PDA

View Full Version : Kenny Speaks


Lip Man 1
10-02-2012, 10:59 PM
This is unfortunately one of those "bull**** registration" only columns but it's worth your time to do so.

Kenny spoke with David Haugh tonight in Cleveland about a lot of things and areas, among them:

He does NOT consider the 2012 season a "success" because the Sox exceeded expectations. Says the only thing he feels now is "disappointment."

On the notion the Sox "choked", "Sometimes things happen and you just have to wear it. We had it right in the palm of our hands."

On the awful hittng the last two weeks, " I just think they were trying to do too much in those situations. They wanted it too badly and couldn't relax.''

On the issue of "did Ventura overmanage after September 1st?" "It's a fair question, but the answer is absolutely not.If we didn't use (September call-ups), this thing would have been over a long time ago. By the way, the guys he was using were pretty good.'' :?:

Williams was asked to explain the Sox dismal September record of 88-104 since winning the World Series. "What's different about this September from some of the past years, I think it's best I stay away from, but it doesn't have anything to do with the players' or coaching staff's efforts, we're going to study it.'' :?::?: (My gut is telling me Kenny wanted to rip the fan base but dared not to. Think about it, 'it's not the players or coaches efforts' and 'we're going to study it,' which is what most fans think the organzation is going to do this off season with regard to the attendance situation. What else could it be? Could he possibly be hinting at his discontent with say, the way Brooks is marketing or the cost of tickets???))

Players according to Kenny did come to him this season to ask about the attendance issues. "Now the primary focus is on enhancing the fan experience and looking not at our fans as to why they didn't come out as we anticipated, but at ourselves first,'' Williams said. "It's a mistake to have great expectations of how people spend their discretionary income with all the economic uncertainties. What can we do creatively to enhance the experience, more than just the baseball team, so that once again we can be aggressive with our projections and, as a result, payroll?''

Kenny was asked about the reports he might be moving upstairs and said he'll talk with JR in the future but nothing about his future has been decided and according to Haugh, "Kenny has been approached about jobs outside of baseball."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-spt-1003-haugh-white-sox-chicago--20121003,0,5533563.column

Lip

Lip Man 1
10-02-2012, 11:24 PM
Just heard from an individual whom I respect a lot in the business who said reading the piece they thought Kenny's comment about "differences this September as compared to past years" could be a shot at Ozzie.

I never thought of that and it does makes some sense althought that doesn't explain his comment than about having to "study it." Ozzie's gone, what is there to study?

Still it could very well be something about Ozzie quitting on the team last year (although that doesn't begin to touch on 2003, 2006, 2009, 2010 does it?)

Lip

captain54
10-03-2012, 01:08 AM
the Sox have consistently not been able to beat the teams in their division they need to beat. Having crappy records against KC and Detroit is what ultimately cost them the division.. and more directly, hitters that are paid to hit...did not hit, and failed in crucial situations.

The Sox have lived and died by the Homerun for quite a while, and to me, that's a trademark of the Kenny Williams regime.. and the downfall of the team, 2009-2012.

Falstaff
10-03-2012, 01:38 AM
In contemplating what happened in the pressure cooker of September, and all the talk about the team pressing too much etc.... I am reminded of the minor controversy last winter, when AJ mentioned that in the past a few sips of "rally beer" had been consumed late in extra inning games on occasion.

There had been some kerfluffle about beer in the dugout among the Red Sox, and other MLB chimed in with their experience. There was a bit of tut-tutting about beers in during games, and many teams vowed to stop the practice.

It would truly be a shame if the '12 White Sox got all tense and lost first place because they could not quaff a rally beer this year as in the past, like '05.

BigKlu59
10-03-2012, 02:23 AM
In contemplating what happened in the pressure cooker of September, and all the talk about the team pressing too much etc.... I am reminded of the minor controversy last winter, when AJ mentioned that in the past a few sips of "rally beer" had been consumed late in extra inning games on occasion.

There had been some kerfluffle about beer in the dugout among the Red Sox, and other MLB chimed in with their experience. There was a bit of tut-tutting about beers in during games, and many teams vowed to stop the practice.

It would truly be a shame if the '12 White Sox got all tense and lost first place because they could not quaff a rally beer this year as in the past, like '05.


:gulp: Ah, you left an opening for Kenny to blame Carrie Nation and those damn "Dry Lips".. :gulp:

BK59

LITTLE NELL
10-03-2012, 05:55 AM
the Sox have consistently not been able to beat the teams in their division they need to beat. Having crappy records against KC and Detroit is what ultimately cost them the division.. and more directly, hitters that are paid to hit...did not hit, and failed in crucial situations.

The Sox have lived and died by the Homerun for quite a while, and to me, that's a trademark of the Kenny Williams regime.. and the downfall of the team, 2009-2012.

It's a trademark of the ballpark they play in, the Sox have a HR mentality because USCF is a Homer paradise. Look at TCM and Gordo, middle infielders constantly swinging for the fences instead of working the count.

RedHeadPaleHoser
10-03-2012, 06:41 AM
Haugh was just on the Score, and between M&H and him they all agreed the the comments relating to September's record was directed moreso at Ozzie in that the team was burned out from the BS at the manager level. This season, they pressed too much.

Haugh also commented that KW took careful steps to not blame the fans for not coming out to support the team - the experience at the park needed to be improved.

If KW is president next year, maybe he can help with killing dynamic pricing!

SephClone89
10-03-2012, 06:59 AM
Haugh was just on the Score, and between M&H and him they all agreed the the comments relating to September's record was directed moreso at Ozzie in that the team was burned out from the BS at the manager level. This season, they pressed too much.

Haugh also commented that KW took careful steps to not blame the fans for not coming out to support the team - the experience at the park needed to be improved.

If KW is president next year, maybe he can help with killing dynamic pricing!

How can they improve the "ballpark experience" and "selling the games?" I'm not understanding what exactly people are suggesting here.

If we're talking about more "in-game entertainment," then you can count me out. White Sox games are plenty enjoyable. There's plenty to do. If we're just talking about different marketing strategies, that's one thing. But changing the actual content of how one experiences a game when they get to the park? I don't get it.

TaylorStSox
10-03-2012, 08:03 AM
the Sox have consistently not been able to beat the teams in their division they need to beat. Having crappy records against KC and Detroit is what ultimately cost them the division.. and more directly, hitters that are paid to hit...did not hit, and failed in crucial situations.

The Sox have lived and died by the Homerun for quite a while, and to me, that's a trademark of the Kenny Williams regime.. and the downfall of the team, 2009-2012. I read somewhere that the Sox were under .500 against teams not named the Twins and Mariners. That's kind of eye opening IMO.

doublem23
10-03-2012, 08:05 AM
I read somewhere that the Sox were under .500 against teams not named the Twins and Mariners. That's kind of eye opening IMO.

It's actually not really because it's mostly fueled by the terrible season they had against the Royals and Tigers. I'm sure almost any team would be at or near .500 if you just picked out and cast away the two teams they performed best against.

Take away the Sox and Royals and the Tigers are just a .500 team. So eye opening!

Golden Sox
10-03-2012, 08:25 AM
I agree with KW. When you're up by 3 games with two weeks to go and you don't get into the playoffs it has to be a disappointment. I don't know how you can call it a successful season if you don't get into the playoffs. Being in first place most of the summer than tanking at the end can't possibly be a success. One last thing about the attendance, the White Sox drew more people in 2012 than what they did in 2000 when they won their division.

tstrike2000
10-03-2012, 08:25 AM
If Kenny was taking a shot as Ozzie, we need to stop talking about him and move on. Of course he's not going to admit any failures with coaching either. His starters had nothing left in the tank and Robin was left with, "What do I do now?"

wassagstdu
10-03-2012, 08:27 AM
Haugh was just on the Score, and between M&H and him they all agreed the the comments relating to September's record was directed moreso at Ozzie in that the team was burned out from the BS at the manager level. This season, they pressed too much.

What a joke. New manager, worse September result, but it was still Ozzie's fault last year? And the BS was at the manager/GM level, so the GM would get (at least) half the blame.

Logic would suggest that if you change the manager and things don't change (or get worse), you should look elsewhere for the cause. And if the same thing happens every year it really doesn't make sense to conclude that there is a different cause in one of those years just because it feeds an obsession.

DeadMoney
10-03-2012, 08:28 AM
Players according to Kenny did come to him this season to ask about the attendance issues. "Now the primary focus is on enhancing the fan experience and looking not at our fans as to why they didn't come out as we anticipated, but at ourselves first,'' Williams said. "It's a mistake to have great expectations of how people spend their discretionary income with all the economic uncertainties. What can we do creatively to enhance the experience, more than just the baseball team, so that once again we can be aggressive with our projections and, as a result, payroll?''


Hm... I'll believe it when I see it. I applaud the notion that they're finally looking at themselves in the mirror rather than blaming the fans, but I just don't have a ton of fair in our marketing department (and organization as a whole) to figure this whole thing out.

harwar
10-03-2012, 08:30 AM
Just heard from an individual whom I respect a lot in the business who said reading the piece they thought Kenny's comment about "differences this September as compared to past years" could be a shot at Ozzie.

That was my first thought but it really doesn't make any sense .. the fans not showing up does i think ..

harwar
10-03-2012, 08:36 AM
On the notion the Sox "choked", "Sometimes things happen and you just have to wear it. We had it right in the palm of our hands."


Also it seemed to me that the White Sox just crashed in september, so i'm going to call it 'crashing' rather than choking ..

doublem23
10-03-2012, 08:39 AM
Hm... I'll believe it when I see it. I applaud the notion that they're finally looking at themselves in the mirror rather than blaming the fans, but I just don't have a ton of fair in our marketing department (and organization as a whole) to figure this whole thing out.

Williams has consistently said about the Sox attendance issues that the team and the organization have to work harder to earn their fans' attendance. I don't think I have ever seen him outright blame fans for not coming to the park. I don't know where this comes from, I guess people are more comfortable feeling persecuted rather than embarrassed by the stark reality that Sox fans were just outdrawn at the gate by the Pirates. Whatever, I guess people are just going to sing this stupid tune.

At any rate, I still find it very amusing that people actually think the MBA's in the Sox marketing department are the ones that are clueless. Chortle.

SCCWS
10-03-2012, 08:40 AM
It would have been nice to see KW admit the bench players he provided Robin were minor league quality.

soxfanatlanta
10-03-2012, 09:28 AM
At any rate, I still find it very amusing that people actually think the MBA's in the Sox marketing department are the ones that are clueless. Chortle.

