PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Perspective...


Lip Man 1
05-19-2013, 04:43 PM
http://www.noozebox.com/?p=7656

Lip

TDog
05-19-2013, 05:21 PM
http://www.noozebox.com/?p=7656

Lip

I don't think Chet Coppock has ever said anything interesting, and this doesn't change my mind. His strength as a sports personality is being the butt of jokes, although and announcing scripted sports.

The promotions being questioned here are in the tradition of Bill Veeck. The difference is that the Reinsdorf group has put together better baseball teams than Veeck ever did.

LITTLE NELL
05-19-2013, 05:28 PM
I think he made some good points. The Sox are now the 5th team in Chicago, no one cares. I've been a member of WSI since 2006 and the low interest rate here at WSI must be at an all time low.
I'm also thinking JR is getting old and has lost his zeal for running the franchise, he has been fighting a losing battle for the hearts and minds of the Chicago baseball fan for over 30 years and last year might have really hurt when your team could not even draw 2 million while being in first place for 100 days and the other team who was one of the worst teams in MLB out drew you by 800,000 fans.

DSpivack
05-19-2013, 05:35 PM
I don't think Chet Coppock has ever said anything interesting, and this doesn't change my mind. His strength as a sports personality is being the butt of jokes, although and announcing scripted sports.

The promotions being questioned here are in the tradition of Bill Veeck. The difference is that the Reinsdorf group has put together better baseball teams than Veeck ever did.

I agree. Similar to other media people both in and out of the sports world, Coppock's biggest complaint seems to be that he and his colleagues are not getting enough access (in this case, to Reinsdorf). That's a pretty poor argument, one that the fans don't care about, and gets tiresome very quickly. I don't care if the owner was a hermit who lived atop a mountain in Bhutan, as long as the team was run well.

I think he made some good points. The Sox are now the 5th team in Chicago, no one cares. I've been a member of WSI since 2006 and the low interest rate here at WSI must be at an all time low.

There are some very valid critiques to be made about how the Sox market themselves, and on a related note about the on-field product and how the organization is being run. I just don't see Coppock doing anything here but whining.

Noneck
05-19-2013, 05:42 PM
I have been wondering why Williams has been so quiet. I thought that reinsdorf put him in that position to further insulate himself from the media and make Williams the front man.

DSpivack
05-19-2013, 05:48 PM
I have been wondering why Williams has been so quiet. I thought that reinsdorf put him in that position to further insulate himself from the media and make Williams the front man.

I think of that as analogous to the Bulls. Since Gar Forman was named GM, you've seen less of John Paxson in the media, as he's not the one answering the day to day questions about the team (besides the coach/manager). How the inner workings of those relationships are managed (between owner, President, GM, coach and more), I don't know. I don't think it was necessarily only about creating another buffer between owner and management, but that angle would make sense.

Lip Man 1
05-19-2013, 05:53 PM
I think he made some good points. The Sox are now the 5th team in Chicago, no one cares. I've been a member of WSI since 2006 and the low interest rate here at WSI must be at an all time low.
I'm also thinking JR is getting old and has lost his zeal for running the franchise, he has been fighting a losing battle for the hearts and minds of the Chicago baseball fan for over 30 years and last year might have really hurt when your team could not even draw 2 million while being in first place for 100 days and the other team who was one of the worst teams in MLB out drew you by 800,000 fans.


Nell:

I've been around this community (WSI) since I started writing for it in 2002.

I can't recall any period where there appears to be less interest in the team than the past few years. I mean look at the post game threads for one example.

Like Kittle said yesterday: "White Sox baseball 2013: Even the die hards don't care anymore..."

Lip

LITTLE NELL
05-19-2013, 05:56 PM
Nell:

I've been around this community (WSI) since I started writing for it in 2002.

I can't recall any period where there appears to be less interest in the team than the past few years. I mean look at the post game threads for one example.

Like Kittle said yesterday: "White Sox baseball 2013: Even the die hards don't care anymore..."

Lip

I for one will never stop caring, you may not see many in game or post game posts by me because I only watch the WGN games and when they happen to be on ESPN or Fox.

Noneck
05-19-2013, 06:30 PM
I thought maybe it was old age malaise setting in for me. Its been worse in my lifetime but I always had hope maybe because I was young and thought I had many years ahead to wait. The way things are now, I really dont see anything changing in the near future. 5-8 years seems like it will be too late for me.

Hitmen77
05-19-2013, 07:21 PM
I think he made some good points. The Sox are now the 5th team in Chicago, no one cares. I've been a member of WSI since 2006 and the low interest rate here at WSI must be at an all time low.
I'm also thinking JR is getting old and has lost his zeal for running the franchise, he has been fighting a losing battle for the hearts and minds of the Chicago baseball fan for over 30 years and last year might have really hurt when your team could not even draw 2 million while being in first place for 100 days and the other team who was one of the worst teams in MLB out drew you by 800,000 fans.

If JR was hurt or surprised at the turnout last season after several years of disappointment (capped off with the utterly disappointing and disgusting 2011) and coming off an offseason where the Sox didn't give anyone the impression they were planning to compete in 2012, then he's out of touch with reality. I'd be shocked if a smart businessman like him doesn't realize that 3 good months after 3 disappointing seasons isn't going to erase the downward trend in ticket sales.

If he really thinks the way to win over Chicago is to field a team that is good enough to be in 1st place for only part of the season only to falter (AGAIN) at the end, then maybe the Sox really do need new ownership.

