ewokpelts

Let's get a couple facts straight: 1. The sox are going NOWHERE for the next 14 years, if not longer. The lease, one of the best in us sports, was extended at least until 2029, according to ISFA reports and other media mentions. Which is when the bonds are due to expire for the original 168 million financed for the park in 1988. It was so favorable that the sox extended it TWICE. (First after the naming rights deal for until 2026, and then til 2029). The original lease was 20 years, with a built in 5 year extension at the same terms. So if the sox felt Chicago was a bad market, they could have left the cell in 2011 or 2016 under the old deal. 2. Despite low ratings, the sox are still getting paid a lot of money for the tv rights. I have read that CSN pays 450-500k per game for roughly 100 games, so the csn only cut is 45-50 million dollars. By comparison, the padres current deal pays the same amount, but for 162 games. Factor in the 50 or million for the national broadcasts, and you already have upwards of 100 million before you sell one ticket.(WGN may be 125-250k, but I cant confirm). That per game amount is the EXACT SAME as the cubs. And since the cubs air less games on csn, they actually make less tv money than the sox. 3. The sox aren't leaving csn, and will likely get a much bigger deal. They currently own 20 percent of the network. And more importantly, the network is on EVERY CABLE SYSTEM IN THE MARKET. It was a condition that Jerry FORCED csn to broker long term carriage deals, so as to avoid being like NESN and YES struggling to get operators on board. When the cubs leave(and they lilkely will), they will have to negotiate all new carriage deals for "cubsnet". And judging by the dodgers tv problems, for a ruse awakening. The sox, meanwhile, don't have to do a thing to make sure they are in 90 percent of homes with cable. Oh, and they will get a huge increase in rights fees despite the ratings. Look at the Angel's deal(125 million a year) and they have poor ratings before and after they signed the deal to stay with fox. Remember, csn won't be paying the cubs. And, the sox have right of first refusal to buy the piece of CSN Chicago the cubs own.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 5, 2016 -> 08:17 PM) If you do think about it objectively, and remove the White Sox being your favorite team from the equation...it's pretty hard to look at the politics of it as well as the cost to taxpayers (especially in light of current budget problems) and feel it was a good deal in terms of the overall public interest of all residents of the State of Illinois. In that sense, this is just what the rich people in our country do...take advantage of tax loopholes, social connections, political donations, bankruptcy law, tax havens. Do you blame the system itself or primarily the individual actors within that system? In this case, the ballclub (increasing valuation/ROI) itself has certainly accrued more benefits than the public. So it comes down to putting a dollar figure on 2005 whether that was worth it for the city and state. Florida taxpayers would undoubtedly disagree their two World Series winners in Miami were worth it, overall. Or football fans in St. Louis. Jim Thompson said in 2011 that the tax revenue generated directly from Sox park totaled 200 million from 1991-2011. The initial construction cost? $168 million. And that's not factoring in the hotel tax, which pays for the bonds.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 28, 2016 -> 07:08 AM) Just what the White Sox need right now...public funds use/tax protests at Sox Fest and Opening Day. It would be kind of fitting if nobody significant is added to the roster between now and then. Paid for by the hotel tax. I doubt "you" paid for the boards

QUOTE (Real @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 04:19 AM) Wish the sox had an owner like Illitchso they can win even less titles?

QUOTE (Coach @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 06:23 AM) not so much on the location but why pay good money to see crappy baseball when I can see the same game at home for free?actually, yes is an important distinction. YOU just said that location was a huge factor, but in your reply to me, downplay that. Why aren't you going to games? Is it because of the stadium, or the team that plays in it?

