PDA

View Full Version : White Sox Public Relations Moving Forward


MARTINMVP
12-20-2009, 12:40 AM
It's no secret that this team has been plagued by a number of poor public relation practices through the years, coming right from the top of Jerry Reinsdorf. It seems that he has mellowed out a bit in the years, and I give credit to the organization as a whole in attempting to make things right in the last few years. Granted, a lot of the incentive for making things right has to do with trying to gain more fans and up attendance, but to go from one point where you royally piss off a fan base to trying to warm up to them is a huge step in the right direction.

I think that if the Sox can maintain winning seasons (even if not every season, but close), I think it is inevitable that the Sox will gain more fans in the coming generation. The ballpark speaks for itself. I truly believe that the only people who will honestly say that the ballpark is stale and dull are Cub fans, which is fine - they are biased by their stadium and they are entitled to that. I am not sure that I buy that Ricketts is going to be the dream owner for the Northsiders. It's one thing to be a fan, but economics changes everything, and once you are in control of the pocketbook and you have to consider the economics, I think your mindset changes completely.

Overall, the White Sox have a core group of guys that not only have talent, but are extremely likable (despite his attitude, AJ has still been my favorite Chicago ball player since he first came to town, and at that time, I was a miserable Cubs fan on my way out from following baseball).

My only wish would be that the organization listens and strongly considers maintaining some organ presence following Nancy's retirement (and perhaps, encourage her to stayput if she would like to - the situation involving her maybe being pushed out rubs me the wrong way).

Considering all though, I think great things are ahead for the Sox overall.

Domeshot17
12-20-2009, 01:01 AM
It's no secret that this team has been plagued by a number of poor public relation practices through the years, coming right from the top of Jerry Reinsdorf. It seems that he has mellowed out a bit in the years, and I give credit to the organization as a whole in attempting to make things right in the last few years. Granted, a lot of the incentive for making things right has to do with trying to gain more fans and up attendance, but to go from one point where you royally piss off a fan base to trying to warm up to them is a huge step in the right direction.

I think that if the Sox can maintain winning seasons (even if not every season, but close), I think it is inevitable that the Sox will gain more fans in the coming generation. The ballpark speaks for itself. I truly believe that the only people who will honestly say that the ballpark is stale and dull are Cub fans, which is fine - they are biased by their stadium and they are entitled to that. I am not sure that I buy that Ricketts is going to be the dream owner for the Northsiders. It's one thing to be a fan, but economics changes everything, and once you are in control of the pocketbook and you have to consider the economics, I think your mindset changes completely.

Overall, the White Sox have a core group of guys that not only have talent, but are extremely likable (despite his attitude, AJ has still been my favorite Chicago ball player since he first came to town, and at that time, I was a miserable Cubs fan on my way out from following baseball).

My only wish would be that the organization listens and strongly considers maintaining some organ presence following Nancy's retirement (and perhaps, encourage her to stayput if she would like to - the situation involving her maybe being pushed out rubs me the wrong way).

Considering all though, I think great things are ahead for the Sox overall.

Truth be told, for the Sox to gain fans there has to be a commitment to winning. Thats the only way to compete, its the only edge we have over the Cubs. They have more fans, they play in the more attractive area, they could sell out wrigley field without a game being played just because of the vendors.

The Sox had a golden chance to really grab a massive share of the fanbase in 2006. After our world series win, if we could have sustained any form of winning we would have been in great shape. However we pissed away 2006 down the stretch, Kenny built a terrible team that made a lot of money in 2007, 2008 was a cluster****ed roster that snuck in and 2009 was a lot like 2007. 2010 they have a great rotation, but we will see in march if they are really committed to winning a title and bring in a true slugging DH, or if they just are happy winning the division and do nothing to improve the roster. I am not writing off 2010 by any means, they have a shot to do a lot good and this offseason is a work in progress. But presently as is we are an 85 win team give or take 3 games. Our rotation is probably 3rd best in the AL, but offense easily in the bottom 5. Bullpen is a crapshoot.

The Sox live and die by winning. Their marketing is usually average at best, They are having an identity crisis at the ballpark between Nancy and piped in Dance offs on the dugout. The first part of any good marketing plan is knowing your target market, and I think the Sox have forgotten who that is. We aren't Cub fans, you don't make a series like the dodgers a premium series when you have a dog **** team and then cry the fans didn't show up. Hopefully they learn their lesson next year.

doublem23
12-20-2009, 01:26 AM
Look at where the Sox were in 1999 and look where they are now.

The last decade has been a spectacular success.

MARTINMVP
12-20-2009, 01:39 AM
There are still holes with their overall marketing strategy, but the last poster who compares now vs. 1999 - that says a lot.

You had an organization that made a blunder of decisions without any consideration of how it would affect the fan base and their commitment to the organization.

Nellie_Fox
12-20-2009, 02:08 AM
I truly believe that the only people who will honestly say that the ballpark is stale and dull are Cub fans, which is fine - they are biased by their stadium and they are entitled to that.All Wrigley is is old. That's it. It's old. There's nothing else special about it.

beasly213
12-20-2009, 02:30 AM
Look at where the Sox were in 1999 and look where they are now.

The last decade has been a spectacular success.

100% agree. I remember going to games where 20k was considered a great crowd. Just look at some old pictures of games and how many empty seats there were.

As for the whole identity crisis argument.. I don't buy that. I think the Sox know who they want to be. They want to be a family friendly park but only to those that can afford it. They want those who can afford to take their family to games to keep coming back.

