PDA

View Full Version : Irrelevant because of the ballpark


Greg1983
09-05-2003, 02:30 PM
I've seen this hinted at in some of the other threads, but none that dealt with this topic specifically:

The Sox are in danger of irrelevance, especially if the Cubs outperform them this season, principally because JR decided to build a cheap, awful ballpark in 1990.

Look, I like the Cell. I think it's fine. I like the easy access off the Red Line, I like the food, I like the fact that it's no-frills. I don't even mind the upper deck, which in reality is not much steeper or higher than any of the new ballparks.

But it is a bland facility in a part of town where no one would otherwise go and where there is nothing else to do. Wrigley and Wrigleyville are attractions and landmarks all by themselves. JR might have had an opportunity to develop something similar on the South Side had he pursued the Armour Field designs you can read about right here on WSI. But he pissed away that opportunity and refused to spend a dime other than taxpayer money in building the new stadium.

The franchise and the fan base are paying the price now. Had the finished product looked more like the Armour Field designs, the Sox/Cubs balance in Chicago might have been very, very different.

Obviously, the ballpark itself doesn't solve everything; ask the folks in Pittsburgh and Detroit. But there's no way a first-place Sox team, even the inconsistent, poorly-managed one of 2003, would struggle to draw 20,000 if they played in a nicer ballpark closer to the Loop or someplace else scenic. The Sox will always be at a disadvantage as long as they play at the Cell...and there's no All Star Game or naming rights or coat of paint that will fix that.

:(:

Randar68
09-05-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Greg1983
I've seen this hinted at in some of the other threads, but none that dealt with this topic specifically:

The Sox are in danger of irrelevance, especially if the Cubs outperform them this season, principally because JR decided to build a cheap, awful ballpark in 1990.

Look, I like the Cell. I think it's fine. I like the easy access off the Red Line, I like the food, I like the fact that it's no-frills. I don't even mind the upper deck, which in reality is not much steeper or higher than any of the new ballparks.

But it is a bland facility in a part of town where no one would otherwise go and where there is nothing else to do. Wrigley and Wrigleyville are attractions and landmarks all by themselves. JR might have had an opportunity to develop something similar on the South Side had he pursued the Armour Field designs you can read about right here on WSI. But he pissed away that opportunity and refused to spend a dime other than taxpayer money in building the new stadium.

The franchise and the fan base are paying the price now. Had the finished product looked more like the Armour Field designs, the Sox/Cubs balance in Chicago might have been very, very different.

Obviously, the ballpark itself doesn't solve everything; ask the folks in Pittsburgh and Detroit. But there's no way a first-place Sox team, even the inconsistent, poorly-managed one of 2003, would struggle to draw 20,000 if they played in a nicer ballpark closer to the Loop or someplace else scenic. The Sox will always be at a disadvantage as long as they play at the Cell...and there's no All Star Game or naming rights or coat of paint that will fix that.

:(:



JESUS CHRIST! Get over it people. Support this team or don't, frankly I don't care, but this horse was beaten to death long ago.

MOVE ON!

voodoochile
09-05-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Greg1983
I've seen this hinted at in some of the other threads, but none that dealt with this topic specifically:

The Sox are in danger of irrelevance, especially if the Cubs outperform them this season, principally because JR decided to build a cheap, awful ballpark in 1990.

Look, I like the Cell. I think it's fine. I like the easy access off the Red Line, I like the food, I like the fact that it's no-frills. I don't even mind the upper deck, which in reality is not much steeper or higher than any of the new ballparks.

But it is a bland facility in a part of town where no one would otherwise go and where there is nothing else to do. Wrigley and Wrigleyville are attractions and landmarks all by themselves. JR might have had an opportunity to develop something similar on the South Side had he pursued the Armour Field designs you can read about right here on WSI. But he pissed away that opportunity and refused to spend a dime other than taxpayer money in building the new stadium.

The franchise and the fan base are paying the price now. Had the finished product looked more like the Armour Field designs, the Sox/Cubs balance in Chicago might have been very, very different.

Obviously, the ballpark itself doesn't solve everything; ask the folks in Pittsburgh and Detroit. But there's no way a first-place Sox team, even the inconsistent, poorly-managed one of 2003, would struggle to draw 20,000 if they played in a nicer ballpark closer to the Loop or someplace else scenic. The Sox will always be at a disadvantage as long as they play at the Cell...and there's no All Star Game or naming rights or coat of paint that will fix that.

