Dick Allen

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 11:52 PM) You're supporting season ticket holders' ability to keep buying season tickets. Exactly. There's nothing wrong with your fandom using stubhub. Finding your best deal shouldn't be frowned upon. I just wonder if the dynamic pricing is costing the Sox. If I'm a dad and see its a beautiful day why don't I take the kids to a ballgame, go to ticketmaster, see its $80 a pop, I'm taking the kids somewhere else then watching the game on my HDTV. It also amazing me how many people are unfamiliar with stubhub and craigslist for tickets.

I wonder how many tickets they Sox have let go unused because of this dynamic pricing model at Ticketmaster. If you want a premium box seat for tomorrow's game, it will cost you 80 to sit in row 35.

You know, Harold Baines had some of his better offensive numbers in his late 30's very early 40s. Spent some time in Oakland......................... Just saying. And what about Carlton Fisk?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 11:32 PM) Some people on this board want the team to get in a big brawl to show some guts and life. This incident shows some life in this lifeless piece of s*** team. I love it. Kudos to AJ and Peavy both for being competitors unlike many of the underachievers on this team. I agree. It definitiely is two of the Sox better competitors. I think its being made a lot bigger deal than it really is, and even if they did have a huge argument, there's no reason to believe its not OK now.

QUOTE (South Side Fireworks Man @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 11:30 PM) I was just surfing around and it seems the only place this is being made an issue is here. Others are saying Jake was upset with some of AJ's pitch calls and that AJ handled it well by taking Jake into the clubhouse to discuss it. And both are joking about it when being asked about what happened by reporters. If Peavy didn't like the numbers AJ was throwing down, he always has the option to shake him off. It is his game.

Yeah, everyone hates AJ. This is going to linger. Oh wait Like I said, boys will be boys," Peavy said. "We are going to say stuff to each other at times that may not sit well with the other. Talk through it and get it straight. Like I said, I love A.J. Pierzynski to death. He competes his rear end off and has for many years. He won a World Series here. I would like to do that again with him." Do the people thinking this is a huge deal ever have arguments with their wife or girlfriend or co-workers? Is any argument always the end of the relationship?

Does one have to come back? I think its time for both to hit the road. If I had to chose one, it would be Ozzie, because then KW would be on manager #3. If they still sucked, JR would get a clearer view of the problem.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 04:03 AM) Maybe the Sox will trade him for Marquez, Betemit, and Nunez! I'm still not worried. I wasn't worried, but halfway through the season with his current numbers coupled with his decline the second half of last season has to be a huge concern. He does lead the league in strikeouts. He's basically been Carlos Zambrano as a DH.

Rios didn't appear to be busting it down the line.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jun 20, 2011 -> 06:52 PM) And that is precisely why I was so vehement with Rongey. It's a garbage argument. The Sox are trying to win, period, after all they are "all in." Juan Pierre inhibits this goal in a major way. Are you Terry? If you are, you were really good yesterday.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 20, 2011 -> 06:15 PM) When you buy $5000 worth of stock that you realize is going into the toilet and probably won't recover, do you: a) try to get rid of it as fast as possible, to cut your losses b) hold onto the stock while it plummets closer and closer to $0 because you're waiting for a "return on your investment" If you have hung on too long, it does get to the point you might as well keep it, but the Sox have other options. If it were only a guy like Jordan Danks or De Aza, sure you keep Pierre around, but the team is offensively challenged and Viciedo can rake. The other argument Ranger had was it was one hitter, and one hitter wouldn't make that much difference. I think Ranger is smarter than this, but disagreeing with the way the White Sox are handling things probably wouldn't be a good career move for him.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 20, 2011 -> 06:48 PM) I can't tell you how many times I have seen people ride out stupid trades and turn them into margin calls, or worse. Or in the futures business if someone is on call and has one trade making money and one losing money, if they have to liquidate one, most of the time the amateurs unload the good trade because they don't want to admit they were wrong. Usually they will wind up having to liquidate the other trade as it keeps going against them. Which is exactly what Ranger is suggesting the Sox are doing with Pierre, although I don't know if that's exactly true. I really believe at least Ozzie feels Juan has something left. I don't buy it has anything to do with the money owed. I was listening to Ranger and the callers on my way to see my dad yesterday and no one mentioned to Ranger that the Sox are paying Viciedo, also gave him a $5 million bonus, don't they want a return on that investment?

Humber has been amazing.

