December 12, 200322 yr Am I the only one that understands why a team that averages 19,000 per game would have a limited budget? I really get a kick from people who b**** and moan about the White Sox not spending money, when they are consistently in the lower third in attendance. The fact is that over the past three seasons the Sox have been ranked higher in payroll than in attendance. Year Attendance rank Payroll rank 2003 21st 17th 2002 23rd 18th 2001 26th 16th So, what is there to b**** about? Maybe I should call some people making $30,000/year and demand to know why they don't buy a house going for $300,000. My only problem with that logic is that it gives credence to the theory that you should support a s***ty product, then they will improve it. That's a load of crap. You put a good proiduct on the field, and THAT'S when the crowds start averaging more than 19,000/game. Whining that you can't run a team on a break-even or net-loss plan should carry no weight with anyone--the way business has been done on EVERY level since the beginning of trade is that you have to convince people you have something they want , and that entails spending money on your product, even if it means losing money at first.
December 12, 200322 yr A) I go to 15-20 games a year, so I put money in Jerry's pockets; B) If he wasn't making a LOT of money off the team, he'd have sold a long time ago; C) If as you said, the Sox spend money wisely, then why not throw between $7-10 million per at Tejada, Pudge, AND Vlad. They are a "steal" at their rumored "going rates". Once again, I ask you...if you went to a restaurant where the food was sub-standard, and the owner said, "We'll make it better if more people come and eat it.", would you keep going back for more? How many times do you "Jerry-apologists" have to be hit over the head by Sox management? Remember, a definition of INSANITY...going into the same situation(s) in the same manners, and expecting different outcomes every time!
December 12, 200322 yr I just read that the Jays will be trying to extend Halladay's contact this spring and the numbers being talked about are 4 years 40 million if this is true it make MB's signing look like a steal.
December 12, 200322 yr C) If as you said, the Sox spend money wisely, then why not throw between $7-10 million per at Tejada, Pudge, AND Vlad. They are a "steal" at their rumored "going rates". Yes, let's throw 10 million plus dollars (for 5+ years) at I-Rod who is Injury prone and over 30. And at Vlad who has some major health issues as well. A five year contract with I-Rod is what the Sox don't need now. And WHY, WHY, WHY would we get Vlad when we have Magglio, CLee and Jeremy Reed coming up? That is not spending your money wisely. The same could be said for I-Rod--Miguel Olivo is going to be great--he's got one of the best arms in baseball and was on the all-rookie team. We do NOT need either of those two. The only case I could see if Tejada, and well, that money would be better spent on pitching.
December 12, 200322 yr Cuz...IF Mark came in and asked for 10 mildo, the Sox would have to pay him, or risk losing the shred of credibility they have with their fans. They can't afford to alienate any more of their star players. The Sox are a PR nightmare already! I think Isreal4ever is trying to earn a soxtalk 2003 awards nomination. He has my vote... ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Isreal4ever=Troll
December 13, 200322 yr Some of you people are SOOOO stupid! Are you sure you're not cub fans? :dips***
December 13, 200322 yr Some of you people are SOOOO stupid! Are you sure you're not cub fans? :dips*** It appears that you are the only smart one on the board. All sarcasm aside. There are valid points to be made on both sides of this argument. As someone mentioned, its a circular argument. This can be debated for weeks, and nothing is going to change, including anyone's opinion. So why is this such a confrontational discussion?
December 13, 200322 yr Hey Pastime...I've been a Sox fan since before your father was too lazy to go to the drug store to by condoms. My "problem" is that I love the Sox TOO much; I'm sick of "management" crying "poor". If the Sox weren't profitable, Jerry would have sold a long time ago. JR needs to put up (money) or quit whining about how nobody goes to Sox games! Love to y'all!
