PDA

View Full Version : WGN-TV about to lose Cubs games


thomas35forever
11-06-2013, 01:55 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-chicago-cubs-wgn-tv-20131106,0,2270840.story
Screw that long relationship. It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

mrfourni
11-06-2013, 02:31 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-chicago-cubs-wgn-tv-20131106,0,2270840.story
Screw that long relationship. It's all about the Benjamins, baby.

That article implies they are either going to lose the cubs or pony up a lot more $$$ to keep them. It will be interesting to follow. You hear a lot of talk about the cubs splitting and forming their own network when the Comcast deal is done. Should be fun to see how this impacts the sox. Hopefully they'll negotiate a big payday with comcast or their own new network as well.

LITTLE NELL
11-06-2013, 03:05 PM
That article implies they are either going to lose the cubs or pony up a lot more $$$ to keep them. It will be interesting to follow. You hear a lot of talk about the cubs splitting and forming their own network when the Comcast deal is done. Should be fun to see how this impacts the sox. Hopefully they'll negotiate a big payday with comcast or their own new network as well.

If this happens and the Cubs leave WGN the Sox need to step in and put as many games they can on WGN. Only good things could come from a move like that. That being said I will believe it when I see it that the Cubs and WGN part ways.

jdm2662
11-06-2013, 03:16 PM
If this happens and the Cubs leave WGN the Sox need to step in and put as many games they can on WGN. Only good things could come from a move like that. That being said I will believe it when I see it that the Cubs and WGN part ways.

I read a few years ago the Cubs made twice as much money per game when they were broadcast on Comcast vs WGN. Local broadcast money is what makes the big boys the big boys. You don't get as much on an over the air station.

I don't know if MLB requires a number of telecasts to be on a over the air channel. I know the NBA requires 30 or 35.

TDog
11-06-2013, 03:23 PM
I wonder how losing the Cubs would affect WGN in the cable marketplace. I've been told by cable execs in places where I've lived (which didn't carry WGN, I always seem to end up in such places) that they don't offer WGN because of all the baseball. On the other hand, I have to believe that some cable systems carry WGN because of the baseball. I don't know how many, if any, markets black out WGN baseball.

What WGN has determined they will spend on baseball has to be based on market research showing them they will gain.

In theory, as it would have no effect on me, I would love to see the Cubs limited to their own network. I wouldn't even mind if Cubs executives decided to embrace the pay-per-view future.

beasly213
11-06-2013, 03:40 PM
If this happens and the Cubs leave WGN the Sox need to step in and put as many games they can on WGN. Only good things could come from a move like that. That being said I will believe it when I see it that the Cubs and WGN part ways.

I get what you're saying here, and I get the idea behind it, that another generation of kids will grow up White Sox fans like they did Cub fans when the Cubs were on the WGN when they were growing up..

But times are different now, kids have way more entertainment options then they used to, and I dont see kids coming home from school and sitting in front of the TV to watch White Sox baseball. With most cable packages carrying the MLB network, kids growing up who are big baseball fans are going to flock to the teams that are actually really good and have big stars. It's much easier to follow an out of market team now than it has ever been.

I wouldn't be against the Sox having more games on WGN simply because I think they have a better production than Comcast does. But as others have said in this thread I believe the Sox get more money from their Comcast deal than they would WGN.

jdm2662
11-06-2013, 03:46 PM
I get what you're saying here, and I get the idea behind it, that another generation of kids will grow up White Sox fans like they did Cub fans when the Cubs were on the WGN when they were growing up..

But times are different now, kids have way more entertainment options then they used to, and I dont see kids coming home from school and sitting in front of the TV to watch White Sox baseball. With most cable packages carrying the MLB network, kids growing up who are big baseball fans are going to flock to the teams that are actually really good and have big stars. It's much easier to follow an out of market team now than it has ever been.