It's been a losing battle for the last 30 years indeed, but JR has been the man in charge all those years and IMO he's the one responsible for losing that battle.

34rancher
05-19-2013, 07:23 PM
I'm not sure people stopped caring as much as people don't like the costs, the team and its components. I think most people I know are fed up with the dynamic tickets (they may make more $, but they are pushing people away and it shows), the premium games, the $$$ for parking, the traffic and they don't know/like many of the players. The Adam Dunn signing was awful. TDog and I took a lot of grief in the thread where he was signed. Jake Peavy has been very mediocre for the money he's received. Popular players (AJ, MB, etc) are gone. The franchise is at a crossroads. I honestly have no idea what the plan is long term. It's pretty miserable.

Golden Sox
05-19-2013, 07:56 PM
This doom and gloom posts are not exactly accurate. The White Sox attendance is actually up over 2012. When you stop and consider the injuries, the poor start and the TERRIBLE Spring weather we've had in Chicago, I don't think everything is as bad as people are making it out to be. Getting Danks and Beckham back and a few winning streaks will hopefully improve things on the great SouthSide of Chicago. If everything on this team starts to click the 2013 Playoffs could still be a reality. The more I'm thinking about this, the more upbeat I'm getting. This division is there for the taking. As lousy as we have played we are only 6 games behind CLEVELAND. Does anybody really think we can't catch CLEVELAND? Let's get healthy and start winning some games and hopefully go on from there.

LITTLE NELL
05-19-2013, 08:08 PM
This doom and gloom posts are not exactly accurate. The White Sox attendance is actually up over 2012. When you stop and consider the injuries, the poor start and the TERRIBLE Spring weather we've had in Chicago, I don't think everything is as bad as people are making it out to be. Getting Danks and Beckham back and a few winning streaks will hopefully improve things on the great SouthSide of Chicago. If everything on this team starts to click the 2013 Playoffs could still be a reality.

I love your optimism and I pray everything you say comes true but just as I think they have turned the corner with a 4 game winning streak, they fall flat on their behinds the last 2 games.

Lip Man 1
05-19-2013, 08:38 PM
This doom and gloom posts are not exactly accurate. The White Sox attendance is actually up over 2012. When you stop and consider the injuries, the poor start and the TERRIBLE Spring weather we've had in Chicago, I don't think everything is as bad as people are making it out to be. Getting Danks and Beckham back and a few winning streaks will hopefully improve things on the great SouthSide of Chicago. If everything on this team starts to click the 2013 Playoffs could still be a reality. The more I'm thinking about this, the more upbeat I'm getting. This division is there for the taking. As lousy as we have played we are only 6 games behind CLEVELAND. Does anybody really think we can't catch CLEVELAND? Let's get healthy and start winning some games and hopefully go on from there.

Golden:

As someone else wrote in another thread it's not just the fact that the Sox are only six games out. That's not a big deal, that's do-able. It's the fact that there are four teams ahead of them in the division.

Because those teams play each other so often someone has to win, not all four teams are going to go in the tank.

Also the Sox second half schedule gets a hell of a lot tougher. 18 games with Detroit, games with the Yankees, and a 10 game road trip in late August / early September to Boston, the Yankees and Baltimore.

Those are grounds for concern.

Lip

Dan H
05-19-2013, 09:23 PM
I agree with Coppock on this one. Jerry Reinsdorf has been in hiding for some time. It leaves a bad impression like he is out of touch with the day to day operations or he no longer cares. Neither case may be true, but this low a profile will lend people to reach their own conclusions.

Of course, Jerry Reinsdorf merely having a high public profile won't change everything. But I am amazed we have seen or heard so little from him. If fans who one would consider loyal don't care, the team has a problem.

Milw
05-19-2013, 10:11 PM
I'm known in my social circle as "Mr. White Sox" (even to other Sox fans). Even I'm having trouble caring about this team. If they're losing people like me, they need to blow it up. I don't mean just the team on the field, I mean top to bottom. Hahn can stay, because he hasn't really gotten a fair shake yet, but pretty much everybody else needs to go. This franchise is at its lowest point since probably 1999.

Lip Man 1
05-19-2013, 11:42 PM
I agree with Coppock on this one. Jerry Reinsdorf has been in hiding for some time. It leaves a bad impression like he is out of touch with the day to day operations or he no longer cares. Neither case may be true, but this low a profile will lend people to reach their own conclusions.

Of course, Jerry Reinsdorf merely having a high public profile won't change everything. But I am amazed we have seen or heard so little from him. If fans who one would consider loyal don't care, the team has a problem.

Dan:

It's possible I missed something but the last time I can recall Jerry coming out and saying something significant or meeting the press was in Washington a few years ago when he talked to the media immediately after the Williams / Guillen twitter blow-up.

He explained that he called both men in and told them to get along and keep their differences in-house.

That was what summer 2011?

These two quotes from him show how things have changed:

“Eddie and I never discussed how to talk to reporters. We’ve just been ourselves. I always though Jack Kennedy was the kind of person I looked up to in that regard. He always gave the media a fair shake and understood you guys have a job to do. Without responsible people willing to divulge some accurate information, it’s hard to do it right. It was a much better approach then Nixon, who figured the media was his enemy. Doing it Kennedy’s way just makes a lot more sense to me. After all, nobody can buy the kind of advertising Chicago teams get. What other line of work finds newspapers assigning people to follow you around and write about how the business is doing every day? At Balcor, we have to hire a public relations firm to get our names in the paper. When baseball teams get that for free it makes sense to cooperate." - Jerry Reinsdorf to Bob Logan from the book 'Miracle on 35th Street.' Pg. 154. Published 1983.

