PDA

View Full Version : Gammons and Patrick on Tribune Cub bias


Foulke You
04-30-2002, 02:06 PM
I was listening to the replay of the Dan Patrick show on ESPN Radio on the way home from work yesterday and Dan Patrick and Peter Gammons were talking about the Cubs. The topic of the rooftops and the Tribune owning the Cubs came up when Dan Patrick posed this question to Gammons:

Dan Patrick:

"Do you think that in a town with 2 baseball teams, it is a conflict of interests of sorts for the Tribune to own the Cubs? Could they possibly write objectively about the White Sox when it is in their own best interests to focus more on the Cubs?"

Gammons response was this:

"Well, I don't necessarily think that there is a bias. Of course, the Tribune would be doing their newspaper a disservice not to focus more on the Cubs because there are simply more Cubs fans out there then Sox fans. (Sighs) The Sox...the Sox are simply one of those teams that has everything go wrong for them. They were unfortunate in being the 1st to build a new park, it's buried off the Dan Ryan away from the city and of course the Orioles changed everything with their new park in '94. The Sox market themselves brilliantly, and I think has done one of the best jobs in marketing out of any baseball team. They just can't for whatever reason draw big crowds to that park. Let's face it the Sox took a 1910 ballpark and turned into a 1930s park (laughs all around). I like the Sox though. They have an exciting team and I'm always looking for them on the Direct TV because they are scoring runs in bunches except when they play Oakland..."


Kudos to Dan Patrick for getting his face out of Jason Giambi's @$$ and having the guts to pose the question to Gammons but Gammons response was pretty typical. I'm not exactly sure what he meant by the 1930s park comment though but Dibble, Patrick, and Gammons thought it was pretty funny though.

cheeses_h_rice
04-30-2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
I'm not exactly sure what he meant by the 1930s park comment though but Dibble, Patrick, and Gammons thought it was pretty funny though.

:boston

You mean it isn't 1930?

Cheryl
04-30-2002, 02:17 PM
For just a second, I thought about skipping this one, thinking, please, please, I don't want to agree with Boston.

I don't know why I doubted, even for that amount of time, that he'd be wrong . And wrong about so much too!

cheeses_h_rice
04-30-2002, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
Well, I don't necessarily think that there is a bias. Of course, the Tribune would be doing their newspaper a disservice not to focus more on the Cubs because there are simply more Cubs fans out there then Sox fans.

I don't understand how someone who doesn't have daily access to the printed versions of both papers can make such a blanket assessment. How the hell does Boston know if there's a bias or not? And how would the Tribune putting the Sox story on top but yet still cover the Flubbies affect their readership? Would people look at it and go, "Nah, they don't have the Cubbies first, I'm not buying it today"?

It isn't necessarily column inches that's at the heart of the matter (though that is often the case); it's often more subtle, for instance emphasizing fights in the stands and low attendance for the Sox rather than the results of the games. The Flubbies can get away with godawful play and as long as the sun is shining and Sham-ME Soso blasts a meaningless zinger, they get a free pass. If the Flubbies were as hot as the Sox have been the last 3 years, and the Sox as cold as the Flubs, the coverage slant would be so strong you could smell it a mile away. As it is, the Sox barely maintain an even edge in the press battle these days, and I say couple newsprint with TV reportage, and they're actually losing the battle. That, my friends, is sad, and something Boston could not have any knowledge of.

duke of dorwood
04-30-2002, 02:37 PM
:moron

I told him about Tribune bias

Soxboyrob
04-30-2002, 02:38 PM
What amazed me was Boston's stating that the Sox do a brilliant marketing job. I like the new commercials, but is he serious? Brilliant?

