Eminor3rd

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:27 PM) Hey now. Until you are in the middle of raising teenagers, you don't know what "needing a reason to drink" means. Haha, fair enough, but I assume those drinks will normally be coming from a bottle in your basement, no?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:44 PM) You write about money, do you know studies have suggested on average White Sox fans make more money than Cubs fans? The Wrigley Field area has more crime during the day that around USCF at night. That makes sense if you assume that White Sox fans tend to be older and therefore less likely to want to go out and drink under any circumstances. Instead of "that's where the money is," what I should have said was, "that's where the money is spent."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:30 PM) I gave reasons why the fanbase would think that team was going to crap. Trading away a cy young winner is a pretty good one. Your response was "But they brought back Lyle Mouton please edit your post", so clearly you think that somehow bringing back Lyle Mouton in a trade should have sold tickets. Explain how? What am I forgetting about Lyle Mouton that would offset trading away a Cy Young Winner to the Yankees? Wait, are you implying Lyle Mouton wouldn't fill a stadium on his own? Need I remind you of these numbers? LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS: 280! (batting average) 22! (career homeruns) 97! (career wRC+) ONE POINT TWO! (career fWAR) Look at this smile! LOOK AT IT!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:27 PM) I have been to both parks. The ballpark experience isn't very different. And I didn't go up there, but I would bet their upper deck is just as far away from the field. If not farther. Wrigley is a dump and is just as boring as the Cell. However, the neighborhood is completely different and we all know it. All the money is on the northside. All the 20-somethings are on the northside. They all have trust funds. Wrigleyville is bro-heaven. Everyone loves it. It's in the midst of where everyone wants to be. Bridgeport is nice ONLY compared to everything else on the southside. The southside is famous for murder. The stadium is surrounded by parking lots and ugly freeways. There are a couple bars. Wrigleyville is actually considered a tourist attraction. These thing affect ballpark experience. Maybe you or I don't like Wrigleyville, but we must acknowledge that the vast majority of people do. The upper deck view is definitely worse, but like I said, the ballpark (for the masses) is NOT the best place to follow the action anyway. People go to Wrigley simply to BE at Wrigley. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:30 PM) Except for the White Sox, who need multiple playoffs births in a row to get people to show up. Again, you're assuming that attendance = fan interest. It's a proxy, but it is not equal. Whether or not it's worthwhile to go to the ballpark DOES NOT EQUAL how much winning it requires for fans to follow the baseball team.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) And the Twins were coming off 99,96, and 96 loss seasons with just the "new stadium". Which is consistent with my argument, which is that ballpark attendance has more to do with the ballpark experience than it has to do with interest in the team, and that divide has grown (and will cotninue to grow) as time goes on and technology continues to evolve.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2015 -> 10:53 AM) What? Fans with the biggest fan bases directly correlates to how many people are also watching at home, which directly results in bigger TV contracts. Size of fanbase is much more affected by market size and market affluence than it is by stadium attendance, is my point. I'm sure that attendance correlates with TV-market exposure to a certain degree, but an advertiser isn't necessarily getting less value if attendance goes down. At the very least, ratings and attendance are different numbers. Also, one set of eyeballs isn't equal all around the country. Demographic and purchasing habits regionally change that value a lot.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 10:41 AM) I used to spend a lot of money, but not anymore. I have a weekend package for under $300, and I got on the 11 games for $29 deal. So that's 38 games for about $325. Plus I get free party at ChiSox Bar and Grill, another season ticketholder party, another free game with patio party, and I can basically sit wherever I want because of how few go to games. I spend very little on concessions, especially if I am with my wife. When I had club level seats, the server in our section said she was bad for business. But White Sox fans have used price as an excuse, they have used no lower deck access, although they usually don't check anymore, they used blue seats. All that has been changed, yet one thing remains consistant, people still won't go, and it will be something else. On WSI last year, and they whine about everything, from the parking lot guys and ushers not smiling at them to wondering why minimum wage employees who will be lucky to clear $20 a game after taxes, not being superstar servers, they complained that the $20 seats to watch Sale pitch weren't good enough seats. So basically what they were saying was the lower deck access thing so they could look at the statues and stuff was just a lie, they need a team that will win every year and a $15 seat within a couple rows of the dugout. Believe me when I say I am TOTALLY sympathetic with being tired of the "excuses" people give for not showing up -- I deal with it every day. What I've found (in NYC anyway) is that price is really hardly ever truly an issue. Like ss2k5 said about "guilt," people seem to want to cry price and parking when asked why they don't care because it feels like a "justifiable excuse," when the reality is that has no correlation with their buying habits. Despite the fact that the number one complaint by far is "you're supposed to be family-friendly entertainment, I can't afford to bring my family," when we offer discount deals, still no one buys. But, when we offer special packages ABOVE face ticket value that include shrits and hats and statues and stuff, those SAME four-person families will show up and ALL buy the package. Similarly, no one cares at ALL about dollar-dog Tuesday, but if we run a bobblehead giveaway on a weekend, when tickets are MOST expensive, we'll sell out. The conclusion I come to is that it's my responsibility to make people want to come. They react to special, limited time experiences and items and they react to day of the week. I've got to make those things more prominent if I want their dollars. It's frustrating to get false feedback directly from people's mouths, but the data doesn't lie, and every team has plenty of data. What I DON'T agree with is the implication that if the stadium isn't full, the city has bad fans. If all the revenue streams dry up, then we can have that discussion. But the stadium is a specific product that is separate from "fan interest" and is merely one component of "fan support." The Sox need to do a better job of selling or improving that product if they want fans to consume in that particular way.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2015 -> 10:50 AM) Without the extra $25 million that all teams started getting from the TV contract, the White Sox would have saw a decline in revenue last year. That is what quite literally paid for most of the team upgrades this year. But that's what I'm talking about -- people are changing how they consume the game and teams are finding new revenue streams to take advantage of it.

