36 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

You can also pick and choose your "facts" based on your bitterness with ownership, but that doesn't make it right.

Don't let the actual revenue numbers get in the way of a nonsensical rant.

I am drawing from the same set of “facts” as is Steve Stone, who happens to be very close to the owner, so your tired bitterness argument doesn’t hold water. 

13 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

I am drawing from the same set of “facts” as is Steve Stone, who happens to be very close to the owner, so your tired bitterness argument doesn’t hold water. 

Right, but you and Steve Stone are ignoring how marketing works. Every shopping mall has a Sephora make-up store, but Sephora's market doesn't consist of everyone in the mall. That store could achieve 100% market saturation without selling to half the people that walk by it.

Edited June 1, 20187 yr by Eminor3rd

6 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Everything about the White Sox is middle market, except the city they play in.  Even at their absolute peak they weren't a big market team.  Revenues, viewership, audience, etc all support that.  We have a middle sized fan base when compared to the rest of baseball, who are extremely willing to jump ship at any time.  Major market teams don't see that.

If we have a “middle sized fan base”, it’s because in 57 of the 58 years since the World Series appearance in ‘59 (outside of 2005), this fan base has witnessed all of FOUR postseason victories.  FOUR postseason victories over a 57 year period.  Contrast that with the FOUR postseason wins the Cubs fan base got to enjoy in less than a two week period last October, and then get back to me with what a horrible fan base we have that you love to bash all the time.

2 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

If we have a “middle sized fan base”, it’s because in 57 of the 58 years since the World Series appearance in ‘59 (outside of 2005), this fan base has witnessed all of FOUR postseason victories.  FOUR postseason victories over a 57 year period.  Contrast that with the FOUR postseason wins the Cubs fan base got to enjoy in less than a two week period last October, and then get back to me with what a horrible fan base we have that you love to bash all the time.

I'm not sure how much you know about Chicago, but uh -- it was still that way BEFORE the Cubs got good. You know, when it was 100+ years since they won a  World Series? When they were on the longest, most famously pathetic championship drought in sports history?

They still outdrew the White Sox, and they very much enjoyed a larger media market. They still do, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with winning.

12 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

I'm not sure how much you know about Chicago, but uh -- it was still that way BEFORE the Cubs got good. You know, when it was 100+ years since they won a  World Series? When they were on the longest, most famously pathetic championship drought in sports history?

They still outdrew the White Sox, and they very much enjoyed a larger media market. They still do, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with winning.

Yeah this.  The "they have to win" thing is ridiculous.  The Cub didn't win anything for over a century. It is an excuse to dismiss reality. 

2 hours ago, greg775 said:

If this rebuild fails, if too many players flame out, welcome to the 20 year rebuild, folks. 

Worth the risk. They needed to rebuild.

This 2012 Bleacher report analysis of all 30 teams re. market size. Sox were ranked 10th behind Washington and ahead of Atlanta. 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/961412-mlb-power-rankings-all-30-mlb-teams-by-market-size#slide0

 

Though Chicago is a huge market, the White Sox are dominated therein.

Even since the 2005 World Series title the Sox brought home, Chicago remains a Cubs town, and the Cubs will always gobble up most of the tourist money, merchandise money, ad revenue and prime media real estate in the city.

That's one element of the problem here. Another is that U.S. Cellular Field is a bit of a dump, by modern ballpark standards. It has relatively little character. It sits in a poor South Side neighborhood, where the expected economic impact has never developed.

The revenue exclusivity of the area helps in a way, but the removal from downtown Chicago is a disadvantage, too. The Sox are no poor cousin, but they're functionally a mid-market team, albeit the richest once imaginable.

16 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yeah this.  The "they have to win" thing is ridiculous.  The Cub didn't win anything for over a century. It is an excuse to dismiss reality. 

Except this (attendance dominance) didn’t happen for good until the 1984-1989 abyss for the Sox.

We all know the reasons. At least 50% self inflicted.

 

33 minutes ago, SCCWS said:

This 2012 Bleacher report analysis of all 30 teams re. market size. Sox were ranked 10th behind Washington and ahead of Atlanta. 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/961412-mlb-power-rankings-all-30-mlb-teams-by-market-size#slide0

 

Though Chicago is a huge market, the White Sox are dominated therein.