“The idea that I must talk to the media in order to know what is going on with our fans or the public is ludicrous. I communicate with fans on an almost daily basis and often hear comments from people on the street and in the ballpark. We have committed a lot of resources to market research each year, whether it is telephone or internet polling, mall intercepts, focus groups or in-park surveys. We believe these surveys are the most impartial way to hear from our fans. I don't think a media interview gives me the same type of insight into what our fans think and feel. Believe me, our fans tell us. They care and they are passionate. I like that about sports. The fact is that I do speak publicly when there is an issue of importance to our fans and to the franchises. I owe that to our fans. But again, I don't really think people want to hear from me or go to the game to see me. I hope not.” – Jerry Reinsdorf quoted on the “official” White Sox web site, www.whitesox.com, August 16, 2004.

Lip

fungo bat
05-20-2013, 03:46 AM
I don't think it's a matter of Reinsdorf not caring anymore. I figure he's about at that age where he's decided to turn over some of the decision making to others in the organization. And that means he becomes less visible on a day-to-day basis.

When he bought the team in 1981 with Einhorn, the Sox had a big uphill battle to fight. The franchise was down, the park was in terrible condition, and the fan base was bottoming out. Naturally, they pulled out all the stops and made the Sox relevant again on the Chicago sports scene by signing Fisk and win the Western Division by 20 games just 2 years later.

Do the Sox seem to be trending downward as far as popularity is concerned? Let's just say Sox fans have a "show me" attitude, unlike fans on the other side of town. When the Sox aren't winning, the fans stay away. It's been that way for many years. And this year's team has shown so far that's it's nothing more than a .500 club that is unlikely to threaten for the division title. There are just too many holes and weaknesses that become evident over the course of a 162-game season.

dickallen15
05-20-2013, 08:55 AM
I love Coppock.IMO, Coppock on Sports was easily the greatest radio sports show in Chicago history, it launched Dan McNeil's career. OTOH, it probably cost us 25 years of listening to Terry Boers, a guy who never would have been on radio if it weren't for Chet, but I would bet him the $500 about Reinsdorf not seeing the fans. I was at a patio party last year and he was there shaking hands and taking pictures. That is not to say that Chet's thoughts are totally incorrect. I do think JR needs to make himself a little more accessible to the media. He and Eddie were probably overexposed media-wise when they first began, but I think now it's just the opposite. Jerry needs to find a happy medium. I really think fans like to hear from ownership.

kufram
05-20-2013, 09:03 AM
If Jerry was putting quotes out regularly I'm pretty sure people here would be saying that he should just "shut up and sign cheques". I was thinking about how people wanted Peavy to just shut up and pitch when he was injured not so long ago.

This story doesn't actually say anything important.

Have the Chicago White Sox ever actually been a "big market team"? I'm not saying that they haven't but it has never felt like a big market team to me. I don't look at attendance figures historically but have they ever been consistently better than middle of the pack as far as attendance goes?

24thStFan
05-20-2013, 09:27 AM
Have the Chicago White Sox ever actually been a "big market team"? I'm not saying that they haven't but it has never felt like a big market team to me. I don't look at attendance figures historically but have they ever been consistently better than middle of the pack as far as attendance goes?

IMHO the Sox have never acted like a big market team by signing a BIG NAME free agent STAR. If we had one now (e.g., Upton, Wright, etc.) perhaps there would be more "casual fan" interest in this team. Instead we signed Adam Dunn and Jeff Keppinger.

It's a shame the Chicago White Sox have a small market mentality, because we could have dominated the Central division for the last 10 years. Instead we abdicated to Detroit...yes, freaking Detroit!

Bobby Thigpen
05-20-2013, 09:38 AM
What is interesting about this perspective? It's the same pants pissing, whiny crap about ownership.

I'm not so sure you didn't write it yourself Lip.

SephClone89
05-20-2013, 10:02 AM
What is interesting about this perspective? It's the same pants pissing, whiny crap about ownership.

I'm not so sure you didn't write it yourself Lip.

Not enough references to "Chicago's American League team."

SCCWS
05-20-2013, 10:06 AM
IMHO the Sox have never acted like a big market team by signing a BIG NAME free agent STAR. If we had one now (e.g., Upton, Wright, etc.) perhaps there would be more "casual fan" interest in this team. Instead we signed Adam Dunn and Jeff Keppinger.

It's a shame the Chicago White Sox have a small market mentality, because we could have dominated the Central division for the last 10 years. Instead we abdicated to Detroit...yes, freaking Detroit!

I think Jake Peavy was a big name addition. Dunn could have been but he he has not produced. Just as important, Chris Sale is a big name or should be in Chicago.

I don't live in Chicago but I have posted here for several years that I think one major problem w White Sox attendance is they must not have a solid corporate season ticket base. That job falls on their internal marketing/sales staff. I know in Boston, most major companies buy season tickets. Before retirement, I was in Purchasing and we had Red Sox seats and so did most of our suppliers. Certainly Chicago has major companies. Does the Cell have a lot of corporate boxes??? Does the company that you work for have corporate seats or boxes??