So, because the marketing department has people with MBA's, they are all-knowing? :scratch:

The results state otherwise, don't they?

nsolo
10-03-2012, 09:32 AM
How can they improve the "ballpark experience" and "selling the games?" I'm not understanding what exactly people are suggesting here.

If we're talking about more "in-game entertainment," then you can count me out. White Sox games are plenty enjoyable. There's plenty to do. If we're just talking about different marketing strategies, that's one thing. But changing the actual content of how one experiences a game when they get to the park? I don't get it.

Thank you. Adding more "value" to the already outrageous expense of going to a Sox game is a waste of time. USC is a great park, and I'd love to go more often, but I can't afford it.

I have no statistical proof that identifies the demographics of Sox fans, but I've always been under the impression that we were more of the blue collar variety, as I am. If this holds true for the majority of us, then maybe the the problem is that we just can't afford to attend more. Maybe its a disconnect between Sox management and reality. Times are tough and speaking only for me, my household disposable income has vanished.

Trying to add to the ballpark experience in an effort to add value is a worn out marketing trick that will not induce he to attend more game. With parking (can't take mass transportation as I live in Michigan), tickets, food and drinks its just too expensive.

My wife and I both work full time and together make $52k year. We are in our 50's and have worked hard to pay off our home. We have no credit card or car payments. But going to one or two games a year is a luxury expense. And with dynamic ticket prices, it won't be to see a quality opposing team. Also, as a side note, don't suggest we get different jobs. I've held by job for 30 years, and at my age, that is impossible.

Maybe its another example of the disappearing middle class. Should I go to the game or buy groceries/ pay taxes/ pay utilities/ pay for medicines/ ect?

Simply, maybe the average Sox fan can't afford to attend more game.

doublem23
10-03-2012, 09:33 AM
So, because the marketing department has people with MBA's, they are all-knowing? :scratch:

The results state otherwise, don't they?

No. The fact that they haven't changed anything in years says everything you need to know, unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory that Reinsdorf and the Sox ownership haven't been raking in the cash for the last 30 years which is, in two word, ****ing stupid.

This is their plan.

asindc
10-03-2012, 09:37 AM
What a joke. New manager, worse September result, but it was still Ozzie's fault last year? And the BS was at the manager/GM level, so the GM would get (at least) half the blame.

Logic would suggest that if you change the manager and things don't change (or get worse), you should look elsewhere for the cause. And if the same thing happens every year it really doesn't make sense to conclude that there is a different cause in one of those years just because it feeds an obsession.

The players.

SephClone89
10-03-2012, 09:37 AM
I have no statistical proof that identifies the demographics of Sox fans, but I've always been under the impression that we were more of the blue collar variety, as I am. If this holds true for the majority of us, then maybe the the problem is that we just can't afford to attend more. Maybe its a disconnect between Sox management and reality. Times are tough and speaking only for me, my household disposable income has vanished.

I appreciate your insight, but they did a study a few years ago and concluded that the income difference between Cubs and Sox fans was negligible.

asindc
10-03-2012, 09:38 AM
Williams has consistently said about the Sox attendance issues that the team and the organization have to work harder to earn their fans' attendance. I don't think I have ever seen him outright blame fans for not coming to the park. I don't know where this comes from, I guess people are more comfortable feeling persecuted rather than embarrassed by the stark reality that Sox fans were just outdrawn at the gate by the Pirates. Whatever, I guess people are just going to sing this stupid tune.

At any rate, I still find it very amusing that people actually think the MBA's in the Sox marketing department are the ones that are clueless. Chortle.

He hasn't, and no one can produce evidence of such.

nsolo
10-03-2012, 09:42 AM
I appreciate your insight, but they did a study a few years ago and concluded that the income difference between Cubs and Sox fans was negligible.

Ok, cool. So take away that false supposition and I still can't afford it.

russ99
10-03-2012, 09:44 AM
Thank you. Adding more "value" to the already outrageous expense of going to a Sox game is a waste of time. USC is a great park, and I'd love to go more often, but I can't afford it.

I have no statistical proof that identifies the demographics of Sox fans, but I've always been under the impression that we were more of the blue collar variety, as I am. If this holds true for the majority of us, then maybe the the problem is that we just can't afford to attend more. Maybe its a disconnect between Sox management and reality. Times are tough and speaking only for me, my household disposable income has vanished.

Trying to add to the ballpark experience in an effort to add value is a worn out marketing trick that will not induce he to attend more game. With parking (can't take mass transportation as I live in Michigan), tickets, food and drinks its just too expensive.

My wife and I both work full time and together make $52k year. We are in our 50's and have worked hard to pay off our home. We have no credit card or car payments. But going to one or two games a year is a luxury expense. And with dynamic ticket prices, it won't be to see a quality opposing team. Also, as a side note, don't suggest we get different jobs. I've held by job for 30 years, and at my age, that is impossible.

Maybe its another example of the disappearing middle class. Should I go to the game or buy groceries/ pay taxes/ pay utilities/ pay for medicines/ ect?

Simply, maybe the average Sox fan can't afford to attend more game.

Agree. There is plenty of value in going to a game already - they need to do a better job of educating the non-typical "Sox fan" demographic of that.

And "adding value" to keep the same ludicrous ticket system in place? Please.

Still waiting for the massive expansion in Prime and Premier dates to go back to normal levels after they "creatively" did that in the preseason of 2010 to increase revenue and sign Paul and Dunn. With the payroll scaled back this year significantly and likely to go even lower next year, going back to normal game prices without all the pricing games would be a good first step to bring back more fans.

FoulkeFan
10-03-2012, 09:49 AM
He hasn't, and no one can produce evidence of such.

Maybe not, but he has said many, many times that he can't make the moves that he wants to because of low attendance. This bothers me for a lot of reasons, but mostly because it's his job as GM to spend the money that he has wisely. When he says stuff like this it sounds like he's absolving himself from blame because he doesn't have the money to spend rather than because he's made any mistakes. Spending money does not guarantee a winner, but being smart about where you spend it does. Also, he made one of these comments as recently as June. I'm thinking at that point that he knew what his budget was and what he could expect the attendance to be and in my personal opinion, even a large jump in attendance in the month prior to the deadline wouldn't have made a significant difference in his budget. His comments are at best ill-timed and at worst covering his butt.

doublem23
10-03-2012, 09:50 AM
The players.

Right, unless Robin was preaching to the pitchers to walk a ridiculous amount of hitters and telling the hitters to not bother getting base hits with RISP, anybody not pointing the fingers squarely at the players is out of their mind. Yeah, he made some rookie manager mistakes that is to be expected from a guy who has never managed before, but overall, the Sox far outperformed many, many expectations this season. Unfortunately, they went on their usual swoon in September while leading the division so it hurts more than the last few years when they would not bother waking up until mid-May and already basically out of the running 6 weeks into the season. I don't know which is better. :scratch:

kittle42
10-03-2012, 09:55 AM
Unfortunately, they went on their usual swoon in September while leading the division so it hurts more than the last few years when they would not bother waking up until mid-May and already basically out of the running 6 weeks into the season. I don't know which is better. :scratch:

For 2012, the former was better. For 2013, the latter would have been better, as they could have traded key guys to rebuild.

nsolo
10-03-2012, 09:58 AM
In addition to my previous post, I would like to add that I would like to see a team not so dependent on home runs.

The Sox defense this year was a huge improvement. As a fan, I love watching a good defensive team. Its exciting to watch.

As for the all or nothing home run offensive approach that seems to have taken over the team, the problem is two fold. From the standpoint of winning games, its great when your hitting them out of the park, but terrible when you can't manufacture a run with bases loaded and no outs. Its an all or nothing approach.

From the standpoint of the passive fan, you've got their attention when the ball is flying out of the park, but boring them to death when its not.

This is of importance when it comes to tv revenue. Live sports in the ultimate in reality tv, and a boring show garners poor ratings.

doublem23
10-03-2012, 10:22 AM
This is of importance when it comes to tv revenue. Live sports in the ultimate in reality tv, and a boring show garners poor ratings.

Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the Sox TV ratings are up and actually outdoing the Cubs on the season. At least locally on CSN. Probably not for national games on WGN.

Lip Man 1
10-03-2012, 11:08 AM
This and that:

Sox ratings are up 10% on Comcast this year. Cub TV ratings are down 11% on the same network.

Solo:

You might find this interesting:

Research by Scarborough Sports Marketing, of New York City, indicates contrasts, some distinct.

Compared with fans at the Cell, a slightly higher percentage of adults attending Cubs are employed full time — nearly 59 percent to 56.4 percent, while fewer are self-employed, according to Scarborough surveys. Also, nearly 54 percent of adults at Cubs games are white collar; 52 percent attending Sox games are white collar.

Scarborough's research also shows that nearly 40 percent of adults who attend Cubs game are college graduates while that figure drops to 34.1 percent at U.S. Cellular Field.

Nearly half of all adults in 17 counties in the Chicago area watched, attended or listened to a Cubs game in the past year, Scarborough's research shows, while slightly more than 41 percent of them did the same for a White Sox game.

But the White Sox draw a higher percentage of first-time customers than the Cubs do, Scarborough found, and TV ratings of Comcast SportsNet, which broadcasts many of each teams' games, show the Sox have gained ground while the Cubs have dropped. About 70,000 households tune in to Sox games on CSN, the network reports, 10 percent more than last season.

The Cubs, meanwhile, draw slightly more than 66,000 households to their CSN broadcasts, down 11 percent from last year.

Boyer then makes an interesting statement that the Sox are lowering some ticket prices for the remaining games because "it was an effort to regain the trust of fans."

The story concludes on this note, long-range optimism for larger crowds at U.S. Cellular Field may be found in the higher TV ratings, a sign that the pool of new Sox fans has expanded, said Bill Nielsen, vice president of sales for Scarborough.

Lip

soxfanatlanta
10-03-2012, 11:15 AM
No. The fact that they haven't changed anything in years says everything you need to know, unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory that Reinsdorf and the Sox ownership haven't been raking in the cash for the last 30 years which is, in two word, ****ing stupid.

This is their plan.

I now understand your point.

The look at is from a business perspective: JR is raking in a lot of cash, but I believe with a better marketing department, he could rake in much, much more.