I wouldn't be against the Sox having more games on WGN simply because I think they have a better production than Comcast does. But as others have said in this thread I believe the Sox get more money from their Comcast deal than they would WGN.

WGN production is way better than Comcast. I sometimes wonder if Comcast is ran by a high school AV club. Their production quality is piss poor.

Moses_Scurry
11-06-2013, 03:54 PM
I wonder how losing the Cubs would affect WGN in the cable marketplace. I've been told by cable execs in places where I've lived (which didn't carry WGN, I always seem to end up in such places) that they don't offer WGN because of all the baseball. On the other hand, I have to believe that some cable systems carry WGN because of the baseball. I don't know how many, if any, markets black out WGN baseball.

What WGN has determined they will spend on baseball has to be based on market research showing them they will gain.

In theory, as it would have no effect on me, I would love to see the Cubs limited to their own network. I wouldn't even mind if Cubs executives decided to embrace the pay-per-view future.

WGN is pretty awful if you take away the baseball. I can only watch so many AFV reruns.

doublem23
11-06-2013, 03:58 PM
WGN is pretty awful if you take away the baseball. I can only watch so many AFV reruns.

Subjective, of course, but I think their local news is the best in the area.

Huisj
11-06-2013, 04:01 PM
I read a few years ago the Cubs made twice as much money per game when they were broadcast on Comcast vs WGN. Local broadcast money is what makes the big boys the big boys. You don't get as much on an over the air station.

I don't know if MLB requires a number of telecasts to be on a over the air channel. I know the NBA requires 30 or 35.

Are you sure about this? I don't know of any Pistons games that are broadcast over the air here. Everything is on cable on Fox Sports Detroit. Same with the Tigers. I suspect it is that way in most markets with a big regional sports network. Chicago seems like the rare exception these days.

asindc
11-06-2013, 04:08 PM
I read a few years ago the Cubs made twice as much money per game when they were broadcast on Comcast vs WGN. Local broadcast money is what makes the big boys the big boys. You don't get as much on an over the air station.

I don't know if MLB requires a number of telecasts to be on a over the air channel. I know the NBA requires 30 or 35.

Are you sure about this? I don't know of any Pistons games that are broadcast over the air here. Everything is on cable on Fox Sports Detroit. Same with the Tigers. I suspect it is that way in most markets with a big regional sports network. Chicago seems like the rare exception these days.

Same with Wizards games here. All on cable.

doublem23
11-06-2013, 04:09 PM
Are you sure about this? I don't know of any Pistons games that are broadcast over the air here. Everything is on cable on Fox Sports Detroit. Same with the Tigers. I suspect it is that way in most markets with a big regional sports network. Chicago seems like the rare exception these days.

Yeah, I don't think it's over the air, I think it's regional; it essentially assure RSN's that they will get a nice size chunk of NBA games, otherwise there'd be little incentive for them if they knew all of a good team's games would be on ESPN or TNT.

jdm2662
11-06-2013, 04:17 PM
Are you sure about this? I don't know of any Pistons games that are broadcast over the air here. Everything is on cable on Fox Sports Detroit. Same with the Tigers. I suspect it is that way in most markets with a big regional sports network. Chicago seems like the rare exception these days.

I thought I saw that some time ago, but I guess not. The Bulls usually have at least 30 games on WGN and WCIU. 12-15 games are usually on the Superstation.

DSpivack
11-06-2013, 04:23 PM
Subjective, of course, but I think their local news is the best in the area.
Skilling and seeing whatever suit Robert Jordan picked out that day is enough to make them my favorite. Plus, they have easily the least annoying sports anchors.

LITTLE NELL
11-06-2013, 05:01 PM
I get what you're saying here, and I get the idea behind it, that another generation of kids will grow up White Sox fans like they did Cub fans when the Cubs were on the WGN when they were growing up..

