PDA

View Full Version : 30 Years of Ownership by Reinsdorf & Co.


Hitmen77
02-11-2011, 10:23 AM
Lip mentioned this recently on This Date in Sox History:
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2686472&postcount=26

It's been 30 years since Reinsdorf, Einhorn, and their partners assumed ownership of the Chicago White Sox. It's been a roller coaster ride over the years with it's shares of ups and downs for us fans.

The low point had to have been the late 1980s as the team was ready to board a plane to St. Petersburg. The high point was 2005.

Is he the longest tenured owner in MLB at this point? He's been one of the more influential ones over the years.

Fenway
02-11-2011, 10:31 AM
Lip mentioned this recently on This Date in Sox History:
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2686472&postcount=26

It's been 30 years since Reinsdorf, Einhorn, and their partners assumed ownership of the Chicago White Sox. It's been a roller coaster ride over the years with it's shares of ups and downs for us fans.

The low point had to have been the late 1980s as the team was ready to board a plane to St. Petersburg. The high point was 2005.

Is he the longest tenured owner in MLB at this point? He's been one of the more influential ones over the years.

Steinbrenner Family is the only ownership group I can think of that has been around longer.

ewokpelts
02-11-2011, 11:41 AM
With George dying, I think the yankees ownership group is officially different now.

Red Barchetta
02-11-2011, 01:54 PM
JR and team surely stumbled out of the gate with various PR and marketing mistakes leading up to the threat of moving the team.

However, nothing beats winning and the 2005 World Series victory combined with the beautiful renovations of Comiskey II transforming it into US Cellular Field have really improved the image of the White Sox.

Hopefully we can gain additional momentum this season and the development of the surrounding area can also continue to improve.

Dan H
02-11-2011, 02:44 PM
The Reinsdorf-Einhorn have done some very good and bad things in the past 30 years. 2005 was the obvious high point with the late 90's being an absolutely lousy time to be a White Sox fan. It will be interesting to see what the final legacy will be. It starts with 2011.

downstairs
02-11-2011, 02:49 PM
Steinbrenner Family is the only ownership group I can think of that has been around longer.

Most likely, yes. I'm sure its technically the same company with new people in new positions now that George has passed away.

Its amazing there aren't a few family-based ownership groups that have passed their team on for 50, 60 years. I know sometimes the kids don't want to run the team, they want to cash out. But still... its pretty common with rich families to keep owning a company forever.

Fenway
02-11-2011, 03:18 PM
Most likely, yes. I'm sure its technically the same company with new people in new positions now that George has passed away.

Its amazing there aren't a few family-based ownership groups that have passed their team on for 50, 60 years. I know sometimes the kids don't want to run the team, they want to cash out. But still... its pretty common with rich families to keep owning a company forever.

The Pohlad's has been involved since 1984 with the Twinkies. That is looking like a Rocky Wirtz situation now that Carl has gone to the big Sky Box in rhe Sky.

SephClone89
02-11-2011, 03:23 PM
The Reinsdorf-Einhorn have done some very good and bad things in the past 30 years. 2005 was the obvious high point with the late 90's being an absolutely lousy time to be a White Sox fan. It will be interesting to see what the final legacy will be. It starts with 2011.

Couldn't have been that lousy. I got into baseball in '98, and started watching every damn game in '99. A year later, there was the 2000 team which was a defining summer of my childhood.

Hitmen77
02-11-2011, 03:52 PM
The Reinsdorf-Einhorn have done some very good and bad things in the past 30 years. 2005 was the obvious high point with the late 90's being an absolutely lousy time to be a White Sox fan. It will be interesting to see what the final legacy will be. It starts with 2011.

I'd say the late 1980s edges out the late 1990s as a nadir in JR's ownership. I agree that the late 90s was a bad time to be a Sox fan. First we were still trying to get over the 1994 strike that put the brakes on a pennant-contending team and then the Sox quit on the fans in July 1997 with the team on 3.5 out. Those two events were PR disasters for the Sox and sent attendance at New Comiskey plummeting. ...and while the Sox were driving fans away, the Cubs had a new fraud of a pied piper in Mr. Cork N' Steroids that helped make the Sox less than an afterthought in this town.

But that still doesn't top the whole stadium fiasco in the late 1980s and me going to bed on 6/30/88 convinced that I'd wake up to the news that the Sox were officially headed to Florida. Those teams from 1986-88 were utterly forgettable and they hit rock bottom in June 1988. The Sox finished last in 1989, but I was optimistic at that point because they were already turning the corner with a lot of promising young players.