Thats why you see things such as the pride crew, dancing on the dugout, scoreboard races etc. To keep kids and husbands or wives (depending if one is a big baseball fan and one isn't) entertained during the game.

I don't mind what they've done PR wise. They have made a few mistakes but what team doesn't? They have also done a good job at trying to fix those mistakes moving forward.

doublem23
12-20-2009, 02:41 AM
All Wrigley is is old. That's it. It's old. There's nothing else special about it.

I don't know, the atmosphere around the park is pretty sweet. I'd kill for even a 1/10th of what they have in Wrigleyville around the Cell.

HomeFish
12-20-2009, 02:46 AM
I believe Brooks has said that focus groups and polls show that most Sox fans don't like the organ music.

Nellie_Fox
12-20-2009, 03:03 AM
I don't know, the atmosphere around the park is pretty sweet. I'd kill for even a 1/10th of what they have in Wrigleyville around the Cell.I thought he was talking about the ballpark, not the neighborhood. And I hate calling it "the cell."

dickallen15
12-20-2009, 09:05 AM
All Wrigley is is old. That's it. It's old. There's nothing else special about it.


I think its a dump (no offense dumpjerry), but when I was watching game 4 of the 1983 ALCS on MLB Network yesterday, I pined for the days of Comiskey Park. It also was a dump, but I loved that place. It certainly was special to me.

jamokes
12-20-2009, 09:36 AM
Winning cures everything. Sox WILL not show up for a so-so team. Only a very few fans will notice if the organist isn't there. They want a winning team.

The Ricketts family will have a very short honeymoon on the northside. True cub fans are getting impatient with just a good team as they want to go deeper into the playoffs.

The more we win, the more ****** they get.

TomBradley72
12-20-2009, 10:18 AM
Their marketing has been on a downward slide ever since 2005..."Grinder Rules" was a great campaign and theme for the team...TV/radio/print marketing has been average at best since then.

It's been very positive since 1999...but I'd say they've "flattened out" since 2005.

Brian26
12-20-2009, 10:50 AM
Truth be told, for the Sox to gain fans there has to be a commitment to winning.

Which there generally has been since the 2000 off-season. If you want to pick a specific moment when that commitment was realized, it was shortly after Kenny took over for Schueler and traded Sirotka for David Wells.

You can complain about the 5th starter situation in the early part of the decade or how some of the pre-2007 moves didn't pan out, but overall this team has been built in a win-now mode for every season this decade. That comes from the top, with most of the credit going to Kenny for twisting JR's arm. It's no enviable task to gradually disassemble a World Series champion and try to keep the fan base happy, but the Sox have cautiously done so.

Anyone who remembers the late 80s or late 90s should have an appreciation for the ownership's commitment to the fans. There was a time when a guy like Mark Buehrle would not have been re-signed. There were times when picking up a former Cy Young winner (Peavy), less than two years removed, would have been a pipe dream.

The Sox don't have to have more fans than the Cubs to be a successful operation. They also don't have to win the World Series or have 95 wins every season to be a success.

My only complaint for the Sox in terms of marketing/promotions over the last decade is that they let John Rooney go without a fight and without a knock-out offer to stay. The radio side has been a mess ever since.

Jpgr91
12-20-2009, 12:02 PM
Their marketing has been on a downward slide ever since 2005..."Grinder Rules" was a great campaign and theme for the team...TV/radio/print marketing has been average at best since then.

It's been very positive since 1999...but I'd say they've "flattened out" since 2005.

I agree that the recent marketing campaigns have been very boring. I did like the idea of putting replicas of the scoreboard that updates live during games on a few electronic billboards. The Trophy tour was pretty good community reach out as well.

SI1020
12-20-2009, 12:24 PM
I think its a dump (no offense dumpjerry), but when I was watching game 4 of the 1983 ALCS on MLB Network yesterday, I pined for the days of Comiskey Park. It also was a dump, but I loved that place. It certainly was special to me. It was special to me too.

Their marketing has been on a downward slide ever since 2005..."Grinder Rules" was a great campaign and theme for the team...TV/radio/print marketing has been average at best since then.

It's been very positive since 1999...but I'd say they've "flattened out" since 2005. I agree.



My only complaint for the Sox in terms of marketing/promotions over the last decade is that they let John Rooney go without a fight and without a knock-out offer to stay. The radio side has been a mess ever since. It's not my only complaint but I totally agree about the loss of Rooney.

Lip Man 1
12-20-2009, 12:34 PM
Speaking of Marketing:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=11&id=3534

Lip

Ranger
12-20-2009, 12:45 PM
Truth be told, for the Sox to gain fans there has to be a commitment to winning. Thats the only way to compete, its the only edge we have over the Cubs. They have more fans, they play in the more attractive area, they could sell out wrigley field without a game being played just because of the vendors.

The Sox had a golden chance to really grab a massive share of the fanbase in 2006. After our world series win, if we could have sustained any form of winning we would have been in great shape. However we pissed away 2006 down the stretch, Kenny built a terrible team that made a lot of money in 2007, 2008 was a cluster****ed roster that snuck in and 2009 was a lot like 2007. 2010 they have a great rotation, but we will see in march if they are really committed to winning a title and bring in a true slugging DH, or if they just are happy winning the division and do nothing to improve the roster. I am not writing off 2010 by any means, they have a shot to do a lot good and this offseason is a work in progress. But presently as is we are an 85 win team give or take 3 games. Our rotation is probably 3rd best in the AL, but offense easily in the bottom 5. Bullpen is a crapshoot.