QUOTE (southside hitman @ May 13, 2015 -> 10:48 AM) http://www.southsidesox.com/2015/5/13/8596...e-sox-one-to-go This post pretty much highlighted all my concerns with going with Micah Johnson over Sanchez. While Johnson is a special talent, dude is just raw. I just don't think he'll ever have the hands to play an adequate infield position. The more I see him, the more I see Ben Revere as a ceiling.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 09:33 AM) But it does have to do with how much money JR is making off White Sox fans. But his biggest TV deal is his regional deal. That's money off of White Sox fans.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 09:15 AM) They are making money off baseball fans, not necessarily White Sox fans. I don't think White Sox fans do much to fuel these large national TV contracts. And attendance has dropped every year since 2006. But attendance has nothing to do with TV contracts.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 09:13 AM) I really don't care about the time commitment, I am going to watch the game anyway. I am just saying it is far more enjoyable to me to watch a game live than on TV. I believe you wrote TV was a better option. I totally disagree, and I love Hawk. You disagree, but most people clearly don't. And when you factor in the MASSIVE difference in cost, I can't blame anyone at all. And it's MASSIVE. Those $5 UD Sunday tickets everyone keeps referring to are NOT what you're consuming. Those seats are absolutely not nearly as good for following the game as TV, and they're STILL $5 more expensive than free. When I lived in Chicago, I went to about 4-5 games per year, but watched about 100-120 on TV. My favorite seats to follow the game (that I can afford) are UD, behind homeplate, rows 1 or 2. I would spend an average of about $30 on those seats. I would spend about $20 on food and beer. I would spend 1.5 hours round trip traveling on the Red Line. Those seats were great for seeing all the action, but I still would miss stuff that would get replayed on TV. If I just wanted to follow the game on a given night, it was NEVER worth $50 and a couple hours on the train when I could get it free at home. I would go to the games for the sake of the ballpark experience, not to see the players play. And that ballpark experience was compelling enough for about 4-5 trips per year. This is my whole point: Fans do not need to go to the game to follow the team. Therefore, the decision to go to a game is based on the ballpark experience. They already own the rights to the action. If the Sox want to increase attendance, they have to make the ballpark experience worthwhile. They're already ROLLING in money from the league and Comcast from selling the rights to the action. The Cell is easily the most boring MLB stadium I've ever been to. That's why I applaud efforts like the Shark Tank and the K Zone because, even if those aren't awesome ideas themselves, they're examples of things you can't get at home. They are adding value to the ballpark experience, which is what they need to do in order to successfully double-dip into the fanbase by simultaneouly creating cable revenue AND ticket revenue.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2015 -> 09:09 AM) The guilt factor is also pretty high with Sox fans. It is reality that more fans mean more options when building your ball club. If you are going to protest and stay home as a fan base, they need to also accept that it means the teams options for franchise building are extremely limited, when compared to a patient fan base. We have all seen very clearly that when the franchise has money to spend, they spend it. When they don't, they won't. That's false, at least according to those charts I posted. They make more money every year! They never made money than they did last year. Meanwhile. league-wide revenues have DOUBLED over the past 15 years while salaries have increased about 25%.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 09:06 AM) Just more excuses. . Wtf are you talking about with excuses? The team make more money off of their fans EVERY YEAR.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 09:06 AM) average attendance years 2-5 of the White Sox new stadium: 33,101 31,865 30,042 22,204 average attendance years 2-5 of the Twins new stadium: 39,113 34,275 30,588 27,785 The White Sox had 2 division winners those years and a bad team in 1995. Twins average 95.5 losses per season, and in your other post you say TV is a better option. Just more excuses. . 25 years difference, completely different metro areas, and the difference is a few thousand per game, lol.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2015 -> 09:03 AM) The White Sox had the 3rd lowest TV ratings in MLB last year IIRC. And they were EMBARRASSINGLY bad. And yet their revenue STILL grew.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 08:59 AM) I'm a die hard fan and I go to as many games possible. Sure I get a better angle on a pitch on TV, but I also get a better view of the fielders and the plays developing at the park as long as you have a decent seat. I know that YOU do, but you're a season ticket holder, yes? How much do you pay for seats good enough to get a better pitch angle? And when you factor in instant reply, do you REALLY get a better view of what happens on the field? I'm not knocking on your consumption of the team at all -- I think we should all do whatever we can to enjoy the team as much as possible. You have worked for the means to be a STH in a nice seat and you've made the sacrifices necessary to commute back and forth several times a week. And to each his own. But if you compare your cost and time commitment to follow the team with the cost and time commitment to follow the team on TV -- just because someone isn't willing to pay thousands of dollars and several hours on the road per week to get something maybe SLIGHTLY better (in terms of actually following the action) than what they get in their TV package that they already pay for, doesn't make that person a s***ty fan.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 08:52 AM) The Twins have averaged 95.5 losses the last 4 years, their attendance has blown the White Sox away. Of course in 2005, when the team was never not in first place and won the WS, a 3 game home series vs. KC in September drew a total of 50k. ...and during those four years, they've had a brand new stadium. That's not apples to apples at all.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 13, 2015 -> 09:25 AM) They made the playoffs in 2008, yet their attendance was lower than 2007 when they had the worst record in baseball for most of the season. And it was lower in 2009, then lower in 2010, then lower in 2011, then lower in 2012 when they led the division most of the season. They have lowered prices to where you can pay $20, $15 on Sunday to see Chris Sale pitch and they give you a t-shirt. 50 people a game take advantage of that. If you need 3 or 4 playoff appearances in a row to attend games, you are a fair weathered fan. As was stated previously, White Sox fans are excuse makers. It will always be something. And yet the team continues to grow its revenues every year, just like every other baseball team, because no matter how many times we have this conversation, everyone keeps pretending like it's 1980 and the internet and regional sports cable networks don't exist. Everyone is just going to HAVE to accept the fact that going to the game is no longer the most attractive option for following a baseball team. The ballpark experience is unique and valuable, but if you're a "die-hard" fan and want to follow the action, there's a better and cheaper option in your living room. Fortunately, the teams ARE being compensated handsomely for these channels, too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 12, 2015 -> 01:28 PM) However, they're "Not" contending every year. Not on that, they're not contending this year at a cost almost $30 million more than not contending last year, and they're doing so with another payroll increase already on the books for next year just based on the contracts they currently have - so revenue growth this year in the form of at least a wild card hunt was an absolute must just to keep things balanced. "They're better off contending every year than following the boom & bust cycle". When do we get this boom exactly? Heck, when do we get any year of contending? Well we got a new GM two years ago. It should start now.