Hitmen77
10-03-2012, 11:19 AM
This coming from the guy who seemed to have written off the season before it started. I like Ventura and am hopefully he'll grow into being a good MLB manager. But, when KW hired someone with ZERO professional coaching experience to manage this team for 2012, I took that as a message that he didn't expect this team to do much this year.

The players.

Agreed....but who is in charge of getting those players? If it's 4 years in a row of saying the players have failed us, that sounds like the problem is that the GM and his underlings haven't done a good enough job of putting together a team that is good enough and has enough depth to make to the post season.

I applaud KW's ability to find hidden gems, JR's willingness to put up money for Dunn and Danks's extension. I'm glad that the Sox have farm system successes in Sale and Reed. ....but that's obviously not enough. This team needs more depth and we can't continue to hope year after year that we ride scrap heap acquisitions and a couple of high-priced, yet flawed contracts (Dunn, Rios, Peavy) to the post season.

We can argue all we want, but the results show that the current management's approach isn't working. It seems to be good enough to keep this team at around .500 most seasons with a surprise playoff run every 5 years or so. But it's not enough to make this team one of the real contenders in the AL.

Quite frankly, I'm fed up with hearing KW "speak" to the same Sox failures year after year. It's like hearing Ozzie say "we need to get better at fundamentals" year after year only to have the same results.

Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the Sox TV ratings are up and actually outdoing the Cubs on the season. At least locally on CSN. Probably not for national games on WGN.

I believe that is correct. I'm not all that surprised. TV ratings are going to rebound much more quickly to a winning team than ticket sales (which are heavily dependent on season tickets and other advanced sales).

I can believe that people are tuning out the Cubs....but those tickets to Cubs games were sold months ago and they still count in the attendance numbers.

hawkjt
10-03-2012, 12:03 PM
I heard the Haugh interview and he went to great pains to make sure that everyone knew that Kenny was not blaming the fans.

He did say that Kenny talked about de-linking attendance and payroll,and that they will be trying to approach marketing the team with a clean sheet ....and look at everything.

They know that just winning is not enough after this year,so they need to go back to the drawing board. I suspect that could mean cheaper tickets.

With good TV ratings,and new TV deals with Fox/TNT, they might just have the revenue to operate without concerns about attendance.
Haugh said that Kenny made it clear that they were going to be looking to win next year...again. No retrenching.

Dan H
10-03-2012, 12:05 PM
Williams has consistently said about the Sox attendance issues that the team and the organization have to work harder to earn their fans' attendance. I don't think I have ever seen him outright blame fans for not coming to the park. I don't know where this comes from, I guess people are more comfortable feeling persecuted rather than embarrassed by the stark reality that Sox fans were just outdrawn at the gate by the Pirates. Whatever, I guess people are just going to sing this stupid tune.

At any rate, I still find it very amusing that people actually think the MBA's in the Sox marketing department are the ones that are clueless. Chortle.

I am not embarrassed by anything, certainly nothing that the Pirates have done whether on the field or at the gate. I don't care about somebody having an MBA. These team has never fully understood its fan base.

DeadMoney
10-03-2012, 12:17 PM
He did say that Kenny talked about de-linking attendance and payroll,and that they will be trying to approach marketing the team with a clean sheet ....and look at everything.

They know that just winning is not enough after this year,so they need to go back to the drawing board. I suspect that could mean cheaper tickets.

1. When I said 'blaming' the fans earlier in the thread, this is essentially what I was referring to. I'd say it's more of the empty threat to fans that we're all sick of (at least I am).

2. Cheaper tickets would be a nice start. It also wouldn't hurt to follow cheaper tickets up with a massive media campaign highlighting the fact that the South Side is a safe and enjoyable place to spend time.

bunkaroo
10-03-2012, 12:28 PM
The parking cost is what keeps me from going to more than 10-13 games a year. Give me a $20 reduction in what it costs for 2 lower reserved or lower box tickets and I'll be there more often.

bunkaroo
10-03-2012, 12:29 PM
I can also say without a doubt the heat kept me away from at least 3 games I would have gone to as walkups in July and August. It was just unbearable. Awful summer this year.

DSpivack
10-03-2012, 12:53 PM
I heard the Haugh interview and he went to great pains to make sure that everyone knew that Kenny was not blaming the fans.

He did say that Kenny talked about de-linking attendance and payroll,and that they will be trying to approach marketing the team with a clean sheet ....and look at everything.

They know that just winning is not enough after this year,so they need to go back to the drawing board. I suspect that could mean cheaper tickets.

With good TV ratings,and new TV deals with Fox/TNT, they might just have the revenue to operate without concerns about attendance.
Haugh said that Kenny made it clear that they were going to be looking to win next year...again. No retrenching.

The most interesting angle here to me is, assuming that Nightengale is correct, in KW's role as team President. If Hahn is handling the personnel moves, then I wonder if that frees up KW to handle more of the business side of the team. Sounds like he could be taking a more direct role in terms of the marketing of the team, and that he is possibly not happy with how Boyer is doing there, how the team is being marketed, and how they are drawing at the gate.

kittle42
10-03-2012, 01:39 PM
It also wouldn't hurt to follow cheaper tickets up with a massive media campaign highlighting the fact that the South Side is a safe and enjoyable place to spend time.

This is a great idea. The casual fan stays away because of the misperception about the area. The tourist, even more so.

nsolo
10-03-2012, 09:09 PM
This and that:

Sox ratings are up 10% on Comcast this year. Cub TV ratings are down 11% on the same network.

Solo:

You might find this interesting:

Research by Scarborough Sports Marketing, of New York City, indicates contrasts, some distinct.

Compared with fans at the Cell, a slightly higher percentage of adults attending Cubs are employed full time — nearly 59 percent to 56.4 percent, while fewer are self-employed, according to Scarborough surveys. Also, nearly 54 percent of adults at Cubs games are white collar; 52 percent attending Sox games are white collar.

Scarborough's research also shows that nearly 40 percent of adults who attend Cubs game are college graduates while that figure drops to 34.1 percent at U.S. Cellular Field.

Nearly half of all adults in 17 counties in the Chicago area watched, attended or listened to a Cubs game in the past year, Scarborough's research shows, while slightly more than 41 percent of them did the same for a White Sox game.

But the White Sox draw a higher percentage of first-time customers than the Cubs do, Scarborough found, and TV ratings of Comcast SportsNet, which broadcasts many of each teams' games, show the Sox have gained ground while the Cubs have dropped. About 70,000 households tune in to Sox games on CSN, the network reports, 10 percent more than last season.

The Cubs, meanwhile, draw slightly more than 66,000 households to their CSN broadcasts, down 11 percent from last year.

Boyer then makes an interesting statement that the Sox are lowering some ticket prices for the remaining games because "it was an effort to regain the trust of fans."

The story concludes on this note, long-range optimism for larger crowds at U.S. Cellular Field may be found in the higher TV ratings, a sign that the pool of new Sox fans has expanded, said Bill Nielsen, vice president of sales for Scarborough.

Lip

Thank you, Lip. Very informative.

On another note, has anyone considered the link between attendance and concessions sold? For example, if ticket prices were to be reduced and fan attendance increases, will the probable increase in concession and other sales offset the reduced ticket sales profit?

gosox41
10-03-2012, 09:54 PM
Haugh was just on the Score, and between M&H and him they all agreed the the comments relating to September's record was directed moreso at Ozzie in that the team was burned out from the BS at the manager level. This season, they pressed too much.

Haugh also commented that KW took careful steps to not blame the fans for not coming out to support the team - the experience at the park needed to be improved.

If KW is president next year, maybe he can help with killing dynamic pricing!

We can't talk too much on this or risk getting in trouble.

I will say that my experience at the park has been great.

Bob

gosox41
10-03-2012, 09:56 PM
I read somewhere that the Sox were under .500 against teams not named the Twins and Mariners. That's kind of eye opening IMO.

They went 6-3 against the Rangers.

Bob

Lip Man 1
10-03-2012, 09:58 PM
Apparently the plan to develop more retail business around U.S. Cellular Field has reached a dead-end. Kenny comments on that and other things regarding Sox attendance issues:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-1004-bits-white-sox-indians-chicago--20121004,0,3093254.story

Lip

gosox41
10-03-2012, 09:59 PM
the Sox have consistently not been able to beat the teams in their division they need to beat. Having crappy records against KC and Detroit is what ultimately cost them the division.. and more directly, hitters that are paid to hit...did not hit, and failed in crucial situations.

The Sox have lived and died by the Homerun for quite a while, and to me, that's a trademark of the Kenny Williams regime.. and the downfall of the team, 2009-2012.

Let's take it one step further with the home run if Kenny wants to study it.

The Sox didn't have a great April and had a terrible September. Aren't those the coldest months to play baseball?

Teams that rely on the home run don't hit as many when it's cooler. Seems pretty obvious to me.


Bob

DSpivack
10-03-2012, 10:06 PM
Apparently the plan to develop more retail business around U.S. Cellular Field has reached a dead-end. Kenny comments on that and other things regarding Sox attendence issues:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-1004-bits-white-sox-indians-chicago--20121004,0,3093254.story

Lip

Given the state of the economy, that's not surprising.

Lip Man 1
10-03-2012, 11:06 PM
Spivak:

Not sure what Kenny meant by his statement in that regard.To develop more retail business would taxes or something go up in Bridgeport?

His comment (paraphrasing) about understanding where the people are coming from made me think maybe the neighborhood doesn't want this.

Lip

hawkjt
10-04-2012, 10:51 AM
Spivak:

Not sure what Kenny meant by his statement in that regard.To develop more retail business would taxes or something go up in Bridgeport?

His comment (paraphrasing) about understanding where the people are coming from made me think maybe the neighborhood doesn't want this.

Lip


Another reason that the Sox blew it when they stayed in bridgeport...should be in south loop.

kittle42
10-04-2012, 11:20 AM
Another reason that the Sox blew it when they stayed in bridgeport...should be in south loop.

Man, that would have been a wise move.

LITTLE NELL
10-04-2012, 11:36 AM
I can also say without a doubt the heat kept me away from at least 3 games I would have gone to as walkups in July and August. It was just unbearable. Awful summer this year.

The heat did not stop other teams from drawing 3 million.
We can talk about this until we are blue in the face, the fans did not come out this year because they rebelled against the high ticket prices to go along with the dynamic pricing BS.

doublem23
10-04-2012, 11:46 AM
Spivak:

Not sure what Kenny meant by his statement in that regard.To develop more retail business would taxes or something go up in Bridgeport?