Jerry and Eddie's biggest problems over the years has been lousy PR. Even when the team was successful in their first few years in charge (culminating in the '83 division title), they were busy burning bridges with the fans. Moving their team to a $15/month pay channel effectively surrendered an entire generation of the Chicago market to the Cubs.

I think this ownership really turned the corner starting about 10 years ago. They did a great job of transforming the ballpark into an warm, attractive facility. Of course, winning the World Series was really the game-changer for them.

Couldn't have been that lousy. I got into baseball in '98, and started watching every damn game in '99. A year later, there was the 2000 team which was a defining summer of my childhood.

There are some parallels to the late 80s and the late 90s. They were both characterized by bad teams and the impression that ownership didn't care about winning. That period in the late 1980s ended with the Sox rebounding to a 94-win season in 1990 and the period in the late 1990s ended with the Sox rebounding to a 95-win season in 2000.

Red Barchetta
02-11-2011, 04:02 PM
I'd say the late 1980s edges out the late 1990s as a nadir in JR's ownership. I agree that the late 90s was a bad time to be a Sox fan. First we were still trying to get over the 1994 strike that put the brakes on a pennant-contending team and then the Sox quit on the fans in July 1997 with the team on 3.5 out. Those two events were PR disasters for the Sox and sent attendance at New Comiskey plummeting. ...and while the Sox were driving fans away, the Cubs had a new fraud of a pied piper in Mr. Cork N' Steroids that helped make the Sox less than an afterthought in this town.

But that still doesn't top the whole stadium fiasco in the late 1980s and me going to bed on 6/30/88 convinced that I'd wake up to the news that the Sox were officially headed to Florida. Those teams from 1986-88 were utterly forgettable and they hit rock bottom in June 1988. The Sox finished last in 1989, but I was optimistic at that point because they were already turning the corner with a lot of promising young players.

Jerry and Eddie's biggest problems over the years has been lousy PR. Even when the team was successful in their first few years in charge (culminating in the '83 division title), they were busy burning bridges with the fans. Moving their team to a $15/month pay channel effectively surrendered an entire generation of the Chicago market to the Cubs.

I think this ownership really turned the corner starting about 10 years ago. They did a great job of transforming the ballpark into an warm, attractive facility. Of course, winning the World Series was really the game-changer for them.



There are some parallels to the late 80s and the late 90s. They were both characterized by bad teams and the impression that ownership didn't care about winning. That period in the late 1980s ended with the Sox rebounding to a 94-win season in 1990 and the period in the late 1990s ended with the Sox rebounding to a 95-win season in 2000.

All excellent points. From a baseball perspective, hiring Kenny Williams has proven to be a great move and from a marketing perspective, hiring Brooks Broyer has also helped compared to the previous regime.

However, the one thing that still frustrates me is how the SOX are constantly looking up at the Twins (and previously the Indians) within the division. We are the only major market team in the division and I would like to see more of a Yankees attitude in terms of being the top dog and more importantly expecting to be the top dog!

Fenway
02-11-2011, 04:17 PM
Jerry and Eddie's biggest problems over the years has been lousy PR. Even when the team was successful in their first few years in charge (culminating in the '83 division title), they were busy burning bridges with the fans. Moving their team to a $15/month pay channel effectively surrendered an entire generation of the Chicago market to the Cubs.



I actually had a Sportsvision box which looked a lot like the LA model
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4035/4271641110_5d99e1253e.jpg

The Chicago one had a toggle switch for ONTV and Sportsvison.
(truth is you could go to Radio Shack and get the parts to build one)

We have debated Sportsvision and while it was a horrible mistake the fact is the White Sox had NO other options for TV in 1982.

WFLD said one game a week..period
WGN was only an option if the Cubs were not playing and still a limited number of games ....see 1981.

The Hawks and Bulls were TV homeless as WGN didn't want to be bothered anymore. 26 was very happy with ethnic programs that paid good money to get on the air.

JR's biggest mistake was selling Sportsvision to Dolan instead of hanging on.
EE was right - but off by 5 years.

doogiec
02-11-2011, 09:59 PM
I actually had a Sportsvision box which looked a lot like the LA model
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4035/4271641110_5d99e1253e.jpg

The Chicago one had a toggle switch for ONTV and Sportsvison.
(truth is you could go to Radio Shack and get the parts to build one)

We have debated Sportsvision and while it was a horrible mistake the fact is the White Sox had NO other options for TV in 1982.