SephClone89
05-20-2013, 10:16 AM
IMHO the Sox have never acted like a big market team by signing a BIG NAME free agent STAR. If we had one now (e.g., Upton, Wright, etc.) perhaps there would be more "casual fan" interest in this team. Instead we signed Adam Dunn and Jeff Keppinger.

It's a shame the Chicago White Sox have a small market mentality, because we could have dominated the Central division for the last 10 years. Instead we abdicated to Detroit...yes, freaking Detroit!

Big name free agent signings rarely work out, and that era is quite possibly over.

Also, every time the Sox do make a "big market" move, (Peavy trade, Dunn signing) people complain, too. Kobayashi Maru for the front office.

Golden Sox
05-20-2013, 10:23 AM
Other teams are in much worse situations than the White Sox are in. The Indians are in first place and are dead last in MLB average attendance. They are averaging a little over 15,000 per game. The Indians play in a one team market and play in a downtown stadium (something I wish the White Sox were in) and they're in first place and are not drawing at all. Yesterdays game featured Felix Hernandez against Masterson and they only had 19,000 at the game on a Sunday afternoon. I realize the Indians have not had winning teams in awhile and they have taken the League by surprise being in first place now, but I still think Cleveland is still in a much worse situation than what the White Sox are. The Indians also don't have the TV-Radio money the White Sox have. If attendance doesn't pick up in Cleveland I wouldn't be surprised to see the owners put the team up for sale, or even move the team.

Noneck
05-20-2013, 10:26 AM
Big name free agent signings rarely work out, and that era is quite possibly over.


Yes the days of signing a Cabrera type before he is past his prime seem to be over with the early lock ups now a days.

kufram
05-20-2013, 10:29 AM
I don't live in Chicago

No matter what anyone does the White Sox will never be the Red Sox or the Cubs. It is a socio-economic non-starter. Not that many corporate people are going to go to U.S. Cellular in south Chicago. I don't care if they do myself. If winning was everything to me I'd be a Yankees fan. If full stadia was a driving factor I'd be a Red Sox fan. I'm a White Sox fan. I just think it is a lot harder to put a very good, consistently performing major league baseball team together than those of us who don't do it professionally think.

Fantasy baseball does make it appear easier perhaps.

I like the kind of people that play for the White Sox. I like the loyalty and family atmosphere that Reinsdorf appears to value in his company. I wouldn't know because I don't know the man but he seems to be liked by players like PK, and that tells me something. Sure, I'd like to win the division more often and always make the playoffs but we don't and I don't think it is necessarily anyone's fault.... it is just very hard to do given the circumstances.

Lip Man 1
05-20-2013, 11:41 AM
If Jerry was putting quotes out regularly I'm pretty sure people here would be saying that he should just "shut up and sign cheques". I was thinking about how people wanted Peavy to just shut up and pitch when he was injured not so long ago.

This story doesn't actually say anything important.

Have the Chicago White Sox ever actually been a "big market team"? I'm not saying that they haven't but it has never felt like a big market team to me. I don't look at attendance figures historically but have they ever been consistently better than middle of the pack as far as attendance goes?

Kufram:

The first few seasons of the new park 91 through the strike, the Sox averaged almost three million fans a season. It was the combination of a new park and a pretty good team.

Also to your point about winning divisions / making playoffs. Cleveland (smaller market) dominated the division in the 90's...Minnesota (smaller market) dominated the division in the 00's. It can be done (as it has been done elsewhere say in St. Louis and Philadelphia) with some regularity (and I'm not even talking about the Yankees or Boston who seem to make the playoffs every year or nine times out of 10).

In fact despite Chicago's (and by proxy the Sox') advantages over their divisional opponents they can't seem to figure out how to do so. By advantages I mean population, size of radio/TV deals, advertising opportunities, corporate sponsorship opportunities.

Lip

Lip Man 1
05-20-2013, 11:44 AM
Other teams are in much worse situations than the White Sox are in. The Indians are in first place and are dead last in MLB average attendance. They are averaging a little over 15,000 per game. The Indians play in a one team market and play in a downtown stadium (something I wish the White Sox were in) and they're in first place and are not drawing at all. Yesterdays game featured Felix Hernandez against Masterson and they only had 19,000 at the game on a Sunday afternoon. I realize the Indians have not had winning teams in awhile and they have taken the League by surprise being in first place now, but I still think Cleveland is still in a much worse situation than what the White Sox are. The Indians also don't have the TV-Radio money the White Sox have. If attendance doesn't pick up in Cleveland I wouldn't be surprised to see the owners put the team up for sale, or even move the team.

Golden:

You have a tendency to automatically say that teams can be moved. I disagree, there aren't locations where teams can move anymore out there save maybe Montreal. Cities and fans know this, that "threat" is going by the wayside in my opinion.

And the Indians are in the same situation as Sox fans, haven't been a consistent winner in a while, seems to get off to good starts then fade in the second half. Not the way to draw fans or influence people.

Lip

24thStFan
05-20-2013, 11:47 AM
Sure, I'd like to win the division more often and always make the playoffs but we don't and I don't think it is necessarily anyone's fault.... it is just very hard to do given the circumstances.

True, but for approximately the last decade, the AL Central had the potential to be dominated by the Sox. I"m just disappointed that we lost an opportunity to become a perennial winner, and maybe also to own a better market position in Chicago.

I know it's no use crying over spilt milk, but it is frustrating to watch. Let's hope the Sox get it together and start winning.