But times are different now, kids have way more entertainment options then they used to, and I dont see kids coming home from school and sitting in front of the TV to watch White Sox baseball. With most cable packages carrying the MLB network, kids growing up who are big baseball fans are going to flock to the teams that are actually really good and have big stars. It's much easier to follow an out of market team now than it has ever been.

I wouldn't be against the Sox having more games on WGN simply because I think they have a better production than Comcast does. But as others have said in this thread I believe the Sox get more money from their Comcast deal than they would WGN.

For me it would be great as I only get to see them when they are on WGN or when they are playing the Rays and watch on SunSports.
The other thing I was thinking is that we might become relevant nationally, I'm not saying we would become America's team but maybe ESPN would realize there are 2 teams in MLB with Sox in their names. I'm tired of people when I meet them and tell them I'm originally from Chicago and the first thing they ask is if I'm a Cub fan.

doublem23
11-06-2013, 05:31 PM
For me it would be great as I only get to see them when they are on WGN or when they are playing the Rays and watch on SunSports.
The other thing I was thinking is that we might become relevant nationally, I'm not saying we would become America's team but maybe ESPN would realize there are 2 teams in MLB with Sox in their names. I'm tired of people when I meet them and tell them I'm originally from Chicago and the first thing they ask is if I'm a Cub fan.

Anybody outside of the Chicago market who wants to watch the Sox already can with MLB.tv, it makes absolutely zero sense for the team to throw away money by putting games on WGN.

The Sox got plenty of national pub when they were good. That's the solution here.

Domeshot17
11-06-2013, 05:41 PM
I get what you're saying here, and I get the idea behind it, that another generation of kids will grow up White Sox fans like they did Cub fans when the Cubs were on the WGN when they were growing up..

But times are different now, kids have way more entertainment options then they used to, and I dont see kids coming home from school and sitting in front of the TV to watch White Sox baseball. With most cable packages carrying the MLB network, kids growing up who are big baseball fans are going to flock to the teams that are actually really good and have big stars. It's much easier to follow an out of market team now than it has ever been.

I wouldn't be against the Sox having more games on WGN simply because I think they have a better production than Comcast does. But as others have said in this thread I believe the Sox get more money from their Comcast deal than they would WGN.

Bingo! Between the way we follow sports today, plus video games, plus fantasy sports, it has become a league of stars. You don't root for the Angels, you root for Mike Trout. Sure you always have your hometown team, but kids are not flocking that way.

Plus, we need to address the 7 ton elephant in the room. Putting the Sox on WGN to draw new Sox fans will not do anything if those kids are subjected to Hawk Harrelson.

The Sox need to develop everyday stars. And no, they don't have 1. Sale is close, but until the Sox start winning, the national fan is not going to know him or care about him. Konerko, Buehrle, these cult hero types, if we want to be a major force of revenue, we need real stars. Not the 200 IP inning eater, or the guy who gave Jerry the ball, but household names.

This is a good move by the Cubs. WGN doesn't matter anymore, most people have Cable/Satellite. The only way we are gaining any marketshare in Illinois is going on a dominant run of winning baseball (and no, that isn't 83-86 win seasons) but consistent division titles, playoffs, a world series OR by growing/trading for/signing a couple superstars.

LITTLE NELL
11-06-2013, 05:43 PM
Anybody outside of the Chicago market who wants to watch the Sox already can with MLB.tv, it makes absolutely zero sense for the team to throw away money by putting games on WGN.

The Sox got plenty of national pub when they were good. That's the solution here.

Maybe you can float me a loan to get the MLB TV package, my Social Security increase is only going to be 1.5% for 2014. Actually Comcast in my area does not offer the MLB package and I don't want to watch games on my computer.

thomas35forever
11-06-2013, 11:06 PM
Maybe you can float me a loan to get the MLB TV package, my Social Security increase is only going to be 1.5% for 2014. Actually Comcast in my area does not offer the MLB package and I don't want to watch games on my computer.
I understand that and there a lot of people who think like you. That said, once your generation is gone, so will that attitude. Multi-platform is the way most people get their information now and that's not going away. If people want to fork up the dough to watch out-of-market games, they will. They won't care about price. They'll budget for it. That's where we're headed.