WFLD said one game a week..period
WGN was only an option if the Cubs were not playing and still a limited number of games ....see 1981.

The Hawks and Bulls were TV homeless as WGN didn't want to be bothered anymore. 26 was very happy with ethnic programs that paid good money to get on the air.

JR's biggest mistake was selling Sportsvision to Dolan instead of hanging on.
EE was right - but off by 5 years.

Throughout Bill Veeck's second ownership tenure with the Sox, he did a great job of using radio to communicate with the fans. During most of his time he hosted a weekly call in show with his wife, and never backed away from fan questions.

Towards the end of his ownership he spoke constantly of his fear of losing channel 44 to pay per view, and his fear that it would be the end of free TV for the Sox. Veeck made it clear that 44 was the only interested station. And prior to selling the Sox, he signed an exclusive contract with Cablevision to broadcast all Sox games, which would have made the Sox virtually invisible at any price. That contract had an out clause if the Sox were sold, and JR and EE cancelled that contract and actually put a few games back on free TV. In reality, it was actually Bill Veeck that pulled the Sox off free TV, but he had no other options.

So while Sportsvision surely damaged the Sox popularity, it probably was the best available option at the time, as minimal availability of games was probably better than none, it allowed airtime for the Hawks and Bulls who also had no free TV homes, and some games were restored to free TV.

Hitmen77
02-16-2011, 11:07 AM
I actually had a Sportsvision box which looked a lot like the LA model
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4035/4271641110_5d99e1253e.jpg

The Chicago one had a toggle switch for ONTV and Sportsvison.
(truth is you could go to Radio Shack and get the parts to build one)

We have debated Sportsvision and while it was a horrible mistake the fact is the White Sox had NO other options for TV in 1982.

WFLD said one game a week..period
WGN was only an option if the Cubs were not playing and still a limited number of games ....see 1981.

The Hawks and Bulls were TV homeless as WGN didn't want to be bothered anymore. 26 was very happy with ethnic programs that paid good money to get on the air.

JR's biggest mistake was selling Sportsvision to Dolan instead of hanging on.
EE was right - but off by 5 years.

That's not entirely true. Sportsvision was broadcast over a UHF channel (Channel 60, which today is WPWR Channel 50). So, it's not entirely accurate to say that they had NO broadcast option. Just like they used to broadcast over Channel 44, they could have broadcast over Ch. 60 for free (unscrambled). It wouldn't have been a great option, but it was an option since they were already using Ch. 60 for SportsVision.

In those early days, Channel 60 broadcast in Spanish during the day and I want to say had English programming after 6pm, but regardless would go in scrambled mode just for Sox, Bulls or Hawks telecasts.

In the end, it was about Einhorn thinking he had a gold mine in charging Sox fans $15/month just to watch their team on TV. Sure broadcasting over the air for free over Ch. 60 wouldn't have made them any money, but they were being short-sighted there. It would have been better to show games for free on an unprofitable UHF channel that everyone had access to than to lose the Chicago market by locking up all but a few Ch. 32 games on an unprofitable premium pay channel. Maybe it would have been worth sticking with a short-term loss on free Channel 60 for a couple of years just to keep the Sox relevant in Chicago before they could migrate over to basic cable when Chicago was wired in the mid-80s.

As early as 1982-83, many suburbs were already being wired for cable, so it wasn't long before basic cable was available to more and more homes. I don't remember the exact timing of it, but I seem to remember SportsVision still being a "premium" channel for several years even after our family got cable when I was a kid. By the time they finally gave up and made SportsVision available on basic cable, it was too late. The Sox by 1987 sucked and were totally forgettable on the field and were starting to pack their bags for St. Pete off the field.

Jerry and Eddie like to say now that SportsVision was simply ahead of its time. Sure they say this....because they just can't admit they were wrong. The fee for SportsVision was $15/month in 1982 dollars....that's $35/month in 2010 dollars for one part time sports channel. The reality is that a $35/month for a part-time sports channel that only aired when the Sox/Bulls/Hawks were on would still be a total failure today.

The other thing that really rubbed me the wrong way back then was that I distinctly remember Einhorn practically gloating on TV that fans better get used to paying for sports because that's the future. Yet another bit of PR genius that was a hallmark of the early Jerry and Eddie days! If they truly had no other choice, they could have at least explained to fans why $15/month SportsVision was the only way left to see most Sox games on TV without making us feel like they were just chomping at the bit to stick it to us.