RedPinStripes
04-30-2002, 03:01 PM
:boston
"I have no brain outside of Fenway"

Nellie_Fox
04-30-2002, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
What amazed me was Boston's stating that the Sox do a brilliant marketing job. I like the new commercials, but is he serious? Brilliant?
I know that Gallas isn't particularly well liked on this board, but some of his promotions have been copied not only by pretty much every MLB team, but teams in other sports as well. Turn Back the Clock was a Gallas (or one of his people) idea, and we have not only seen lots of MLB repeats, but were treated to Shaq wearing a Minneapolis Lakers uni recently. I think pet day and picnic in the park are Sox ideas as well (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.) Also fireworks night.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-30-2002, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
I know that Gallas isn't particularly well liked on this board, but some of his promotions have been copied not only by pretty much every MLB team, but teams in other sports as well. Turn Back the Clock was a Gallas (or one of his people) idea, and we have not only seen lots of MLB repeats, but were treated to Shaq wearing a Minneapolis Lakers uni recently. I think pet day and picnic in the park are Sox ideas as well (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.) Also fireworks night.

Look, I'll give Gallas all the credit in the world for his whacky promotions. My personal favorite is Flying Elvis Night. He deserves credit for being creative in this area, and I've tossed him props for it here.

Where Gallas has failed miserably is advanced ticket sales, especially season ticket sales. The Sox simply do not do enough to get fans interested in buying extras tickets, either for themselves or for their business. It's pathetic, because the team has been setting records for walk up sales several years now. What does that tell you about season ticket sales?

A perfect example of how much this hurts the team was April 21. The weather was crap and both the Sox and Cubs were playing at home. The Sox drew just 13,000 while the Cubs had an announced paid attendance of 30,000. Whether the fans showed up at Wrigley or not (and well over half didn't), the Cubs kept the money made on those advance sales.

After TV revenue, season ticket sales are the mother's milk of a baseball franchise's health. The Sox are starving themselves under Gallas' marketing failures.

Cheryl
04-30-2002, 03:23 PM
Gallas does have a good idea every few years or so. Then he trots those out year after year until everyone is sick of them.

Dog Day...Elvis Night...Turn Back the Clock...I'm really over those.

I admit to be intrigued by the sleepover idea. Not enough to spend $$$ to see two games against Montreal, but intrigued anyway.

Are they doing Picnic in the Park this year? Or has the sleepover replaced it?

cheeses_h_rice
04-30-2002, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
Gallas does have a good idea every few years or so. Then he trots those out year after year until everyone is sick of them.

Dog Day...Elvis Night...Turn Back the Clock...I'm really over those.

I admit to be intrigued by the sleepover idea. Not enough to spend $$$ to see two games against Montreal, but intrigued anyway.

Are they doing Picnic in the Park this year? Or has the sleepover replaced it?

I believe I heard the other day on Channel 7's news that the advance interest in the sleepover night has been so strong that with tickets limited to 250 people, only season ticket holders would likely get a chance to attend.

Spiff
04-30-2002, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox

I know that Gallas isn't particularly well liked on this board, but some of his promotions have been copied not only by pretty much every MLB team, but teams in other sports as well.

The Marlins just had a Dog Day a few games ago, I was wondering if they got the idea from the Sox.

And not many people are well-liked on this board.

Foulke You
04-30-2002, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Look, I'll give Gallas all the credit in the world for his whacky promotions. My personal favorite is Flying Elvis Night. He deserves credit for being creative in this area, and I've tossed him props for it here.

Where Gallas has failed miserably is advanced ticket sales, especially season ticket sales. The Sox simply do not do enough to get fans interested in buying extras tickets, either for themselves or for their business. It's pathetic, because the team has been setting records for walk up sales several years now. What does that tell you about season ticket sales?

A perfect example of how much this hurts the team was April 21. The weather was crap and both the Sox and Cubs were playing at home. The Sox drew just 13,000 while the Cubs had an announced paid attendance of 30,000. Whether the fans showed up at Wrigley or not (and well over half didn't), the Cubs kept the money made on those advance sales.

After TV revenue, season ticket sales are the mother's milk of a baseball franchise's health. The Sox are starving themselves under Gallas' marketing failures.

I have to agree PHG. For whatever reason this team can't sell season ticket packages and that is at the root of the infamous attendance problem. The Sox are way too dependant on walkup sales to shoot attendance up. You can't depend on good weather and promotions to get people to show up. You need a solid ticket base. It's my understanding that the season ticket base is around 10,000-12,000 this year. In order to get 30,000 people we need 20,000 walkups!! That isn't going to happen too often.

