Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jack Parkman

Rumor: Reinsdorf aims to build second place teams

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

You don't make sense. The White Sox with their built in advantage of being in Chicago have pissed it away and cannot match the Minnesota Twins. 

Chicago may have more people, but they also have a second, more popular baseball team, and more relevant sports teams in general. So I'm convinced that the Sox have a market advantage over the Twins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TaylorStSox said:

What are you talking about? This is the weirdest exchange. 

 

Let's start from the beginning. Caufield went on some Caufield rant about how the Twins are like the Sox except for, mostly drivel I didn't bother reading...

. Totally different philosophies. Then you start making weird projections about things I never said. Are you drunk? It's early man. 

Here's what you are replying to:

They have a lot in common. You are as wrong here as you were about Adrian Beltre. 

Things you never said? You said it again. Is your last name Guilliani?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dick Allen said:

Here's what you are replying to:

They have a lot in common. You are as wrong here as you were about Adrian Beltre

Things you never said? You said it again. Is your last name Guilliani?

You're not making any sense whatsoever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Black_Jack29 said:

Chicago may have more people, but they also have a second, more popular baseball team, and more relevant sports teams in general. So I'm convinced that the Sox have a market advantage over the Twins.

Minneapolis - St. Paul is roughly 30% of the Chicago market. I think you could say 30% of the Chicago market baseball fans are Sox fans, not to mention the fact that Cubs fan eyeballs are still eyeballs. 

The White Sox are broadcast to millions of more homes than the Twins and that's a fact. 

Edited by mqr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Black_Jack29 said:

Chicago may have more people, but they also have a second, more popular baseball team, and more relevant sports teams in general. So I'm convinced that the Sox have a market advantage over the Twins.

That happened under this ownership's watch. Still, last year, according to Forbes, the White Sox pulled in $3 million more in revenue, before expenses, than the Twins, and that is being the second fiddle, with an old TV contract, losing 100 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

The only one making no sense is you. It's been a trend. 

If you think the Sox and Twins are similar, aside from being small to mid market AL teams, make a case for it. They operate completely differently and have for most of my life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

If you think the Sox and Twins are similar, aside from being small to mid market AL teams, make a case for it. They operate completely differently and have for most of my life. 

I already did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

That happened under this ownership's watch. Still, last year, according to Forbes, the White Sox pulled in $3 million more in revenue, before expenses, than the Twins, and that is being the second fiddle, with an old TV contract, losing 100 games.

$3 million isn't that much for a MLB franchise.

I'm skeptical that the second-most-popular baseball team in Chicago has an inherent advantage over smaller-market teams that have a different culture and less competition. Maybe they do in their TV contract, but I'm not seeing much past that. Especially with a Bears-first culture, the Blackhawks winning a few cups within the past decade, and the Bulls being a dynasty within (most of) our lifetimes. I'd argue that the Cardinals are better situated in their smaller market with their baseball-first culture and fewer professional sports teams, than the Sox are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mqr said:

Minneapolis - St. Paul is roughly 30% of the Chicago market. I think you could say 30% of the Chicago market baseball fans are Sox fans, not to mention the fact that Cubs fan eyeballs are still eyeballs. 

The White Sox are broadcast to millions of more homes than the Twins and that's a fact. 

And many of those millions of more fans choose to watch the Cubs instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Black_Jack29 said:

$3 million isn't that much for a MLB franchise.

I'm skeptical that the second-most-popular baseball team in Chicago has an inherent advantage over smaller-market teams that have a different culture and less competition. Maybe they do in their TV contract, but I'm not seeing much past that. Especially with a Bears-first culture, the Blackhawks winning a few cups within the past decade, and the Bulls being a dynasty within (most of) our lifetimes. I'd argue that the Cardinals are better situated in their smaller market with their baseball-first culture and fewer professional sports teams, than the Sox are.

The White Sox put themselves in this situation. It's on them to get themselves out. 

Go back to the first few years JR owned the team. The White Sox had the better fan numbers. Now, they win the WS the other team loses 100 games, and they still get clobbered at the gate.

It's time for JR to take his cash and call it a day. He had a good run, but it's passed him by. That goes for the Bulls too. 

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

The White Sox put themselves in this situation. It's on them to get them out. 

Much of that is true. JR and Einhorn's disastrous decision to move the Sox to pay TV and off of WGN cost them dearly. And, of course, there are JR's other PR disasters that I won't even bother getting into.

My point, though, is that culture matters just as much as market size. If market size were all that mattered, Green Bay would've lost their NFL team 70 years ago, the Rays and Marlins would be drawing 2 million fans every year, and LA wouldn't have spent most of the last quarter century without a single NFL team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Black_Jack29 said:

$3 million isn't that much for a MLB franchise.