Hitmen77
05-20-2013, 12:10 PM
Golden:

As someone else wrote in another thread it's not just the fact that the Sox are only six games out. That's not a big deal, that's do-able. It's the fact that there are four teams ahead of them in the division.

Because those teams play each other so often someone has to win, not all four teams are going to go in the tank.

Also the Sox second half schedule gets a hell of a lot tougher. 18 games with Detroit, games with the Yankees, and a 10 game road trip in late August / early September to Boston, the Yankees and Baltimore.

Those are grounds for concern.

Lip

In addition to 6 games out and behind 4 teams in the standings, the other big problem is that this White Sox team isn't very good. It's not like we're talking about waiting for a talent-laden team to snap out of a funk. This team is a few games below .500 and that's probably about right based on who is on the roster.


Nell:

I've been around this community (WSI) since I started writing for it in 2002.

I can't recall any period where there appears to be less interest in the team than the past few years. I mean look at the post game threads for one example.

Like Kittle said yesterday: "White Sox baseball 2013: Even the die hards don't care anymore..."

Lip

I'm known in my social circle as "Mr. White Sox" (even to other Sox fans). Even I'm having trouble caring about this team. If they're losing people like me, they need to blow it up. I don't mean just the team on the field, I mean top to bottom. Hahn can stay, because he hasn't really gotten a fair shake yet, but pretty much everybody else needs to go. This franchise is at its lowest point since probably 1999.

At least they had a promising, exciting young core of talent in 1999. This might be the most un-interesting Sox team since 1988.

There are a few bright spots (Chris Sale is definitely one), but the team is generally mediocre and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of minor league talent to look forward to in the near future.

GoSox2K3
05-20-2013, 12:35 PM
Big name free agent signings rarely work out, and that era is quite possibly over.

Also, every time the Sox do make a "big market" move, (Peavy trade, Dunn signing) people complain, too. Kobayashi Maru for the front office.

The problem with the Dunn signing has been his abysmal performance since joining the team. It has nothing to do with whether "people complained" about the signing.

doublem23
05-20-2013, 01:32 PM
Oh good, I thought this stupid argument couldn't have been any less interesting except now I see we're linking to things like "Noozebox?" (SOUNDS TOTALLY LEGIT), so there's always another nadir, I guess.

Milw
05-20-2013, 02:10 PM
IMHO the Sox have never acted like a big market team by signing a BIG NAME free agent STAR. If we had one now (e.g., Upton, Wright, etc.) perhaps there would be more "casual fan" interest in this team. Instead we signed Adam Dunn and Jeff Keppinger.

It's a shame the Chicago White Sox have a small market mentality, because we could have dominated the Central division for the last 10 years. Instead we abdicated to Detroit...yes, freaking Detroit!
Adam Dunn was "a BIG NAME free agent STAR" when the Sox signed him. He was indisputably the biggest name on the market that winter. He has sucked since then, but it's just not fair to say the Sox don't sign big name free agents. Moreover, the Sox for the past seven years or so have consistently been in the top five in the AL in payroll.

And I know it's going back a ways at this point, but Albert Belle was a HUGE deal when he was signed.

This franchise absolutely has a habit of half-assing things. But spending on payroll really hasn't been the issue.

TheVulture
05-20-2013, 02:11 PM
Nell:

I've been around this community (WSI) since I started writing for it in 2002.

I can't recall any period where there appears to be less interest in the team than the past few years. I mean look at the post game threads for one example.


Yeah, but does that have to do with lack of interest in the Sox, or lack of interest in WSI? The board guidelines are fairly stringent, and it seems like members have drifted away from the site over time as a result.

Moses_Scurry
05-20-2013, 02:12 PM
At least they had a promising, exciting young core of talent in 1999. This might be the most un-interesting Sox team since 1988.

There are a few bright spots (Chris Sale is definitely one), but the team is generally mediocre and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of minor league talent to look forward to in the near future.

I disagree with this. To me, this year feels a lot like 1999. I don't if I would call guys like Jim Parque, Mike Sirtoka, Mike Caruso, etc. all that exciting if I put my mind in my 1999 self. It isn't that much different than Santiago, Quintana, Nate Jones, Addison Reed et al that we have now. It only feels like it was a more exciting core because of what happened in 2000. I remember things being bleak as hell in the late '90's. Plus, Thomas appeared to be on a downward trajectory in the late '90's. 2000 was his triumphant comeback year.

To me, 2000 is an example of why it doesn't pay to forecast doom and gloom (or greatness) more than 1 or 2 seasons out. Too much can happen. Thomas had one of his best years in 2000, Cal frickin' Eldred had a first half worthy of a Cy Young, Wunch-Howry-Foulke were automatic in the pen, Baldwin had his best year, and the team won the division pretty easily. There's no reason it can't happen again. However, I would much rather not have to rely on being so lucky.

Sale and Peavy are better than any starting pitcher they had in the late '90's/early '00's.

Milw
05-20-2013, 02:28 PM
I disagree with this. To me, this year feels a lot like 1999. I don't if I would call guys like Jim Parque, Mike Sirtoka, Mike Caruso, etc. all that exciting if I put my mind in my 1999 self. It isn't that much different than Santiago, Quintana, Nate Jones, Addison Reed et al that we have now. It only feels like it was a more exciting core because of what happened in 2000. I remember things being bleak as hell in the late '90's.
I was the one who made the 1999 reference, but to be fair, that team did have Magglio and Carlos Lee, not to mention rookie of the year contender Chris Singleton. And Konerko, while nobody could have guessed he would become the franchise icon that he has, did hit 24 HRs that year.