When we were filling New Comiskey in the early '90s there was more of a "corporate" crowd element at Comiskey. Suddenly every company was buying up season tickets because everyone wanted to see the new ballpark. After the strike, the corporate element packed up their stuff and moved on to the more in vogue Wrigley Field leaving nothing but the true Sox fans to fill the stands. These same true fans that Reinsdorf has alenated for years. Gallas needs to market the team to the true fans and get THEM to buy season ticket packages because these are the people who will be loyal to you and show up year after year. So far, he has been sub par at this.

rmusacch
04-30-2002, 04:09 PM
Not living in Chicago for about 20 years now, I do not know the answer to this but are there really more Cubs fans than Sox fans in Chicago or is he basing that on the fact that more people show up to Cubs games?

Chisox353014
04-30-2002, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00

And not many people are well-liked on this board.

:hitless
"I am. Check it out. Who else has a banner like mine?"
:thechoice

:hughes
"Ha Ha. Yep, that is somethin' else!"

Chisox353014
04-30-2002, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by rmusacch
Not living in Chicago for about 20 years now, I do not know the answer to this but are there really more Cubs fans than Sox fans in Chicago or is he basing that on the fact that more people show up to Cubs games?

I think the number of real, knowledgable, die-hard fans is probably about the same, if not in favor of the Sox. (Check out the size of a Wrigley crowd during a rainy, 40-degree game.) If you asked most people in Chicago who they like better, I think they usually default to the Cubs because they either a) believe the whole Wrigley fairy tale, b) see Sammy everywhere they look and think Sammy=Chicago baseball, or c) once went to a Cub game with the rest of their non-baseball fan co-workers as part of an office outing and don't know what else to say.

Cheryl
04-30-2002, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by rmusacch
Not living in Chicago for about 20 years now, I do not know the answer to this but are there really more Cubs fans than Sox fans in Chicago or is he basing that on the fact that more people show up to Cubs games?

More people buy tickets (season mostly, or single game but not walk up) at the Urinal. Whether or not that makes them fans is up for discussion.

WinningUgly!
04-30-2002, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
Well, I don't necessarily think that there is a bias. Of course, the Tribune would be doing their newspaper a disservice not to focus more on the Cubs because there are simply more Cubs fans out there then Sox fans.

OK Pete, and the reason there are more sCrUB fans than Sox fans has nothing to do with the years & years of Tribune Co. bias in Chicago? I suppose the years of sCrUB games being broadcast nationally doesn't have anything to do with the bus loads of old ladies heading to Wrigley everyday from Iowa, either? I'll give Gammons a break. It's probably hard for him to see things with his head buried that far up his orifice.

harwar
05-01-2002, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Foulke You
They were unfortunate in being the 1st to build a new park, it's buried off the Dan Ryan away from the city and of course the Orioles changed everything with their new park in '94.

Well,he was right about this part.If they had built the park in that spot overlooking the loop by the RR tracks(which was won of 3 proposed spots,along with Addison & 35 & shields),we'd probably be having big crowds everynight,not-with-standing the strike,the cubs,the bad neighborhood,and all the other crap.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-01-2002, 09:42 AM
They were unfortunate in being the 1st to build a new park, it's buried off the Dan Ryan away from the city and of course the Orioles changed everything with their new park in '94.

This is a classic example of revisionist history. Yes, New Comiskey came first, but EVERYONE knew about the revolutionary ballpark design Baltimore was creating years before even New Comiskey opened. In fact the Tribune's architecture critic panned New Comiskey just weeks after it opened, and a full-year BEFORE Camden Yards opened.

The problem was the Sox front office. They refused to make any changes in the ballpark's design because they were fixated on having the ballpark open for the 1991 season. Thus their 1986 design went to the build stage with only modest changes (the arched windows hidden behind the ugly ramps, for example).

It's just this sort of short-sighted thinking that made Comiskey the mistake everyone knows it is, but the Sox front office REFUSES to acknowledge. Reinsdorf will never admit he goofed, even as all the ballpark improvements proceed.

Can you name one other park from the 90's that needs even one-tenth the renovations Comiskey requires? The front office's behavior on this subject is beyond childish, and it ALL starts at the top.

And since when can having a ballpark located along the main public and private transportation artery of Chicago be construed as "buried"? This goes beyond nonsense. Gammons is clueless.