:(:

It has less to do with the ballpark and more to do with the horrible PR that JR himself has been part of this past decade in particular, but also prior to that.

The area is improving and the ballpark is no longer so bland and there are more changes planned, so many of your complaints are being fixed.

Yes, the flubbies do a better job of marketing their main attraction, Wrigley Field.

Greg1983
09-05-2003, 02:36 PM
OBTW...isn't there, like, 8 million people in the Chicago metro area? I might have screwed up my math, but even to draw 30,000 to the ballpark, the Sox would only need to attract about 3/10 of 1% of the region's population. How sad is this?

thepaulbowski
09-05-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
JESUS CHRIST! Get over it people. Support this team or don't, frankly I don't care, but this horse was beaten to death long ago.

MOVE ON!

I wish they would do the same with the fire JM threads.

voodoochile
09-05-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Randar68




JESUS CHRIST! Get over it people. Support this team or don't, frankly I don't care, but this horse was beaten to death long ago.

MOVE ON!


Originally posted by thepaulbowski


I wish they would do the same with the fire JM threads.


Well, the ballpark was opened 13+ years ago. Last time I checked JM was still manager. I promise to stop dogging JM the minute the Sox win the pennant or he is fired.

jabrch
09-05-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Greg1983
I've seen this hinted at in some of the other threads, but none that dealt with this topic specifically:

The Sox are in danger of irrelevance, especially if the Cubs outperform them this season, principally because JR decided to build a cheap, awful ballpark in 1990.

Look, I like the Cell. I think it's fine. I like the easy access off the Red Line, I like the food, I like the fact that it's no-frills. I don't even mind the upper deck, which in reality is not much steeper or higher than any of the new ballparks.

But it is a bland facility in a part of town where no one would otherwise go and where there is nothing else to do. Wrigley and Wrigleyville are attractions and landmarks all by themselves. JR might have had an opportunity to develop something similar on the South Side had he pursued the Armour Field designs you can read about right here on WSI. But he pissed away that opportunity and refused to spend a dime other than taxpayer money in building the new stadium.

The franchise and the fan base are paying the price now. Had the finished product looked more like the Armour Field designs, the Sox/Cubs balance in Chicago might have been very, very different.

Obviously, the ballpark itself doesn't solve everything; ask the folks in Pittsburgh and Detroit. But there's no way a first-place Sox team, even the inconsistent, poorly-managed one of 2003, would struggle to draw 20,000 if they played in a nicer ballpark closer to the Loop or someplace else scenic. The Sox will always be at a disadvantage as long as they play at the Cell...and there's no All Star Game or naming rights or coat of paint that will fix that.

:(:

To put it politely, that's hogwash. This team supported the Sox for a long time when they were a fan friendly organization with a solid marketing plan. During that time, the Cubs were lucky to draw 15,000 people, the bleachers were empty and the team stunk. This has been beaten to death on this site, but JR is not to blame for fans not coming to the facility that we have. 15 minutes outside of the loop we have a gorgeous stadium with excellent amenities. People aren't coming not because of the location of the park...they aren't coming because, other than the diehard sox fans like us, the organization has not endeared itself in the hearts of this city the same way the Cubs have. That's the bottom line... Put the team on Ch 44, put the team on SportsVision, put it on FoxSports. Make it harder for young fans to ever watch games on TV. Don't market to an entire generation of kids while the Tribune Co. excells in building the Wrigley Field Experience and fans will be Sox fans - not Cubs fans. There is no magic cure for this. Only time and winning will bring more people back. JR has to get us a winner first. No more will Sox fans buy into his crapola about not being able to do it cuz of fan support. He needs to, for an entire season; not just in the second half, spend the money it takes to bring winning baseball to the South Side. If the Sox were 15 games up on this division and had a locked playoff spot, I guarantee there'd be more people showing up. Fickle fans, as everyone except the 15,000 or so diehard Sox fans that are out there, won't trust JR until he does it on the field. This year is a step in the right direction. I still have hope that we win the ALCentral this year and have a shot in the playoffs. But in order to repair the longterm fan issues we have, Jerry needs to be turning his plans to next year. (clarifying...the baseball people should be trying to win this year, but those with bigger picture organizational responsibility need to start to focus on next season and on keeping/acquiring the players we need.)

cheeses_h_rice
09-05-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Greg1983
I've seen this hinted at in some of the other threads, but none that dealt with this topic specifically:

The Sox are in danger of irrelevance, especially if the Cubs outperform them this season, principally because JR decided to build a cheap, awful ballpark in 1990.