TDog
11-06-2013, 11:59 PM
I understand that and there a lot of people who think like you. That said, once your generation is gone, so will that attitude. Multi-platform is the way most people get their information now and that's not going away. If people want to fork up the dough to watch out-of-market games, they will. They won't care about price. They'll budget for it. That's where we're headed.

They won't be able to budget for it if they won't be able to afford it.

doublem23
11-07-2013, 06:43 AM
Maybe you can float me a loan to get the MLB TV package, my Social Security increase is only going to be 1.5% for 2014. Actually Comcast in my area does not offer the MLB package and I don't want to watch games on my computer.

Oh my god, I give up. The Sox should obviously be catering their business to people who wittingly move 1,000 miles from Chicago and don't want to pay a dime or be inconvenienced in the slightest and still watch every single game.

While we're at it, maybe the team can drop the price of tickets to $1 for every seat, force every other team to trade us their best players, and have Free Beer Night 7 days a week. I'm sure that's totally reasonable.

doublem23
11-07-2013, 06:45 AM
They won't be able to budget for it if they won't be able to afford it.

Well that's on Major League Baseball to price their product effectively, but I believe MLB.com is far and away the most profitable online presence of the 4 major North American sports so obviously they are doing it correctly.

asindc
11-07-2013, 07:26 AM
Even though I'm an MLB.tv subscriber, my ongoing gripe is that I can't buy just Sox games a la carte. I don't doubt that MLB has crunched the numbers and concluded that it is not in their best interests to do so, but I still would rather have that option. If it was available, they probably would bring in subscribers that are otherwise turned off by the very idea of subscribing to watch games.

Hitmen77
11-07-2013, 11:19 AM
I'm guessing that the Cubs will still have games on WGN-TV after 2014. All they did hear was exercise their option on their contract. They'll probably be back at a higher fee for WGN.

The Cubs have a deal with CSN until 2019, but I wouldn't be surprised if they end their partnership with CSN and the other Chicago teams after that to start their own cable network.

Maybe you can float me a loan to get the MLB TV package, my Social Security increase is only going to be 1.5% for 2014. Actually Comcast in my area does not offer the MLB package and I don't want to watch games on my computer.

MLB.TV isn't just for computers. If you have a streaming device like a Roku, you can stream games to your TV in HD quality. The last two years, I got MLB.TV starting around mid-June through the rest of the season for $50 for the remainder of those seasons.

SephClone89
11-07-2013, 11:38 AM
Even though I'm an MLB.tv subscriber, my ongoing gripe is that I can't buy just Sox games a la carte. I don't doubt that MLB has crunched the numbers and concluded that it is not in their best interests to do so, but I still would rather have that option. If it was available, they probably would bring in subscribers that are otherwise turned off by the very idea of subscribing to watch games.

$125 is still an absolute bargain for a full season of baseball...especially considering that the NBA packages offer half the games (plus more national TV blackouts) for a lot more.

asindc
11-07-2013, 11:43 AM
$125 is still an absolute bargain for a full season of baseball...especially considering that the NBA packages offer half the games (plus more national TV blackouts) for a lot more.

Some people object to the mere idea of subscribing to watch games, price notwithstanding. I've broken down and now subscribe every year, but I know some who just refuse to do it, especially having to buy all games and not having the option to buy games for just the teams they want.

Moses_Scurry
11-07-2013, 12:23 PM
Anybody outside of the Chicago market who wants to watch the Sox already can with MLB.tv, it makes absolutely zero sense for the team to throw away money by putting games on WGN.

The Sox got plenty of national pub when they were good. That's the solution here.

Not here. I'm in the blackout area, and I can't get CSN with my cable provider. WGN games are the only ones I can get.

