Jump to content

ewokpelts

Members
  • Content count

    1,518
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ewokpelts

  1. ewokpelts

    Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

    QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 23, 2016 -> 03:12 AM) http://losangeles.angels.mlb.com/ana/histo...son_results.jsp You're making my argument for me. The Angels appeared in the playoffs in 2004, 05, 07, 08 and 2009. The World Series was JUST 9 years behind them. Compare to the White Sox. 14 years since the World Series. Only one playoff appearance in the last eight years. The Angels had 5 out of 6 years and then began to struggle a bit in 2010, but had some pieces in place and Trout on the way. They had one of the highest spending owners (west of Ilich) in Arte Moreno and consistent Top 5-7 MLB attendance and tv ratings for a decade. I'm not seeing one common thread between the White Sox and the Angels, except them both being "second" teams in their cities. To summarize, Angels, 5 out of 7 years heading into 2011 and 6 out of 9. And the Chicago/LA media markets, but Chicago's still significantly smaller and more compressed. The White Sox have barely made the playoffs six times in the last century (not counting the 1919 team since they were kicked out of baseball). The White Sox were 30th in tv ratings...dead last. That doesn't scream Angels, it screams Milwaukee/Seattle/Colorado/Arizona/St Louis/Detroit in terms of a broadcast rights deal. 1959 1983 1993 2000 2005 2008 lay off the crack. the angels got a massive deal DESPITE s***ty ratings. the same angels that were #24 in ratings at the all star break in 2015. http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/201...g/#5789ed0e25a4
  2. ewokpelts

    Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

    QUOTE (SonofaRoache @ May 22, 2016 -> 08:36 PM) Cubs, Pirates, and Mets are looking like they will be a playoff contender for the next ten years so they no longer apply. KC has played in back to back world series so their arrow pointing upwards takes them off the list. no. making the playoffs at least once made those teams off the "haven't been in the playoffs in a while" list. if the sox make the wild card and lose the play in game, they will be off that list as well. even if they fall to crap the next year.
  3. ewokpelts

    Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

    QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 22, 2016 -> 08:48 PM) Yes, but the value of that deal wouldn't have been so high if not for the presence of Trout, one of the two best players in baseball. I get the idea of comparing the "second team" in another large market with two teams to the White Sox situation, but the Angels have been running a Top 5-7 payroll and are always among the Top 10 in attendance in the majors as well. In order for the White Sox rights to more than double, who is going to be bidding against CSN for those rights? They're going to rise from $50,000 to $100-120,000 per game based on...? Maintaining a good relationship with the Bulls/Reinsdorf? Realistically, if you were running Comcast and looking at re-negotiating the Sox contract, why would you more than double it? Because they're losing the Cubs, in all likelihood? And what's to say that CSN won't be forced by paying more for the White Sox property to pass those costs on to subscribers? It's not QUITE the same thing as a regional monster like YES or the Red Sox with NESN or the Dodgers, but how can they pay so much more unless they believe they can increase their profits by a similar percentage in terms of ROI? Ultimately, I suppose, JR could threaten to take the White Sox and Bulls TOGETHER to another carrier...but how likely is that to happen? That their rights fees would be mixed together and leveraged as a single entity? http://losangeles.sbnation.com/los-angeles...son-arte-moreno Mike trout played 40 games in 2011 when this deal was brokered. google is your friend and two years before a monster contract extension with fox sports, the angels, despite making the playoffs most years in the late 2000's, were in the toilet. http://www.halosheaven.com/2009/7/16/95190...s-tv-ratings-in
  4. ewokpelts

    Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

    QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ May 22, 2016 -> 06:31 PM) Correct. And it's five times since 1981 (when JR and EE bought the team) 1983, 1993, 2000, 2005 and 2008. But right now the only teams with a longer post season drought than the Sox are Seattle, Miami and San Diego. That's some company eh? Mark That's deceptive, as the Astros Cubs Mets and blue jays making the playoffs last year made that list much smaller. And let's not forget that Kansas City and Pittsburgh were on that list together as late as 2012.
  5. ewokpelts

    Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

    QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ May 22, 2016 -> 12:23 PM) Agreed. And when the Cubs announce their own TV station / network that's going to suck up a lot of the advertising dollars. Sully had a column today in the Tribune which has been running a number of stories on the 25 years of U.S. Cellular Field and he had an interesting line in it: "One longtime Sox employee told me Saturday they would have been better off if they had built the ballpark in the suburbs." That's the first time that I know of somebody with the Sox has made a comment like that. Of course they had no choice as Mayor Washington said the ONLY location that he would support (as well as his cronies on the Sports Stadium Authority Board) would be across the street from the original Comiskey Park.) Mark jim Thompson made a deal with Washington. That's why a chicago hotel tax pays for the state owned stadium bonds. Plus, the sox don't have to leave Comcast. Which already carriage deals with ALL cable providers. Something Jerry MADE Comcast agree to. The Cubs are the ones that have to hope providers want to pay $3 a household for cubsnet
  6. ewokpelts

    Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

    QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 22, 2016 -> 04:39 AM) The White Sox are in a terrible position to get a multi-billion dollar t.v. deal at the moment. Obviously, it's three years in the future, but the White Sox are going to be lucky to get something in the same vicinity as the ROOT Sports deal for the Mariners in Seattle. Nobody knows how long the bubble will last with these deals, for one thing. There's lots of concern about the economy going into a period of flat/lower growth, higher interest rates, less corporate profits, credit/loans much harder to come by. Houston had all kinds of problems. Or look at LA, where they overbid by so much and tried to pass the costs onto consumers and none of the service providers were willing to go for it, with so many non-sports fans already cutting the cord (the last time a month or so ago there were attempted re-negotiations they rejected a 30-35% discount from the prior asking price). Point #2 is the Cubs are getting 80% of the attention and that means the lion's share of the marketing/advertising dollars in Chicago. Unless something changes dramatically in that dynamic (the Cubs' current young core) it doesn't make any sense to project a huge tv contract for the White Sox. Where's the profit going to come by paying the White Sox $120 million per season when they haven't made the playoffs (potentially) in over a decade at/by that time? We are well aware how bad the tv and radio ratings have been the last couple of years, in the bottom 3 of the major leagues, if not #30. This assumption that the new tv rights deal is going to "save" the White Sox somehow is pretty ludicrous unless they dramatically change the way they evaluate and procure talent. bulls***. The Angels have s*** ratings in the overall la market and fox re-upped at 1.5 billion years before the contract was due. The Rangers also got renewed early and were given a signing bonus to stay. The sox are in a large market and are linked to the Bulls and Hawks for the foreseeable Future. AND, most importantly, they own the rights to buy the Cubs share of csn. Anyone who thinks the sox are going to get f***ed in a tv deal are smoking battery acid laced crack.
  7. ewokpelts

    Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

    QUOTE (SpankyEaton @ May 21, 2016 -> 11:52 PM) Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I was thinking of a few things regarding the attendance today when I was at the park. First off, there were 27,631 people there today. It was a beautiful day and it was a Saturday day game against a divisional opponent that travels well and the Cubs were out of town. Given that the park holds 40,000, what do you all think is a good crowd, considering the upper deck doesn't ever fill up on a consistent basis? I think anything north of 25,000 is a good day at the ballpark. If they could average 25,000 that is respectable. I did wonder what you all thought about giving fans in the upper deck the opportunity to come down and sit in the empty 100 level seats after the third inning of games when it's not sold out or the lower bowl is a decent size crowd. Does that negatively impact anything? Does it cause a problem with the value of tickets if they did this once in a while? And, I saw this article today - some cool history here and it's nice to see both parties get something done for a change. Do you see the Sox ever having an issue like this come up again with new ownership and having to move? If they project sub 25k sales, they open the lower deck to all.
  8. ewokpelts

    Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

    QUOTE (SpankyEaton @ May 21, 2016 -> 11:52 PM) Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I was thinking of a few things regarding the attendance today when I was at the park. First off, there were 27,631 people there today. It was a beautiful day and it was a Saturday day game against a divisional opponent that travels well and the Cubs were out of town. Given that the park holds 40,000, what do you all think is a good crowd, considering the upper deck doesn't ever fill up on a consistent basis? I think anything north of 25,000 is a good day at the ballpark. If they could average 25,000 that is respectable. I did wonder what you all thought about giving fans in the upper deck the opportunity to come down and sit in the empty 100 level seats after the third inning of games when it's not sold out or the lower bowl is a decent size crowd. Does that negatively impact anything? Does it cause a problem with the value of tickets if they did this once in a while? And, I saw this article today - some cool history here and it's nice to see both parties get something done for a change. Do you see the Sox ever having an issue like this come up again with new ownership and having to move? A 25K average equals 2 million fans. I think that's amore than acceptable for this franchise in the environment we're in right now. That's also paid attendance. Butts in seats including comps is probably more like 2.4 million.
  9. ewokpelts

    Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

    QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ May 22, 2016 -> 02:18 AM) Keep this in mind about the future. Jerry Reinsdorf has publicly said more than once that he will recommend that his family sell the White Sox when he dies and told Bob Sirott on Chicago Tonight in May 2004 that he believes his family has no interest in owning the White Sox after he's dead. Plus I've been told by a very good source who was a part of the organization that Jerry's wife has been urging him for years to sell the team and get out but he's refused. That says something I think about how the family feels about all this. Mark And there's just as many rumblings that his son Michael has no interest in selling. And none of this has any bearing on how well the sox draw in 2016, nor does attendance even matter in how healthy the franchise is. There is a multi BILLION dollar tv contract looming. Imagine what someone who's been waiting patiently to run the franchise(if he indeed wants to keep and run the sox) could do with that kind of money...
  10. ewokpelts

    Finding A Trade Partner for Ryan Braun

    Him and Cabrera were part of the biogenesis investigation. both have served their suspensions(although Cabrera got time served when the report came out). that said, where do you put him?
  11. ewokpelts

    Attendance 2016

    QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 3, 2016 -> 10:04 PM) Sox CSN twitter 15,025 in attendance tonight at U.S. Cellular Field in a battle of the Sox. #WhiteSoxTalk That's just awful. Were YOU there? If not, stop it with the f***ing fan shaming.
  12. ewokpelts

    Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

    https://twitter.com/CSNHayes/status/727237445209722883
  13. ewokpelts

    Sox Season Tickets

    Do the cubs series. It's going to be nuts this year if both teams are still playing this well.
  14. ewokpelts

    Cleveland outdrew us? Attendance down 13% so far

    I don't know why we need to participate in fan shaming. Attendance will pick up as the weather warms and kids are in school less. The strong start is definitely helping ADVANCE sales right now. One guy in a Facebook group (Chicago White Sox Pride and Passion) I'm in just bought a partial plan(pro-rated to 19 games), and I am getting hit hard for code requests on the sites where I promote discount codes. Besides, the real increase will be in 2017, especially if this team is competitive all year.
  15. ewokpelts

    Spiegel: White Sox Hot Start Not A Fluke

    QUOTE (Alexeihyeess @ Apr 28, 2016 -> 04:10 PM) $20 says he initially wrote this about the Cubs like everyone else at his dying station, but rewrote parts of it and shuffled some names around to make it about the Sox. Since Ricketts bought that station the Sox have ceased to exist. And you know what? Not a bad idea for Speigs. CBS radio is about to hold a fire sale for all its properties in the Chicagoland market and WLS might be a more stable place to land than WSCR going forward. WSCR's afternoon show has been aggressively alienating listeners on both sides of town for the past 5 years, and if the CBS mothership pulls out of town I dont see it lasting much longer than The Game did. the rumored cumulus deal is simply that: a rumor. it would be a long time until anything is set in stone, due to the feds.
  16. ewokpelts

    John Danks should never start for the White Sox again

    QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 29, 2016 -> 01:47 AM) If we release him nobody would pick him up cause of the salary, right? That's sad cause I'd like to see him go to the NL. I wouldn't count him out yet once he gets the arm strength fully back. One other thing you guys have to remember ... we have four lefty starters. When you are the worst of the four, it's not easy. The other teams lick their chops that it's not one of the three great lefties. Do Danks a favor and trade him somewhere a team needs a lefty starter. Or put him in middle relief. He's our Danny Duffy. Lose him in the bullpen. Still I can't end a thread without adding ... I love Johnny Danks! a team would take a flyer on him if released, because the sox would be on the hook for the salary. but who needs the 2016 dank aside as a roster filler or replacing an injured starter/reliever? that said, what happened to the guy that was in spring training that corrected tipping his pitches? he looked above average not even a month ago.
  17. ewokpelts

    Should the White Sox and Atlanta talk trade?

    QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 21, 2016 -> 08:54 AM) Because that 3,000 extra in attendance per game is going to provide them the additional $9 million (+$13 million saved on LaRoche) that it's going to take to afford a Carlos Gonzalez or Jay Bruce. https://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensa...cago-white-sox/ The White Sox are at $114.5 million, KC at $131.5 million and the Tigers at $198.5 million, fwiw. You're not going to get that in April weekday games, regardless of start time. The hot start will show dividends in June and July. The key is advance sales. And the sox had a BUDGETED payroll of 125 million. The laroche money was already slotted in the figures.
  18. ewokpelts

    Should the White Sox and Atlanta talk trade?

    QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 09:23 PM) Even with the presence of Sale (Trout for the Angels games), Abreu, etc., it hasn't meant much because of the team simply not winning and/or playing entertaining AND sound baseball for three years now. We're 27th in the majors in attendance at this point. The only teams behind are OAK, CLE and TB. Two of those are teams with stadium issues, one a team which had the longest streak of consecutive sellouts at Jacobs Field but has simply never recovered from two complete sell-offs/rebuilds and another factor was CLE being hard-hit by the 2008-2009 financial crisis. CLE drawing 9,890 instead of the White Sox or Reds (today's crowds) drawing about 3,000 more is around the worst-case scenario...and then you have the stadium lease agreement which has a controversial clause subsidizing attendance if it falls below a certain amount, can't remember if it's 1.2 or 1.4 million. As of this exact moment, we're in first place by 1/2 game over KC and 1 game over the Tigers, with Cleveland trudging along around .500. The sox get free rent if attendance falls below 1.2 million. They haven't hit that in the new park. And last year saw an attendance increase from 2014. I'm not sure why that would be an issue for a club that makes its 125 million dollar payroll simply with tv money.
  19. ewokpelts

    Should the White Sox and Atlanta talk trade?

    QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 12:17 PM) Sox had 15k in the house Monday Night for a 1st place team. I'm pretty sure the rebuild crowds would be similar. Kids in school and in April where advance sales are historically low.
  20. ewokpelts

    Back to back day games today and tomorrow

    QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 21, 2016 -> 01:30 AM) Let's face it, Sox are at a possible historic (early 1970s?) low in terms of interest. 2005 was so great cause it was just the opposite. Chicago's Sox took the city by storm. Now?? Wow, if they moved to Las Vegas would anybody but us die-hards care? Bulls***. This is early 2000's attendance. And the losers just so happen to be in thier every few years "this is the year" phase. The difference is that the sox make more money today with less crowds. A sub 2 million attendance in 2003 meant a payroll of 40 or 50 million. Same attendance in 2016 means a payroll of 125 million.
  21. ewokpelts

    Back to back day games today and tomorrow

    In April and May, the weather is typically worse at night. They should play more day games and try and get the 1:20 appointment crowd.
  22. ewokpelts

    Should the White Sox and Atlanta talk trade?

    The sox can't pull a braves like rebuild. The fan base would reject the team possibly more than it did after the white flag and the kids can play era. Is it any wonder why they haven't pulled the trigger on a rebuild or dumpster fire at the deadline or offseason save for July 2013? If the sox went to a $50 million or so payroll full of retreads and kids, the cheap Jew comments about Jerry would blow up boards and social media even greater than they are today. And Jerry is f***ing hated on social media these last few years. The Cubs got the free pass because they are media darlings and theo sold a line of bulls*** about doing things the "right way". And they could financially survive because they have a season ticket waiting list full of brokers and hopeful idiots. Same goes for the actual season ticket holders.
  23. ewokpelts

    Panda

    I doubt any gm takes Sandoval without getting the entire contract paid for. And gives up little to nothing. Boston has to eat that s*** burger one way or another.
  24. ewokpelts

    Lucas Museum and U.S. Cellular Field

    QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 19, 2016 -> 09:16 AM) I mean, he basically got a free lease in that deal, but I agree I liked that more. I think the other museums get similar land deals, but the cost of construction plus the endowment basically meant free museum. And when you consider the Bears get MORE PARKING and other concessions, it was a virtual win win. This just screams rahm bulls*** now
  25. ewokpelts

    Lucas Museum and U.S. Cellular Field

    QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 07:51 PM) That is when the stadium debt is supposed to be paid off. Sox bonds expire 2029, and bears in 2033
×