As dumb as KW was claiming Rios, Reagins was a million times dumber trading for Vernon Wells and ridding Toronto of about $80 million in salary responsibilty. Rios is an All Star compared to Wells.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 09:40 PM) Remember, they're making money from you at each of those steps. Even if you just go to a couple games a year and watch others. Minimal from watching on TV compared with going to a game especially considering my days as a Neilson family are ova.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 09:35 PM) And yet, AAccording to Forbes the white sox took home $25 million in profit last year. Then, when they went all in, they conveniently raised salary by exactly the amount Forbes said they earned in profit last year. What did they do with the profit Forbes said they made previous seasons?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 09:30 PM) The other problem is you're losing those potential generations of future fans...going to baseball games is a habit, the shared memories of going with your father or grandfather to the game. Once you lose a loyal customer after so many years, it's 10X harder to get them back in the fold. If you give up your tickets...a lot of people are finding new hobbies and interests, or they're simply just trying to survive financially. Just not as much time for sports/entertainment spending. That's a good point. The article I read about the Knicks was exactly about that. A lot of those people know just about everyone in their section because they have all had tickets for so long. I would venture to guess someone who goes to 50 baseball games a year then gives up their tickets because of cost probably finds something else to do with their time, and finds going to 4 or 5 games a year satisfying. We have full season tickets but probably go to less than half the games now. It used to be at least 65-70. With HDTV, slow zones on the red line, $7.25 beers plus tip, sometimes its nice to get the grill going, a case of beer and have my buddy come over or I go over to his place and imitate Hawk all game long. Our wives are always amazed we say what Hawk will say just before he says it.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 09:29 PM) If you can sell something for more, you do it. Or did capitalism end? I'm a season ticketholder so I get a lot of letters from the White Sox. When they raise ticket prices, according to them its not about trying to squeeze more out of me or maximizing their profit, its about trying to cover their costs. If you noticed, there have been a lot of empty seats at USCF this year, and attendance has dropped every year since 2006 or 2007.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 09:26 PM) Why does it matter if long term seat holders cancel their rivets if they have replacements for most? That's a huge revenue increase. Did the Knicks just have a few thousand people call and say they were willing to pay $700 a seat to watch them next year? They did it because they thought many of the people who have been around for 30 years won't cancel no matter what. Ask the Yankees how the ridiculous pricing worked when they moved into their new park. They lowered the prices the next season. After they won the WS.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 09:24 PM) The owners would say they broke even even if they pulled in $90 million a year. If the ballpark is sold out for some fraction of my games, then ticket prices for those games aren't high enough. Supply and demand. MLB is also doing a stellar job of developing new revenue streams, like the extra innings package I'm watching. Then they have no reason to raise ticket prices every year. We will agree to disagree because I think guys like Alex Rios, even if he were halfway decent, making $12 million a year, is silly. Seriously, $12 million is a lot of money.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 09:18 PM) The Knicks are screwing ticketholders because there is demand for those tickets Comparing this to wall street is just nuts. No one is using baseball tickets to hide losses or betting 100x on the future price of tickets. Many of the people they sent invoices to are cancelling, some have had their seats over 30 years. Salaries cannot continue to go up if you expect the paying customers to foot the bill. I don't think televison ratings have been particularly stellar with Fox. Rios with a homer.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 09:09 PM) Owners are businessmen. Why would they charge less just because they have lower fixed costs? They would just make even greater profits. EDIT: yeah, what Balta said. Because they wouldn't be able to justify it to their customers so their customers wouldn't pay the price. Its one thing to say to your fanbase, we raised payroll $25 million so we need to raise ticket prices. It wouldn't go over too well with the customers to clear $80 million in ticket sales alone and have a payroll of $30 million. Its probably the biggest reason JR has had his lackies say the Sox break even every year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 09:07 PM) No they won't. Revenue is going up every year. That's what matters. Just like the stock market went up every year and real estate value went up every year. Eventually the bubble will burst. Just around me, there are a lot more people talking about dumping their tickets not just because the Sox haven't been very good, but because justifying the cost is getting harder and harder. There was an article yesterday or Thursday about brokers stuck with Cubs tickets. Winning is always at least a temporary cure, but I think its starting to get close to the point teams have to start freezing prices. The Yankees had to lower them after they priced some ridiculously. The Knicks are screwing some long time ticketholders by upping their costs over 100 percent.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 09:00 PM) The owners would charge the same amount regardless of how much the players make. If the average payroll was $30-40 million, it wouldn't cost as much to go to a game. They charge what they think they can get away with. Beers wouldn't be $7.25. People stopped filling the bleachers at Wrigley so the Cubs started dropping prices for beer and hot dogs.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 08:57 PM) Should the owners just pocket even more money? Because in the end it comes down to players or owners making that extra money. No. It probably shouldn't cost someone $200-300 to take their family to a game, but people have been willing to pay it, although I believe the tide is turning.