The Sox live and die by winning. Their marketing is usually average at best, They are having an identity crisis at the ballpark between Nancy and piped in Dance offs on the dugout. The first part of any good marketing plan is knowing your target market, and I think the Sox have forgotten who that is. We aren't Cub fans, you don't make a series like the dodgers a premium series when you have a dog **** team and then cry the fans didn't show up. Hopefully they learn their lesson next year.



While I would agree the Dodgers series was overpriced, their intention was not to have a bad team when they set the schedule and prices. They overestimated the interest in that series because they figured more people would want to come out for the novelty of the Dodgers being in town tied into the '59 series. They overestimated, it was a mistake and they move on.

While you are right that Sox fans are more skeptical, I don't think the die-hards are that much different than other teams'. What drives everything is the casual fan. Casual fans are the ones that sell out the park and the Sox have to try everything they can to draw the casual fan.

Of course, winning will bring people to the park above all else. However, it's impossible to sustain a winning club every single season...especially when you don't have a park that will sell out every game regardless of W/L record.

In 2006, the Sox had a good pretty good team. Winning 90 games in the best division in game that season is nothing to sneeze at. KW had built that team pretty well to start the year...it isn't his fault that both of his setup guys are absolutely attrocious one year removed from being absolutely dominant. It isn't his fault that Podsednik disappeared and wasn't healthy. Even in not having a true CF, that team would have easily won another 5 games if the bullpen hadn't fallen apart.

In 2007, the players made a lot of money because guys were under contracts from previous seasons. Don't make it sound like KW went out in the offseason and spent $120 million on bad players.


I believe Brooks has said that focus groups and polls show that most Sox fans don't like the organ music.

This is true, but it's not just true in Chciago. Pretty much everywhere, people are over the organist thing. They don't mind it in small doses, but people nowadays prefer sound systems.

I don't know, the atmosphere around the park is pretty sweet. I'd kill for even a 1/10th of what they have in Wrigleyville around the Cell.

I completely agree with you. If the Sox were the only game in town, it would be a different story. But since there is a team 8 miles away that has a wonderful neighborhood restaurant/bar scene, it would be nice to compete. It would be nice to have an added incentive to attract the casual fans.

The problem is that there are thousands of young people that live within a few blocks of all those bars. They can, at least, help sustain those businesses through the winter months when there is no baseball. But in Bridgeport, there are more homes and less apartments (meaning less people in a concentrated area) and there are just simply fewer young people. Most of the people that live in Bridgeport are families that really don't want, and wouldn't support, a bar scene anyway.

Lip Man 1
12-20-2009, 12:48 PM
Folks:

Keep this is mind whatever the shortcomings may be.....consider where the Sox were when the taciturn, arrogant, incompetent, Rob Gallas was running things and consider where they are right now.

Lip

MARTINMVP
12-20-2009, 01:30 PM
I think its a dump (no offense dumpjerry), but when I was watching game 4 of the 1983 ALCS on MLB Network yesterday, I pined for the days of Comiskey Park. It also was a dump, but I loved that place. It certainly was special to me.

YouTube video of someone's day at the old Comiskey Park. May have been posted here previously, not sure...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaepsBBHTh4

asindc
12-20-2009, 04:01 PM
Which there generally has been since the 2000 off-season. If you want to pick a specific moment when that commitment was realized, it was shortly after Kenny took over for Schueler and traded Sirotka for David Wells.

You can complain about the 5th starter situation in the early part of the decade or how some of the pre-2007 moves didn't pan out, but overall this team has been built in a win-now mode for every season this decade. That comes from the top, with most of the credit going to Kenny for twisting JR's arm. It's no enviable task to gradually disassemble a World Series champion and try to keep the fan base happy, but the Sox have cautiously done so.

Anyone who remembers the late 80s or late 90s should have an appreciation for the ownership's commitment to the fans. There was a time when a guy like Mark Buehrle would not have been re-signed. There were times when picking up a former Cy Young winner (Peavy), less than two years removed, would have been a pipe dream.

The Sox don't have to have more fans than the Cubs to be a successful operation. They also don't have to win the World Series or have 95 wins every season to be a success.

My only complaint for the Sox in terms of marketing/promotions over the last decade is that they let John Rooney go without a fight and without a knock-out offer to stay. The radio side has been a mess ever since.

Well said.

tebman
12-20-2009, 04:22 PM
While you are right that Sox fans are more skeptical, I don't think the die-hards are that much different than other teams'. What drives everything is the casual fan. Casual fans are the ones that sell out the park and the Sox have to try everything they can to draw the casual fan.

Of course, winning will bring people to the park above all else. However, it's impossible to sustain a winning club every single season...especially when you don't have a park that will sell out every game regardless of W/L record.

...

If the Sox were the only game in town, it would be a different story. But since there is a team 8 miles away that has a wonderful neighborhood restaurant/bar scene, it would be nice to compete. It would be nice to have an added incentive to attract the casual fans.

The problem is that there are thousands of young people that live within a few blocks of all those bars. They can, at least, help sustain those businesses through the winter months when there is no baseball. But in Bridgeport, there are more homes and less apartments (meaning less people in a concentrated area) and there are just simply fewer young people. Most of the people that live in Bridgeport are families that really don't want, and wouldn't support, a bar scene anyway.