December 13, 200322 yr Am I the only one that understands why a team that averages 19,000 per game would have a limited budget? I really get a kick from people who b**** and moan about the White Sox not spending money, when they are consistently in the lower third in attendance. The fact is that over the past three seasons the Sox have been ranked higher in payroll than in attendance. Year Attendance rank Payroll rank 2003 21st 17th 2002 23rd 18th 2001 26th 16th So, what is there to b**** about? Maybe I should call some people making $30,000/year and demand to know why they don't buy a house going for $300,000. The premise that the team makes most of their money from the gate is off base. Add in TV, skybox, concession, naming rights, share of MLB licensing, etc. etc. and you have a better picture. Comparing TOTAL revenue with total payroll would be more accurate. As far as fan attendance needing to increase before the product gets better, that is a dual edge sword. Do you keep watching s***ty tv shows so the shows get better? Eat at crappy restaurants so they can improve their food. Give me one other example where people keep spending their hard earned money to support a s***ty product in the hopes a better product can be made? That logic would have you up to your ass in Beta movies, and Sega games. In politics, a nice comparision since we are after the votes of the masses, campaigns divide up the demographics in three groups. Using that to compare Chicago baseball: 1/3 are die hard Cub fans and will support the team no matter what. 1/3 are die hard Sox fans and will support the team no matter what. 1/3 is the battleground. How do you get these fans to come to your game? Better ballpark, geographics (can't change that), WINNING team, cost, service.
December 13, 200322 yr a restaurant and a baseball team are completely different. people aren't rooting for a restaurant to do good. if a restaurant fails it fails. in baseball, with the Sox, it's been a cycle. Fans don't go to the game, Sox cut salary, fans continue not to go to the game and the Sox continue to keep the salary low. the fans want a winner and the Sox want attendance. In defense of the Sox, the last time the Sox supplied their fans with a winner, their fans responded by still not going to the park. The ownership of the Sox is bad and there is no doubting that, but the fans aren't much better. However, I think with the new renovations, the Sox should really make an effort this year to put together a WS team. That way, at least they can then say that they've done everything the fans wanted.
December 13, 200322 yr Author Chicago baseball: 1/3 are die hard Cub fans and will support the team no matter what. 1/3 are die hard Sox fans and will support the team no matter what. 1/3 is the battleground. How do you get these fans to come to your game? Better ballpark, geographics (can't change that), WINNING team, cost, service . Your symmetry and logically neat characterization is nice in theory but reality is something else. Chicago baseball: 1/3 are die hard Cubs fans 1/5 are die hard Sox fans 2/3 of the remaining (half of Chicago) either don't care about baseball and will never go..... OR will never go to SouthSide, traffic, neighborhood, lack of restaurants or coeds or presitge, latent racism/classism, cam't afford, etc, etc. etc. To get these fair weather people in you'd have to have "event" games such as Cubs/Sox, All-Star Games, Sox-Yankees, plaoffs games, etc. You'd need a 100+ win team that is a national buzz, pefect weather, half-price, etc. JR is right in that he doesn't feel it's prudent to put his financial fate in the hands of these people year in and out. You're right about non-gate revenue streams that make Sox not as cahs-strapped as most think....... but other in turn people are also right about JR needing to make profit BEFORE spending on a team. 58 Mill payrol is designed for him to make MONEY all the while fielding a reasonably competitive product. Spending 70-75+ Mill would put him into red, and that is self-defeating and UNACCEPTABLE for him.
December 13, 200322 yr The premise that the team makes most of their money from the gate is off base. Add in TV, skybox, concession, naming rights, share of MLB licensing, etc. etc. and you have a better picture. Comparing TOTAL revenue with total payroll would be more accurate. As far as fan attendance needing to increase before the product gets better, that is a dual edge sword. Do you keep watching s***ty tv shows so the shows get better? Eat at crappy restaurants so they can improve their food. Give me one other example where people keep spending their hard earned money to support a s***ty product in the hopes a better product can be made? That logic would have you up to your ass in Beta movies, and Sega games. In politics, a nice comparision since we are after the votes of the masses, campaigns divide up the demographics in three groups. Using that to compare Chicago baseball: 1/3 are die hard Cub fans and will support the team no matter what. 1/3 are die hard Sox fans and will support the team no matter what. 1/3 is the battleground. How do you get these fans to come to your game? Better ballpark, geographics (can't change that), WINNING team, cost, service. Winning isn't the cure all. The Cubs have been pretty brutal overall the last 10-15 years, yet have no problem packing them in. The White Sox had the best record in the AL in 2000, yet didn't draw 2 million, more than 500,000 below the league average.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.