iamshack Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Comparing a mlb franchise to a restaurant is such a great analogy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Soxfest @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 12:33 PM) Are you going to justify the Rios contract? Terrible contract no matter what he is doing currently. Not that you are wrong, but 2 of the 3 seasons we have had Rios, he has been worth more than he has made. 2011 being the odd-year-out, and it just so happen to be SOOO bad that it actually negates all the positive value he provided in those other 2 seasons for us. Edited June 21, 2012 by JoeCoolMan24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 There should be no rebuilding with this franchise. We have the resources to always put a competitive product out there like we have now. The trick is not to get all emotional if this product doesn't surge to 100 wins and trade away the future for a short term shot at the title of a weak division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 05:18 AM) There should be no rebuilding with this franchise. We have the resources to always put a competitive product out there like we have now. The trick is not to get all emotional if this product doesn't surge to 100 wins and trade away the future for a short term shot at the title of a weak division. If this year is proving anything, there is no way in hell Sox fans will support a rebuild. This team has to field a team with .500 as its low end with the hope of a division title if things go well. This team will draw embarrassingly low totals of fans (under 10,000 nightly) if the team was a 90-100 loss team for a 2-3-4 year rebuilding span. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 12:44 PM) Not that you are wrong, but 3 of the 4 seasons we have had Rios, he has been worth more than he has made. 2011 being the odd-year-out, and it just so happen to be SOOO bad that it actually negates all the positive value he provided in those other 3 seasons for us. Huh? 2010 the first half and 2012 (so far)....but 2009 and 2011? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 01:05 AM) Huh? 2010 the first half and 2012 (so far)....but 2009 and 2011? Sorry, I meant 2 of the 3 seasons, 2010 and 2012, with 2011 being the s*** year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:34 PM) Comparing a mlb franchise to a restaurant is such a great analogy... What another great post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 10:44 PM) At some point I will go find you this evidence, Dick...tonight I do not have the time nor the energy. That being said, yes, we have a high revenue because we are in a major market. We also correspondingly spend a high dollar figure on payroll. This is obvious and has been pointed out numerous times. The fact remains that will more attendance dollars, more money can be put into payroll. The Rangers, who we both mentioned, have increased their payroll from $65 million in 2010 to $92 million in 2011, and $121 million in 2012. Meanwhile, ours decreased from $128 million in 2011 to $98 million in 2012. These figures are at least partially tied to attendance. You don't decrease your payroll 30 million from one year to the next for s***s and giggles. That is directly a response to attendance and decreasing revenues. You don't have any evidence, yet know I can't possibly be right. Everyone talks about their fans not showing up, you just have no examples. My point is charging less than $90 for a bleacher seat would increase White Sox revenues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balfanman Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 10:31 PM) That's a great great column http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...,2585309.column Way to go, Trib! But the Sox deserve some responsibility for keeping fans away during the most optimum week of the season. Thanks to dynamic pricing, City Series bleacher seats went for an outrageous $90 — hard for many families to justify in this economy. "I wasn't comfortable taking the prices for this series lower,'' Boyer said. "But, when all is said and done, we can look at it and learn from this.'' "I love that pressure,'' Boyer said. "There is a sense in our organization that none of us can throw, hit or run but we know we're contributing to the team on a daily basis.'' When Brooks came on board several years ago he did some great things to help attendance, and was he ever a breath of fresh air compared to the likes of Rob Gallas (ewww); but man these statements from him really reeks of stupidity and lack of foresight to me. I guess that the marketing department has been "playing" like the team in recent weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 10:04 PM) A poster on another site hit the nail on the head regarding White Sox attendance. He wrote if no one is laughing at a comic, its not the crowd. Considering this is an annual topic, maybe JR needs to find someone who can do something about it. It hasn't been a topic since 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (CSF @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 10:40 PM) And how was an important portion of that built? By averaging 72 wins from '86-89. Those records also turned into McDowell, Ventura, Thomas, & Fernandez. there would be mass suicide on Soxtalk if we won 72 games a year over 4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (Soxfest @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:06 PM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...,2585309.column Just posted tonight, fits right into the thread. QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:31 PM) That's a great great column http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...,2585309.column