But I haven't felt this much apathy in the fanbase and the city towards the Sox since 1999. Thankfully we don't have nearly the attendance woes we had back then--20,000 was considered a great crowd--but the malaise and general disinterest is palpable and comparable.

24thStFan
05-20-2013, 02:29 PM
Moreover, the Sox for the past seven years or so have consistently been in the top five in the AL in payroll.

This franchise absolutely has a habit of half-assing things. But spending on payroll really hasn't been the issue.

In 2012 the Sox ranked 11th in total payroll behind markets like Milwaukee, Detroit, and St. Louis. In addition the difference between the team with the highest payroll (surprise, the Yankees) and the Sox was over $100 million.

My point is the Sox don't behave like a big market team. We're cheap and now we're suffering the consequences.

Lip Man 1
05-20-2013, 02:42 PM
Yeah, but does that have to do with lack of interest in the Sox, or lack of interest in WSI? The board guidelines are fairly stringent, and it seems like members have drifted away from the site over time as a result.

Vulture:

I'm sure that as well as some other things from what I've been told, have played a part but I still feel the biggest reason for the decline is the mediocrity over the past four / five seasons.

Lip

Milw
05-20-2013, 02:47 PM
In 2012 the Sox ranked 11th in total payroll behind markets like Milwaukee, Detroit, and St. Louis. In addition the difference between the team with the highest payroll (surprise, the Yankees) and the Sox was over $100 million.

My point is the Sox don't behave like a big market team. We're cheap and now we're suffering the consequences.
Of the teams that had a higher payroll than the Sox last year, only Milwaukee, Detroit and St. Louis could be considered small markets. Milwaukee outspent the Sox by a whopping $700,000; St. Louis was coming off a World Series championship; and Detroit, well, they should be commended for spending.

You neglected to note the teams the Sox outspent last year: the Cubs, Mets and Dodgers; the NL Central champion Reds; the NL East champion Nationals; the AL West champion A's; and wild card qualifiers Orioles and Braves.

Yeah, I wish the Sox would spend more. Of course. But spending WISELY is a much higher priority.

dickallen15
05-20-2013, 02:53 PM
I wonder if winning the WS after the initial spike, has actually hurt the White Sox long term. Fans aren't impressed with being in first place every day for a few months, 85-90 win seasons are considered huge failures. There is no doubt the Sox should have taken advantage of all the advantages they have had over their AL Central counterparts over the years, and they did not.

People rip Boyer, but really, he is in a position right now where he cannot succeed. There are no promotions that are going to dramatically improve the gate. There is no ad campaign that will do it either. It's easy to point a finger at him and his crew, but there is no one who is pointing a finger that actually has an answer as to something that makes sense and will work. The team has to be a powerhouse. That's not on the marketing department.

Hitmen77
05-20-2013, 02:57 PM
I disagree with this. To me, this year feels a lot like 1999. I don't if I would call guys like Jim Parque, Mike Sirtoka, Mike Caruso, etc. all that exciting if I put my mind in my 1999 self. It isn't that much different than Santiago, Quintana, Nate Jones, Addison Reed et al that we have now. It only feels like it was a more exciting core because of what happened in 2000. I remember things being bleak as hell in the late '90's. Plus, Thomas appeared to be on a downward trajectory in the late '90's. 2000 was his triumphant comeback year.


Well, neither would I, but I never said I was talking about those 3 guys. I'm talking about Konerko, Ordonez, and Lee.

I'm not saying I had a blast watching the Sox during the '99 season - it was definitely a bad year, but those 3 guys did form a solid core of young talent that gave me hope for better days to come (and I thought so even before 2000). Other than Chris Sale, I don't see anyone even close to the caliber of those guys this year. Peavy and Rios are good, but they're both in their 30s and aren't exactly the future of this team.

I'm not disputing that the late 90s were a bleak time - it was fresh off the white flag trade and the '94 strike was still fresh in peoples memories. It was also a pre-renovation "New Comiskey" that looked much worse than the park does today. People whine about the neighbor around the Cell today, but things were much worse 15 years ago. Overall, the Sox were much, much less relevant in Chicago in 1999 than they are today.

....but all that being said, i'd still say the team on the field this year is less interesting to me than the 1999 team.

Foulke You
05-20-2013, 03:54 PM
But I haven't felt this much apathy in the fanbase and the city towards the Sox since 1999. Thankfully we don't have nearly the attendance woes we had back then--20,000 was considered a great crowd--but the malaise and general disinterest is palpable and comparable.
I think people might be exaggerating a bit about the disinterest being on par with the late 90s teams. The Sox results in the paper would sometimes be back by the horse racing section in those days. As you pointed out, the crowds are larger now and I'm willing to bet that the TV ratings are better than they were back in the 90s too. Now, that's not to say the Sox don't have some issues.

Besides the mediocre start by the team, I think there is a general lack of interest in baseball right now in Chicago that is hurting both teams. (Yes, even the mighty Cubs have taken a hit on attendance and ratings) Both Chicago teams are doing poorly on the field and are struggling to grab any sort of buzz or headlines with the Blackhawks making their run to the cup and the Bulls having a high profile playoff run. Bears practices get more coverage lately than baseball. The biggest baseball story of 2013 in Chicago has been the political battle over Wrigley renovations. Just five years ago in 2008, baseball was king in this town. Both teams were in first place and the buzz for both clubs was at the highest I could remember. I guess everything goes in cycles and is often tied to success on the field.