There it is. Sale is back.

QUOTE (La Marr Hoyt HOF @ May 12, 2015 -> 12:51 PM) Not just Robin, this was Rick's big step-up year in terms of asking JR for license to 'go all in' and he blew it. Bunch of mid-level, mid-aged FAs who thus far were bad signings.... Could be a defining moment for him as well. How do you know that? That's not consistent with anything that was said at any point by front office staff, nor is it consistent with the prevailing trends of the industry. Our team, like at least a dozen others, realized that they're better off contending every year, even if it's only for the Wild Card, than they are following the "boom & bust" rebuild cycle. Most of the acquisitions Hahn made this offseason are designed to help for two to three years without sacrificing much beyond that. The only significant move he made for 2015 only is Samardzija, who he'll recoup some of the value on with a QO offer or a deadline trade.

Revisiting this topic with a month of actually seeing him pitch, the command issues that have popped up intermittently have me thinking that the best thing to do with him at this point is Lyle Mouton.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 11, 2015 -> 07:37 AM) That is what I was saying about Adam Dunn for years but you guys weren't buying it. The thing with LaRoche is, he is hitting much better lately, and I bet if you looked at his numbers when he isn't a DH, they, sample size be damned, are MVP-like. I think it's moot because if Abreu isn't 100%, I doubt he plays 3B. Edit: LaRoche when he plays 1B: .471/.571/.942 And I wouldn't expect LaRoche to hit like that if he continued to play 1B, but I think it does show that he is having problem adjusting to being a DH rather than just not having the ability anymore. You were right.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 11, 2015 -> 01:30 PM) I guess it has to do with where they projected teams but Cameron had an article about Oakland still having a shot and they are 12-21, which would be the White Sox record if they lost their next 5 games, and they have 3 starters with ERAs under 3.00 and have several guys hitting at levels that more than likely will not be sustained. I'd take the 12-16 team with Robertson and Duke putting up unsustainable numbers, maybe Beckham, but he's a bench guy, and everyone else due to improve. But they supposedly have next to zero chance. Yeah I saw that article, I think the biggest differences in the two interpretations are the BaseRuns model, which is basically a much, much more sophisticated version of Pythagorean record. According to BaseRuns, the Sox should actually be even worse (10-18), which isn't surprising considering how many late-inning comebacks they've had. So I think that's why Cameron was painting the A's with a different flavor of "optimism" than Sullivan with the Sox. But yeah, as downright ugly as this season has been so far, 12-16 really doesn't look that bad. When Sale/Samardzija/Abreu/Eaton/Melky return to form, it should far outweigh the negative regression due to Garcia/Beckham/bullpen. The only thing that also lingers is those late-inning comebacks, which will most likley slow down as well.