Way to go, Trib! Right on cue, the nice and lazy media playing the meatball contingent like a fiddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (balfanman @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 06:53 AM) But the Sox deserve some responsibility for keeping fans away during the most optimum week of the season. Thanks to dynamic pricing, City Series bleacher seats went for an outrageous $90 — hard for many families to justify in this economy. "I wasn't comfortable taking the prices for this series lower,'' Boyer said. "But, when all is said and done, we can look at it and learn from this.'' "I love that pressure,'' Boyer said. "There is a sense in our organization that none of us can throw, hit or run but we know we're contributing to the team on a daily basis.'' It sounds like the Sox are trying to find that optimum selling point and they over guessed the limit. Now the fans have spoken with their attendance and the Sox will have to adjust. They actually already have with those $5 bleacher deals and the "save of the week" deals and such. The exact same thing is happening on the North Side too. Bleacher tickets vs. the Red Sox were $100 face due to dyanmic pricing. The only difference is that the Cubs have their own brokers buying up tickets, so their attendance numbers don't drop. But if you look at the stands, there are way less fans than a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 07:39 AM) It sounds like the Sox are trying to find that optimum selling point and they over guessed the limit. Now the fans have spoken with their attendance and the Sox will have to adjust. They actually already have with those $5 bleacher deals and the "save of the week" deals and such. The exact same thing is happening on the North Side too. Bleacher tickets vs. the Red Sox were $100 face due to dyanmic pricing. The only difference is that the Cubs have their own brokers buying up tickets, so their attendance numbers don't drop. But if you look at the stands, there are way less fans than a few years ago. Not to mention their prices on the secondary market have literally been at giveaway levels. Expect a massive drop in attendance next year for the Cubs, as the professionals aren't going to take that hit again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 07:32 AM) It hasn't been a topic since 2005. Sox attendance and how it means the Sox can't spend a dollar if they only have $.50 hasn't been a topic since 2005? The Sox were a top ten revenue team last year, and may have dropped a little this year, but even with the attendance not being very high, they probably are in the upper half in terms of revenue in MLB. If they want to use attendance as an excuse not to add payroll, I think its weak. I wasn't expecting any payroll to be added anyway, and I think the majority of Sox fans thought like me. Crying poor hasn't brought out the fans. They need to try something else. Edited June 21, 2012 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 08:56 AM) Sox attendance and how it means the Sox can't spend a dollar if they only have $.50 hasn't been a topic since 2005? The Sox were a top ten revenue team last year, and may have dropped a little this year, but even with the attendance not being very high, they probably are in the upper half in terms of revenue in MLB. If they want to use attendance as an excuse not to add payroll, I think its weak. I wasn't expecting any payroll to be added anyway, and I think the majority of Sox fans thought like me. Crying poor hasn't brought out the fans. They need to try something else. Is it possible that the Sox believe having their GM make statements about attendance to put pressure on their fanbase is actually an occasionally effective way of pushing attendance/revenue higher? As has been pointed out repeatedly, even when KW cries poor, he usually immediately responds by taking on a Peavy/Rios/Vazquez level contract. So even if he's saying they're poor, they don't use it as an excuse to avoid adding payroll, even if it's just a relaly big gamble to try to fill a need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy the Clown Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 And how was an important portion of that built? By averaging 72 wins from '86-89. Those records also turned into McDowell, Ventura, Thomas, & Fernandez. Do you really think the only difference between Himes and KW is draft position? If those 4 had come through a KW regime, there's a decent chance they would have been peddled for mediocre veterans before reaching the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy the Clown Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 If this year is proving anything, there is no way in hell Sox fans will support a rebuild. This team has to field a team with .500 as its low end with the hope of a division title if things go well. This team will draw embarrassingly low totals of fans (under 10,000 nightly) if the team was a 90-100 loss team for a 2-3-4 year rebuilding span. Sox fans are educated; you should give them a little more credit. They won't support a half-assed rebuild, no. But, if the team had a defined direction with a quality farm system to support it, I think you would be surprised at the attendance. Fans want to hope for the future. They will support something if they can envision a better future for the organization. Look at our minor league system now, and show me where the hope is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 08:11 AM) Sox fans are educated; you should give them a little more credit. They won't support a half-assed rebuild, no. But, if the team had a defined direction with a quality farm system to support it, I think you would be surprised at the attendance. Fans want to hope for the future. They will