For me, the solution is not putting more games on WGN. It's removing or at least revising the blackout restrictions so that I can get the games on EI or MLB.TV if I want. It pisses me off every season. I don't care as much when the team sucks, but in 2005, 2006, 2008, etc, I was forced to listen to games on my XM radio setup. It sucked.

Huisj
11-07-2013, 12:29 PM
Some people object to the mere idea of subscribing to watch games, price notwithstanding. I've broken down and now subscribe every year, but I know some who just refuse to do it, especially having to buy all games and not having the option to buy games for just the teams they want.

I used to get it some years, but in some places, it just doesn't work. My fiance lives out in the country, and there just isn't an internet service available there that has fast enough speeds to reasonably stream a game without paying through the nose.

Huisj
11-07-2013, 12:31 PM
Not here. I'm in the blackout area, and I can't get CSN with my cable provider. WGN games are the only ones I can get.

For me, the solution is not putting more games on WGN. It's removing or at least revising the blackout restrictions so that I can get the games on EI or MLB.TV if I want. It pisses me off every season. I don't care as much when the team sucks, but in 2005, 2006, 2008, etc, I was forced to listen to games on my XM radio setup. It sucked.

Another important point. The blackout rules in some places are still a serious shortcoming of mlb.tv when it comes to people mentioning it as a TV broadcast replacement.

asindc
11-07-2013, 12:37 PM
I absolutely hate that Sox games are blacked out to me on Saturday afternoons if they are being broadcast regionally in the Midwest by Fox. Makes no sense to me.

dickallen15
11-07-2013, 01:10 PM
I'm guessing that the Cubs will still have games on WGN-TV after 2014. All they did hear was exercise their option on their contract. They'll probably be back at a higher fee for WGN.

The Cubs have a deal with CSN until 2019, but I wouldn't be surprised if they end their partnership with CSN and the other Chicago teams after that to start their own cable network.



MLB.TV isn't just for computers. If you have a streaming device like a Roku, you can stream games to your TV in HD quality. The last two years, I got MLB.TV starting around mid-June through the rest of the season for $50 for the remainder of those seasons.

I agree. This is like threatening to move out of Wrigleyville. Where else are they going to go? They will get more money, but I can't see them leaving WGN. They could create their own station, but that requires a ton of money and they would have a ridiculous amount of programming to fill. Ask Oprah about starting your own network.

doublem23
11-07-2013, 02:21 PM
For me, the solution is not putting more games on WGN. It's removing or at least revising the blackout restrictions so that I can get the games on EI or MLB.TV if I want. It pisses me off every season. I don't care as much when the team sucks, but in 2005, 2006, 2008, etc, I was forced to listen to games on my XM radio setup. It sucked.

I agree 100% but that's more of an MLB-level decision, I don't know whether or not the Sox support the blackout, but I do know they don't have the power to change their blackout market.

Steelrod
11-07-2013, 02:29 PM
The current Cubs management is 100% about profit. In the Epstein regime, they are among the most profitable in baseball. They continue to reduce payroll and invest in income producing projects in Chicago and Mesa. Selling their tv rights and taking them off the air, will be the next step. The Sox did this 30 years ago and were crucified for it! They have dismantled the Cubs look and image in just 3 years!

doublem23
11-07-2013, 02:33 PM
They have dismantled the Cubs look and image in just 3 years!

FWIW, we are talking about a team whose look and image for the past century has been one of "Lovable Losers." It's not like the Ricketts walked into the Bronx and tried to rebrand the Yankees.

SephClone89
11-07-2013, 02:38 PM
The current Cubs management is 100% about profit. In the Epstein regime, they are among the most profitable in baseball. They continue to reduce payroll and invest in income producing projects in Chicago and Mesa. Selling their tv rights and taking them off the air, will be the next step. The Sox did this 30 years ago and were crucified for it! They have dismantled the Cubs look and image in just 3 years!

