southsider2k5

No I am debating like 3 people at once, and you are taking answers from all of the different places and matching them with different questions. Initally you and I were talking about winning teams. Now these guy are talking about profits. To be profitable in the AL East, the Sox would have to slash payroll. A $70 million team with holes cannot compete with NY/BOS. And our fans will not pay $50 a ticket to support the 100ish million payroll needed to be a middle of the pack team-to competative team in the AL East(like the Yankees and Red Sox fans do). They can go see the much more adored Cubs for cheaper than that. Why would they visit the red headed step child? In the AL Central the cost per win is much cheaper. There are no huge payrolls and huge name to compete with here. They are obviously at least breaking even where they are, or else they would have cut payroll like they have done in the past. They can still be profitable at a much lower payroll.

This team won 80 games playing against the worst division in baseball. How do you think they will win 80 games playing 38 games against the Yankees and Red Sox? You are making the assumption that our 500 record would carry over to the AL East, which it would not. Once again if this team lost 12 games to the Twins, how the hell are they going to beat the Yankees and Red Sox?

Inferior meaning one of the worst. Average meaning middle of the pack.

If the teams are competing the attendance is essentially the same. For me the key number is how many people show up to the park. It doesn't matter if you spend $100 million on a team, if they suck no one is going to go.

The Sox are not an inferior product. They are an average product at worst. Inferior products are perpetual second division teams. Look at teams like the Royals, Tigers, Devil Rays, Brewers, Pirates, Expos etc, that never compete for anything. Those are inferior products.

So it doesn't bother you that the you believe the Sox are lying straight to your face? Interesting.

Big difference being the payroll number. A $70 million team (the team we essentialy have now) in the AL east would lose money. A $30 million team wouldn't.

Tiny payroll? When compared to whom? The Yankees? They are the middle of the pack in payroll. Guess where they are in attendance? About 10 positions lower. Are you advocating that the team should be taking a loss in hopes of winning it all? Are you advocating a system like the Mets, Diamondbacks, Angels, Rangers etc, where they go out and spend a ton of money, only to have it blow up in their faces? Those teams have all had to/ or are going to trade away players because their investments have blown up in their faces. Everyone celebrated the Angels for the moves they made, but I just read today that they have to shave $20 million in payroll for next year, because they are losing too much money.

Then tell me this. Why would you waste your time and money rooting for a team that you all are saying is ripping you off and lying to your face? I don't get that. I know if someone were to use me, and then lie to me about it, I wouldn't waste my time with them. Wouldn't that make you naive? If they really wanted to make maximum money, they would melt down this team just like Tampa Bay and go in with a $30 million payroll. They would make tons of money. The Sox are a balance of fiscal responsibility, like it or not. They don't have the incomes to go out like Steinbrenner, and they don't have the short sighted ownership to go out and sign tons of players, only to have the debt crushing the franchise like the Diamondbacks.

What do you think that profit is? How much accounting creativity are you saying the Sox commit?

That is over a 25 year period. You wanna tell me how much the Dow is up over the same period? I'll tell you. About 12X's. If they only made about 3 Xs their money back, they are horrible investers. (call that Business Math 101) Out of curiousity, how much do you think they make on that $250 million team? So if I am an JR apologist for thinking that he is a bad investor if he can only triple his money in 25 years, what does that make someone who thinks that is profitable?

If that were really true, then JR and company are fools. There are much more profitiable venues than baseball. Even when you account for accounting fudges, they can't be making much at all. With the salary structure as it is, there are very few really profitiable teams in baseball. There are much more profitable things they could be investing in, vs making miniscule %age returns on a cost intensive product. But don't let facts get in the way of your screaming at the top of your lungs about the end of the world.

this is kind of a cool site. It moniters all quake activity in Cali. This is the report of the quake. http://www.trinet.org/recenteqs/Quakes/nc51147892.html The big red blotches are where the quake happened. If you click on them, it gives you the info like the first link http://www.trinet.org/recenteqs/

According to CNN. No link yet, it is just a headline right now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6122483/

At least that's the story you'd be telling Brian afterwards....

Wow. That is pretty wild. Did they say that they were having problems, or people just knew?

No I don't see us competing with the Red Sox or Yankees. Tell me how do you see this team competing with them? We don't have their payroll, we have a mediocre minor league system at best that hasn't produced a star in how long? Do you really think if we moved to the AL East next we would finish any better than 3rd? How? Where are these miracle players going to come from, who haven't been able to beat Detroit and Minnesota going to come from to beat the Yankees and Red Sox? Playing a higher level of competition doesn't mean they will win more. Like it or not the Chicago White Sox are bottom feeders in Chicago. They are the by-line to the Cubs headline. Look at their attendance numbers. Even when the Sox play better than the Cubs they still get out drawn. And that isn't going to change by becoming a guarenteed 3rd or 4th place team. It will only get worse if this team has no chance.

For me. Cubs win WS, Sox sell off and go young.

Heck no it doesn't hurt. Jump at it.

A study has found that half of Viagra ordered over the internet is fake http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6122116/

You are basing the arguement on two teams. Yes the Yankees and Red Sox will draw more fans here. There are 11 teams that they Sox will play 62 other games against. (Add in the fact that we already play 9 games against those teams so the difference becomes 10 games instead of 19.) Throw out the 3 Cubs sellouts, and there are still 59 other game's that attendance will suffer greatly because there will be no reason to go to them. So as I see it. So basically 10 games attendance jumps pretty big 12 games stay about the same 59 games suffer pretty big. Where as those pivitol 59 games still have a much better chance of selling tickets. If the Sox stay in the hunt, the fans come out in droves, much like they did in June and July when attendance was through the roof, or like they did last year down the stretch.

You can't compare the Tigers to the Yankees, anymore than you can compare the Devil Rays to the Twins. The Yankees will have big crowds here, as will the Red Sox. The Devil Rays, Blue Jays, and Orioles will not. And you are dead on right, the casual fan is the one we will be fighting for. But the casual fans aren't going to be going to see the Sox and Yankees, because those games sell out. Getting the casual fan to go see the Sox play the Devil Rays is the problem. And if the Rays stink AND the Sox stink no one is going to go. But if the Sox are playing the Devil Rays while battling Twins for first place, people are much more likely to go, because they will pay to see a winner. Like I said if you don't believe my arguement, go back and look at the Sox attendance trends. Take a look closely at the Sox record, and how many fans show up to games. There is a direct correlation.

You aren't getting what I am saying at all. The Devil Rays, Blue Jays, and Orioles ROAD attendance is skewed WAY upward by playing 10 games a year at both Yankee stadium which leads MLB in attendance, and Fenway which was sold out for the season. If they those teams played those same road games here at Comiskey are you trying to tell me that they would draw the same totals as in NYC and BOS? In other words those numbers are not indicative of how well those teams fans show up at other teams parks. The Devil Rays would not draw a sell out at Comiskey, the same way that they would draw a sell out in Boston. So to use a skewed road attendance number as a predictor of a Chicago attendance is a faulty basis for an arguement.

Once again. If we play in a tougher division, we will lose more often, and be out of the divisional race earlier. Yes we will draw more fans for the extra Yankees/Red Sox games. But when the White Sox don't win, people don't go to the games for OTHER teams. There are still 60 other games besides the Red Sox/Yankees, and attendance will plummet because Sox fans won't pay to see 3rd or 4th place teams. Look no further than this years attendance after the Sox fell out of the race. Look at Sox attendance when they start slow. Look at Sox attendance when there are hot. There is a HUGE difference. If the Sox don't win, the Sox don't draw. And with a lot more losses, overall attendance will suffer.