support something if they can envision a better future for the organization. Look at our minor league system now, and show me where the hope is. So fans aren't going to games in Chicago, because of what is at Birmingham? Right. Excuse me while I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 08:11 AM) Sox fans are educated; you should give them a little more credit. They won't support a half-assed rebuild, no. But, if the team had a defined direction with a quality farm system to support it, I think you would be surprised at the attendance. Fans want to hope for the future. They will support something if they can envision a better future for the organization. Look at our minor league system now, and show me where the hope is. You can't be talking about the same fanbase. Past attendance numbers show that all that matters is what's on the field in Chicago. I'd bet half the fans at Sox games couldn't name where their AA team was even located. Edited June 21, 2012 by LittleHurt05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 08:05 AM) Do you really think the only difference between Himes and KW is draft position? If those 4 had come through a KW regime, there's a decent chance they would have been peddled for mediocre veterans before reaching the show. I totally disagree with this. KW doesnt have a long track record of giving up stellar talent. He usually peddles away mediocre talent, but a lot of it. Gio is an exception, but that guy was traded 4 times before he ever hit the bigs, and for some pretty good players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewokpelts Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) without looking at the books, and seeing how jerry spends the national money(tv, internet, merchandise, radio), it's hard to see where the sox fit financially. we do know they get 45-50 million from comcast alone, and probably a third of that from wgn. And we know the sox actually make more money than the cubs on tv rights(as wgn and comcast pay both the cubs and sox the same $ amount per game, BUT the cubs have more games on wgn, which pays less) now, as for the ticket revenue, yes, the cubs sell more tickets, and therefore bring in more ticket revenue. but ricketts have more debt(tied largely to the purchase of the team), not to mention larger operating expenses in the facility as well as payroll. that's why they made a big push to get more season ticket holders(especially in the bleachers, where they average $60 a game on a package). it appears jerry uses the ticket revenue to pay for player payroll, and the tv money for the larger operation. hence, why the sox dont offer more discounts to draw fans in. as for concessions/parking/merch, we know the state/city/county gets NOTHING from that aside from tax revenue, and that the sox have deals with thier concessionaires(levy and sportservice) where they split proceeds(what percentage, i dont know) as well as pay standard parking a fee to operate the lots. now, one thing to consider is that the tv deal is set for another 8-9 seasons, and that the current deal is now considered middle of the pack. we all have heard rumblings about tommy boy ricketts trying to get out of both the comcast and wgn deals and possibly start a new station for cubs games(with some rumours attaching the hawks as a "winter partner"), but he is in the SAME boat the sox are in. that is, locked in long term. the sox have the advantage here in that IF the cubs were to leave comcast, or wish to sell thier stake, jerry has right of first refusal in the cubs' stake in the channel(potential purchase price is unknown) . while tommy boy desperately needs the money to operate, he knows he cant really turn away from the annual profts csn gives his club. and that jerry, already controlling the majority of csn(via his bulls stake), can force any negotiation on tv rates to ensure his sox and bulls get increases as well. so i honestly dont see the cubs getting the 3 million tv deal payday anytime soon(unfortunately, same goes for the sox). Edited June 21, 2012 by ewokpelts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 08:15 AM) You can't be talking about the same fanbase. Past attendance numbers show that all that matters is what's on the field in Chicago. I'd bet half the fans at Sox games couldn't name where their AA team was even located. Let alone who any prospects are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 07:16 AM) I totally disagree with this. KW doesnt have a long track record of giving up stellar talent. He usually peddles away mediocre talent, but a lot of it. Gio is an exception, but that guy was traded 4 times before he ever hit the bigs, and for some pretty good players. Bottom line is, you're going to achieve this by default. The rate of attrition for minor league prospects is so great that if they are valued highly by the market, you can almost come out ahead by default sheerly by dumping them all if you're getting back proven veterans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 05:22 AM) You don't have any evidence, yet know I can't possibly be right. Everyone talks about their fans not showing up, you just have no examples. My point is charging less than $90 for a bleacher seat would increase White Sox revenues. No Dick, I have seen the statements before, I just didn't save them on my hard drive for immediate production at your whim. I worked 14 hours yesterday, so I sure as hell wasn't going to spend the few hours remaining after I got home seeking to provide "evidence" for you. Fact is, you don't have any evidence either, outside of these flimsy Forbes reports every year. With the certainty in which you discuss White Sox finances, one would think you are the damned Corporate CPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.