Slightly different situation.

SoxandtheCityTee
11-07-2013, 04:03 PM
To anyone who knows, how do these team-owned networks like YES fill up their content when they don't have ball games to air? Is it all re-runs of sports events they own the rights to, or what? I've wondered that. If you have to go buy or license or create content beyond the ball games, that would seem to eat into the profits, yet you always hear that these networks are hugely profitable to the team.

asindc
11-07-2013, 04:47 PM
To anyone who knows, how do these team-owned networks like YES fill up their content when they don't have ball games to air? Is it all re-runs of sports events they own the rights to, or what? I've wondered that. If you have to go buy or license or create content beyond the ball games, that would seem to eat into the profits, yet you always hear that these networks are hugely profitable to the team.

In this area, MASN airs almost all the local teams aside from the 'skins. They also air college sports, both local and national, and have local sports talk shows. I know YES does the same, and adds the Italian Serie A to their lineup as well.

Steelrod
11-07-2013, 06:21 PM
FWIW, we are talking about a team whose look and image for the past century has been one of "Lovable Losers." It's not like the Ricketts walked into the Bronx and tried to rebrand the Yankees.

You are right. They are changing from lovable to profit before anything. I think their model is the Padres!

Noneck
11-07-2013, 06:27 PM
The current Cubs management is 100% about profit.

That holds true for the vast majority of Mlb franchises including the Sox.

DSpivack
11-07-2013, 06:37 PM
That holds true for the vast majority of Mlb franchises including the Sox.
I don't even know if it's true, either.

It definitely seemed true about Sam Zell, but the Ricketts family strikes me more as fans who are in over their head and think they have more business sense than they actually do.

TDog
11-07-2013, 07:28 PM
That holds true for the vast majority of Mlb franchises including the Sox.

If you believe that, I believe you're missing Steelrod's point.

Obviously, most owners of sports franchises, investors in sports franchises hope to make a profit, but I'm sure there are years without dividends. The White Sox haven't placed profit above efforts to field a completive team, as the Cubs could be accused of doing. Maybe you build a winner by trading for young talent. Maybe you get fans excited about the future that young talent promises, which most often goes unfulfilled when teams trade for young talent. But I don't know that the motivation is building a winner so much as maximizing profit, which also happens when you trade for young talent.

If the White Sox were all about profit, they wouldn't have signed Dunn. It didn't increase ticket sales, even before fans came to think of him as a bust. I don't know that signing Abreu has been a profitable move, although if he fulfills his promise, the team will be more profitable. There have been some bad baseball decisions, but every team that tries to be competitive makes some bad business decisions.

You can be cynical about White Sox management and about the lack of a competitive team on the field, but if the White Sox were only about profit, they could have lost 99 games with a much smaller payroll.

DickAllen72
11-07-2013, 07:41 PM
While we're at it, maybe the team can drop the price of tickets to $1 for every seat, force every other team to trade us their best players, and have Free Beer Night 7 days a week.
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

DSpivack
11-07-2013, 09:15 PM
If you believe that, I believe you're missing Steelrod's point.

Obviously, most owners of sports franchises, investors in sports franchises hope to make a profit, but I'm sure there are years without dividends. The White Sox haven't placed profit above efforts to field a completive team, as the Cubs could be accused of doing. Maybe you build a winner by trading for young talent. Maybe you get fans excited about the future that young talent promises, which most often goes unfulfilled when teams trade for young talent. But I don't know that the motivation is building a winner so much as maximizing profit, which also happens when you trade for young talent.

If the White Sox were all about profit, they wouldn't have signed Dunn. It didn't increase ticket sales, even before fans came to think of him as a bust. I don't know that signing Abreu has been a profitable move, although if he fulfills his promise, the team will be more profitable. There have been some bad baseball decisions, but every team that tries to be competitive makes some bad business decisions.