Even since the 2005 World Series title the Sox brought home, Chicago remains a Cubs town, and the Cubs will always gobble up most of the tourist money, merchandise money, ad revenue and prime media real estate in the city.

That's one element of the problem here. Another is that U.S. Cellular Field is a bit of a dump, by modern ballpark standards. It has relatively little character. It sits in a poor South Side neighborhood, where the expected economic impact has never developed.

The revenue exclusivity of the area helps in a way, but the removal from downtown Chicago is a disadvantage, too. The Sox are no poor cousin, but they're functionally a mid-market team, albeit the richest once imaginable.

The White Sox were not “dominated” in this “huge” market in 1981/1982, at the time when the current owners took control of the Sox and Tribune Company took control of the Cubs.  The latter quickly learned how to take advantage of the “huge” market in which they played and tapped into its potential almost immediately, while the former did not, and 38 long years later, still have not.

1 minute ago, Fan O'Faust said:

The White Sox were not “dominated” in this “huge” market in 1981/1982, at the time when the current owners took control of the Sox and Tribune Company took control of the Cubs.  The latter quickly learned how to take advantage of the “huge” market in which they played and tapped into its potential almost immediately, while the former did not, and 38 long years later, still have not.

The White Sox were almost moved out of Chicago multiple times in the 70's because they were drawing so badly.

3 hours ago, Eminor3rd said:

I'm not sure how much you know about Chicago, but uh -- it was still that way BEFORE the Cubs got good. You know, when it was 100+ years since they won a  World Series? When they were on the longest, most famously pathetic championship drought in sports history?

They still outdrew the White Sox, and they very much enjoyed a larger media market. They still do, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with winning.

Not sure what the parameters are involving this discussion but the time period from 1951-1967, the "Golden Age" of White Sox baseball the Sox outdrew the Cubs in 16 of those 17 seasons, sometimes by a wide margin...they also got the lion's share of media coverage in the market and had a radio network of approximately 100 stations throughout the Midwest and down into the South including Jackson, Mississippi, Atlanta (before the Braves came) and most of Florida (because they trained in Sarasota.)

Generally until the Tribune Company bought the Cubs in 1981, and used their tremendous marketing and media influence, the team that was winning more usually drew better between the two clubs.

After that though because of John McDonough (who grew up a Sox fan by the way) and again because of the power of the Tribune Company (to say nothing of the Sox not being willing to even fight for their own market i.e. "we're Chicago's American League team...) the Cubs have dominated since 1984.

I have in my library a story out of The Sporting News in 1993 where Ron Schueler was quoted as saying that the Sox were in first place, the Cubs in last, yet they were still outdrawing them. 

Part of that dynamic was because the Tribune Company had done a wonderful job selling the "Wrigley Field experience" as well as the Sox not being in the playoffs for 10 years at that time. 

There is no easy or simple answer to this situation. You have to examine history, understand the dynamics of the two fan bases and look at the outside factors that have played heavily into the situation.

Edited June 2, 20187 yr by Lip Man 1

3 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Except this (attendance dominance) didn’t happen for good until the 1984-1989 abyss for the Sox.

We all know the reasons. At least 50% self inflicted.

 

Some truth in your statement... collusion headed in part by JR (at least according to Fay Vincent in his book) and the threat to move to Florida certainly didn't help things.

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

The White Sox were almost moved out of Chicago multiple times in the 70's because they were drawing so badly.

In fairness they drew poorly because the only good teams they had in the time period from 1968-1980 was in 1972 and 1977. Plus both John Allyn and Bill Veeck did not have the money to really run the franchise properly. In Allyn's case it was because his outside business interests went south and he was almost bankrupt.

One common thread among the Sox franchise is that regarding ownership they either had money and resources and didn't want to spend it or spent it modestly or they basically didn't have the money to begin with and were just scraping by.