Casual fans are tourists, and that's what the Cubs depend on. The Tribune ran a tourist attraction up there for more than 25 years instead of a solid baseball organization. Time will tell if Ricketts will continue that way, though it's a safe bet he will if making money is his intent. Obviously the Sox are in a different situation and have been for generations. Fortunately the Sox as a business have come to appreciate that in recent years.

To me the real test is how many kids are drawn to the White Sox. I don't know what the data shows, but my sense is that there are more kids following the Sox now than there were ten years ago. This is the best thing the White Sox can do for the long-term health of the organization since those kids will grow up as Sox fans. You've got to till the field before you can reap the harvest.

white sox bill
12-20-2009, 04:22 PM
Everything is cyclematic. As Sox fans in Chicago, the cubs have been the dominant team since the Tribune Co bought them. We were looked upon as second rate citizens for a long time. Now as the cubs usher in new ownership without the benefit of a media giant, hopefully the pendulum will start swinging the other way. I realize the Trib still has interest in team and this swing won't occur overnight. But hopefully with this scenario on top on winning hopefully another WS may put us back on top.

From what a lot of fans have said here is that the Sox were the "in" team in the 50's and even partially into the 60's. I hope (not saying I predict) that we are poised to take back Chicago baseball for 20 yrs plus.

Lip Man 1
12-20-2009, 04:39 PM
As Brooks Boyer said it will be very interesting to see what becomes of all the kids who became hooked on the Sox in 2005 and how that may translate a few years from now attendance wise when they get older.

Lip

SOXSINCE'70
12-20-2009, 05:00 PM
I hate calling it "the cell."

I refer to the ballpark the White Sox play in as "Comiskey Park".

No other name will be uttered by this old school fan.

TomBradley72
12-20-2009, 05:30 PM
I refer to the ballpark the White Sox play in as "Comiskey Park".

No other name will be uttered by this old school fan.

I just don't believe the Comiskey name deserves that kind of respect....we sucked in the 20's, we sucked in the 30's, we sucked in the 40's before returning to respectability in the 50's.

"Veeck Field" would get more respect from me...not because he was perfect, but without him, we would have lost the White Sox after 1975.

tsoxman
12-20-2009, 05:39 PM
There are still holes with their overall marketing strategy, but the last poster who compares now vs. 1999 - that says a lot.

You had an organization that made a blunder of decisions without any consideration of how it would affect the fan base and their commitment to the organization.

I think that we actually had a much stronger core of players in the 90's that in the 2000 decade. In additon to fighting every player when it came contract time (Jack Gould), we did not add significant free agents when we should have. The Belle and Navaro siginings were too little too late. Also recall that in the early '90s we had the increased attendance which onw would think should have made it more possible to spend money on players.

doublem23
12-20-2009, 05:48 PM
I just don't believe the Comiskey name deserves that kind of respect....we sucked in the 20's, we sucked in the 30's, we sucked in the 40's before returning to respectability in the 50's.

"Veeck Field" would get more respect from me...not because he was perfect, but without him, we would have lost the White Sox after 1975.

I just don't believe the new park is "Comiskey Park."

Ranger
12-20-2009, 06:36 PM
Casual fans are tourists, and that's what the Cubs depend on. The Tribune ran a tourist attraction up there for more than 25 years instead of a solid baseball organization. Time will tell if Ricketts will continue that way, though it's a safe bet he will if making money is his intent. Obviously the Sox are in a different situation and have been for generations. Fortunately the Sox as a business have come to appreciate that in recent years.

To me the real test is how many kids are drawn to the White Sox. I don't know what the data shows, but my sense is that there are more kids following the Sox now than there were ten years ago. This is the best thing the White Sox can do for the long-term health of the organization since those kids will grow up as Sox fans. You've got to till the field before you can reap the harvest.



As Brooks Boyer said it will be very interesting to see what becomes of all the kids who became hooked on the Sox in 2005 and how that may translate a few years from now attendance wise when they get older.

Lip


It's a great point about the kids and it will take a while to see how that turns out. You'll see more kids attend Sox gams than attend Cubs games. It doesn't necessarily mean that more kids are Sox fans, though.

Casual fans drive pretty much every franchise. Casual fans are those that like the teams a little bit, will get caught up in the excitement of a game, like to enjoy the amenities and atmosphere, but won't lose sleep if the team loses. Most people are like that. And most people need some extra incentive to come out to the park, especially when there is another option in the same city with terrific atmosphere in the surrounding neighborhood.

Nelfox02
12-20-2009, 11:41 PM
I think what the Cubs do well is sell the experience of going to the game. Love it or hate it, going to Wrigley is an experience. For most fans, you go down there, eat, drink, watch some baseball, go out some more. For the vast majority of people that go, if the Flubs win or lose, it does not make or break the outing....cubs win is just a bonus.

Compare that to the sox experience====you are going for the game. If the Sox play poorly, most people attending the game dont leave happy. That is why the Sox simply dont draw when they have a bad or mediocre team----it just costs too much money to attend an event where your enjoyment of it is not entirely in your hands

the sox dont just compete with the Flubs----they have to compete with all sorts of entertainment options in Chicago, no easy task. What the sox need to do to get away from the boom and bust attendance cycle they are in is improve the experience of going to a game and try to get it to the point where you are drawing people that are willing to go to the games even if the team is not great. Again, no easy task

The sox have done a nice job improving what you can do in the park, especially for kids, and the Cubs have the market cornered on the 20 something bar scene......I am of the opinion you dont even try to compete with that maybe add amenities outside the park that are attractive to the family experience? I am not sure exactly what they need to do, but they need to something

first and foremost, they have to commit to winning that may mean taking an operating loss for a year or two in order to field the required level of talent......