His comment (paraphrasing) about understanding where the people are coming from made me think maybe the neighborhood doesn't want this.

Lip

The Sox don't want it, either. You can't build a lively, fun entertainment district with the park as its centerpiece if it's surrounded by empty parking lots. Biggest problem with U.S. Cellular Field is that it's a park designed for the suburbs that got dropped in the city. People make fun of Wrigley for being a bar with a field in the middle of it, but that helps it anchor one of Chicago's most lively entertainment districts, even though it's farther away from the central core than Bridgeport. Sox Park was a soulless, sterile shopping mall with a field in the middle. It was designed to be built in some suburban wasteland like Addison or wherever, not to anchor a thriving urban neighborhood.

Jerry and Rocky are learning this lesson with the United Center, which has absolutely killed gentrification on the West Side, but luckily, Rocky's not a stubborn old man like his dad, and they're starting to chip away at the parking lots in favor of more urban-friendly development.

16th&State
10-04-2012, 12:24 PM
Apparently the plan to develop more retail business around U.S. Cellular Field has reached a dead-end. Kenny comments on that and other things regarding Sox attendance issues:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-1004-bits-white-sox-indians-chicago--20121004,0,3093254.story

Lip

The Sox don't want it, either. You can't build a lively, fun entertainment district with the park as its centerpiece if it's surrounded by empty parking lots. Biggest problem with U.S. Cellular Field is that it's a park designed for the suburbs that got dropped in the city. People make fun of Wrigley for being a bar with a field in the middle of it, but that helps it anchor one of Chicago's most lively entertainment districts, even though it's farther away from the central core than Bridgeport. Sox Park was a soulless, sterile shopping mall with a field in the middle. It was designed to be built in some suburban wasteland like Addison or wherever, not to anchor a thriving urban neighborhood.

Jerry and Rocky are learning this lesson with the United Center, which has absolutely killed gentrification on the West Side, but luckily, Rocky's not a stubborn old man like his dad, and they're starting to chip away at the parking lots in favor of more urban-friendly development.

I have always hated the ugly sea of parking lots surrounding Sox Park. But I don't see current Sox ownership ever allowing anything to be built adjacent to the park, (unless serious outside dollars were committed and the Sox got a piece of the profit). I would be really curious to know what efforts the Sox have made towards retail development (if any) in the surrounding neighborhood.

16th&State
10-04-2012, 12:31 PM
Another reason that the Sox blew it when they stayed in bridgeport...should be in south loop.

Man, that would have been a wise move.

It would seem wise now, but the South Loop was hardly a hopping place-to-be until recent years. This is of course my opinion, but I'm sure many of the same criticism bestowed on Comiskey II and the area surrounding would have been said about even a Camden-style retro park until the neighborhood caught up.

Golden Sox
10-04-2012, 12:51 PM
If the Cell had been built in the South Loop I would bet my life they would be drawing alot more people than what they're drawing at the present location. One of the proposed sites for the new White Sox stadium was near Union Station. Everybody would of been better off if the park had been built there. Other cities all over the country have built their stadiums in their downtown areas for a very simple reason. It brings people downtown. Rather than the disaster that Block 37 has become in the Loop, a new baseball stadium would of brought more people downtown. Block 37 might have been more successful after a new stadium was built in the South Loop. Other cities have built their stadiums downtown and after the stadiums are built other businesses follow. It could have easily happened that way in Chicago. Unfortunately it didn't.

bunkaroo
10-04-2012, 12:55 PM
The heat did not stop other teams from drawing 3 million.
We can talk about this until we are blue in the face, the fans did not come out this year because they rebelled against the high ticket prices to go along with the dynamic pricing BS.

I'm not saying it's a major reason, and I agree with the other reasons you posted. But it definitely kept me from going, and I'm sure there are others who felt that way too.

doublem23
10-04-2012, 01:03 PM
If the Cell had been built in the South Loop I would bet my life they would be drawing alot more people than what they're drawing at the present location. One of the proposed sites for the new White Sox stadium was near Union Station. Everybody would of been better off if the park had been built there. Other cities all over the country have built their stadiums in their downtown areas for a very simple reason. It brings people downtown. Rather than the disaster that Block 37 has become in the Loop, a new baseball stadium would of brought more people downtown. Block 37 might have been more successful after a new stadium was built in the South Loop. Other cities have built their stadiums downtown and after the stadiums are built other businesses follow. It could have easily happened that way in Chicago. Unfortunately it didn't.

The Sox certainly would have been better off, but you're pretty out of the loop (pun intended) if you think downtown Chicago needs a baseball stadium... The census just released some figures that shows Chicago's city center is booming like nowhere else in the country. Growth of the downtown area from 2000-2010 was something like 45+%. 2nd best was New York, who didn't even hit 10% growth.

Noneck
10-04-2012, 01:11 PM
The Sox don't want it, either. You can't build a lively, fun entertainment district with the park as its centerpiece if it's surrounded by empty parking lots. Biggest problem with U.S. Cellular Field is that it's a park designed for the suburbs that got dropped in the city. People make fun of Wrigley for being a bar with a field in the middle of it, but that helps it anchor one of Chicago's most lively entertainment districts, even though it's farther away from the central core than Bridgeport. Sox Park was a soulless, sterile shopping mall with a field in the middle. It was designed to be built in some suburban wasteland like Addison or wherever, not to anchor a thriving urban neighborhood.



And that type of suburban park works also, look at Miller Park. The Sox have the best of both, ample parking(but not cheap) and good public transportation. Teams dont need the bar, restaurant, nightlife scene to draw fans.

hawkjt
10-04-2012, 01:14 PM
The Sox certainly would have been better off, but you're pretty out of the loop (pun intended) if you think downtown Chicago needs a baseball stadium... The census just released some figures that shows Chicago's city center is booming like nowhere else in the country. Growth of the downtown area from 2000-2010 was something like 45+%. 2nd best was New York, who didn't even hit 10% growth.


This is exactly why the Sox being in the Loop would have been very good for the Sox. I know, water over the dam, too late now. Maybe if Daley had allowed a new retractable roof Bear stadium next to Soxpark, it could have worked out fine also....but no...would not want Super Bowls,Final Fours,Concerts ect year around in Bridgeport,I guess.

kittle42
10-04-2012, 01:21 PM
The heat did not stop other teams from drawing 3 million.
We can talk about this until we are blue in the face, the fans did not come out this year because they rebelled against the high ticket prices to go along with the dynamic pricing BS.

I'm waiting for someone to explain how heat - like the economy - impacts Sox fans more than other human beings.

kittle42
10-04-2012, 01:22 PM
Teams dont need the bar, restaurant, nightlife scene to draw fans.

No, they don't - but when your 8-mile-away competition for fans has that, you kinda do need it.

jabrch
10-04-2012, 01:24 PM
The heat did not stop other teams from drawing 3 million.
We can talk about this until we are blue in the face, the fans did not come out this year because they rebelled against the high ticket prices to go along with the dynamic pricing BS.

Poppycock.

There are tons of ways fans can come to a game and not pay "high ticket prices" relative to any other major market...

The problem is we have FANS and we have BANDWAGGONERS and the difference between 1.5 and 3mm for us is the difference between getting the bandwaggoners to show up.

Noneck
10-04-2012, 01:26 PM
No, they don't - but when your 8-mile-away competition for fans has that, you kinda do need it.


Are all baseball fans the same as the ones that go to games 8 miles north?

tebman
10-04-2012, 01:26 PM
Biggest problem with U.S. Cellular Field is that it's a park designed for the suburbs that got dropped in the city. People make fun of Wrigley for being a bar with a field in the middle of it, but that helps it anchor one of Chicago's most lively entertainment districts, even though it's farther away from the central core than Bridgeport. Sox Park was a soulless, sterile shopping mall with a field in the middle. It was designed to be built in some suburban wasteland like Addison or wherever, not to anchor a thriving urban neighborhood.

Jerry and Rocky are learning this lesson with the United Center, which has absolutely killed gentrification on the West Side, but luckily, Rocky's not a stubborn old man like his dad, and they're starting to chip away at the parking lots in favor of more urban-friendly development.

I would seem wise now, but the South Loop was hardly a hopping place-to-be until recent years. This is of course my opinion, but I'm sure many of the same criticism bestowed on Comiskey II and the area surrounding would have been said about even a Camden-style retro park until the neighborhood caught up.

The Sox had an agreement (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-05-02/news/8601310966_1_mccaskey-soldier-field-bears-lake-forest) in 1986 with Harold Washington's administration to join in a South Loop baseball/football stadium. The Bears didn't want to do it. Talks dragged on and at the same time the Sox were buying property in Addison as a Plan B (or maybe it was Plan A). Then Washington died within a year and threw all the discussions into a cocked hat.

When the Sox pushed hard (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-10-29/news/8603210333_1_stadium-site-referendum-open-space) for a move to Addison, they came with architects' plans ready to go. Looking at the drawings (http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/Addison_R.html) you can clearly see what later became Comiskey Park II/USCF. It was cheaper and quicker to not redesign the park once the 35th Street site was chosen, though the park's design was intended for a suburban cornfield site.

That whole melodrama was a convergence of bad architectural timing (retro ballparks hadn't yet been considered), unlucky political timing (Washington's death, an unfriendly state legislature), and clumsy White Sox public relations (fill in any number of examples here). In the end I'm glad the park is located where it is, but I just wish it had been designed in the first place to be more like the original park. The later USCF remodeling was a huge improvement but they're still stuck with suburban parking lots and too many luxury suites.

An exciting, competitive team is the first priority. Beyond that they need to color outside the lines: Parking lot food carts? Ten-dollar upperdeck seats? CTA discount packages? Reduced-price parking for cars with three or more people? Balloons for the kiddies? What's needed is imagination to go on top of a winning team.

hawkjt
10-04-2012, 01:30 PM
Could not help but notice the big sign in Oakland Coliseum yesterday in their big game vs the Rangers that advertised a Friday Nite family special that gave 4 tickets and 4 meals for 40 dollars.....nice promotion for families.

LITTLE NELL
10-04-2012, 01:34 PM
Poppycock.

There are tons of ways fans can come to a game and not pay "high ticket prices" relative to any other major market...

The problem is we have FANS and we have BANDWAGGONERS and the difference between 1.5 and 3mm for us is the difference between getting the bandwaggoners to show up.