Seriously, when SportsVision was announced, everyone knew this was going to be a failure. This was the reaction from Sox fans at the time when we heard that the Sox were going to charge fans $15/month to watch more than the handful of WFLD games: :?:, then :emo:, and then finally: :angry:.
This was the reaction from Cubs fans: :lol::kneeslap::rolling::roflmao:

Lip Man 1
02-16-2011, 12:33 PM
Hitmen brings up some good points. This may be of interest:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2096

Lip

Noneck
02-16-2011, 01:21 PM
That's not entirely true. Sportsvision was broadcast over a UHF channel (Channel 60, which today is WPWR Channel 50). So, it's not entirely accurate to say that they had NO broadcast option. Just like they used to broadcast over Channel 44, they could have broadcast over Ch. 60 for free (unscrambled). It wouldn't have been a great option, but it was an option since they were already using Ch. 60 for SportsVision.

In those early days, Channel 60 broadcast in Spanish during the day and I want to say had English programming after 6pm, but regardless would go in scrambled mode just for Sox, Bulls or Hawks telecasts.

In the end, it was about Einhorn thinking he had a gold mine in charging Sox fans $15/month just to watch their team on TV. Sure broadcasting over the air for free over Ch. 60 wouldn't have made them any money, but they were being short-sighted there. It would have been better to show games for free on an unprofitable UHF channel that everyone had access to than to lose the Chicago market by locking up all but a few Ch. 32 games on an unprofitable premium pay channel. Maybe it would have been worth sticking with a short-term loss on free Channel 60 for a couple of years just to keep the Sox relevant in Chicago before they could migrate over to basic cable when Chicago was wired in the mid-80s.

As early as 1982-83, many suburbs were already being wired for cable, so it wasn't long before basic cable was available to more and more homes. I don't remember the exact timing of it, but I seem to remember SportsVision still being a "premium" channel for several years even after our family got cable when I was a kid. By the time, they finally gave up and made SportsVision available on basic cable, it was too late. The Sox by 1987 sucked and were totally forgettable on the field and were starting to pack their bags for St. Pete off the field.

Jerry and Eddie like to say now that SportsVision was simply ahead of it's time. Sure they say this....because they just can't admit they were wrong. The fee for SportsVision was $15/month in 1982 dollars....that's $35/month in 2010 dollars for one part time sports channel. The reality is that a $35/month for a part-time sports channel that only aired when the Sox/Bulls/Hawks were on would still be a total failure today.

The other thing that really rubbed me the wrong way back then was that I distinctly remember Einhorn practically gloating on TV that fans better get used to paying for sports because that's the future. Yet another bit of PR genius that was a hallmark of the early Jerry and Eddie days! If they truly had no other choice, they could have at least explained to fans why $15/month SportsVision was the only way left to see most Sox games on TV without making us feel like they were just chomping at the bit to stick it to us.

Seriously, when SportsVision was announced, everyone knew this was going to be a failure. This was the reaction from Sox fans at the time when we heard that the Sox were going to charge fans $15/month to watch more than the handful of WFLD games: :?:, then :emo:, and then finally: :angry:.
This was the reaction from Cubs fans: :lol::kneeslap::rolling::roflmao:


Great points. It was hard for the fans that lived through this, along with the white flag and the St. Petes extortion to forget the past. The past can be easy to to put behind you if you didnt live through it, not so easy if you lived through it.

asindc
02-16-2011, 01:47 PM
Great points. It was hard for the fans that lived through this, along with the white flag and the St. Petes extortion to forget the past. The past can be easy to to put behind you if you didnt live through it, not so easy if you lived through it.

Don't forget JR aggressively working to shut down the 1994 season, which counts in my book as JR's greatest sin as the Sox owner.

LITTLE NELL
02-16-2011, 01:47 PM
Bottom line of all of this is that our beloved Sox for the most part have been run by either cheap or broke owners.
I will give the JR regime some credit for running things pretty good in the last 20 years with a few blips along the way but I'm still a little bitter over some of the bad moves such as the Sportsvision thing, not doing everything to keep Harry, Hawk as GM and the firing of LaRussa and the threat to move the Sox.