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 12:03 PM) Its not really. Wrigleyville is a tourist destination, people from my area go there just to hang out when they are in town no one is going to hang out around the Cell. The reputation of the area and the lack of things to do don't make it a desirable night out. The Cubs have an advantage in that going to Wrigley is part of your night out whereas at the Cell it is your night out. the bulls*** in question is the projects. which have been long gone and replaced by condos and townhomes. my statement had NOTHING to do with the dribble your fingers typed.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 06:37 AM) Holy f***. 11 consecutive posts. That has to be some kind of record. You do know you can quote more than one post at a time and just respond once right? don't know. don't care.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 10:38 AM) At least this time he got what Hawk said about Avi right instead of naming Hawk as saying it would make Avi a 30/30 guy. I know you said that was a joke or sarcasm but I always know sarcasm when I see it and laugh when others can't see it but attributing Hawk as saying something doesn't have a hint of joking or sarcasm in it. I mean maybe in your mind it does but it was not the least bit apparent. what?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 12:23 AM) “A lot of people don’t understand that one guy can change the whole culture of the lineup, either positive or negative,” Harrelson said. “On the positive side, one guy can change it and I think that guy is Todd Frazier. The big thing for me is he can catch the ball at third base. And the next thing is, he’s going to protect the best hitter on our club. It’s contagious.” ZIPS projects that Frazier will hit .255/.318/.449 with 25 homers and 80 RBIs for the White Sox this season. Harrelson hopes those numbers are on the low end. But even if they are correct, Abreu and the White Sox offense should see a significant increase. “If he does that, he’s going to make Abreu 10-15 percent better and it’s going to take a lot of heat off (Avisail Garcia),” Harrelson said. “What a great year Abreu had because they had nobody to hit behind him. For him to get 30 and 100 again with no protection, it would be like if they had nobody to protect Miguel Cabrera, he wouldn’t hit anything either because nobody would pitch to him.” http://www.csnchicago.com/white-sox/hawk-h...&ocid=yahoo of course hawk loves the move. fraizer is his type of TWTW guy.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 07:30 AM) Cooper is Cooper. It's not going to keep anyone from attending a Sox game, except for those who weren't inclined to go in the first place and were deliberately looking for something to faux rage against. Non-issue. Moving on.... so true. can't argue that.

QUOTE (blackmooncreeping @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 10:55 AM) Posted this in the Cespedes thread previously but thought it might warrant a separate thread; feel free to move if needed. I really don't want to give up the pick for him, especially to the Cubs, but Fowler is an intriguing fit as a secondary option after YC/JU. It's not as splashy, but he could play an effective CF and it would allow us to move Eaton to LF and put Melky in the DH spot. And I think most importantly, Fowler would fit perfectly in the 2 hole and provide the Sox with 2 guys at the top who get on base at a good clip in front of the heart of the order. And Sliding Melky down to 5th or 6th in the lineup is a better spot for his bat to produce imo. Having said all that, I of course prefer Cespedes oh f*** no! especially if they lose a pick!

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 08:41 AM) Well this is precisely my point when I talk about the mega impact the coming together of Harry Caray and his extraordinary salesmanship and the exposure that came along with superstation WGN. It was a match made in heaven. That guy absolutely sold the Wrigley Field experience like no other. Remember, the Cubs were not the national fixation they are today before Harry arrived there. In fact, in his first season, '82, that game when Lee Elia went off the rails, there were only 3,000 fans in the stands that day. When was the last time you could say there were only 3,000 fans at Wrigley? Now granted, it took Caray a couple of years to take hold on the north side. Cubs fans had to get used to his style after decades of the Jack Brickhouse style. But in '84 he really started to take off, and the Cubs franchise has not looked back ever since. They were a terrible team for most of Harry's time there, with the exception of '84 & '89, but starting in '84, that place was packed to the rafters almost every day and has been ever since. And it's all because of Caray's years of selling Wrigley Field to the gazillions of people across the nation who got WGN in their homes. As for the Sox in the 70s, they absolutely got a bounce from his presence. In fact, that's why the Sox brought him to Chicago in the first place, hoping he would help with what was a disastrous attendance problem back in those days. The Sox drew under 500,000 in 1970, and so Harry's contract starting in 1971 included an attendance clause. The Sox improved their attendance in each of the years he was broadcasting and he received the maximum bonus as per the agreement, to the point that attendance improved so much after a few years that they simply couldn't afford to pay him that bonus any longer. And that was with no where near the exposure he got when he was on WGN. So that was his specialty, selling the experience for whichever team he was employed for. I just wish he would have continued to have done so for the Sox on WGN, like he did for the one year when he had the chance to do so. Unfortunately the owners' egos got in the way of that happening. Chip Caray, is that you?