Hitmen77
12-20-2009, 11:58 PM
Two things happened this decade that moved the Sox light years ahead from where they were in 1999.

The biggest thing is that they won the World Series. That was HUGE. The Sox standing in this town reversed course between pre-Bartman October 2003 and October 2005 that it was stunning. Regardless of having awful seasons the last 2 of 3, they still shed that "loser" image in 2005.

The other big thing was the renovation of the ballpark during this decade (plus the improving neighborhood). Gone are the days where casual Chicago fans thought our park was a "soulless ballmall" that was in a crime-filled neighborhood. These days only Cub fans stick to these tired, outdated old stereotypes.

TommyJohn
12-21-2009, 09:15 AM
Two things happened this decade that moved the Sox light years ahead from where they were in 1999.

The biggest thing is that they won the World Series. That was HUGE. The Sox standing in this town reversed course between pre-Bartman October 2003 and October 2005 that it was stunning. Regardless of having awful seasons the last 2 of 3, they still shed that "loser" image in 2005.

The other big thing was the renovation of the ballpark during this decade (plus the improving neighborhood). Gone are the days where casual Chicago fans thought our park was a "soulless ballmall" that was in a crime-filled neighborhood. These days only Cub fans stick to these tired, outdated old stereotypes.

:moron

Hey! Don't forget about me! I plugged those stereotypes for years! I want the credit!

ewokpelts
12-21-2009, 11:53 AM
i think the sox learned thier dodgers lesson: the atlanta series at the end of june will be a REGULAR series. cheapest non-monday games possible.....

g0g0
12-21-2009, 07:52 PM
I'm not worried about gaining tons of new fans. I liked that the Sox are under the radar a lot. It makes it more enjoyable for me when people are perplexed about where the Sox came from when they won the WS. I would hate for them to become the fashionable team to root for in Chicago. Ughhh...

I've liked both stadiums but for different reasons. Old Comiskey for the tradition and history, and the Cell for the views. It's a great ballpark.

grenda12
12-21-2009, 08:20 PM
Overall, the White Sox have a core group of guys that not only have talent, but are extremely likable (despite his attitude, AJ has still been my favorite Chicago ball player since he first came to town, and at that time, I was a miserable Cubs fan on my way out from following baseball).

:bandance: for AJ being a favorite.

soxinem1
12-22-2009, 02:11 PM
All Wrigley is is old. That's it. It's old. There's nothing else special about it.

Actually, with all of the additions and modifications during the last several decades, most of the current Wrigley is not the original structure.

Ranger
12-22-2009, 06:01 PM
I think what the Cubs do well is sell the experience of going to the game. Love it or hate it, going to Wrigley is an experience. For most fans, you go down there, eat, drink, watch some baseball, go out some more. For the vast majority of people that go, if the Flubs win or lose, it does not make or break the outing....cubs win is just a bonus.

Compare that to the sox experience====you are going for the game. If the Sox play poorly, most people attending the game dont leave happy. That is why the Sox simply dont draw when they have a bad or mediocre team----it just costs too much money to attend an event where your enjoyment of it is not entirely in your hands

the sox dont just compete with the Flubs----they have to compete with all sorts of entertainment options in Chicago, no easy task. What the sox need to do to get away from the boom and bust attendance cycle they are in is improve the experience of going to a game and try to get it to the point where you are drawing people that are willing to go to the games even if the team is not great. Again, no easy task

The sox have done a nice job improving what you can do in the park, especially for kids, and the Cubs have the market cornered on the 20 something bar scene......I am of the opinion you dont even try to compete with that maybe add amenities outside the park that are attractive to the family experience? I am not sure exactly what they need to do, but they need to something

first and foremost, they have to commit to winning that may mean taking an operating loss for a year or two in order to field the required level of talent......

You can't expect them to take an operating loss. teams don't work like that and they shouldn't have to. Even if they did operate at a loss for two years, it doesn't guarantee them a winner. In order for a high payroll to really make a difference, it has to be much higher than what other teams spend because it would have to be high enough to acquire a few high-priced players and then sign a few more. The Yankees payroll is almost double what the Sox have. The only way to really guarantee a winner, the Sox would have to operate at a significant loss and no team would do that.

i think the sox learned thier dodgers lesson: the atlanta series at the end of june will be a REGULAR series. cheapest non-monday games possible.....

Again, the Sox only made that series the highest tier because it was the Dodgers and because of the 1959 tie-ins. They thought there would be greater interest, however it was right up against a Cubs series. It turned out to be too much for 6 straight games.

TDog
12-22-2009, 06:22 PM
You can't expect them to take an operating loss. teams don't work like that and they shouldn't have to. Even if they did operate at a loss for two years, it doesn't guarantee them a winner. In order for a high payroll to really make a difference, it has to be much higher than what other teams spend because it would have to be high enough to acquire a few high-priced players and then sign a few more. The Yankees payroll is almost double what the Sox have. The only way to really guarantee a winner, the Sox would have to operate at a significant loss and no team would do that. ...

There is an angry segment of White Sox fans out there who believe that ownership of the franchise should mean taking an operating loss to win, that owning a sports franchise is a commitment to a community to field a winner at whatever cost, not to maintain financial stability. Some of those people believe that financial stability will necessarily follow operating losses, but that thinking is nearly as unrealistic.