Edited June 2, 20187 yr by Lip Man 1

7 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

In fairness they drew poorly because the only good teams they had in the time period from 1968-1980 was in 1972 and 1977. Plus both John Allyn and Bill Veeck did not have the money to really run the franchise properly. In Allyn's case it was because his outside business interests went south and he was almost bankrupt.

One common thread among the Sox franchise is that regarding ownership they either had money and resources and didn't want to spend it or spent it modestly or they basically didn't have the money to begin with and were just scraping by.

And how many times have the Cubs almost moved?

14 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

And how many times have the Cubs almost moved?

None that I know of although I'm not sure of the connection with my comment. The Cubs have been fortunate to have ownership for the most part with excellent resources and money (P.K. Wrigley / Tribune Company), granted they didn't spend it wisely (especially the Tribune Company for many years) but they did make an effort to do so. And publicity-wise, the Tribune Company both owning the Cubs as well as major media companies in Chicago was as good as it gets. 

8 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

None that I know of although I'm not sure of the connection with my comment. The Cubs have been fortunate to have ownership for the most part with excellent resources and money (P.K. Wrigley / Tribune Company), granted they didn't spend it wisely (especially the Tribune Company for many years) but they did make an effort to do so. And publicity-wise, the Tribune Company both owning the Cubs as well as major media companies in Chicago was as good as it gets. 

My point exactly, the Cubs were ran like an ATM, and were never in danger of leaving.  The Sox were run as cheaply as possible and almost moved 3 different times in 50 years through multiple ownership groups.

Why?  Because one is a major market team, and the other is not.  One has the huge fan base to support it, the other does not.

Cmon. Chicago White Sox is a major market team. Yes there are a lot of excuses because the Cubs have won the battle for fan interest. But truly it's the Sox fault. The Sox had the city won during the WS season. They had a chance to more than hold their own if they would have been able to start dominating such a weak division, but they failed. Just because the front office failed doesn't mean the team isn't major market. Fans have never had a problem coming out to the Cell when the team is good, despite all the neighborhood talk and blah stadium talk. They won't go out there when the team blows and who's fault is that?

Again, this major market team had a chance to tie the Cubs or even own the city after winning it all in 05. Everybody loves a winner and the team failed miserably to build on that so you get what you get, an underachieving franchise that still makes a ton of money cause of TV.

Also prior to August of 1988, the White Sox had a big advantage drawing people to games, as the Cubs couldn’t play home games at night.

39 minutes ago, greg775 said:

Cmon. Chicago White Sox is a major market team. Yes there are a lot of excuses because the Cubs have won the battle for fan interest. But truly it's the Sox fault. The Sox had the city won during the WS season. They had a chance to more than hold their own if they would have been able to start dominating such a weak division, but they failed. Just because the front office failed doesn't mean the team isn't major market. Fans have never had a problem coming out to the Cell when the team is good, despite all the neighborhood talk and blah stadium talk. They won't go out there when the team blows and who's fault is that?

Again, this major market team had a chance to tie the Cubs or even own the city after winning it all in 05. Everybody loves a winner and the team failed miserably to build on that so you get what you get, an underachieving franchise that still makes a ton of money cause of TV.

Ironically enough, it slowly went south when they started making similar moves you keep clamoring for.

13 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Not sure what the parameters are involving this discussion but the time period from 1951-1967, the "Golden Age" of White Sox baseball the Sox outdrew the Cubs in 16 of those 17 seasons, sometimes by a wide margin...they also got the lion's share of media coverage in the market and had a radio network of approximately 100 stations throughout the Midwest and down into the South including Jackson, Mississippi, Atlanta (before the Braves came) and most of Florida (because they trained in Sarasota.)

Generally until the Tribune Company bought the Cubs in 1981, and used their tremendous marketing and media influence, the team that was winning more usually drew better between the two clubs.

After that though because of John McDonough (who grew up a Sox fan by the way) and again because of the power of the Tribune Company (to say nothing of the Sox not being willing to even fight for their own market i.e. "we're Chicago's American League team...) the Cubs have dominated since 1984.

I have in my library a story out of The Sporting News in 1993 where Ron Schueler was quoted as saying that the Sox were in first place, the Cubs in last, yet they were still outdrawing them. 