We had a first place club for the whole summer so where were all these bandwagoners?

kittle42
10-04-2012, 01:45 PM
Are all baseball fans the same as the ones that go to games 8 miles north?

Many casual ones are.

kittle42
10-04-2012, 01:46 PM
We had a first place club for the whole summer so where were all these bandwagoners?

I guess you have to be in the playoffs before anyone jumps on!

The Sox just don't have that large of a fanbase. The problem is even the diehards aren't going as much.

LITTLE NELL
10-04-2012, 01:49 PM
I guess you have to be in the playoffs before anyone jumps on!

The Sox just don't have that large of a fanbase. The problem is even the diehards aren't going as much.

And if the diehards aren't going it's because it costs too damn much.

bunkaroo
10-04-2012, 01:53 PM
I'm waiting for someone to explain how heat - like the economy - impacts Sox fans more than other human beings.

As I've already said, it affected me in the Chicago metro area. Whether the heat and its relative humidity in other parts of the country where they play baseball had a similar impact, I can't say. I am proof of at least one person who would have attended more games in the summer if it was more comfortable out. I'm guessing there are others who felt the same way, even if it's not a ton of people.

bunkaroo
10-04-2012, 01:57 PM
Never knew that about Addison - I was only 11 when that stuff was happening. My family is from Bridgeport and I spent many summer nights watching the fireworks from the back porch on Parnell. Can't imagine the Sox not being down there.

That said, Addison would be extremely more convenient for me these days. I'd probably have a quarter season package minimum if they were out in the west burbs.

16th&State
10-04-2012, 01:57 PM
The Sox had an agreement (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-05-02/news/8601310966_1_mccaskey-soldier-field-bears-lake-forest) in 1986 with Harold Washington's administration to join in a South Loop baseball/football stadium. The Bears didn't want to do it. Talks dragged on and at the same time the Sox were buying property in Addison as a Plan B (or maybe it was Plan A). Then Washington died within a year and threw all the discussions into a cocked hat.

When the Sox pushed hard (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-10-29/news/8603210333_1_stadium-site-referendum-open-space) for a move to Addison, they came with architects' plans ready to go. Looking at the drawings (http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/Addison_R.html) you can clearly see what later became Comiskey Park II/USCF. It was cheaper and quicker to not redesign the park once the 35th Street site was chosen, though the park's design was intended for a suburban cornfield site.

That whole melodrama was a convergence of bad architectural timing (retro ballparks hadn't yet been considered), unlucky political timing (Washington's death, an unfriendly state legislature), and clumsy White Sox public relations (fill in any number of examples here). In the end I'm glad the park is located where it is, but I just wish it had been designed in the first place to be more like the original park. The later USCF remodeling was a huge improvement but they're still stuck with suburban parking lots and too many luxury suites.

An exciting, competitive team is the first priority. Beyond that they need to color outside the lines: Parking lot food carts? Ten-dollar upperdeck seats? CTA discount packages? Reduced-price parking for cars with three or more people? Balloons for the kiddies? What's needed is imagination to go on top of a winning team.

Awesome post! Thanks for the insight! The minutia of it all was a bit before my time. I knew of the Addison plans but had never seen the skeches/mock-ups. I will take original Comiskey II over anything in Addison for certain. But after reading a few articles this afternoon about South Loop plans, it really is sad that politic and happenstance led to a suburban park dropped into a sea of urban parking lots. Oh what could have been!? I do love what the US Cellular renovations have brought and I happily take in as many Sox games as I can attend!! I look forward to what Kenny & Co can and will do this offseason to put a winner on the field!:cool:

LITTLE NELL
10-04-2012, 02:00 PM
As I've already said, it affected me in the Chicago metro area. Whether the heat and its relative humidity in other parts of the country where they play baseball had a similar impact, I can't say. I am proof of at least one person who would have attended more games in the summer if it was more comfortable out. I'm guessing there are others who felt the same way, even if it's not a ton of people.

St. Louis is usually hotter than Chicago and they had no trouble drawing 40,000 a game.
Drove up to Chicago back in 2008 and we saw a Saturday afternoon game against the Rays and it was in the mid 90s but there were 36,000 in the park. We also drove up last year and saw the Tigers and Sox on a very hot day and there were 29,000 for a Wednesday afternoon game.

bunkaroo
10-04-2012, 02:19 PM
St. Louis is usually hotter than Chicago and they had no trouble drawing 40,000 a game.
Drove up to Chicago back in 2008 and we saw a Saturday afternoon game against the Rays and it was in the mid 90s but there were 36,000 in the park. We also drove up last year and saw the Tigers and Sox on a very hot day and there were 29,000 for a Wednesday afternoon game.

Ok, so we've established I'm the only one who stays home when it's too damn hot out. :D:

LITTLE NELL
10-04-2012, 02:24 PM
Ok, so we've established I'm the only one who stays home when it's too damn hot out. :D:

I'm sure you are not the only one but even if its hot, where was the advance sale for a team thats in first place? I think back in early June, Brooks said that the Sox had to put on extra people for the demand for tickets, looks like there was not that much of a demand.

kittle42
10-04-2012, 02:28 PM
Ok, so we've established I'm the only one who stays home when it's too damn hot out. :D:

I went to one of those 100+ degree games this year, and I can't even remember who we played. It was pretty bad.

Soxman219
10-04-2012, 03:01 PM
Thank you. Adding more "value" to the already outrageous expense of going to a Sox game is a waste of time. USC is a great park, and I'd love to go more often, but I can't afford it.

I have no statistical proof that identifies the demographics of Sox fans, but I've always been under the impression that we were more of the blue collar variety, as I am. If this holds true for the majority of us, then maybe the the problem is that we just can't afford to attend more. Maybe its a disconnect between Sox management and reality. Times are tough and speaking only for me, my household disposable income has vanished.

Trying to add to the ballpark experience in an effort to add value is a worn out marketing trick that will not induce he to attend more game. With parking (can't take mass transportation as I live in Michigan), tickets, food and drinks its just too expensive.

My wife and I both work full time and together make $52k year. We are in our 50's and have worked hard to pay off our home. We have no credit card or car payments. But going to one or two games a year is a luxury expense. And with dynamic ticket prices, it won't be to see a quality opposing team. Also, as a side note, don't suggest we get different jobs. I've held by job for 30 years, and at my age, that is impossible.

Maybe its another example of the disappearing middle class. Should I go to the game or buy groceries/ pay taxes/ pay utilities/ pay for medicines/ ect?

Simply, maybe the average Sox fan can't afford to attend more game.

Sorry, but that's not true. I went to four Sox games last month for a combined total of $60. The Sox-Indians game on the 25th was as low as $2.88. The tickets are cheap. You don't have to buy beers and food at a baseball game. The average Sox game at Stubhub during the year was $10.

eriqjaffe
10-04-2012, 03:05 PM
Sorry, but that's not true. I went to four Sox games last month for a combined total of $60. The Sox-Indians game on the 25th was as low as $2.88. The tickets are cheap. You don't have to buy beers and food at a baseball game. The average Sox game at Stubhub during the year was $10.I was always under the impression that the official attendance figures are based on the number of tickets sold, not the number of physical bodies through the turnstiles - tickets bought on the secondary market wouldn't have an effect on those figures. Somebody had to buy those tickets the first time around at face value and that is what's not happening.

I'm not arguing the fact that it's possible to attend a Sox game inexpensively, but I just wanted to point out that the secondary market isn't really valid when considering attendance and ticket prices.

DeadMoney
10-04-2012, 03:06 PM
Sorry, but that's not true. I went to four Sox games last month for a combined total of $60. The Sox-Indians game on the 25th was as low as $2.88. The tickets are cheap. You don't have to buy beers and food at a baseball game. The average Sox game at Stubhub during the year was $10.

Yeah, but that's part of the problem. If there's no demand on the primary ticket market, there's little demand on the secondary ticket market. Those tickets on StubHub are already sold and already counted no matter what price people pay.

The reason they're on StubHub for so cheap is because there's no demand for tickets at the prices the White Sox are offering them for. And tickets on the secondary markets are showing the true market value of those tickets.

kba
10-04-2012, 03:15 PM
Awesome post! Thanks for the insight! The minutia of it all was a bit before my time. I knew of the Addison plans but had never seen the skeches/mock-ups. I will take original Comiskey II over anything in Addison for certain. But after reading a few articles this afternoon about South Loop plans, it really is sad that politic and happenstance led to a suburban park dropped into a sea of urban parking lots. Oh what could have been!? I do love what the US Cellular renovations have brought and I happily take in as many Sox games as I can attend!! I look forward to what Kenny & Co can and will do this offseason to put a winner on the field!:cool:

The South Loop stadium probably wouldn't have been as awesome as you're imagining it. After all, it was the 1980s.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/data/4/medium/south_loop.jpg

doublem23
10-04-2012, 03:26 PM
The South Loop stadium probably wouldn't have been as awesome as you're imagining it. After all, it was the 1980s.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/data/4/medium/south_loop.jpg

Yes, for comparison's sake, the Metrodome was opened in 1982. That's probably what we would have been stuck with.

16th&State
10-04-2012, 03:45 PM
The South Loop stadium probably wouldn't have been as awesome as you're imagining it. After all, it was the 1980s.

Yes, for comparison's sake, the Metrodome was opened in 1982. That's probably what we would have been stuck with.

Yeah, I saw those designs earlier...and YIKES! I have seen a few other designs out on the web and one can only dream of what could have been. But you are right, it was the 80s and retro style inter-urban park designs were certainly a few years away. I'd hate to imagine the Sox being stuck in a Tropicana-esque dome, hot South Loop locale or not...

LITTLE NELL
10-04-2012, 04:01 PM
Thank you. Adding more "value" to the already outrageous expense of going to a Sox game is a waste of time. USC is a great park, and I'd love to go more often, but I can't afford it.

I have no statistical proof that identifies the demographics of Sox fans, but I've always been under the impression that we were more of the blue collar variety, as I am. If this holds true for the majority of us, then maybe the the problem is that we just can't afford to attend more. Maybe its a disconnect between Sox management and reality. Times are tough and speaking only for me, my household disposable income has vanished.

Trying to add to the ballpark experience in an effort to add value is a worn out marketing trick that will not induce he to attend more game. With parking (can't take mass transportation as I live in Michigan), tickets, food and drinks its just too expensive.

My wife and I both work full time and together make $52k year. We are in our 50's and have worked hard to pay off our home. We have no credit card or car payments. But going to one or two games a year is a luxury expense. And with dynamic ticket prices, it won't be to see a quality opposing team. Also, as a side note, don't suggest we get different jobs. I've held by job for 30 years, and at my age, that is impossible.