TommyJohn
02-16-2011, 01:52 PM
That's not entirely true. Sportsvision was broadcast over a UHF channel (Channel 60, which today is WPWR Channel 50). So, it's not entirely accurate to say that they had NO broadcast option. Just like they used to broadcast over Channel 44, they could have broadcast over Ch. 60 for free (unscrambled). It wouldn't have been a great option, but it was an option since they were already using Ch. 60 for SportsVision.

In those early days, Channel 60 broadcast in Spanish during the day and I want to say had English programming after 6pm, but regardless would go in scrambled mode just for Sox, Bulls or Hawks telecasts.

In the end, it was about Einhorn thinking he had a gold mine in charging Sox fans $15/month just to watch their team on TV. Sure broadcasting over the air for free over Ch. 60 wouldn't have made them any money, but they were being short-sighted there. It would have been better to show games for free on an unprofitable UHF channel that everyone had access to than to lose the Chicago market by locking up all but a few Ch. 32 games on an unprofitable premium pay channel. Maybe it would have been worth sticking with a short-term loss on free Channel 60 for a couple of years just to keep the Sox relevant in Chicago before they could migrate over to basic cable when Chicago was wired in the mid-80s.

As early as 1982-83, many suburbs were already being wired for cable, so it wasn't long before basic cable was available to more and more homes. I don't remember the exact timing of it, but I seem to remember SportsVision still being a "premium" channel for several years even after our family got cable when I was a kid. By the time, they finally gave up and made SportsVision available on basic cable, it was too late. The Sox by 1987 sucked and were totally forgettable on the field and were starting to pack their bags for St. Pete off the field.

Jerry and Eddie like to say now that SportsVision was simply ahead of it's time. Sure they say this....because they just can't admit they were wrong. The fee for SportsVision was $15/month in 1982 dollars....that's $35/month in 2010 dollars for one part time sports channel. The reality is that a $35/month for a part-time sports channel that only aired when the Sox/Bulls/Hawks were on would still be a total failure today.

The other thing that really rubbed me the wrong way back then was that I distinctly remember Einhorn practically gloating on TV that fans better get used to paying for sports because that's the future. Yet another bit of PR genius that was a hallmark of the early Jerry and Eddie days! If they truly had no other choice, they could have at least explained to fans why $15/month SportsVision was the only way left to see most Sox games on TV without making us feel like they were just chomping at the bit to stick it to us.

Seriously, when SportsVision was announced, everyone knew this was going to be a failure. This was the reaction from Sox fans at the time when we heard that the Sox were going to charge fans $15/month to watch more than the handful of WFLD games: :?:, then :emo:, and then finally: :angry:.
This was the reaction from Cubs fans: :lol::kneeslap::rolling::roflmao:

Eddie Einhorn was a TV executive. His big mistake was talking to the fans the same way he probably talked to the little nothing underlings who worked for or with him. Fans didn't go for that, obviously.

The big blunder, one that has been rehashed several jillion times, was yanking the Sox off free TV in a two team town. Casual fans had an option-pay $15 a month to watch one team, or watch another for free.

Noneck
02-16-2011, 02:07 PM
Don't forget JR aggressively working to shut down the 1994 season, which counts in my book as JR's greatest sin as the Sox owner.

Yes and also to use air time time during a huge celebratory moment to call a renowned and endeared broadcaster, scum.

Irishsox1
02-16-2011, 02:38 PM
I know a lot of people will list many of Reinsdorf's many, many sins but to me the biggest was the construction of New Comiskey Park. I know that a lot of changes have been made over time that have helped out but Jerry is a guy that prides himself on being ahead of the curve but he blew it with the new Comiskey Park. I'm not saying it's horrible, it's just that Camden Yards opened up only a year after new Comiskey and when it opened, it was shocking to see what a cool new stadium could look like.

30 years, one championship, I guess I'll take it cause I ain't giving 2005 back. That was too sweet!

Hitmen77
02-16-2011, 02:52 PM
Great points. It was hard for the fans that lived through this, along with the white flag and the St. Petes extortion to forget the past. The past can be easy to to put behind you if you didnt live through it, not so easy if you lived through it.

Bottom line of all of this is that our beloved Sox for the most part have been run by either cheap or broke owners.
I will give the JR regime some credit for running things pretty good in the last 20 years with a few blips along the way but I'm still a little bitter over some of the bad moves such as the Sportsvision thing, not doing everything to keep Harry, Hawk as GM and the firing of LaRussa and the threat to move the Sox.

I think the current ownership has turned things around in the last 10 years. Of course winning the WS helps, but the PR blunders have mostly ended. The ballpark renovations turned out to be a bigger improvement than most people thought possible.