You can be cynical about White Sox management and about the lack of a competitive team on the field, but if the White Sox were only about profit, they could have lost 99 games with a much smaller payroll.

If anything, I think White Sox management has been rather penny wise and dollar foolish in the last decade or so by not spending money on the draft and amateur talent. Trading for established veterans and signing free agents seems a more expensive tactic in the end.

TDog
11-07-2013, 09:27 PM
If anything, I think White Sox management has been rather penny wise and dollar foolish in the last decade or so by not spending money on the draft and amateur talent. Trading for established veterans and signing free agents seems a more expensive tactic in the end.

You could certainly make that argument and likely defend it. But finding fault with the White Sox for bad baseball decisions that turned out to be bad business decisions would be inconsistent with finding them "100 percent about profit."

WhiteSox5187
11-07-2013, 10:57 PM
If anything, I think White Sox management has been rather penny wise and dollar foolish in the last decade or so by not spending money on the draft and amateur talent. Trading for established veterans and signing free agents seems a more expensive tactic in the end.

That has been a hallmark of the White Sox for pretty much the entirety of JR's tenure.

TDog
11-07-2013, 11:34 PM
That has been a hallmark of the White Sox for pretty much the entirety of JR's tenure.

And most of major league baseball for the last 40 years.

slavko
11-07-2013, 11:36 PM
If anything, I think White Sox management has been rather penny wise and dollar foolish in the last decade or so by not spending money on the draft and amateur talent. Trading for established veterans and signing free agents seems a more expensive tactic in the end.

A whole lot of us want exactly this and post in favor of it. Don't want "to act like a small market team" etc. So some of us are going to beef, beef, beef no matter what they do.

I'll go with the "develop your own players and hold onto them as long as you can" method just on principle.

Noneck
11-08-2013, 12:23 AM
You can be cynical about White Sox management and about the lack of a competitive team on the field, but if the White Sox were only about profit, they could have lost 99 games with a much smaller payroll.

I never said i was cynical about the Sox having a competitive team on the field. I said as the Cubs, most MLB teams including the Sox are all about the bottom line. How they maximize this bottom differs from team to team. What the models are that teams are using, you or I dont know. Maximizing profits is goal of most businesses these days, Mlb franchises fall into this group.

TDog
11-08-2013, 02:29 AM
I never said i was cynical about the Sox having a competitive team on the field. I said as the Cubs, most MLB teams including the Sox are all about the bottom line. How they maximize this bottom differs from team to team. What the models are that teams are using, you or I dont know. Maximizing profits is goal of most businesses these days, Mlb franchises fall into this group.

If it were simply about the bottom line, the Sox wouldn't have signed Dunn. They wouldn't have traded for Peavy. They wouldn't have traded for Edwin Jackson. They wouldn't have signed Abreu. They wouldn't have picked up Rios on waivers.

You will find some disagreement over whether those moves were good baseball moves for the White Sox. But none of them are moves that would be made if it were "about the bottom line."

There was a time, a story is told, when the White Sox traded Ed Herrmann to make payroll. When a coach told Bill Veeck he couldn't afford to take a cab to the ballpark every day, a story goes, Veeck said he would take care of him and gave him tokens to ride the CTA. The Sporting News reported in 1970 that a rookie who broke his batting helmet after striking out was billed for the replacement, inspiring his teammates to take up a collection.

The current ownership is probably the least "bottom line" ownership the White Sox have ever had.

Noneck
11-08-2013, 02:52 AM
If it were simply about the bottom line, the Sox wouldn't have signed Dunn. They wouldn't have traded for Peavy. They wouldn't have traded for Edwin Jackson. They wouldn't have signed Abreu. They wouldn't have picked up Rios on waivers.

You will find some disagreement over whether those moves were good baseball moves for the White Sox. But none of them are moves that would be made if it were "about the bottom line."