Maybe its another example of the disappearing middle class. Should I go to the game or buy groceries/ pay taxes/ pay utilities/ pay for medicines/ ect?

Simply, maybe the average Sox fan can't afford to attend more game.




You are a little younger than me but I know where you are coming from. I think the younger people here at WSI do not worry about ticket prices as much as the older crowd. Part of it comes from going to the games in the 50s and 60s when a General Admission ticket was $1.50 and a Box seat was $2.50. I will never ever pay $25.00 to sit in the bleachers or 50 bucks for a Box seat. Some time in the near future all pro sports teams are going have to do something about the salary issue which has led to these high ticket prices. I think Sox fans might have figured this out before fans in other cities, it's better to sit home and watch the overpaid players on TV instead of supporting their obscene salaries with the grocery money.

tebman
10-04-2012, 04:02 PM
The South Loop stadium probably wouldn't have been as awesome as you're imagining it. After all, it was the 1980s.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/data/4/medium/south_loop.jpg

Yeah, that was a bad idea. :o:

I couldn't find a picture of it, but the city also proposed a convertible football/baseball stadium (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-04-24/news/8601290832_1_stadium-mayor-harold-washington-soldier-field)as an alternative. I remember Harold Washington at a press conference showing off a model. It had sliding grandstand sections that would reconfigure depending on whether baseball or football was going to be played. Maybe it was a variation on the domed monstrosity in the picture.

We're lucky that none of those ideas were ever built. We'd be counting the days to see it replaced.

16th&State
10-04-2012, 04:05 PM
Yeah, that was a bad idea. :o:

I couldn't find a picture of it, but the city also proposed a convertible football/baseball stadium (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-04-24/news/8601290832_1_stadium-mayor-harold-washington-soldier-field)as an alternative. I remember Harold Washington at a press conference showing off a model. It had sliding grandstand sections that would reconfigure depending on whether baseball or football was going to be played. Maybe it was a variation on the domed monstrosity in the picture.

We're lucky that none of those ideas were ever built. We'd be counting the days to see it replaced.

was it this one? http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/85ChicagoDomes_R.html

or this one?http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/85Convertible_R.html

Edit: You are probably referring to the 2nd link. And yes, I would certainly call that a monstrosity and would be counting the days until something new came along to replace it...

DSpivack
10-04-2012, 04:19 PM
Yeah, that was a bad idea. :o:

I couldn't find a picture of it, but the city also proposed a convertible football/baseball stadium (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-04-24/news/8601290832_1_stadium-mayor-harold-washington-soldier-field)as an alternative. I remember Harold Washington at a press conference showing off a model. It had sliding grandstand sections that would reconfigure depending on whether baseball or football was going to be played. Maybe it was a variation on the domed monstrosity in the picture.

We're lucky that none of those ideas were ever built. We'd be counting the days to see it replaced.

was it this one? http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/85ChicagoDomes_R.html

or this one?http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/85Convertible_R.html

Edit: You are probably referring to the 2nd link. And yes, I would certainly call that a monstrosity and would be counting the days until something new came along to replace it...

Kansas City had a similar proposition recently when the Chiefs and Royals were renovating their stadiums, to have a shared roof between the two (they sit next to one another). They gave up on the idea because it was way too expensive, IIRC.

tebman
10-04-2012, 04:32 PM
was it this one? http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/85ChicagoDomes_R.html

or this one?http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/85Convertible_R.html

Edit: You are probably referring to the 2nd link. And yes, I would certainly call that a monstrosity and would be counting the days until something new came along to replace it...

Yep! That's it in the second link. It sounded way cool at the time, in a Jetsons sort of way, but it would've been a kludge and obsolete the day after Camden Yards opened.

The Cubs were actually in on those talks too. It didn't get very far, but there were a lot of moving parts in those discussions and the Tribune looked into it since they were being stonewalled on putting lights in Wrigley Field.

Strange days, indeed.

nsolo
10-05-2012, 10:52 AM
Sorry, but that's not true. I went to four Sox games last month for a combined total of $60. The Sox-Indians game on the 25th was as low as $2.88. The tickets are cheap. You don't have to buy beers and food at a baseball game. The average Sox game at Stubhub during the year was $10.

Assuming that you can buy tickets for such a low price, where would the seats be? I have to travel nearly 150 miles each way to attend the game which involves gas and parking as extra costs.

I take my wife as she's a Sox fan, too. If we are traveling that far to sit in the nosebleed seats, and not even afford ourselves the treat of a hot dog and beer, then I might as well stay at home and take in the game on tv.

As previously stated in another post, going to a game for us is an expensive treat.

Thome25
10-05-2012, 11:45 AM
I don't understand the love for the downtown ballpark.

I've been to plenty of cities up and down the east coast and in the midwest and when I talked to baseball fans in those cities about how Wrigley Field and US Cellular Field are neighborhood ballparks their faces light up and they usually think that's the coolest thing ever.

The neighborhood ballpark is a timeless part of baseball history that has gone the way of the dinosaur.

I'm personally proud that Chicago has not one but two of them.

doublem23
10-05-2012, 11:58 AM
Except that US Cellular Field's not a neighborhood ballpark, it just happens to be located in Bridgeport, but it would look and feel exactly the same if it were located in the South Loop, in Addison, or just about anywhere else. There's no thriving neighborhood around it, in fact, it's pretty easy to argue that other than the Dan Ryan, Sox Park is the biggest blight on the neighborhood.

Wrigley is a neighborhood ballpark in that it's an essential and organic part of Wrigleyville. U.S. Cellular Field looks like it was just arbitrarily dropped out of the sky. It doesn't even line up with the street grid.

russ99
10-05-2012, 12:06 PM
Except that US Cellular Field's not a neighborhood ballpark, it just happens to be located in Bridgeport, but it would look and feel exactly the same if it were located in the South Loop, in Addison, or just about anywhere else. There's no thriving neighborhood around it, in fact, it's pretty easy to argue that other than the Dan Ryan, Sox Park is the biggest blight on the neighborhood.

Wrigley is a neighborhood ballpark in that it's an essential and organic part of Wrigleyville. U.S. Cellular Field looks like it was just arbitrarily dropped out of the sky. It doesn't even line up with the street grid.

I'd like to think that a neighborhood is more than just a grid of lots that spread aprox. 4-5 square blocks.

Sure the long train underpass, Armour Square Park and the Ryan give the Cell a natural barrier from the surrounding neighborhood, but I've had a blast going to Bridgeport after the games, and I've also had fun at the bars north of the Cell and Armour Square Park.

The issue is more that fans either don't know that there's something past those barriers, or fear due to the old ridiculous stereotypes.

hawkjt
10-05-2012, 12:16 PM
I'd like to think that a neighborhood is more than just a grid of lots that spread aprox. 4-5 square blocks.

Sure the long train underpass, Armour Square Park and the Ryan give the Cell a natural barrier from the surrounding neighborhood, but I've had a blast going to Bridgeport after the games, and I've also had fun at the bars north of the Cell and Armour Square Park.

The issue is more that fans either don't know that there's something past those barriers, or fear due to the old ridiculous stereotypes.


I am convinced that it is going to take decades to overcome the misperceptions and biases....shame.
I do think if the economy had not had the historically bad flameout in 2008, it could have been further along by now.

I do think in hindsight,that a south loop park could have weathered the recession better,and had a better base of corporate clients with the proximaty to downtown... even stealing some away from the Cubs.

tebman
10-05-2012, 12:40 PM
Except that US Cellular Field's not a neighborhood ballpark, it just happens to be located in Bridgeport, but it would look and feel exactly the same if it were located in the South Loop, in Addison, or just about anywhere else. There's no thriving neighborhood around it, in fact, it's pretty easy to argue that other than the Dan Ryan, Sox Park is the biggest blight on the neighborhood.

Wrigley is a neighborhood ballpark in that it's an essential and organic part of Wrigleyville. U.S. Cellular Field looks like it was just arbitrarily dropped out of the sky. It doesn't even line up with the street grid.

The opportunity lost by the White Sox in 1988 is what I lament. Because of the circumstances surrounding the project and the Sox front office's clumsiness, they took the suburban greenfield design and dropped it on 35th Street. With a little more time the architects could have reshaped it to fit the neighborhood.

And it was a neighborhood, or at least used to be, before the new park was built. Check out the historicaerials.com image at the link (http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=3&lon=-87.6334371910559&lat=41.831121916335924&year=1952) and you can see Comiskey Park in the Armour Square neighborhood in 1952. Today you'd call it "mixed-use" because it was a collection of residential and light industrial buildings. Obviously things changed over the years with the construction of the Dan Ryan and the expansion of the Sox parking lots, but when a whole new development is planned in cooperation with the city and the state, the means exist to create an environment and not just a building.

But it didn't work out that way. Since then the Sox have made changes to the park that do enhance its quality. The construction of the Bacardi restaurant and the Sports Depot store are more steps in that direction. The near South Side and Bridgeport continue to see improvement, which suggests to me that the Sox should be secure there for a long time. I'd like to think I'll still be able to catch games on 35th Street years from now when I'm in my dotage and shaking my gnarled fist at Joe West's grandson. :redneck

joegraz
10-05-2012, 07:35 PM
I think Sox fans might have figured this out before fans in other cities, it's better to sit home and watch the overpaid players on TV instead of supporting their obscene salaries with the grocery money.

Ding Ding Ding....we have a winner!

Thome25
10-06-2012, 09:01 AM
Except that US Cellular Field's not a neighborhood ballpark, it just happens to be located in Bridgeport, but it would look and feel exactly the same if it were located in the South Loop, in Addison, or just about anywhere else. There's no thriving neighborhood around it, in fact, it's pretty easy to argue that other than the Dan Ryan, Sox Park is the biggest blight on the neighborhood.

Wrigley is a neighborhood ballpark in that it's an essential and organic part of Wrigleyville. U.S. Cellular Field looks like it was just arbitrarily dropped out of the sky. It doesn't even line up with the street grid.

This is your opinion and can't be stated as fact. Just because you personally think that because it doesn't integrate with Bridgeport and Armour Square as well as Wrigley does with it's surroundings doesn't magically mean it isn't in a neighborhood.

Is US Cellular Field in a retail area?

Is it in an industrial area?

Is it downtown?

No to all three do you say?