They hired Brooks Boyer to better market the team too. That's a huge turnaround from the old Gallas days.

Eddie Einhorn was a TV executive. His big mistake was talking to the fans the same way he probably talked to the little nothing underlings who worked for or with him. Fans didn't go for that, obviously.

The big blunder, one that has been rehashed several jillion times, was yanking the Sox off free TV in a two team town. Casual fans had an option-pay $15 a month to watch one team, or watch another for free.

Excellent point.

Plus, as Lip's article mentions, Chicagoans were accustomed to seeing just about every baseball game on TV. Back then, I believe it was common in other markets for teams to have less than half their games televised. In Chicago, both teams had aired a vast majority of their games on TV for years.

mcsoxfan
02-16-2011, 11:56 PM
I know a lot of people will list many of Reinsdorf's many, many sins but to me the biggest was the construction of New Comiskey Park. I know that a lot of changes have been made over time that have helped out but Jerry is a guy that prides himself on being ahead of the curve but he blew it with the new Comiskey Park. I'm not saying it's horrible, it's just that Camden Yards opened up only a year after new Comiskey and when it opened, it was shocking to see what a cool new stadium could look like.

30 years, one championship, I guess I'll take it cause I ain't giving 2005 back. That was too sweet!
In a championship-starved city like Chicago, these praise-glories of the Reinsdorf regime don't surprise me. The only reason Reinsdorf got the Sox was because Steinbrenner was afraid that his precious Yankees could be upstaged monetarily by DeBartolo who had the capital to compete with him. Steinbrenner and company colluded with Kuhn to keep DeBartolo out. I wish DeBartolo had sue for the rights to own the Sox. What they did for the 49ers was proof-positive, Chicago was about to experience something very rare and very special in sports ownership. And these Reinsdorf lovers who claim DeBartolo was going to move to Seattle are full of it. He had no desire to move the team away from a large market. That's Reinsdorf's forte - holding the Sox ransom for a new stadium. DeBartolo could have financed a stadium with his own resources. Vecck loathed Reinsdorf with good reason. In almost 30 years of ownership we got 1 trip to the World Series - whoopie.

fram40
02-19-2011, 06:07 PM
Jerry and Eddie's biggest problems over the years has been lousy PR. Even when the team was successful in their first few years in charge (culminating in the '83 division title), they were busy burning bridges with the fans.

So very true. To this day they still have PR issues - note JR's comments a few weeks ago on "Talking Baseball" that generated controversy on this board.

Maybe its like Noneck said, "It was hard for the fans that lived through this, along with the white flag and the St. Petes extortion to forget the past. The past can be easy to to put behind you if you didnt live through it, not so easy if you lived through it."

I (a Sox fan since the '60s) still have problems with him and his ownership team. But I need to remember that I was a fan before they were and I'll be a fan long after he sells (god willing).

I support and cheer for the White Sox - not Reinsdorf and his ownership group.

Fenway
02-19-2011, 06:21 PM
Why did JR win SIX NBA titles?

I'm telling you Sam Bowie will be a better player than that Jordan kid.
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.nba.com/media/blazers/020107_stu_article.jpg&sa=X&ei=fk9gTZ3mCtSRgQeYjpGuAQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG6nTOOai1eirOgnv_c1_RgjasX8Q

If Stu Inman drafts Jordan - Bulls are still waiting for a title.

JR and the Bulls got the biggest gift in NBA History

TommyJohn
02-19-2011, 07:24 PM
So very true. To this day they still have PR issues - note JR's comments a few weeks ago on "Talking Baseball" that generated controversy on this board.

Maybe its like Noneck said, "It was hard for the fans that lived through this, along with the white flag and the St. Petes extortion to forget the past. The past can be easy to to put behind you if you didnt live through it, not so easy if you lived through it."

I (a Sox fan since the '60s) still have problems with him and his ownership team. But I need to remember that I was a fan before they were and I'll be a fan long after he sells (god willing).

I support and cheer for the White Sox - not Reinsdorf and his ownership group.

Thank you.

Steelrod
02-20-2011, 11:57 AM
So very true. To this day they still have PR issues - note JR's comments a few weeks ago on "Talking Baseball" that generated controversy on this board.


I support and cheer for the White Sox - not Reinsdorf and his ownership group.

It should be interesting to see how the Cubs fans react to Ricketts saying the same things JR said regarding early attendance dictating future moves.

dickallen15
02-20-2011, 12:20 PM
Why did JR win SIX NBA titles?