Lip Man 1
12-22-2009, 08:32 PM
TDog:

Considering current ownership got their new stadium at the expense of tax payers, you can count me in the camp you described although and I want to be clear, there has to be a limit to how long you can go losing money.

The questions though are exactly what constitutes "losing" money given historically how sports owners fudge their books and the fact that those who own sports teams (either individuals or corporations) are incredibly wealthy to start with... it may take a long time...a very long time to get into that position where ownership says 'we can't do this anymore financially'.

I certainly think that all ownership groups at least occasionally can "lose" money for the sake of their fan bases that supported them in an effort to "win."

Regarding the premise you touch on, that 'you have to spend money to make money' (paraphrased) well I can't recall any baseball teams say that draw three million or so fans, losing money regardless of how high their payroll is when you factor in parking, concessions, souvenirs. It may not be as unrealistic as you think.

And just a point of clarification with Ranger's comments. You don't have to compete directly against the Yankees to have a "winner". You can make it possible through your talent base to dominate a division, make multiple playoff appearances in a short period of time (which the Sox have never done i.e. back to back) and take your chances in October. In the Sox case that means spending enough to hammer teams that don't have the resources of a New York or Boston or Anaheim. Me thinks Sox fans would take a stretch say of four division titles in six years and call it a "winner" even if they never got to a single World Series in that time frame.

Eddie Einhorn himself penned in one of the prefaces to Rich Lindberg's White Sox Encyclopedia that the thing he realized after going through the Sox World Series parade was how much a sports franchise is a matter of public trust and that the owners are temporary custodians. I can give you the exact quote if you'd like.

By the way, got a Christmas card from Rich and he said he's just signed a contract to update his White Sox Encyclopedia in 2011.

Lip

TDog
12-22-2009, 09:04 PM
TDog:

Considering current ownership got their new stadium at the expense of tax payers, you can count me in the camp you described although and I want to be clear, there has to be a limit to how long you can go losing money.

The questions though are exactly what constitutes "losing" money given historically how sports owners fudge their books and the fact that those who own sports teams (either individuals or corporations) are incredibly wealthy to start with... it may take a long time...a very long time to get into that position where ownership says 'we can't do this anymore financially'.

I certainly think that all ownership groups at least occasionally can "lose" money for the sake of their fan bases that supported them in an effort to "win."

Regarding the premise you touch on, that 'you have to spend money to make money' (paraphrased) well I can't recall any baseball teams say that draw three million or so fans, losing money regardless of how high their payroll is when you factor in parking, concessions, souvenirs. It may not be as unrealistic as you think.

And just a point of clarification with Ranger's comments. You don't have to compete directly against the Yankees to have a "winner". You can make it possible through your talent base to dominate a division, make multiple playoff appearances in a short period of time (which the Sox have never done i.e. back to back) and take your chances in October. In the Sox case that means spending enough to hammer teams that don't have the resources of a New York or Boston or Anaheim. Me thinks Sox fans would take a stretch say of four division titles in six years and call it a "winner" even if they never got to a single World Series in that time frame.

Eddie Einhorn himself penned in one of the prefaces to Rich Lindberg's White Sox Encyclopedia that the thing he realized after going through the Sox World Series parade was how much a sports franchise is a matter of public trust and that the owners are temporary custodians. I can give you the exact quote if you'd like.

By the way, got a Christmas card from Rich and he said he's just signed a contract to update his White Sox Encyclopedia in 2011.

Lip

Eddie Einhorn didn't say that he now believes the White Sox should operate at a loss in order to provide a winner to the city of Chicago and the larger community of exiled White Sox fans.

Teams that spend more money are generally the teams that have more money to spend, but it doesn't guarantee a winner. The Cubs have had more money to spend in this decade than the White Sox, but the White Sox have won more postseason. The Cubs haven't even made it to the World Series.

Intentionally losing money you can afford to lose because you want to bring your community of fans a winner may either be altruistic or egotistical. Losing money when you answer to investors or stockholders, as both Chicago baseball team ownerships have this decade, isn't going to happen.

Noneck
12-22-2009, 09:17 PM
Eddie Einhorn didn't say that he now believes the White Sox should operate at a loss in order to provide a winner to the city of Chicago and the larger community of exiled White Sox fans.

Teams that spend more money are generally the teams that have more money to spend, but it doesn't guarantee a winner. The Cubs have had more money to spend in this decade than the White Sox, but the White Sox have won more postseason. The Cubs haven't even made it to the World Series.

Intentionally losing money you can afford to lose because you want to bring your community of fans a winner may either be altruistic or egotistical. Losing money when you answer to investors or stockholders, as both Chicago baseball team ownerships have this decade, isn't going to happen.

Everything I read lately, no team is losing money. This isn't the old days where ownerships were looking for investors. If teams were losing money there would more turnover in ownership and the price of the clubs wouldn't be increasing. I think when one states "A club should take a loss", they mean that they take less of a profit for a period of time.

Lip Man 1
12-22-2009, 09:18 PM
TDog:

Define your terms when you say "winner".

If you are talking about post season appearances and wins in the post season, even Bud Selig himself said the numbers clearly show without question (his words) that teams that spend the most money have a greater rate of making the post season and winning in the post season than those who don't.

I'd be happy to post again his quote if you wish.

And that makes perfect sense since better talent usually means they get paid more.

If you are asking for a 100% guarantee, an absolute, that spending money guarantees a "winner" than I can't do that...no one can. It's still a human game with millions of variables.