Look, I like the Cell. I think it's fine. I like the easy access off the Red Line, I like the food, I like the fact that it's no-frills. I don't even mind the upper deck, which in reality is not much steeper or higher than any of the new ballparks.

But it is a bland facility in a part of town where no one would otherwise go and where there is nothing else to do. Wrigley and Wrigleyville are attractions and landmarks all by themselves. JR might have had an opportunity to develop something similar on the South Side had he pursued the Armour Field designs you can read about right here on WSI. But he pissed away that opportunity and refused to spend a dime other than taxpayer money in building the new stadium.

The franchise and the fan base are paying the price now. Had the finished product looked more like the Armour Field designs, the Sox/Cubs balance in Chicago might have been very, very different.

Obviously, the ballpark itself doesn't solve everything; ask the folks in Pittsburgh and Detroit. But there's no way a first-place Sox team, even the inconsistent, poorly-managed one of 2003, would struggle to draw 20,000 if they played in a nicer ballpark closer to the Loop or someplace else scenic. The Sox will always be at a disadvantage as long as they play at the Cell...and there's no All Star Game or naming rights or coat of paint that will fix that.

:(:

I really wish people would quit harping on 2 NIGHTS of only 20,000 attendance. Yeesh. Maybe it was just "one of those things", you know? I know that I wasn't at the games; I went to a pair of games a week or two previous to that, and I'll be heading out this weekend and probably once against the Twins this week and again against the Yanks next week. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if we averaged 28-30K per game the rest of the year, which isn't bad at all.

hose
09-05-2003, 03:04 PM
I think some day in the future the golden years of MLB attendance will be looked back as the 90's and 2000's.

Baby boomers with money to burn and less of them having children plus the addition of new parks has sparked attendance to record levels. The next generation of blue collar and white collar fans may not be willing to spend their harder to come by money as willing or as often.

Factor in more and more 3rd World immigrants making up the face of the USA that have no allegiance or knowledge of baseball and I think the "golden years" for attendance are now.

THE_HOOTER
09-05-2003, 03:05 PM
While I agree with a couple of your points, I strongly disagree with the statement that the Sox were strongly followed by many fans for a long time.

1990-1994 is hardly a long time.

The stadium is boring-it's more like a football stadium. I like it, but I won't go to a game and sit upstairs.


The only time this topic really bothered me was in 2000, I went to the last Friday night game against K.C., and there were 13,000 people paid attendance.

That was absolutelt embarrassing. If we dont have over 30,000 this weekend, its a shame.

I have come to the conclusion that the casual Sox fan is cheap, and a bad fan. The casual Sox fan does not go to the park-he watches it in the bar or at home.

We just dont have that many good fans anymore, and we sure as hell arent going to draw tourists.

soxrme
09-05-2003, 03:09 PM
I agree with a previous post that the Sox have brought alot of problems on themselves with pathetic PR decisions and so on. Lets all get over it and support them.
I do have a question I hope somebody here or someone in the Sox ticket office can answer. They announced that all the bleacher seats were sold for the two Boston games but they looked pretty empty to me. Where all those people no shows? I really find that hard to believe. Historically 23,000 for a Tues, Wed is not bad.

Randar68
09-05-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Greg1983
I've seen this hinted at in some of the other threads, but none that dealt with this topic specifically:

The Sox are in danger of irrelevance, especially if the Cubs outperform them this season, principally because JR decided to build a cheap, awful ballpark in 1990.

Look, I like the Cell. I think it's fine. I like the easy access off the Red Line, I like the food, I like the fact that it's no-frills. I don't even mind the upper deck, which in reality is not much steeper or higher than any of the new ballparks.

But it is a bland facility in a part of town where no one would otherwise go and where there is nothing else to do. Wrigley and Wrigleyville are attractions and landmarks all by themselves. JR might have had an opportunity to develop something similar on the South Side had he pursued the Armour Field designs you can read about right here on WSI. But he pissed away that opportunity and refused to spend a dime other than taxpayer money in building the new stadium.