I'm telling you Sam Bowie will be a better player than that Jordan kid.
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.nba.com/media/blazers/020107_stu_article.jpg&sa=X&ei=fk9gTZ3mCtSRgQeYjpGuAQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG6nTOOai1eirOgnv_c1_RgjasX8Q

If Stu Inman drafts Jordan - Bulls are still waiting for a title.

JR and the Bulls got the biggest gift in NBA History
Unless they win the lottery and get LeBron along with Rose, but certainly not the 6 titles.
And the Bulls never become the crazy draw they still are. Before Michael, Chicago Stadium was usually a ghost town for Bulls games unless they were really good. They were awful for years after he left, but stil drew tremendously. JR is still pocketing money because of Michael 13 years after he is gone.

But to JR's credit, he bought the Bulls with Michael, and the team really took off. An article I read mentioned he basically bought them using the Carleton Sheets method. No money down. Steinbrenner was part of the ownership group JR purchased the Bulls from and they all wanted out pretty badly. IIRC, JR just picked up some debt or other obligation as the price for the team.

Fenway
02-20-2011, 12:40 PM
I remember taking a friend to a game just before Christmas in 1981 - Bulls were playing Washington and there couldn't have been more than 4,000 at the game.

Took the NBA 3 teams to finally get accepted in Chicago.


Unless they win the lottery and get LeBron along with Rose, but certainly not the 6 titles.
And the Bulls never become the crazy draw they still are. Before Michael, Chicago Stadium was usually a ghost town for Bulls games unless they were really good. They were awful for years after he left, but stil drew tremendously. JR is still pocketing money because of Michael 13 years after he is gone.

But to JR's credit, he bought the Bulls with Michael, and the team really took off. An article I read mentioned he basically bought them using the Carleton Sheets method. No money down. Steinbrenner was part of the ownership group JR purchased the Bulls from and they all wanted out pretty badly. IIRC, JR just picked up some debt or other obligation as the price for the team.

doogiec
02-20-2011, 01:06 PM
That's not entirely true. Sportsvision was broadcast over a UHF channel (Channel 60, which today is WPWR Channel 50). So, it's not entirely accurate to say that they had NO broadcast option. Just like they used to broadcast over Channel 44, they could have broadcast over Ch. 60 for free (unscrambled). It wouldn't have been a great option, but it was an option since they were already using Ch. 60 for SportsVision.

In those early days, Channel 60 broadcast in Spanish during the day and I want to say had English programming after 6pm, but regardless would go in scrambled mode just for Sox, Bulls or Hawks telecasts.



Channel 60 did not exist when Einhorn and Reinsdorf purchased the Sox in 1981. It was created primarily to broadcast Sportsvision. If there was no Sportsvision, there would have been no channel 60. The license for 60 was issued in 1978, but no attempt to use it was made until Sportsvision was created. In a market where channel 44 struggled so badly, why would anyone attempt to add another UHF channel?

Unless of course you are arguing that since there was no one to broadcast the Sox, they should have assumed the expense of creating their own UHF channel, constructed their own transmitter and broadcast the games for free (obviously not getting any rights fees, but collecting whatever advertising they would sell). Not sure what that would cost, but I am sure that no team in the history of professional sports attempted it on an over the air basis. And back then, most baseball teams had a limited number of games on TV, except of course the Cubs.

Fenway
02-20-2011, 01:46 PM
Channel 60 did not exist when Einhorn and Reinsdorf purchased the Sox in 1981. It was created primarily to broadcast Sportsvision. If there was no Sportsvision, there would have been no channel 60. The license for 60 was issued in 1978, but no attempt to use it was made until Sportsvision was created. In a market where channel 44 struggled so badly, why would anyone attempt to add another UHF channel?

Unless of course you are arguing that since there was no one to broadcast the Sox, they should have assumed the expense of creating their own UHF channel, constructed their own transmitter and broadcast the games for free (obviously not getting any rights fees, but collecting whatever advertising they would sell). Not sure what that would cost, but I am sure that no team in the history of professional sports attempted it on an over the air basis. And back then, most baseball teams had a limited number of games on TV, except of course the Cubs.