Hitmen77
05-20-2013, 03:57 PM
I wonder if winning the WS after the initial spike, has actually hurt the White Sox long term. Fans aren't impressed with being in first place every day for a few months, 85-90 win seasons are considered huge failures. There is no doubt the Sox should have taken advantage of all the advantages they have had over their AL Central counterparts over the years, and they did not.

People rip Boyer, but really, he is in a position right now where he cannot succeed. There are no promotions that are going to dramatically improve the gate. There is no ad campaign that will do it either. It's easy to point a finger at him and his crew, but there is no one who is pointing a finger that actually has an answer as to something that makes sense and will work. The team has to be a powerhouse. That's not on the marketing department.

Last year's attendance was the lowest since before the WS championship.....but it still beats out the attendance total of every single season between the 1994 strike and 2004. (I have no idea how TV ratings compare).

So, I'd say the WS win is still good for the Sox. I don't think it's the raised expectations that is the problem with this franchise. It's that this year is 5 years since the last Sox playoff appearance and not much reason to believe that things will change any time soon.

hawkjt
05-20-2013, 04:04 PM
Last season,the fans had a reason to attend...Sox were in 1st place,and yet they stayed away for a myriad of reasons.

This year, attendance is up,go figure, for a team that is stuck in last place.
Now, last year the team was virtually the same,record-wise,at this point,so maybe attendance will flag in the summer if the Sox do not streak.

Milw
05-20-2013, 04:08 PM
Last season,the fans had a reason to attend...Sox were in 1st place,and yet they stayed away for a myriad of reasons.

This year, attendance is up,go figure, for a team that is stuck in last place.
Now, last year the team was virtually the same,record-wise,at this point,so maybe attendance will flag in the summer if the Sox do not streak.
Attendance, for the most part, lags a year, because it's so dependent on pre-sales and season tickets. Spur-of-the-moment, short-term ticket buying is a relatively small segment of sales. It's why attendance in 2006 was much higher than in 2005, and why next year's attendance will likely be down considerably, barring a sudden turnaround by this group.

eriqjaffe
05-20-2013, 05:21 PM
This year, attendance is up,go figure, for a team that is stuck in last place.The drops in ticket & parking prices probably has something to do with this.

Lip Man 1
05-20-2013, 06:56 PM
Agreed.

Lip

johnny bench
05-20-2013, 07:05 PM
The drops in ticket & parking prices probably has something to do with this.

Nah, it was the pie-in-the-face marketing plan.

DickAllen72
05-20-2013, 07:08 PM
Don't underestimate the damage that Ozzie did the last couple of years he was here. For me, those last couple of Ozzie years left a very bad taste in my mouth and I lost a lot of respect for the organization the way they enabled him and his family.

Lip Man 1
05-20-2013, 10:09 PM
Dick:

To say nothing of how he insulted the fan base:

"they can ‘turn off their TVs and stop watching the game if they don’t like the [bleep]ing lineup’’

“as soon as you leave the ballpark they don’t care about you. They don’t. The monuments, the statues…they pee on them when they get drunk.”

Classy guy that Ozzie.

Lip

Hitmen77
05-20-2013, 10:39 PM
Of the teams that had a higher payroll than the Sox last year, only Milwaukee, Detroit and St. Louis could be considered small markets. Milwaukee outspent the Sox by a whopping $700,000; St. Louis was coming off a World Series championship; and Detroit, well, they should be commended for spending.

You neglected to note the teams the Sox outspent last year: the Cubs, Mets and Dodgers; the NL Central champion Reds; the NL East champion Nationals; the AL West champion A's; and wild card qualifiers Orioles and Braves.

Yeah, I wish the Sox would spend more. Of course. But spending WISELY is a much higher priority.

Part of the problem is that they have almost no above average internal talent to field along side the high-salary guys like Dunn, Konerko, Rios and Peavy. There's not enough room on the payroll to fill all the holes on your roster with veteran acquired via FA or trades. If you throw money at players like Dunn and then keep developing players like Josh Fields and Brent Morel as your best position players, that's good enough for around .500 and about 3rd place.

So, spending wisely isn't only about paying for the Dunns of the worlds, it's also about putting resources into your scouting and minor league system.

One more thing I'll say about 1999. The Sox may have had a lousy record that year, but they already had the following young players somewhere in their organization: Konerko, Ordonez, Lee, Garland, Buehrle, Crede, Rowand. The Sox farm system was seen as pretty good back then. When your farm system is ranked dead last for many years in a row (as is the case now), you're not likely to see a repeat of that. I really doubt that there's another crop of good players like that making their way to the Sox any time soon.

Last season,the fans had a reason to attend...Sox were in 1st place,and yet they stayed away for a myriad of reasons.

This year, attendance is up,go figure, for a team that is stuck in last place.
Now, last year the team was virtually the same,record-wise,at this point,so maybe attendance will flag in the summer if the Sox do not streak.

Actually, it makes perfect sense to me. Attendance figures often reflect the team's on-field performance the following season. If a team has a surprise playoff season, it's often not until next year that they'll see the bump from more season ticket sales and other advance ticket sales.
The people on this site who like to bash Sox fans for the low attendance last season always ignore this fact.