There was a time, a story is told, when the White Sox traded Ed Herrmann to make payroll. When a coach told Bill Veeck he couldn't afford to take a cab to the ballpark every day, a story goes, Veeck said he would take care of him and gave him tokens to ride the CTA. The Sporting News reported in 1970 that a rookie who broke his batting helmet after striking out was billed for the replacement, inspiring his teammates to take up a collection.

The current ownership is probably the least "bottom line" ownership the White Sox have ever had.


There are many models to achieve the best bottom line, we are not privy to these. The Sox model may be to retain as much of a fan base as possible, having a poor boys payroll and team may not achieve this. Future Tv contracts probably come into play also. A team with a declining fan base would affect the worth a future Tv contract. Looking at signings and payroll is not the only means to see if a team is maximizing their bottom line. You mentioned the old days of making payroll, well those days are not here, all teams are making money hand over fist and have no problem with that. Teams look to maximize profits for the present and also the future. Sox ownership is going no where and have models to maximize their bottom line for both now and the future. If you believe differently, so be it but you wont convince me.

doublem23
11-08-2013, 07:02 AM
A whole lot of us want exactly this and post in favor of it. Don't want "to act like a small market team" etc. So some of us are going to beef, beef, beef no matter what they do.

I'll go with the "develop your own players and hold onto them as long as you can" method just on principle.

The dynamics of baseball have changed over the last decade, teams are willing to offer long contracts to young players early in their careers to lock them up and remove them from the free agent market. It's happening across the league, from "big market" to "small market" teams.

How baseball operated in say, 1975 is completely irrelevant to this discussion. There is no question the Sox are significantly behind most of the league's most competitive teams in terms of player development, drafting, and scouting. That's why we're coming off the 3rd worst season in the league and have one of the worst minor league systems in baseball.

TDog
11-08-2013, 01:37 PM
The dynamics of baseball have changed over the last decade, teams are willing to offer long contracts to young players early in their careers to lock them up and remove them from the free agent market. It's happening across the league, from "big market" to "small market" teams.

How baseball operated in say, 1975 is completely irrelevant to this discussion. There is no question the Sox are significantly behind most of the league's most competitive teams in terms of player development, drafting, and scouting. That's why we're coming off the 3rd worst season in the league and have one of the worst minor league systems in baseball.

It will be interesting to see how the trend of locking up young talent develops. It isn't without risk (see Alex Rios and the Blue Jays, their greatest hits collection being an EP). There are players who don't perform as well when they are financially secure. There also are players who decline because of injury or the rigors of major league baseball.

Mostly teams are buying out arbitration years. And the higher pay for younger players probably affects what other players will make in arbitration because a team has exclusive rights, or at least first refusal, for six season. I'm not so sure that by the time most players reach free agency their best years will be behind them. Examples aren't hard to find.

It's a long way from 1975 where baseball was coming off of a decade of an amateur draft and the reserve clause, allowing someone as underfunded as Charlie Finley to establish a dynasty.

BigKlu59
11-09-2013, 12:40 PM
To anyone who knows, how do these team-owned networks like YES fill up their content when they don't have ball games to air? Is it all re-runs of sports events they own the rights to, or what? I've wondered that. If you have to go buy or license or create content beyond the ball games, that would seem to eat into the profits, yet you always hear that these networks are hugely profitable to the team.

In this area, MASN airs almost all the local teams aside from the 'skins. They also air college sports, both local and national, and have local sports talk shows. I know YES does the same, and adds the Italian Serie A to their lineup as well.

Yup, and dont forget Yankeeography and the Talk Shows. The NYC "Fan" broadcast with Francesa runs for 5 hrs.. NESN is BoSox based with Bruins, Celtics and college hockey, BC, BU Football etc... They've got their Yap Gurus, Callahan and Co with a bitch fest as well.

BK59

Steelrod
11-09-2013, 04:43 PM
Doesn't the Tribune still own 5% of the Cubs?