It is in the Armour Square neighborhood and is therefore a neighborhood ballpark.

Golden Sox
10-06-2012, 09:54 AM
Wouldn't it be something if Kw held his final press conference as a GM and his final acts as a GM would be the free agent signing of Josh Hamilton and trading Adam Dunn.

16th&State
10-06-2012, 10:26 AM
This your opinion and can't be stated as fact. Just because you personally think that because it doesn't integrate with Bridgeport and Armour Square as well as Wrigley does with it's surroundings doesn't magically mean it isn't in a neighborhood.

Is US Cellular Field in a retail area?

Is it in an industrial area?

Is it downtown?

No to all three do you say?

It is in the Armour Square neighborhood and is therefore a neighborhood ballpark.

And just because US Cellular isn't located in a suburban green field or in former empty lot downtown doesn't make it a neighborhood ballpark either. Yes, US Cellular is physically located in a neighborhood. But is it connected with or intertwined within said neighborhood? Not exactly. Not at all really. There is literally nothing but parking lots, train tracks, and expressways in a 2 block radius. Nothing brings people to 35th & Shields when games aren't being played. It might as well be a brownfield on off-days. And I say that as a diehard who moved to Bridgeport so I could live in the same 'neighborhood' that the Sox play. US Cellular is is hardly the epicenter of Bridgeport/Armour Square the way Wrigley is for Wrigleyville. So calling it a neighborhood ballpark is a bit idealistic and hardly grounded in any sort of true meaning of what Neighborhood ballparks were. Yes I am merely opining, but sadly neighborhood ballparks are a thing of the past. And as much as I love my Sox and what the US Cellular rehab brought Sox fans, the Cell is still NOT a neighborhood ballpark and is sadly just a ballpark located in a neighborhood outside of downtown…

SI1020
10-06-2012, 10:45 AM
It is in the Armour Square neighborhood and is therefore a neighborhood ballpark. Thanks for posting the correct location of the park.

Thome25
10-06-2012, 11:28 AM
Thanks for posting the correct location of the park.

No problem.

US Cellular Field in Bridgeport is a very common misconception among the fans and media.

The Cell is in Armour Square.

Thome25
10-06-2012, 11:32 AM
And just because US Cellular isn't located in a suburban green field or in former empty lot downtown doesn't make it a neighborhood ballpark either. Yes, US Cellular is physically located in a neighborhood. But is it connected with or intertwined within said neighborhood? Not exactly. Not at all really. There is literally nothing but parking lots, train tracks, and expressways in a 2 block radius. Nothing brings people to 35th & Shields when games aren't being played. It might as well be a brownfield on off-days. And I say that as a diehard who moved to Bridgeport so I could live in the same 'neighborhood' that the Sox play. US Cellular is is hardly the epicenter of Bridgeport/Armour Square the way Wrigley is for Wrigleyville. So calling it a neighborhood ballpark is a bit idealistic and hardly grounded in any sort of true meaning of what Neighborhood ballparks were. Yes I am merely opining, but sadly neighborhood ballparks are a thing of the past. And as much as I love my Sox and what the US Cellular rehab brought Sox fans, the Cell is still NOT a neighborhood ballpark and is sadly just a ballpark located in a neighborhood outside of downtown…

Using Wrigley Field as an example of what is and isn't a neighborhood ballpark is a HORRIBLE one.

Wrigley Field wasn't "intertwined" with it's neighborhood until the last 25-30 years or so.

Chicken before the egg my friend. Before it became the Tribune conglomerate cash cow (and everything subsequently started growing and popping up around it) It was just another building in the neighborhood just like The Cell is now.

Having a theme-park type atmosphere around the park (and subsequently making it the epicenter of the area) is not a prerequisite for a true neighborhood ballpark.

Bottom line is, US Cellular Field is in the Armour Square Neighborhood and is by default a "neighborhood ballpark".

The only thing (other than someone's opinion) that can change that is if someone magically scooped up The Cell and placed it somewhere other than a neighborhood.

And before someone else implies that The Cell is sealed off from it's neighborhood as if it had the Berlin Wall around it, there's a public park and residential houses approx two blocks (or less) in every direction around it.

16th&State
10-06-2012, 12:34 PM
Using Wrigley Field as an example of what is and isn't a neighborhood ballpark is a HORRIBLE one.

Wrigley Field wasn't "intertwined" with it's neighborhood until the last 25-30 years or so.

Chicken before the egg my friend. Before it became the Tribune conglomerate cash cow (and everything subsequently started growing and popping up around it) It was just another building in the neighborhood just like The Cell is now.

Having a theme-park type atmosphere around the park (and subsequently making it the epicenter of the area) is not a prerequisite for a true neighborhood ballpark.

Bottom line is, US Cellular Field is in the Armour Square Neighborhood and is by default a "neighborhood ballpark".

The only thing (other than someone's opinion) that can change that is if someone magically scooped up The Cell and placed it somewhere other than a neighborhood.

And before someone else implies that The Cell is sealed off from it's neighborhood as if it had the Berlin Wall around it, there's a public park and residential houses approx two blocks (or less) in every direction around it.

I think we are arguing differing ideas here. Yes, US Cellular is physically located in the Armour Square Community Area of Chicago and is by default a ballpark in a neighborhood. But is the Loop a neighborhood? Or River North? or the West Loop? By your definition even a downtown park would be a neighborhood ballpark because it is technically in a neighborhood. All I'm saying is that there is more to it than that. Perhaps i'm being overly idealistic and romanticizing times past. But to me as a Bridgeport resident, US Cellular hardly feels like a part of the neighborhood (Bridgeport or Armour Square) because of the distinct physical separation from the neighborhoods in its proximity, despite it being mere blocks from a public park and residential blocks to the north.

[And yes Wrigley is a HORRIBLE example and I very aware of the Tribune Co's conglomerate cash cow and how for 30 years it propagandized a fan base into swarming a 'historic' ballpark not even built for the team that resides there to watch rather mediocre (at best) to rather pathetic 'Major' league baseball...]

Frater Perdurabo
10-06-2012, 02:49 PM
The Cell is in a "neighborhood" and in close proximity to residences and parks, but it is not in close proximity to many other different types of retail, restaurant and entertainment destinations that otherwise draw lots of people throughout the year. OTOH, many of those types of destinations do exist right around the Urinal and they do draw people throughout the year. That's the crucial difference.

doublem23
10-09-2012, 10:42 AM
This notion that just because the Cell happens to be in Bridgeport/Armour Square/wherever, THUS it has to be a neighborhood park is just silly. So, the only requirement is that the park be on a piece of land inside an arbitarily named neighborhood? What park doesn't qualify as a neighborhood park under this guide, unless, you think there's a bunch of MLB teams playing their home games in the middle of unihabitable desert...

I'd rather look at the actual features of the park and how it interacts with its supposed "neighborhood" to determine its value to that area. There is absolutely nothing about the Cell that says it is the product of sound urban design. It's a car-centric giant that dwarfs the neighborhood (what little is left that hasn't been destroyed for it's empty parking lots) and has absolutely stunted the growth of any sort of nearby urban growth. The Cell is located 10 minutes from 2 CTA stops, 1 Metra stop, and downtown via a 16-land superhighway, it should be the center of a dense, vibrant city neighborhood, instead it sits all alone on a quite stretch of road 6 months of the year because it's simply not a facility that has any intention of coexisting in any sort of urban environment.

PalehosePlanet
10-09-2012, 11:55 AM
This notion that just because the Cell happens to be in Bridgeport/Armour Square/wherever, THUS it has to be a neighborhood park is just silly. So, the only requirement is that the park be on a piece of land inside an arbitarily named neighborhood? What park doesn't qualify as a neighborhood park under this guide, unless, you think there's a bunch of MLB teams playing their home games in the middle of unihabitable desert...

I'd rather look at the actual features of the park and how it interacts with its supposed "neighborhood" to determine its value to that area. There is absolutely nothing about the Cell that says it is the product of sound urban design. It's a car-centric giant that dwarfs the neighborhood (what little is left that hasn't been destroyed for it's empty parking lots) and has absolutely stunted the growth of any sort of nearby urban growth. The Cell is located 10 minutes from 2 CTA stops, 1 Metra stop, and downtown via a 16-land superhighway, it should be the center of a dense, vibrant city neighborhood, instead it sits all alone on a quite stretch of road 6 months of the year because it's simply not a facility that has any intention of coexisting in any sort of urban environment.

I don't know, you guys both make good points. But to me, the fact that there are residential homes right on the other side of the tracks, down 36th St., 37th St., etc within a 100 yards of the actual stadium makes it a neighborhood park. I've been to a bunch of different stadiums that were basically surrounded by nothing for about a mile or more (Anaheim, LA, KC, etc...) I always walk through the Bridgeport neighborhood, from lot F down 37th St. to Wallace, walk over to Grandstand, and all around are people wearing Sox gear heading to the game or milling around. Sure the stadium would be more integrated into the hood if there were no tracks to the west, but it doesn't make it isolated, IMO.

Noneck
10-09-2012, 12:16 PM
The Cell is located 10 minutes from 2 CTA stops, 1 Metra stop, and downtown via a 16-land superhighway, it should be the center of a dense, vibrant city neighborhood, instead it sits all alone on a quite stretch of road 6 months of the year because it's simply not a facility that has any intention of coexisting in any sort of urban environment.


And the reason it's simply not a facility that has any intention of coexisting in any sort of urban environment is Parking Lots and parking revenue.

doublem23
10-09-2012, 12:22 PM
And the reason it's simply not a facility that has any intention of coexisting in any sort of urban environment is Parking Lots and parking revenue.

Right, I'm fully aware of that, which is why it's not a neigborhood ballpark.

Noneck
10-09-2012, 12:26 PM
Right, I'm fully aware of that, which is why it's not a neigborhood ballpark.

It is what it is but Milwaukee has shown that a stadium can draw in a city without a neighborhood atmosphere.

kba
10-09-2012, 12:37 PM
I'd rather look at the actual features of the park and how it interacts with its supposed "neighborhood" to determine its value to that area. There is absolutely nothing about the Cell that says it is the product of sound urban design. It's a car-centric giant that dwarfs the neighborhood (what little is left that hasn't been destroyed for it's empty parking lots) and has absolutely stunted the growth of any sort of nearby urban growth. The Cell is located 10 minutes from 2 CTA stops, 1 Metra stop, and downtown via a 16-land superhighway, it should be the center of a dense, vibrant city neighborhood, instead it sits all alone on a quite stretch of road 6 months of the year because it's simply not a facility that has any intention of coexisting in any sort of urban environment.