Kudos to Peter Gammons for getting paid to spout such utter nonsense on national radio. We should all be so lucky.

:boston
"The thoughtfulness of my opinions declines, the further away from Fenway the subject becomes."

Procol Harum
05-01-2002, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

It's just this sort of short-sighted thinking that made Comiskey the mistake everyone knows it is, but the Sox front office REFUSES to acknowledge. Reinsdorf will never admit he goofed, even as all the ballpark improvements proceed.


And since when can having a ballpark located along the main public and private transportation artery of Chicago be construed as "buried"? This goes beyond nonsense. Gammons is clueless.



You're right PHG on the front office--they have never acknowledged making a mistake--of any kind! Player decisions (bringing back Harold Baines), managerial moves (Bevington), public relations gaffes (Gallas' various run-ins with fans), or the stadium. Reinsdorf and crew have a serious case of them-and-us.

On the other hand, while Comiskey may be on the main north-south trunk for Chicago, I'd argue that it may as well be buried. If you live in Chicago for any amount of time you quickly learn that the Dan Ryan is the Midwest's largest parking lot--and getting to the Ryan for suburban Sox fans is no picnic, either. Add to that the general mix of business and industrial areas within a few miles of the ballpark and the hardly-a-tourist-attraction neighborhood and you've got another Sox front office boo-boo. But, as we've already established, they'll never own up to that.

voodoochile
05-01-2002, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Procol Harum

On the other hand, while Comiskey may be on the main north-south trunk for Chicago, I'd argue that it may as well be buried. If you live in Chicago for any amount of time you quickly learn that the Dan Ryan is the Midwest's largest parking lot--and getting to the Ryan for suburban Sox fans is no picnic, either. Add to that the general mix of business and industrial areas within a few miles of the ballpark and the hardly-a-tourist-attraction neighborhood and you've got another Sox front office boo-boo. But, as we've already established, they'll never own up to that.

Can anyone imagine the traffic problems that would confront anyone going to a game if the Armor Square Park had been built? No easy access to Public trans, Not only drive the DR at Rush hour, but then spend 1/2-hour+ driving the side streets to get to a park with NO PARKING facilities... The main problem with Comiskey is the design and the competition. The boys screwed up, but as for accessibility, it is one of the easiest places to get to on game day...

Foulke You
05-01-2002, 12:48 PM
I would have to agree that while Armour Square would have been great for aesthetics it would have been a pain to get to having no "L" stop and most likely Wrigley type parking scenarios. Besides all of the obvious flaws in Reinsdorf's final design (upper deck, bland design, ugly ramps, etc...) the one that baffles me the most is why the park faces the Robert Taylor Homes instead of the city skyline. If the park faced the skyline and had been built slightly lower to the ground so people driving by could see inside the park like in Jacobs Field, it could have done wonders for it's aesthetic appeal. Instead, people driving past are treated to the upper deck exit ramp and the white backing of the outfield billboards. Not exactly a breathtaking sight.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-01-2002, 01:01 PM
What are you talking about? Armour Park would have been located with homeplate on 34th Street, halfway between Shields and Wentworth. Parking would be provided in multi-story garages behind the streetscape. The CTA's Red Line would be a shorter walk for people entering and exiting the platform from 33rd Street. In fact, access and egress would be improved from the 35th Street station since Sox Fans would have two viable means of getting to and from the train platform. How much easier can we possibly make it for them?

New Comiskey has no multi-tiered lots, and I bet most of the fans have a much further walk to their cars now than they would if Armour Park had been built.

voodoochile
05-01-2002, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
What are you talking about? Armour Park would have been located with homeplate on 34th Street, halfway between Shields and Wentworth. Parking would be provided in multi-story garages behind the streetscape. The CTA's Red Line would be a shorter walk for people entering and exiting the platform from 33rd Street. In fact, access and egress would be improved from the 35th Street station since Sox Fans would have two viable means of getting to and from the train platform. How much easier can we possibly make it for them?

New Comiskey has no multi-tiered lots, and I bet most of the fans have a much further walk to their cars now than they would if Armour Park had been built.

I thought it was going to be much further west... nevermind...