QUOTE (Coach @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 08:22 AM) Ricketts is right but the outside the park stuff is fun even at my 53 years. What's outside the Cell? Project housing. that's f***ing bulls***, and you know it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 08:07 AM) That has described the Cubs product for a good portion of their attendance dominance. So apparently, playing well has nothing to do with it. Ricketts actually said something interesting last week. He said the Cubs neighborhood was actually pretty s***ty for a lot of their fans. He said it was great for meeting your college buddies and going to a game, but that was about it. He has a point. What is in that neighborhood for kids? They don't have the kids' days and family days like the White Sox do. If anything, it shows getting to the younger generation as quickly as possible doesn't really mean much. and to respond to that, the cubs are building...more bars and tshirt shops.

QUOTE (Coach @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 07:20 AM) IMO, a huge factor is the location. Nothing to do after the game. Don't want to be around there after dark. Also, who wants to pay good money to see a lousy team who can't run the bases properly, move runners over, get runners in, or even score runs. I will not spend my hard earned money on any inferior product. Bottom line. so which is it? the team or the park?

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 04:49 PM) I absolutely, positively, 100% believe that to be the case. It's not so cut and dry. He was a great pitchman, but the cubs were on a superstation beaming into cable households all over America. just like the mets and braves. and there was 1984. and john McDonough. and the gentrification of the neighborhood.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 04:42 PM) Good question. The answer is they didn't have Harry Caray and his superior salesmanship selling the ballpark experience day after day after day. As I've mentioned before, if Caray stayed with the Sox and Milo Hamilton had gone on to be the Cubs announcer, the Cubs attendance would have resembled that of the Braves. It was pretty much that before Caray moved over to the Cubs. The Harry Caray impact cannot be understated, which is why I wish he would have remained with the Sox. the braves attendance dropped WHILE THEY WERE WINNING 14 DIVISION TITLES.

QUOTE (BrianAnderson @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 02:55 PM) My point is regardless of what they drew in the 70's and 80's that area has been completely revitalized. All neighborhoods from Old Town to Wrigleyville and West to Roscoe Village, etc. are thriving. As long as they are, the Cubs have a giant, wealthy, entertainment seeking demographic within 5 miles of Wrigley. Sox demographic just doesn't fit around the ballpark. Sure a few thousand maybe. But time to move the product to the burbs where you can take advantage of the family demographic. They'll have a nice leg up in creating a family stadium/atmosphere. Just will never happen under Jerry's watch. the suburbs is death to the franchise.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 10:40 AM) The 79-83 Cubs outdrew the 2005 World Champions by 758,000 The 66-96 2006 Cubs outdrew the defending champions who set their franchise attendance record by 166k. the cubs also have a waiting list of 100,000 email addresses.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 06:21 AM) Ratings is a percentage of households. Sox market is so huge, they are still pulling in more viewers than most teams. Yes, next deal won't be near what the Cubs get, but it will still be good. cubs are going on their own. with no guarantees that Comcast and directv will pay the per subscriber costs.

QUOTE (Coach @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 01:36 PM) oh yea right. How about just 1 block south east on the other side of the church. That's very affluent.that's a superhighway.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 19, 2016 -> 09:00 PM) I know you're the "blame the customer" guy, but your point on ratings is exactly why the Sox need to invest in the team and go into the red if needed. Our current TV deal expires in 2019 and if ratings to continue to suck, we're going to get a s***ty long-term TV deal. Therefore, there is every incentive in the world for Reinsdorf to spend some money and build some excitement for this team. The potential payoff in the long-run would be tenfold the likely short-term costs. the angels had s***ty ratings when they signed their deal. and the rangers rating were not much better. sox also own equity in the tv network. and have guaranteed carriage on local systems. something the 8 billion dollar dodger tv deal doesn't have.

I suspect Texas or Houston. Hopefully the sox can get a comp pick from him ( assuming he plays well enough to earn a QO)

Aside from the crosstown cup, the sox wint really see much spillover from Cubs fan demand. That said, there is quite an inventory of cub tickets from brokers and other season ticket holders looking to make back some lost money in 2011-2014.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 08:24 AM) I have a feeling almost anyone who owns an index based mutual fund has General Electric as one of its components...certainly my Vanguard funds do. Guess who partially owns NBC Universal? I would have to check on Vivendi. Nice try though. Comcast owns nbc universal. Not vivendi or the Japanese or ge.