Part of that dynamic was because the Tribune Company had done a wonderful job selling the "Wrigley Field experience" as well as the Sox not being in the playoffs for 10 years at that time. 

There is no easy or simple answer to this situation. You have to examine history, understand the dynamics of the two fan bases and look at the outside factors that have played heavily into the situation.

Great post, much more detailed and accurate than anything I could describe.

44 minutes ago, greg775 said:

Cmon. Chicago White Sox is a major market team. Yes there are a lot of excuses because the Cubs have won the battle for fan interest. But truly it's the Sox fault. The Sox had the city won during the WS season. They had a chance to more than hold their own if they would have been able to start dominating such a weak division, but they failed. Just because the front office failed doesn't mean the team isn't major market. Fans have never had a problem coming out to the Cell when the team is good, despite all the neighborhood talk and blah stadium talk. They won't go out there when the team blows and who's fault is that?

Again, this major market team had a chance to tie the Cubs or even own the city after winning it all in 05. Everybody loves a winner and the team failed miserably to build on that so you get what you get, an underachieving franchise that still makes a ton of money cause of TV.

Did you like the Dunn signing? Probably. Cabrera signing? Probably. Robertson signing? Probably. Samardzija trade? Probably.

Unless you’re Boston, LA, or NYY, you have to rebuild to win. I can even make an argument that those teams are so successful because of their youth or the great youth they dealt to acquire vets. We’ve been over this. 

Imagine a farm so great that they can afford to trade this #4 pick, or Dunning, or Gonzalez, etc in 1-2 years to acquire a big FA at the deadline to seal their championship fate, ala Torres for Chapman.

Edited June 2, 20187 yr by soxfan49

44 minutes ago, greg775 said:

Cmon. Chicago White Sox is a major market team. Yes there are a lot of excuses because the Cubs have won the battle for fan interest. But truly it's the Sox fault. The Sox had the city won during the WS season. They had a chance to more than hold their own if they would have been able to start dominating such a weak division, but they failed. Just because the front office failed doesn't mean the team isn't major market. Fans have never had a problem coming out to the Cell when the team is good, despite all the neighborhood talk and blah stadium talk. They won't go out there when the team blows and who's fault is that?

Again, this major market team had a chance to tie the Cubs or even own the city after winning it all in 05. Everybody loves a winner and the team failed miserably to build on that so you get what you get, an underachieving franchise that still makes a ton of money cause of TV.

Greg this isn't a matter of opinion. Media market is defined by target, demographic, and literal media reach. Cubs have a larger footprint and compete with the Sox in bulk of the Sox footprint. They live in a major city, but their media market is mid-sized. 

23 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

Ironically enough, it slowly went south when they started making similar moves you keep clamoring for.

The Sox inability to remain atop that weak division after winning it all in 05 is one of the great tragedies in Chicago sports history. 

18 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

Greg this isn't a matter of opinion. Media market is defined by target, demographic, and literal media reach. Cubs have a larger footprint and compete with the Sox in bulk of the Sox footprint. They live in a major city, but their media market is mid-sized. 

I hear you. But didn't somebody say Bleacher Report ranked our market 10th?

22 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Did you like the Dunn signing? Probably. Cabrera signing? Probably. Robertson signing? Probably. Samardzija trade? Probably.

Unless you’re Boston, LA, or NYY, you have to rebuild to win. I can even make an argument that those teams are so successful because of their youth or the great youth they dealt to acquire vets. We’ve been over this. 

Imagine a farm so great that they can afford to trade this #4 pick, or Dunning, or Gonzalez, etc in 1-2 years to acquire a big FA at the deadline to seal their championship fate, ala Torres for Chapman.

Not to remain Negative Nancy but I actually only liked the Robertson signing and I stood up for him throughout his tenure with the Sox. He blew a few saves but I thought he was a good closer. Our front office is in a long stretch of angering Greg. They've done a good job of acquiring guys I don't approve of. A couple times I stifled just cause the board was so happy to get some of those guys, but our front office has a horrid record since 05 of doing anything right. The rebuild? We'll see.

Edited June 2, 20187 yr by greg775