Bobby Thigpen
05-21-2013, 09:02 AM
Dick:

To say nothing of how he insulted the fan base:

"they can ‘turn off their TVs and stop watching the game if they don’t like the [bleep]ing lineup’’

“as soon as you leave the ballpark they don’t care about you. They don’t. The monuments, the statues…they pee on them when they get drunk.”

Classy guy that Ozzie.

Lip
Did you copy and paste this from some other site? Is that why it's in a different font?

Do you ever get tired of saying the same things over and over and over and over again?

Bobby Thigpen
05-21-2013, 09:06 AM
I wonder if winning the WS after the initial spike, has actually hurt the White Sox long term. Fans aren't impressed with being in first place every day for a few months, 85-90 win seasons are considered huge failures. There is no doubt the Sox should have taken advantage of all the advantages they have had over their AL Central counterparts over the years, and they did not.
I think there could be some merit to this thought. I know the general vibe of this site has changed quite a bit since the WS. I think "back in the day" Sox fans weren't any more pessimistic than they are now, I just think there was a little bit more sarcasm and humor around than there seems to be now. I don't know that spoiled would be an appropriate word, but things Sox fans used to be pretty excited about now is generally a source of complaints.

Moses_Scurry
05-21-2013, 09:17 AM
I think there could be some merit to this thought. I know the general vibe of this site has changed quite a bit since the WS. I think "back in the day" Sox fans weren't any more pessimistic than they are now, I just think there was a little bit more sarcasm and humor around than there seems to be now. I don't know that spoiled would be an appropriate word, but things Sox fans used to be pretty excited about now is generally a source of complaints.

The site definitely used to be a lot more cubsessed. 2005 was really the point where that changed dramatically. We almost don't need the 'What's the Score' forum anymore.

The Immigrant
05-21-2013, 09:45 AM
The site definitely used to be a lot more cubsessed. 2005 was really the point where that changed dramatically. We almost don't need the 'What's the Score' forum anymore.

I think it changed for good when the Cubs started sucking again after fielding some pretty good teams in 2007 and 2008.

As for the site, it's interesting to look through an old thread and see dozens of names who are no longer around for one reason or another.

Lip Man 1
05-21-2013, 12:32 PM
Did you copy and paste this from some other site? Is that why it's in a different font?

Do you ever get tired of saying the same things over and over and over and over again?


Bobby:

I have material in my library that apparently doesn't transfer in the same way when I cut and paste it. It obviously was still readable wasn't it?

I'll answer your question with one of my own...do you? :rolleyes:

Lip

doublem23
05-21-2013, 12:45 PM
I'll answer your question with one of my own...do you? :rolleyes:


That doesn't actually answer his question

Lip Man 1
05-21-2013, 12:51 PM
That doesn't actually answer his question

Touche' LOL :D:

Lip

TDog
05-21-2013, 03:08 PM
Attendance, for the most part, lags a year, because it's so dependent on pre-sales and season tickets. Spur-of-the-moment, short-term ticket buying is a relatively small segment of sales. It's why attendance in 2006 was much higher than in 2005, and why next year's attendance will likely be down considerably, barring a sudden turnaround by this group.

That is true to a certain extent in Chicago more than other places. Chicago baseball fans, until the Cubs became fashionable in the 1980s, never supported their teams unless they were winning. Even in 1959, when the White Sox went to the World Series, the combined attendance for the Sox and Cubs was about 2.2 million. The one team in Milwaukee, with about half the dates in a smaller city, drew about 1.7 million with a team that tied for first with the Dodgers and lost the playoff. The Braves averaged about 4,000 more fans per date than the White Sox with a smaller fan base. Even in 1967, when the Cubs overtook the White Sox in popularity and nearly caught them in attendance by the end of the season, despite the Sox being in a fierce pennant race, the two Chicago teams combined for less than 2 million.

There are some exceptions. In 1984, for example, the Cubs drew more than 2 million for the first time because of day-of-game sales while the White Sox sold a few more tickets due to advance sales. The 1977 Sox team that White Sox attendance record followed a dreadful season, and the 1978 season drew less than 1977 because it too was a dreadful season, but because of advance sales, it drew almost as much as the 1959 Sox. Bill Veeck insisted at the time that no Chicago baseball team would ever draw 2 million fans because o the weather, but Milwaukee drew 2 million fans in four seasons in the 1950s.

One of the things that held Chicago attendance down for years was a tradition. Before the Reinsdorf group and the Tribune company came into baseball in the 1980s. Both the Cubs and White Sox put 20,000 tickets for sale on game day. At the same time for many of those years, home games and only home games were on Chicago television.

That was both the Wrigley and Comiskey philosophy, and the ownership between Comiskey and Reinsdorf didn't change it. You didn't even get tickets for the bleachers in Old Comiskey in the early 1970s. You paid your dollar and got a slip of paper that you could show the usher if he thought you sneaked in. Chicago fans could no longer depend on getting seats the day of the game (which for the 1984 Cubs involved getting to the park early and waiting in line as they were selling out games with about half of the tickets being sold within a few hours of the game inspiring national news stories with the weekday long lines and sort of triggering the national cult of Wrigley). On one hand it contributed to higher attendance and more no-shows. It is part of the reason that attendnace under the Reinsdorf regime has been consistently higher than it was under the previous regimes. It also changed the culture of watching baseball in Chicago.