The franchise and the fan base are paying the price now. Had the finished product looked more like the Armour Field designs, the Sox/Cubs balance in Chicago might have been very, very different.

Obviously, the ballpark itself doesn't solve everything; ask the folks in Pittsburgh and Detroit. But there's no way a first-place Sox team, even the inconsistent, poorly-managed one of 2003, would struggle to draw 20,000 if they played in a nicer ballpark closer to the Loop or someplace else scenic. The Sox will always be at a disadvantage as long as they play at the Cell...and there's no All Star Game or naming rights or coat of paint that will fix that.

:(:

:troll

maurice
09-05-2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by hose
Factor in more and more 3rd World immigrants making up the face of the USA that have no allegiance or knowledge of baseball and I think the "golden years" for attendance are now.

I agree with your comment re. baby boomers, but a recent immigrant from Mexico is far more likely to appreciate and understand baseball than a European immigrant of any era.

Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
The casual Sox fan

I'm not sure that such a creature exists. It seems to me that the Chicago area is made up of four groups: (1) Sox fans who attend Sox games, (2) Cubs fans who attend Cubs games, (3) casual generic baseball fans who attend Sox or Cubs games, and (4) folks who rarely or never attend any baseball games. Since group #1 and group #2 are small compared to the other two groups, the group that determines relative attendence is #3. It's also the group least likely to be affected by the relative performance of the teams and most likely to be affected by which team is better marketed and idiotic misperceptons of the neighborhoods, hence the current situation. It also explains why a spike in attendence for either team results in a disturbing increase in clueless types like the poster who started this thread.

LuvSox
09-05-2003, 03:18 PM
You knew this was coming......


:threadsucks

Randar68
09-05-2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by maurice
It also explains why a spike in attendence for either team results in a disturbing increase in clueless types like the poster who started this thread.


LOL!!! POTW!

anewman35
09-05-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile

The area is improving and the ballpark is no longer so bland and there are more changes planned, so many of your complaints are being fixed.


I was just thinking today, has anybody heard anything recently about changes for next year? It's getting to that time of year when we usually have at least some idea of what's happening, so somebody must know something, right?

FJA
09-05-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Greg1983
I've seen this hinted at in some of the other threads, but none that dealt with this topic specifically:

The Sox are in danger of irrelevance, especially if the Cubs outperform them this season, principally because JR decided to build a cheap, awful ballpark in 1990.

Look, I like the Cell. I think it's fine. I like the easy access off the Red Line, I like the food, I like the fact that it's no-frills. I don't even mind the upper deck, which in reality is not much steeper or higher than any of the new ballparks.

But it is a bland facility in a part of town where no one would otherwise go and where there is nothing else to do. Wrigley and Wrigleyville are attractions and landmarks all by themselves. JR might have had an opportunity to develop something similar on the South Side had he pursued the Armour Field designs you can read about right here on WSI. But he pissed away that opportunity and refused to spend a dime other than taxpayer money in building the new stadium.

The franchise and the fan base are paying the price now. Had the finished product looked more like the Armour Field designs, the Sox/Cubs balance in Chicago might have been very, very different.

Obviously, the ballpark itself doesn't solve everything; ask the folks in Pittsburgh and Detroit. But there's no way a first-place Sox team, even the inconsistent, poorly-managed one of 2003, would struggle to draw 20,000 if they played in a nicer ballpark closer to the Loop or someplace else scenic. The Sox will always be at a disadvantage as long as they play at the Cell...and there's no All Star Game or naming rights or coat of paint that will fix that.

:(:

You guys are being way too rough on Greg, here. All he's saying is that a design more like Armour Field would attract more fans. This is probably true, because the Armour Field design has a lot to do with developing the area outside the ballpark ... it was a more "intimate," neighborhood-type design. The Cell is essentially a suburban park (hence all the parking lots) placed in a city neighborhood. The essential problem in attracting non-Sox fans to the neighborhood? Not many surrounding businesses (and the bad traffic that goes along with a city), and the park itself, while much nicer than in 1991, still is a relatively ugly park. While fans come to see the game on the field, non-fans come to experience the ballpark. Armour Park attempted to address that concern.