I'm skeptical that the second-most-popular baseball team in Chicago has an inherent advantage over smaller-market teams that have a different culture and less competition. Maybe they do in their TV contract, but I'm not seeing much past that. Especially with a Bears-first culture, the Blackhawks winning a few cups within the past decade, and the Bulls being a dynasty within (most of) our lifetimes. I'd argue that the Cardinals are better situated in their smaller market with their baseball-first culture and fewer professional sports teams, than the Sox are.

TV contracts are the primary revenue stream nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2019 at 8:36 AM, soxfan49 said:

It only took 2 hours ladies and gentlemen! He has already backed off. I called it 18 hours ago: "If not sooner, he'll definitely apologize for such an outburst by next April and then when someone reminds him of it, he'll say "I already said I was way out of line with that. I have autism and sometimes this happens." It's too easy."

Now you're just being an asshole and this completely crossed the line. 

Don't be a dick, Richard. 

I came back to call you out. This is just entirely mean-spirited and hurtful. 

Edited by Jack Parkman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Black_Jack29 said:

Much of that is true. JR and Einhorn's disastrous decision to move the Sox to pay TV and off of WGN cost them dearly. And, of course, there are JR's other PR disasters that I won't even bother getting into.

My point, though, is that culture matters just as much as market size. If market size were all that mattered, Green Bay would've lost their NFL team 70 years ago, the Rays and Marlins would be drawing 2 million fans every year, and LA wouldn't have spent most of the last quarter century without a single NFL team.

I've always found the cultural bias towards Cubs baseball in the city of Chicago and beyond a little bewildering.  Mostly because it comes across as an immovable, static situation.  But nowadays, more than ever, cultures are receptive to innovation.  In the Sox case, they might try winning.  And clearly one year won't do the trick.  Why should it? 

It's annoying to think that aldermen and a lack of neighbourhood re-investment affect the brand nationally.  Excuse my naivete but a true visionary could approach these problems too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

Now you're just being an asshole and this completely crossed the line. 

Don't be a dick, Richard. 

I came back to call you out. This is just entirely mean-spirited and hurtful. 

Crossed what line? Don't try to turn this around on me. I never pointed fun at your condition. You're just highly predictable. You make an outlandish claim or back a ridiculous opinion and you stop at nothing to defend it only to change your mind and apologize at length shortly thereafter. Again: predictable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2019 at 12:11 PM, The Sir said:

I read something about a prominent person on the autistic spectrum the other day, and it mentioned how one quirk of theirs is that they have rigid adherence to their favored ideas. I see this with Jack all the time. Nothing can talk him down from an idea once he believes it to be true.

As someone mentioned, this is a stupid topic for a thread (off-season or not).  Yet Jack has gotten 10 pages of responses in 2 days.  Who is the insane one?  Is it not us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soxfan49 said:

Crossed what line? Don't try to turn this around on me. I never pointed fun at your condition. You're just highly predictable. You make an outlandish claim or back a ridiculous opinion and you stop at nothing to defend it only to change your mind and apologize at length shortly thereafter. Again: predictable

You did. You personally attacked me for being open about my condition. It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what I think...you'll never get it so just STFU. 

I don't think this was an outlandish claim nor a ridiculous opinion. It's entirely plausible based on how the Sox ran their teamEven though I believed it at first because it made a metric ton of sense, I chose to back off because acknowledging it as fact or truth would make me want to quit being a fan of the team. I don't want to do that right now. I'm willing to give JR 2 offseasons to prove Sampson wrong. If he continues to behave like Sampson is correct, I'll have to come to terms with that. 

I apologize for calling people sheep for not believing it. None of us want to believe that it is true. The comment initially set me off because how the Sox were run from 2000-2012 fits the bill. 

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TaylorStSox said:

That hiatus didn't last long. 

I'm going back on one, but I felt the need to call out that guy for being a dick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

This might be the worst thread of the year.

Have you forgotten the Machado thread already?

If so... how??? Please teach me this power!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

Now you're just being an asshole and this completely crossed the line. 

Don't be a dick, Richard. 

I came back to call you out. This is just entirely mean-spirited and hurtful. 

I agree.  Crossed the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

You did. You personally attacked me for being open about my condition. It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what I think...you'll never get it so just STFU. 

I don't think this was an outlandish claim nor a ridiculous opinion. It's entirely plausible based on how the Sox ran their teamEven though I believed it at first because it made a metric ton of sense, I chose to back off because acknowledging it as fact or truth would make me want to quit being a fan of the team. I don't want to do that right now. I'm willing to give JR 2 offseasons to prove Sampson wrong. If he continues to behave like Sampson is correct, I'll have to come to terms with that. 

I apologize for calling people sheep for not believing it. None of us want to believe that it is true. The comment initially set me off because how the Sox were run from 2000-2012 fits the bill. 

It wasn't a personal attack. It was an attack on how excited you get on a topic and never drop it.

What is with sentence #2? That's your opinion. I can easily say it doesn't matter what you think, too. What are we, fourth graders? 

My nephew is autistic so don't tell me what I do and don't get. Thanks.

Edited by soxfan49
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×