But what I do know, based on the historical record, not my interpretation, is that you have a greater chance of meeting your terms if you do.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the philosophical way to operate a franchise. I tried to state my case with regards to the White Sox. I know what they do, I wish occasionally they'd try to take another approach.

Who knows, they may have more success than two World Series appearances since 1919....that's one of the ways I define "winning" in major league baseball...not the size of the profit margin.

Lip

TDog
12-22-2009, 10:37 PM
TDog:

Define your terms when you say "winner".

If you are talking about post season appearances and wins in the post season, even Bud Selig himself said the numbers clearly show without question (his words) that teams that spend the most money have a greater rate of making the post season and winning in the post season than those who don't.

I'd be happy to post again his quote if you wish.

And that makes perfect sense since better talent usually means they get paid more.

If you are asking for a 100% guarantee, an absolute, that spending money guarantees a "winner" than I can't do that...no one can. It's still a human game with millions of variables.

But what I do know, based on the historical record, not my interpretation, is that you have a greater chance of meeting your terms if you do.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the philosophical way to operate a franchise. I tried to state my case with regards to the White Sox. I know what they do, I wish occasionally they'd try to take another approach.

Who knows, they may have more success than two World Series appearances since 1919....that's one of the ways I define "winning" in major league baseball...not the size of the profit margin.

Lip

You don't need to re-post (or even riposte) Eddie Einhorn's comment. I understand what he was saying, and I think you are taking it a bit out of context.

No major league baseball team operates, at least not for long, with the philosophy you are talking about. It is true the Marlins were overextended with the team they built to win their first championship, but that team was soon dismantled. The Tigers more recently built a team that consistently collapses, but that team is being broken up. The Yankees always had the money to spend lined up before they spent it.

ewokpelts
12-23-2009, 02:05 AM
Again, the Sox only made that series the highest tier because it was the Dodgers and because of the 1959 tie-ins. They thought there would be greater interest, however it was right up against a Cubs series. It turned out to be too much for 6 straight games.
Oh, I know why they charged it as a premium series(manny, 1959), but i bet it was pretty sobering to see tix on stubhub go for less than half of face value. a week before the game.

again, the ATL series is priced correctly. Weekday series when not all kids are out of school yet.
I expect it to be well attended, especially if the sox are doing well.

hawks eye patch1
12-23-2009, 10:22 AM
winning another world series is the best marketing the sox can have. after 2005 is when the crowds started to grow. I'm only concerned about the park selling out, so Kenny can go out and get studs. as for the Wrigley vs us cellular comparison, there is none. sox park has better food, site lines, hd tvs, sound, and best of all a world series banner from this century.

Lip Man 1
12-23-2009, 11:48 AM
TDog:

Actually I was talking about Selig's quote on spending money = playoff appearances in the post you quoted from but that's cool.

Like I said we'll have to agree to disagree.

I know, no club can consistently do it, but I believe all teams can take a loss from time to time on behalf of their fans, attempting to "win."

I wish the Sox would try it, now for example, given how strong the starting rotation is...if it's not worth the gamble now, it will never be.

Happy Holidays.

Lip

gosox41
12-23-2009, 08:27 PM
TDog:

Actually I was talking about Selig's quote on spending money = playoff appearances in the post you quoted from but that's cool.

Like I said we'll have to agree to disagree.

I know, no club can consistently do it, but I believe all teams can take a loss from time to time on behalf of their fans, attempting to "win."

I wish the Sox would try it, now for example, given how strong the starting rotation is...if it's not worth the gamble now, it will never be.

Happy Holidays.

Lip

Lip,

The Sox have taken losses in past years while trying to win. Not in the last 10 years or so as, but one could argue the 2000's was a successful decade. There were plenty of years in the '80's and mid to late '90's when the Sox were not profitable.


Bob

Ranger
12-23-2009, 10:03 PM
There is an angry segment of White Sox fans out there who believe that ownership of the franchise should mean taking an operating loss to win, that owning a sports franchise is a commitment to a community to field a winner at whatever cost, not to maintain financial stability. Some of those people believe that financial stability will necessarily follow operating losses, but that thinking is nearly as unrealistic.

TDog:

Considering current ownership got their new stadium at the expense of tax payers, you can count me in the camp you described although and I want to be clear, there has to be a limit to how long you can go losing money.

The questions though are exactly what constitutes "losing" money given historically how sports owners fudge their books and the fact that those who own sports teams (either individuals or corporations) are incredibly wealthy to start with... it may take a long time...a very long time to get into that position where ownership says 'we can't do this anymore financially'.

I certainly think that all ownership groups at least occasionally can "lose" money for the sake of their fan bases that supported them in an effort to "win."

Regarding the premise you touch on, that 'you have to spend money to make money' (paraphrased) well I can't recall any baseball teams say that draw three million or so fans, losing money regardless of how high their payroll is when you factor in parking, concessions, souvenirs. It may not be as unrealistic as you think.

And just a point of clarification with Ranger's comments. You don't have to compete directly against the Yankees to have a "winner". You can make it possible through your talent base to dominate a division, make multiple playoff appearances in a short period of time (which the Sox have never done i.e. back to back) and take your chances in October. In the Sox case that means spending enough to hammer teams that don't have the resources of a New York or Boston or Anaheim. Me thinks Sox fans would take a stretch say of four division titles in six years and call it a "winner" even if they never got to a single World Series in that time frame.

Eddie Einhorn himself penned in one of the prefaces to Rich Lindberg's White Sox Encyclopedia that the thing he realized after going through the Sox World Series parade was how much a sports franchise is a matter of public trust and that the owners are temporary custodians. I can give you the exact quote if you'd like.


