Rick Hahn

[Marty34]

Look at the Sox ranks in MLB in wins and in attendance over the last 15-20 years. That's pretty much proof right there.

 

20 years, 4 post seasons and 1 World Series. Not enough to have a rabid fan base.

[cabiness42]

20 years, 4 post seasons and 1 World Series. Not enough to have a rabid fan base.

 

Well, that's your opinion, but teams with fewer total wins, postseason appearances, and WS wins, have had better attendance in the last 20 years, so by comparison, Sox fans are spoiled.

[southsider2k5]

20 years, 4 post seasons and 1 World Series. Not enough to have a rabid fan base.

 

The goalposts changed again?

 

Anyways, I didn't figure you had anything to back it up, just like any of the other proclamations you made in this thread.

[Marty34]

Well, that's your opinion, but teams with fewer total wins, postseason appearances, and WS wins, have had better attendance in the last 20 years, so by comparison, Sox fans are spoiled.

 

I think it's strange that Sox fans don't demand more from ownership. Instead they blame their fellow fan. It must be they are still feeling the effect of being beaten over the head for years by the media with "attendance problems."

Edited January 11, 2013 by Marty34

[Dick Allen]

I think it's strange that Sox fans don't demand more from ownership. Instead they blame their fellow fan. It must be they are still feeling the effect of being beaten over the head by the media with "attendance problems."

If fans aren't showing up, isn't it a sign fans are demanding more out of ownership? A team that wins 85 games and is in first place most of the year doesn't draw 2 million. To me, ownership isn't getting the benefit of the doubt.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Dick Allen

[cabiness42]

I think it's strange that Sox fans don't demand more from ownership. Instead they blame their fellow fan. It must be they are still feeling the effect of being beaten over the head for years by the media with "attendance problems."

 

It has nothing to do with the media. I'm fully capable of looking up historical attendance and win totals on my own and calculating that Sox attendance falls well below that of several teams who have won significantly less. I believe that ownership gives management a budget that is partly based on attendance and that management does the best it can to field a winning team based on that budget. I don't for a second believe that ownership is putting one dollar less into payroll than they are capable of.

[Marty34]

If fans aren't showing up, isn't it a sign fans are demanding more out of ownership?

 

Right, but Sox fans are so wrapped up in attendance that they blame their fellow fan for not going. Attendance is what it is, no excuse not to win.

[Dick Allen]

Right, but Sox fans are so wrapped up in attendance that they blame their fellow fan for not going. Attendance is what it is, no excuse not to win.

More people should have come out to the park last year. The fact is if more people came, the team would be in a position to do more financially and take some more risks. If people can't afford to go to games or don't have the time, so be it, but if you really think teams like the ones you want to be the White Sox to be like have White Sox-like revenue, that they still would bring in all these high priced players, you are just wrong.

 

Clearly they haven't won enough, I agree with you there. But I don't think it's the size of the payroll, which is ownership's responsibility, that has caused it.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Dick Allen

[ScottyDo]

Right, but Sox fans are so wrapped up in attendance that they blame their fellow fan for not going. Attendance is what it is, no excuse not to win.

Not to win or not to spend? Because it's a perfectly good excuse not to spend. You have to operate within tighter budgets if your revenue is low (which is not the same as attendance but is correlated).

[hogan873]

20 years, 4 post seasons and 1 World Series. Not enough to have a rabid fan base.

 

 

Well, that's your opinion, but teams with fewer total wins, postseason appearances, and WS wins, have had better attendance in the last 20 years, so by comparison, Sox fans are spoiled.

There's a difference between a fan base and the number of fans that attend the games. The Sox have a big fan base, and I would argue that of true baseball fans, their fan base is bigger than most people think.

 

Marty, I will admit that you are very good and finding things to argue about. This thread has been veering back and forth between attendance and wins, and you have been camping out on the sides with few, if any, other supporters. And then you ask for proof/links/documentation to support the posts of others. Yet you have not offered anything to support your posts.

 

We all have opinions, and almost everything we've been discussing here are opinions. None of us know what Hahn has cooking. None of know that Sox ownership is or isn't doing what they can to improve attendance. All we can do is speculate. What's happening is that no one's opinions are being respected because everyone thinks those with opposing views are wrong.

 

As far as the fan base/attendance argument, short of going to the commissioner and demanding the Cubs be moved to another city, there's not a lot the Sox can do to drastically improve attendance. Having a team that wins a bunch of games and makes it to the post season on a regular basis will help, but the boost in attendance would happen AFTER the fans start seeing the product on the field. The Sox have cut prices for 2013, and that's a good step. I'm sure a few more moves will be made to improve the team, but the Sox will not be making a big splash. They just don't have the money. But, I think the team will be good enough to compete in the division. Note I said compete, not necessarily "win".

 

Enough facts have been put out in this thread to show that the Sox have actually put decent teams on the field over the past 10-20 years. The Sox should have done better some years, and they probably should have made the playoffs a few more times, but like last year, sometimes it's the players. Or like in 2011, sometimes it's the manager.