To be fair, the designers of New Comiskey would have had to create an urban environment almost from scratch. Old Comiskey was almost as isolated from its neighborhood as USCF is. From the time it was built, the old ballpark was surrounded by parking lots, rail yards, Armour Square park, and the old Mack Truck factory. The only side where the old ballpark ever abutted homes and businesses was on 35th (where the current park stands and where McCuddy's used to be.) But as far back as I can remember, that was never what I'd call a vibrant neighborhood.

FWIW, I've read that the residents of Bridgeport used to like that the ballpark area was empty and desolate most of the year, because it helped form a buffer between them and the African-American neighborhoods east of Wentworth. I don't know if those attitudes still exist, but I suspect there would still be a lot of skepticism from neighbors if anyone tried to build "an urban environment" around USCF.

doublem23
10-09-2012, 12:49 PM
It is what it is but Milwaukee has shown that a stadium can draw in a city without a neighborhood atmosphere.

Apples to oranges comparing Chicago to Milwaukee

Noneck
10-09-2012, 02:27 PM
Apples to oranges comparing Chicago to Milwaukee

Not all people in chicago are the type that like the urban setting that you think is the key to success here. The ones that do, already have a place to go on the north side. Apples and oranges are here in the chicagoland area also, believe it or not.

doublem23
10-09-2012, 02:56 PM
Not all people in chicago are the type that like the urban setting that you think is the key to success here. The ones that do, already have a place to go on the north side. Apples and oranges are here in the chicagoland area also, believe it or not.

This would be a good argument except that the team that does integrate itself as not only a member, but rather the focal point of its neighborhood easily draws 35,000+ a night for a team stuck in the ****ter while the team that plays to people who want to live in some kind of car-centric '50s fantasyland can't get more than 25,000 in house during a pennant race. Should be obvious which model is working better in Chicago. And I'm not arguing that the Sox need to completely tear up all the parking overnight (though, deep down, that is the dream) and turn Bridgeport into Wrigleyville south, but it's clear the Sox would be better off if they did SOMETHING to encourage growth around the park.

If the Sox don't want to be a productive member of the city, they'd probably be better served moving the team out to Naperville or Aurora and plowing over a couple acres of farmland. Seems silly to continuously push a park designed for suburbanites in the city and then wonder why people from either demographic don't warm up to it.

Frater Perdurabo
10-09-2012, 03:36 PM
Honest question: Hypothetically, let's pretend JR desperately wanted to turn the parking lots into mixed-use mid-rise buildings with interior parking garages, first floor retail and restaurant and entertainment destinations, and upper level condos. Would the residents of Bridgeport, acting through their alderman, allow that to happen?

Put another way, does Bridgeport want "Wrigleyville South" around the Cell?

Nellie_Fox
10-09-2012, 03:37 PM
...they'd probably be better served moving the team out to Naperville or Aurora and plowing over a couple acres of farmland. Have you been to Aurora or Naperville lately? Not much open space left, and the traffic is practically 24 hour gridlock now.

FielderJones
10-09-2012, 03:37 PM
This would be a good argument except that the team that does integrate itself as not only a member, but rather the focal point of its neighborhood easily draws 35,000+ a night for a team stuck in the ****ter while the team that plays to people who want to live in some kind of car-centric '50s fantasyland can't get more than 25,000 in house during a pennant race.

The team stuck in the ****er doesn't draw 35,000+ a night. The team sells 35,000+ tickets per game, many of which go unused.

One of the guys in my Sox season ticket group is also in a Cubs group. He said some days (and nights) they would be lucky to have 15,000 actually sitting in the seats.

doublem23
10-09-2012, 03:42 PM
The team stuck in the ****er doesn't draw 35,000+ a night. The team sells 35,000+ tickets per game, many of which go unused.

One of the guys in my Sox season ticket group is also in a Cubs group. He said some days (and nights) they would be lucky to have 15,000 actually sitting in the seats.

Hm, I didn't realize they didn't collect payment on tickets until when people show up on gameday.

Let's not pretend like there aren't plenty of nights the Sox announce attendance somewhere in the 20,000's and the reality is there's maybe 10,000 people there, tops, too.

16th&State
10-09-2012, 04:11 PM
Honest question: Hypothetically, let's pretend JR desperately wanted to turn the parking lots into mixed-use mid-rise buildings with interior parking garages, first floor retail and restaurant and entertainment destinations, and upper level condos. Would the residents of Bridgeport, acting through their alderman, allow that to happen?

Put another way, does Bridgeport want "Wrigleyville South" around the Cell?

Does Bridgeport want "Wrigleyville South" around the Cell? No, probably not. But if we are talking about drawing the casual fan crowd and even converting them into actual Sox fans, then yes I think a sort of Wrigelyville South is what it would take. I have always held such a crazy idea. Between Bridgeport, Chinatown, & the South Loop, I think it could be sustainable. But it would require the Sox PR & marketing to actually give a damn about converting the casual Chicago baseball fan, both in becoming a far more fan friendly organization and in working diligently to erase misperceptions about the neighborhood. And I personally am not convinced that the Sox want to put for such an effort (as opposed to continually gouging their existing fan base...).

Noneck
10-09-2012, 04:29 PM
This would be a good argument except that the team that does integrate itself as not only a member, but rather the focal point of its neighborhood easily draws 35,000+ a night for a team stuck in the ****ter while the team that plays to people who want to live in some kind of car-centric '50s fantasyland can't get more than 25,000 in house during a pennant race. Should be obvious which model is working better in Chicago. And I'm not arguing that the Sox need to completely tear up all the parking overnight (though, deep down, that is the dream) and turn Bridgeport into Wrigleyville south, but it's clear the Sox would be better off if they did SOMETHING to encourage growth around the park.

If the Sox don't want to be a productive member of the city, they'd probably be better served moving the team out to Naperville or Aurora and plowing over a couple acres of farmland. Seems silly to continuously push a park designed for suburbanites in the city and then wonder why people from either demographic don't warm up to it.

Yes they should be in the burbs but thats not going to happen till that sweetheart lease expires. For now my thinking is really try to get that non urban baseball fan. That starts with lowering parking rates. Another thing is that they should hold some sort of events during the off season so people will see the area is indeed safe. Is it possible to hold Sox fest there? Finally, This is coming from left field but is it possible to put a retractable roof on the stadium and enclose it? If possible I know it would have to be paid for by the Sox and not on our dime. I just think that competing with the urban stadium that is already here in Chicago is a losing proposition.

Frater Perdurabo
10-09-2012, 05:45 PM
To what extent would it be theoretically possible for the Sox to shut down one of the parking lots for every Saturday home game during the summer months, and set up a series of different kinds of attractions: concerts, memorabilia fairs, kid-friendly road attractions, etc., that would draw different kinds of casual fans on each Saturday. Sort of "come for the (fill in the blank), stay for the game" promotion.

Brian26
10-09-2012, 07:31 PM
Between Bridgeport, Chinatown, & the South Loop, I think it could be sustainable. But it would require the Sox PR & marketing to actually give a damn about converting the casual Chicago baseball fan, both in becoming a far more fan friendly organization and in working diligently to erase misperceptions about the neighborhood. And I personally am not convinced that the Sox want to put for such an effort (as opposed to continually gouging their existing fan base...).

Wrigleyville works because there are bars, restaurants and apartments literally within a few hundred feet of the ballpark. There's too big of a disconnect between the Cell and the rest of Armour Square/Bridgeport, let alone the South Loop where you have to get on a train to get there. Chinatown is a non-factor.

gosox41
10-09-2012, 10:08 PM
The heat did not stop other teams from drawing 3 million.
We can talk about this until we are blue in the face, the fans did not come out this year because they rebelled against the high ticket prices to go along with the dynamic pricing BS.

I'm just curious as I haven't seen the rankings, but where do the Sox ticket prices rank? Also, are they the only team in baseball to have dynamic pricing?


Bob

DSpivack
10-09-2012, 10:14 PM
I'm just curious as I haven't seen the rankings, but where do the Sox ticket prices rank? Also, are they the only team in baseball to have dynamic pricing?

Bob
You'll get differing arguments on Sox ticket prices, but the idea started in San Francisco a few years ago. It worked better with the Giants as they actually have generally high demand for tickets.

doublem23
10-09-2012, 10:20 PM
I'm just curious as I haven't seen the rankings, but where do the Sox ticket prices rank? Also, are they the only team in baseball to have dynamic pricing?


Bob

The Sox had the 11th highest ticket price in the Majors, behind the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Marlins, Tigers, Twins, Cardinals, Astros, and Nationals, according to Team Marketing Research's Fan Cost Index for this season, which is basically the undisputed authority for these matters.

http://fancostexperience.com/pages/fcx/fci_pdfs/8.pdf

Lip Man 1
10-09-2012, 10:28 PM
Bob:

There are apparently other reports one of which was quoted by the reporter in the NPR story on the Sox attendance issues and has been printed in the newspapers that the Sox have the 4th highest ticket proices on average in the major leagues behind the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs. The same reporter also said in the story it costs over 200 dollars for a family of four to go to a Sox game. What that entails specifically he didn't say and he didn't say where he got his figure from.

Who is right, I have no idea.

What I do know is that fan upon fan from various sites like WSI, sports talk radio and blog postings continue to mention high ticket prices and the dynamic pricing concept as two of the main reasons why they don't go to as many games as they used to.

I wish the Sox would clarify the matter once and for all and if in fact, the prices aren't as high as perceived, do a PR blitz to educate the fan base on that. Perception becomes reality many times and that appears to be the case in this matter at least partially.

Lip

RCWHITESOX
10-09-2012, 10:31 PM
The Sox had the 11th highest ticket price in the Majors, behind the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Marlins, Tigers, Twins, Cardinals, Astros, and Nationals, according to Team Marketing Research's Fan Cost Index for this season, which is basically the undisputed authority for these matters.

http://fancostexperience.com/pages/fcx/fci_pdfs/8.pdf

And there lies one of the major reasons for their troubles. Why should it cost more to see the Sox play than the Angels, Dodgers, Orioles, Giants ect.

doublem23
10-09-2012, 10:34 PM
And there lies one of the major reasons for their troubles. Why should it cost more to see the Sox play than the Angels, Dodgers, Orioles, Giants ect.

wat