The Buffalo Sabres tried it in 1987 with WNYO-TV channel 49 but they took a bath when the CRTC (Canada's FCC) refused to allow Canadian cable companies to carry the channel (The Maple Leafs objected)

The station was owned by Seymor Knox (Aud Television, LLC). They sold the TV station the following year and started Niagara Frontier Sports Network (which later became Empire)

NFSN is best remembered for their pre-game on April 1, 1990 - HYSTERICAL
V_xyL39-42w

TommyJohn
02-20-2011, 01:49 PM
Took the NBA 3 teams to finally get accepted in Chicago.

Go Stags! Go Packers!

Fenway
02-20-2011, 02:11 PM
Go Stags! Go Packers!

actually 4 if we want to remember the Zephers.

I knew the Packers-Zephers were doomed becaused they played on South Michigan but I always thought the Bulls played at the Stadium from day 1 - I guess not.


http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.mearsonline.com/images/forsale/10%2520bulls%2520523.jpg&sa=X&ei=m2ZhTeGDNpS_gQe9lJGqAQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG1O735ahQdM2M66IZoSEe7TXi5Yw

fram40
02-20-2011, 02:13 PM
It should be interesting to see how the Cubs fans react to Ricketts saying the same things JR said regarding early attendance dictating future moves.

I had the exact same thought.

TDog
02-20-2011, 02:26 PM
JR and team surely stumbled out of the gate with various PR and marketing mistakes leading up to the threat of moving the team. ...

Out of the gate, the group signed Carlton Fisk and it only took a couple of years to win the division with a team that was good enough to win the World Series. Then came the collusion years when no owners in baseball acted in the best interests of their fans.

Aside from the collusion years, where the low points led to great drafts that built the teams of the early 90s, the only mistake the only big mistake the current owners made was trading for prospects one season when it was clear they weren't going to win with placing coming up for free agency, which is something many frequently advocate here.

LITTLE NELL
02-20-2011, 03:00 PM
actually 4 if we want to remember the Zephers.

I knew the Packers-Zephers were doomed becaused they played on South Michigan but I always thought the Bulls played at the Stadium from day 1 - I guess not.


http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.mearsonline.com/images/forsale/10%2520bulls%2520523.jpg&sa=X&ei=m2ZhTeGDNpS_gQe9lJGqAQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG1O735ahQdM2M66IZoSEe7TXi5Yw

The Bulls played their first season in the Amphitheatre. As an expansion team for the 66-67 season they were not expected to make the playoffs so something else was booked in the IA and Bulls moved their playoff games to the Coliseum. They moved to the Stadium for the 67-68 season.

dickallen15
02-20-2011, 04:29 PM
Out of the gate, the group signed Carlton Fisk and it only took a couple of years to win the division with a team that was good enough to win the World Series. Then came the collusion years when no owners in baseball acted in the best interests of their fans.

Aside from the collusion years, where the low points led to great drafts that built the teams of the early 90s, the only mistake the only big mistake the current owners made was trading for prospects one season when it was clear they weren't going to win with placing coming up for free agency, which is something many frequently advocate here.

The biggest mistake JR made was not building Camden Yards because he wanted a symetrical park. USCF is very nice now and really was always a great park to watch a game, but it was never that special looking, very generic when built. We see what having a park sell itself does for attendance on the north side.

One can argue he's waited 31 seasons to go "all in" as he said he is now. Personally, I don't believe he's all in, he'll be playing with house money the rest of his ownership. Even though I think he fudges his finances for PR, I don't mind JR. There has been outstanding, good, average, bad and horrible during his reign, which as long as its been can be expected. But let's make one thing clear, if Boston or the Angels or Houston knocks off the Sox in the 2005 playoffs, there aren't going to be many JR backers on this or any other White Sox message board.

DSpivack
02-20-2011, 05:10 PM
actually 4 if we want to remember the Zephers.

I knew the Packers-Zephers were doomed becaused they played on South Michigan but I always thought the Bulls played at the Stadium from day 1 - I guess not.


http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.mearsonline.com/images/forsale/10%2520bulls%2520523.jpg&sa=X&ei=m2ZhTeGDNpS_gQe9lJGqAQ&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG1O735ahQdM2M66IZoSEe7TXi5Yw

I actually wrote a history paper [for Chicago metro-history project] in 7th grade on failed Chicago sports teams.

Which one of those became the Baltimore Bullets, now Washington Wizards?

Lip Man 1
02-20-2011, 05:24 PM
I believe it was the Zephers.

Lip

LITTLE NELL
02-20-2011, 05:36 PM
I believe it was the Zephers.

Lip

It was.
Spelled Zephyrs.