Ask almost any Flub fan why they are a Flub fan, and I GUARANTEE "Beautiful Wrigley Field" is in the the top three reasons. Ask any baseball fan who is not a Flub fan what is the first thing they think of when they hear the word "Cubs," I'd be willing to bet "Beautiful Wrigley Field" is a top answer there too. One of the main reasons people like going to Wrigley is that they can go out to eat or get so drunk that they don't even realize how awful the inside of the park really is. Another reason is that the park blends right into its neighborhood. While the Cell's parking lots are incredibly convenient, they don't give it a whole lot of character.

Greg said he goes to the Cell and HE likes it. I do too ... I go very often. But if you don't think a great ballpark would attract more fans, you're nuts (or clueless, as someone else already posted). I have friends who aren't Sox fans like many of us, who just don't like the ballpark and aren't inspired to go to a game unless someone else--a fan--asks them first. THOSE are the people we somehow need to get into the park ... the people who don't necessarily consider themselves all-out baseball fans, but who enjoy the experience of a baseball game at the Cell. The Cell, while nice, is not yet a great ballpark. I think some of the changes are pointing it in that direction, and it's a lot better than most people give it credit for, but it is not yet a great ballpark. I have quite a few Sox fan friends who are architects (you read that right ... they're Sox fans before they're architects :smile: ), and while they love the team and continue to go to Sox games, they believe Comiskey is a travesty in the architecture department. They all like the proposed improvements, but was Comiskey a cheap, awful ballpark, especially in 1991? Absolutely.

To respond to those of you who say this topic has been beaten to death, it has. We've been talking about why the Sox are becoming irrelevant, though, and I think the ballpark has something to do with it. Are the Sox marketed correctly, no, but it would be a hell of a lot easier to market a baseball team if there was a better ballpark on the South Side. The Cubs have done a brilliant job marketing nothing other than their ballpark for years. Finally they have a team on the field that is winning, but you look back at Cubs commercials and newspaper advertisements from the beginning of the season, it's all about Wrigley Field. It's hard to market the Cell, because the fact remains, not a lot of outsiders like it. That is a valid problem, especially when we're talking about irrelevance ... not worth jumping on someone over.

A.T. Money
09-05-2003, 04:41 PM
This ballpark thing is BS.

Ever been to Dodger Stadium? There isn't a whole lot around it either. You drive up this hill, there are gates like you're going to Great America, then you drive around the stadium to the back where the big lot is. There is also a gas station in the lot.

They are in the top 5 in attendance every year.

So it's not all about the ballpark. And I really hope that they fix up the upperdeck, and put green seats in there. I want to see what the excuse is then.

FJA
09-05-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
This ballpark thing is BS.

Ever been to Dodger Stadium? There isn't a whole lot around it either. You drive up this hill, there are gates like you're going to Great America, then you drive around the stadium to the back where the big lot is. There is also a gas station in the lot.

They are in the top 5 in attendance every year.

So it's not all about the ballpark. And I really hope that they fix up the upperdeck, and put green seats in there. I want to see what the excuse is then.

You're exactly right about the green seats and the upper deck ... those are major complaints, and people should put their money where their mouth is if those changes are made.

I never said it's all about the ballpark, either. But when you have all the bad JR PR, a ballpark that a lot of people don't like certainly won't help your cause. It makes a bad situation worse.

hose
09-05-2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by maurice
I agree with your comment re. baby boomers, but a recent immigrant from Mexico is far more likely to appreciate and understand baseball than a European immigrant of any era.


I would count Mexicans as 3rd Worlders with a huge allegiance and knowledge of baseball. They have been playing baseball for years in Mexico and until recently their stars all stayed down in Mexico to play. The Sox were one of the first teams to pry Mexican players to play up north. Believe it or not but Jorge Orta was I believe the only Mexican ball player in MLB when he was with the White Sox in 1972. Franciso Barrios followed Orta a couple years later but it was few and far between to see a Mexican in MLB. Now that has all changed with the huge money being paid to major league ballplayers . Mexican players were willing to leave their comfort zone in order to go after the big bucks.

I should have specified immigrants from Africa, India/Pakistan, Eastern Europe, ect., that don't have a clue about baseball.

maurice
09-05-2003, 05:08 PM
The notion that the attendence disparity exists "principally because JR decided to build a cheap, awful ballpark in 1990" is nonsense, as many posters have pointed out in this thread and elsewhere. Bad marketing and PR are much more significant. The issue has been beaten to death. For this reason, flaming is entirely appropriate.