Lip

I know some people believe differently, but owning a baseball team is simply not a public trust, it's a business. It has always been a business and will continue to be a business as long as it is a sport. This is just the reality of professional sports.

But as far as Lip's comments go, no teams don't have to spend a ton of money to put together a consistent winner. But it's about the only way to guarantee your team has a shot at the playoffs and World Series every year. For a team like the Yankees, there is not such thing as a bad contract. And if you can't spend Yankees money, the only other way to do it is by having a continuous flow of minor league talent, which really isn't about excessive spending anyway and was the point of this discussion.

I actually think you's have some debate on winning the division 4 out of 6 years and Sox fans being satisfied with that. Do you truly think they'd feel that way?


Oh, I know why they charged it as a premium series(manny, 1959), but i bet it was pretty sobering to see tix on stubhub go for less than half of face value. a week before the game.

again, the ATL series is priced correctly. Weekday series when not all kids are out of school yet.
I expect it to be well attended, especially if the sox are doing well.

I don't think they would have anyway. The Braves don't draw the same interest as teh Dodgers do.

winning another world series is the best marketing the sox can have. after 2005 is when the crowds started to grow. I'm only concerned about the park selling out, so Kenny can go out and get studs. as for the Wrigley vs us cellular comparison, there is none. sox park has better food, site lines, hd tvs, sound, and best of all a world series banner from this century.

That's the only reason you should care if the Sox sell out.

Lip Man 1
12-24-2009, 12:14 PM
Chris:

Considering the Sox have never made the post season in back to back years and considering the most times they've ever made the postseason in a single decade is three...yes I think Sox fans would consider four division titles in six years with zero World Series appearances a success.

Happy Holiday my friend!

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-24-2009, 12:17 PM
Bob:

The White Sox were also absolute garbage from 1986 through 1989 and from 1995 through 1999 (save for 1996) they SHOULD have "lost money" (if in fact they did...).

Fans didn't turn out because the team was awful and you had the "little" matter of the White Flag Trade. If the organization lost money during that time period, they have only themselves to blame for putting a bad product out on the field for large chunks of it. They had the opportunity to take back control of their own city in the early 1980's, until ownership decided the price of winning wasn't worth it to them, they were more interested in collusion. (That from former Sox announcer Joe McConnell and others that I've interviewed)


Lip

jamokes
12-24-2009, 12:26 PM
Lip; you should write a book about the ins and outs of our White Sox!
You are great reading!

ewokpelts
12-24-2009, 12:59 PM
I don't think they would have anyway. The Braves don't draw the same interest as teh Dodgers do.

.
I expected a prime series. It is the end of june and before the cubs series.

voodoochile
12-24-2009, 01:06 PM
Chris:

Considering the Sox have never made the post season in back to back years and considering the most times they've ever made the postseason in a single decade is three...yes I think Sox fans would consider four division titles in six years with zero World Series appearances a success.

Happy Holiday my friend!

Lip

Successful but ultimately unsatisfying.

By that definition I should be happy with the Cooper years at OSU. I mean after all they were so close to a NC so many times only to fall just short.

I'll take two playoff appearances a decade with a WS title once during each of those two appearances and be much happier...

spawn
12-24-2009, 01:32 PM
Successful but ultimately unsatisfying.

By that definition I should be happy with the Cooper years at OSU. I mean after all they were so close to a NC so many times only to fall just short.

I'll take two playoff appearances a decade with a WS title once during each of those two appearances and be much happier...
Amen to this. You can look to the north side as a perfect example of this. Ho many times were they in the playoffs this decade? I have friends that are Cubs fans saying just making it to the playoffs doesn't mean anything to them anymore. They want a World Championship.

Lip Man 1
12-24-2009, 05:28 PM
Voodoo / Spawn:

So would I but considering how often the Sox actually get to a World Series being they are behind the eight ball against the Yankees, Red Sox and Angels...I fail to see how anyone wouldn't be saying those six years weren't "successful."

I mean it would beat not having the chance to play in October, no? I know you guys wouldn't be happy with 75 wins a year in those six years as opposed to say 93 right?

Lip

jabrch
12-24-2009, 08:16 PM
Chris:

Considering the Sox have never made the post season in back to back years and considering the most times they've ever made the postseason in a single decade is three...yes I think Sox fans would consider four division titles in six years with zero World Series appearances a success.

Happy Holiday my friend!

Lip

Not so long ago you said anything short of a WS win is not acceptable. Not surprised you bash current management with a different set of standards.

Lip Man 1
12-25-2009, 11:21 AM
Jab:

I think you are confusing me with someone else. That has never been my philosophy (i.e. anything short of a series win is not acceptable). I think I remember the thread you are talking about and it wasn't me who made that statement. I remember the flack that person got from a bunch of fans, including me, for having that attitude.

Sorry to disappoint you.

If the Sox were to get to the playoffs four times in six years even if they never got to a World Series, I'd be very satisfied given the history of this franchise. Remember this ownership, indeed ANY Sox ownership has never put them into a position of doing that...making the postseason in consecutive years or multiple years in a very short time span.

I'm the one remember who always states my ultimate bottom line on a season is to at least have a "winning one." That's how I judge it to be good or bad.

How could ANY Sox fan be unsatisfied if they had a playoff run like the Yankees or Braves or Indians or Cardinals have had at various times over the past 20 years...Series wins or not.

Lip