/split season ticket package requests and walk-up sales.

 

That was inevitable with an 8 game winning streak (12 of 13), first place, offensive fireworks galore.

 

High 20's (27,000-30,000) is definitely realistic if their level of play continues.

 

You'd never expect to consistently start bringing in 30,000+ until the season after a World Series or deep playoff run (and lag/bandwagon effect), but I sincerely doubt Reinsdorf is going to hold back the reigns this season....knowing that it probably will be our best shot at it for the next 2-3 seasons.

 

Certainly, that window is closing again after 2013, with Konerko's contract expiring, and Dunn's the following season.

 

But it always comes back to starting pitching (cue cliche track).

 

 

[caulfield12]

In the last five years, the White Sox spent only $18.3 million on the draft, the lowest total among the 30 teams and almost $34 million less than the Pirates, who have been the biggest spenders. That's the biggest reason that the Sox have a farm system that doesn't get much love from national analysts.

 

"The draft is the biggest bargain in talent acquisition,'' Baseball America's Jim Callis said on WSCR-AM 670 last week. "If you're willing to spend $10 million a year, you can compete with anybody. I just don't believe Jerry Reinsdorf believes in paying amateur players.''

 

Callis said he'll be watching to see if the White Sox opt to spend their full allotment in the draft, as they spent only $2.8 million last year.

 

"I'll believe the White Sox aren't going to be the cheapest team in the draft when I see it,'' Callis said.

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...,2830493.column

 

 

 

Does make one wonder why they took those huge risks (comparatively) on Borchard and Viciedo...? Those two big bets seem to be the exception to the rule and represent $15.3 million in Sox investment/s.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2012 by caulfield12

[max power]

In the last five years, the White Sox spent only $18.3 million on the draft, the lowest total among the 30 teams and almost $34 million less than the Pirates, who have been the biggest spenders. That's the biggest reason that the Sox have a farm system that doesn't get much love from national analysts.

 

"The draft is the biggest bargain in talent acquisition,'' Baseball America's Jim Callis said on WSCR-AM 670 last week. "If you're willing to spend $10 million a year, you can compete with anybody. I just don't believe Jerry Reinsdorf believes in paying amateur players.''

 

Callis said he'll be watching to see if the White Sox opt to spend their full allotment in the draft, as they spent only $2.8 million last year.

 

"I'll believe the White Sox aren't going to be the cheapest team in the draft when I see it,'' Callis said.

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...,2830493.column

 

 

 

Does make one wonder why they took those huge risks (comparatively) on Borchard and Viciedo...? Those two big bets seem to be the exception to the rule and represent $15.3 million in Sox investment/s.

When I think about about the pirates, I don't usually think they can "compete with anybody".

 

Good question though, about borchard and dayan.

Edited June 4, 2012 by MAX

[caulfield12]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/new-draft-bon...-1-percent.html

 

And here's a great follow-up/companion piece by Jeff Passan.

 

As it applies specifically to the White Sox, it definitely will enhance our position vis a vis the Tigers, who threw a huge bonus at Porcello, for example. Not that Rick has become anything resembling a staff ace, YET.

 

Looks like the international free agent draft will be in 2014, and that $3.2 million per team will be available (for signing international free agents) instead of the previously reported $2.9 million.

 

And the Cardinals being included in the "small market" teams list for bonus picks that's supposed to help level the playing field...or the Brewers (?), that's a complete joke.

Edited June 4, 2012 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

With studios taking a big cut of every ticket sold, the only fixed income a theater owner can count on is his concessions. In the past, the studio cut, while always a hurdle, could be offset by a film with legs that would stay in theaters for weeks and weeks, with exhibs taking home a greater percentage the longer it remained onscreens. But these days, studios are pressing to shrink the release window to bring in ancillary coin more quickly.

 

"With a good theater, you look to have 10% profit at the end of the year," says Jon Goldstein of Highlight Investments, which oversees seven theaters via its stake in Emagine entertainment.

 

And while National Assn. of Theater Owners director of media and research Patrick Corcoran says those who buy concessions do so regularly, reportedly fewer than half of patrons buy anything other than a ticket. "Without those sales, you'd have to cover your expenses with a higher ticket price," Corcoran says.