Originally posted by FJA
The Cell is essentially a suburban park (hence all the parking lots) placed in a city neighborhood. The essential problem in attracting non-Sox fans to the neighborhood? Not many surrounding businesses . . . While the Cell's parking lots are incredibly convenient, they don't give it a whole lot of character.

This easily can be corrected without going back in time and building a different park or the same park in a different location. You seem to agree. I've advocated buildng storefronts along 35th St. and on Wentworth on portions of the publicly owned parking lots.

Ask almost any Flub fan why they are a Flub fan, and I GUARANTEE "Beautiful Wrigley Field" is in the the top three reasons. Ask any baseball fan who is not a Flub fan what is the first thing they think of when they hear the word "Cubs," I'd be willing to bet "Beautiful Wrigley Field" is a top answer there too.

Thanks for proving my point. Wrigley is a dump. While the Cell certainly is less than perfect, it's a much nicer park than Wrigley. The notion of "Beautiful Wrigley Field" is a marketing ploy. Baseball fans attend Wrigley rather than the Cell, not because they love the Cubs and hate the Sox, but because the Cubs receive better marketing and media attention (and because they don't mind drinking overpriced Old Style and peeing in the sink).

Perception becomes reality in the mind of Joe average dumbass. Facts be damned.

hose
09-05-2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Perception becomes reality in the mind of Joe average dumbass. Facts be damned.


Maurice I couldn't agree with you more here is an example.


I have worked with a couple of guys that HATE baseball and don't hold back their feelings about it whenever the occasion comes up during a coffee break or lunch when the discussion is on sports.

One guy in particular stated he would be caught dead before he would attend any professional baseball game. It wasn't a Sox/Cub thing , just a dislike for baseball.

Last summer the same guy comes into work on a Monday morning raving about all the babes he seen at Wrigley during Sunday's game. I and all the other guys were stunned to hear that not only did he go to a baseball game but he was already making plans to attend another game at Wrigley. :o:

Paulwny
09-05-2003, 06:12 PM
Is the design of the stadium all JR's fault?
This may have been the best for the amt. of money the Ill Leg alloted him. I remember that many legislators were against any stadium and many wore cardinal caps when the issue was to be debated.

SouthBendSox
09-05-2003, 06:54 PM
the Sox are in 3rd in attendence in the Al Central

make of that what you will

MisterB
09-05-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Is the design of the stadium all JR's fault?
This may have been the best for the amt. of money the Ill Leg alloted him. I remember that many legislators were against any stadium and many wore cardinal caps when the issue was to be debated.

The current ballpark was originally designed for the Sox' aborted move to Addison in the mid 80's. The design dictated the amount of money involved, not the other way around. The legislature funded the park that the Sox brass wanted. If Reinsdorf had waited a couple of years before extorting the State, the design might have been reconsidered in light of the popularity of Camden Yards, but oh well...

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by MisterB
The current ballpark was originally designed for the Sox' aborted move to Addison in the mid 80's. The design dictated the amount of money involved, not the other way around. The legislature funded the park that the Sox brass wanted. If Reinsdorf had waited a couple of years before extorting the State, the design might have been reconsidered in light of the popularity of Camden Yards, but oh well...

Very true. Here are a few other salient points to consider.

1. The Sox were pissed that the Illinois politicians took so long to approve the stadium funding deal. They insisted that the new ballpark be available by opening day, 1991 because they were "losing" money. The St. Pete deal would have had the Sox rolling in the dough in Florida two years earlier.

2. HOK was the architectural firm for Camden, too. The Sox could have easily "stolen" some of the Camden ideas before building New Comiskey, but their priorities were elsewhere (see point #1).

3. New Comiskey's design was never meant to be built at 35th & Shields. It was meant to be built at Swift & Lake in Addison. That's why the ballpark is wedged into Chicago's street grid. The Gate 5 ramps were built on the far side of 35th, and Shields Avenue south of 35th was obliterated.

4. The Sox permitted no changes to the design that might have delayed an April, 1991 completion date. All alternate proposals (like Philip Bess' Armour Field proposal found here (http://whitesoxinteractive.com/FixComiskey/Bess/Conversation1.htm/) at WSI) were shot down without serious public discussion.