 

Show me a baseball fan who loves everything their team's ownership does, and I'll show you someone who doesn't follow baseball. The Sox ownership has done some good things, and they've done some bad things. Overall, however, I feel that they've done a decent job over the years. To say we need new ownership because the team hasn't made it to the playoffs every year is ridiculous.

 

 

[Marty34]

It has nothing to do with the media. I'm fully capable of looking up historical attendance and win totals on my own and calculating that Sox attendance falls well below that of several teams who have won significantly less. I believe that ownership gives management a budget that is partly based on attendance and that management does the best it can to field a winning team based on that budget. I don't for a second believe that ownership is putting one dollar less into payroll than they are capable of.

 

I say it's time for a new owner then. One that has a better plan for "sustained success" given the constraints of the revenue streams or an owner that has deeper pockets.

[Dick Allen]

I say it's time for a new owner then. One that has a better plan for "sustained success" given the constraints of the revenue streams or an owner that has deeper pockets.

One that is willing to take a bath every year so you might be happy? Good luck with that.

 

White Sox fans wouldn't go to games because the seats were blue. Then they wouldn't go because the team wasn't winning enough, then they get their green seats and have a team in first place and tickets are too expensive. 2013 they will have affordable tickets, green seats and a team that should be decent. We will see what happens

Edited January 11, 2013 by Dick Allen

[ScottyDo]

I say it's time for a new owner then. One that has a better plan for "sustained success" given the constraints of the revenue streams or an owner that has deeper pockets.

Deeper pockets has almost nothing to do with it. Revenue drives spending, and perhaps there's some positive feedback, but no owner is willing to operate at a loss for long (unless they're gonna die soon like Ilitch), so there is a very narrow range within which any owner can operate.

 

Reinsdorf's long-term vision I cannot necessarily argue with, as results have been solid but not stellar, but I am not convinced that there is a persistent top-down problem. It's purely a speculative matter either way.

[Marty34]

One that is willing to take a bath every year so you might be happy? Good luck with that.

White Sox fans wouldn't go to games because the seats were blue. Then they wouldn't go because the team wasn't winning enough, then they get their green seats and have a team in first place and tickets are too expensive. 2013 they will have affordable tickets, green seats and a team that should be decent. We will see what happens

 

This is media brainwashing, particularly on the SCORE. "The Sox fan doesn't appreciate all that Chairman Reinsdorf has given him."

[southsider2k5]

This is media brainwashing, particularly on the SCORE. "The Sox fan doesn't appreciate all that Chairman Reinsdorf has given him."

 

I haven't heard that a single time on talk radio. Usually it is the opposite.

[southsider2k5]

One that is willing to take a bath every year so you might be happy? Good luck with that.

 

White Sox fans wouldn't go to games because the seats were blue. Then they wouldn't go because the team wasn't winning enough, then they get their green seats and have a team in first place and tickets are too expensive. 2013 they will have affordable tickets, green seats and a team that should be decent. We will see what happens

 

Just for historical sake, I am agreeing with Dick Allen.

[Dick Allen]

This is media brainwashing, particularly on the SCORE. "The Sox fan doesn't appreciate all that Chairman Reinsdorf has given him."

You obviously don't. The team was in the top 2 or 3 in wins for about a 15 year stretch. I'll post it again, if it really is so miserable for you, find a new hobby. You actually might become happy.

[Kyyle23]

Just for historical sake, I am agreeing with Dick Allen.

 

Noted. Post saved in archives

[Marty34]

You obviously don't. The team was in the top 2 or 3 in wins for about a 15 year stretch. I'll post it again, if it really is so miserable for you, find a new hobby. You actually might become happy.

 

Why do you turn things personal when someone disagrees with you?

[Dick Allen]

Why do you turn things personal when someone disagrees with you?

Wow, didn't see this coming. Obviously, everything about the White Sox bothers you. I don't know why you would continue to spend so much time complaining about something you can do nothing about. The funny thing is you go to games, giving Reinsdorf your money, therefore you actually are one of the people you complain about.

[RockRaines]

This thread is awesome, for me its post post, and then a bunch of ignored ones followed by frustrated responses.

[Marty34]

As far as the fan base/attendance argument, short of going to the commissioner and demanding the Cubs be moved to another city, there's not a lot the Sox can do to drastically improve attendance.

 

Are you saying longterm? Current ownership is very conservative, small risk/small reward type. I believe the Sox are a sleeping giant that a new owner with fresh ideas and who builds a team that has "sustained success", would put 32-33,000 in the seats every night.

[Marty34]

This thread is awesome, for me its post post, and then a bunch of ignored ones followed by frustrated responses.

 

Thanks for the update. Next time we'll ask.

[Marty34]

Reinsdorf's long-term vision I cannot necessarily argue with, as results have been solid but not stellar, but I am not convinced that there is a persistent top-down problem. It's purely a speculative matter either way.

 

There is a problem that the plan the Sox have to "win a championship" is too expensive for them to execute. They either need to change the plan or improve the revenues. Instead of doing either, they stay in the middle.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Marty34

[LittleHurt05]

This thread is awesome, for me its post post, and then a bunch of ignored ones followed by frustrated responses.

 

That's how the "Non Roster Invites" thread is for me.