 

Indeed, theater owners have a particular amount of overhead that needs to be covered by concessions, no matter the number of people who go to the stand. "All the people who say 'I bring my own food,' well, that's great, but you're causing the people around you to shoulder the burden of the cost of the business," Goldstein says. "I don't like that model, because you're punishing your best customers."

 

Getting most of theatergoers to regularly buy popcorn and Raisinets in the lobby is a concern of Craig Chapin, CEO of Allure Global Solutions, a provider of digital signage and other software. He says theater owners need to accent the positives of stopping by the concession stand by using signage that shows customers how many points they've accumulated when they swipe their loyalty cards.

 

"We're in a very unique space of being a single-visit, dual-transaction business," Chapin says, referring to box office and concessions as the two primary purchases of the moviegoing experience. "How do you have a cohesive message? The people who are doing it best are the ones thinking about (moviegoing) as one congruent model."

 

Goldstein sees a solution in a one-price model, by charging each patron $15 for admission and unlimited concessions. It didn't fly, he says, because the studios stepped in. "When they see 'bundling,' they want their percentage from that one price," he says.

 

Theater owners who redefine the movie experience may have more luck hitting building a better revenue model, but franchises like Brooklyn's Rerun Gastropub Theater or the Alamo Drafthouse (which recently announced plans to expand into New York City) are more restaurant than moviehouse. The percentage profit may be higher in such places, but they have bigger staffs and higher expenses. AMC Entertainment, too, which was just acquired for a record-setting $2.6 billion by Chinese investor Dalian Wanda, is looking to delve into the wine-and-dine sector -- and the company's latest cash infusion will make that easier. Cinemark has also made forays into the movie tavern approach, with varying degrees of success.Then there's the luxury theater market. Chains like Arclight and Landmark offer reserved seating, a retail connection (books, memorabilia) and memberships.

 

Tim League, founder and CEO of Alamo Drafthouse, says that while that model can work, those houses are just as reliant on the success of the industry as bigger chains. "It's dangerous to press concession and box office prices up to the point where you're getting a significant number of your customers who find it untenable," he says. "The reality is that the overall industry has to be healthy, even for us who offer alternatives."

 

Increasingly, filmgoing alternatives include renting out empty theaters midweek for group meetings or special events. Many theater owners are expanding their programming to include more than just movies, adding streamed performances of concerts, sports, town hall meetings, rotary gatherings and even giving individuals the ability to program -- and pre-pay for -- screenings via Tugg.com's crowdsourcing approach.

 

For his part, Joe Paletta, CEO of Spotlight Theaters, says he has aimed to make the exhib a "community meeting place," not just a space for movies.But success really boils down to showing a film that's so good customers don't notice how much it costs to go, and those don't come around every week. Once customers pay attention to prices, increasingly, they're opting out.

 

"It's a very delicate balancing act to get to the price point where we sense that the customer is getting value for what they're buying," Paletta says.

 

 

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118054907/

 

 

 

Thinking outside of the box here...

 

1) Ticket bundling (all you can eat, parking) could definitely work in some seating sections as an option or alternative.

It won't work in theatres because the film distributors want a portion of the profit from the food sales as well, but that wouldn't be true for most major league baseball stadiums.

 

2) Developing the ballpark more to draw attendance year-round through events like hockey games, football games, concerts, community events. This doesn't seem to work nearly as well on the SouthSide as for Wrigley.

 

3) They've always had the restaurant and luxury suites, so there's not much more they can do for the "wine and dine" crowd.

 

4) Maybe something more with "exclusive membership" packages for children and adults....for the Bulls/Sox academy, stadium tours, picnic in the park, fireworks shows, concerts, I don't know.

[southsider2k5]

When I think about about the pirates, I don't usually think they can "compete with anybody".

 

Good question though, about borchard and dayan.

 

And yet how many products of our farm system are contributing right now, both for the Sox, and around MLB?

[caulfield12]

The Yankees had a bottom 4 of Swisher, Andruw Jones, Jayson Nix and Chris Stewart a couple of days ago.

 

Also have Boone Logan, David Aarsdsma and Freddy Garcia.

 

 

We know the pitching names...enough to compete for the any division with Sale, Hudson, Gio, McCarthy, Richard, Harrell, etc.

 

It's the position players we've always had great difficulty developing, especially this last half decade. Unless you count Viciedo and Alexei, it's very bleak. Beckham might end up being a keeper after all, and that would be huge. And DeAza's kind of like a "found" lost prospect, too.