5. The upper deck is so high because the Sox thought seats along the baselines would command a better price--thus 29 rows were added. The tilt is so steep so the seats could be as close to the action as possible while not having posts on the lower deck. The height is so outrageous because three decks separate the upper deck from the main bowl--mostly filled with Rein$dorf's Diamond Suites.

You $ really $ get $ an $ idea $ where $ the $ White Sox $ priorities $ were $ when $ the $ new $ ballpark $ was $ being $ designed $ and $ built.

anewman35
09-05-2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

You $ really $ get $ an $ idea $ where $ the $ White Sox $ priorities $ were $ when $ the $ new $ ballpark $ was $ being $ designed $ and $ built.

I know I'm going to get slammed for this, but...

Can you really blame them?

We all love the White Sox and want them to win. However, to JR and his partners, the White Sox are a buisness. It's easy to say "spend more money" when it's not your money. I'm sure JR wants to win, but I'm sure he also wants to make as much money as he can, and I don't see how he really can be faulted for this.

Or maybe that's just my useless Economics degree talking :gulp:

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
I know I'm going to get slammed for this, but...

Can you really blame them?

We all love the White Sox and want them to win. However, to JR and his partners, the White Sox are a buisness. It's easy to say "spend more money" when it's not your money. I'm sure JR wants to win, but I'm sure he also wants to make as much money as he can, and I don't see how he really can be faulted for this.

Or maybe that's just my useless Economics degree talking :gulp:

Hey, nobody is more a running dog capitalist pig than I am. :smile:

It's pretty obvious the poor design of New Comiskey has costed the Sox millions in unrealized revenue. Besides the opportunity costs (you like how I slipped that one in there? :smile: ), the Sox have needed to pay for several million dollars in renovations to a ballpark that hasn't reached its 13th birthday. Those aren't illusory dollars their spending.

:reinsy
"You're right. The dollars we spend come from the State and U.S. Cellular Communications. Bwahahahahaha!"

Daver
09-05-2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
I know I'm going to get slammed for this, but...

Can you really blame them?

We all love the White Sox and want them to win. However, to JR and his partners, the White Sox are a buisness. It's easy to say "spend more money" when it's not your money. I'm sure JR wants to win, but I'm sure he also wants to make as much money as he can, and I don't see how he really can be faulted for this.

Or maybe that's just my useless Economics degree talking :gulp:

The problem that Sox fans have with JR is twofold,he will not spend money on the team because of the attendance being low,even though he pays nothing in rent if the attendance per year is below two million fans.

Then he uses the same low attendance numbers to say the team can't afford to increase payroll,although I would be willing to bet that the Sox (as well as almost EVERY MLB team) turns a profit every year,yet that profit will never show up on the books.

JR deserves to make a profit off of his business,but don't outright lie to your fans while pocketing the cash.

Lip Man 1
09-05-2003, 11:12 PM
The book "Ballpark: The Story Of The Building of Camden Yards," has an entire chapter devoted to the building of the new Comiskey Park.

In that chapter the HOK company is quoted as stating that they offered Uncle Jerry a design similar to Camden Yards BUT HE TURNED THEM DOWN.

They specifically said him, not an associate or a flunky but him.

Lip

TommyJohn
09-05-2003, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by hose


I should have specified immigrants from Africa, India/Pakistan, Eastern Europe, ect., that don't have a clue about baseball.

I do know a guy from Pakistan who works where I work. He
loves baseball and he's a Cub fan.

TornLabrum
09-05-2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by TommyJohn
He loves baseball and he's a Cub fan.

That's gotta be an oxymoron.

hose
09-05-2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by TommyJohn
I do know a guy from Pakistan who works where I work. He
loves baseball and he's a Cub fan.


Still haven't seen a fan in a sari yet at the Cell :D:

From the deepest corners of the earth the Cubs are attracting fans, even Robert Mugabe has pennant fever.

RichH55
09-06-2003, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by hose
Still haven't seen a fan in a sari yet at the Cell :D:

From the deepest corners of the earth the Cubs are attracting fans, even Robert Mugabe has pennant fever.


Nice Zimbabwe reference....unforunately long time cub fan Idi Amin is no longer with the club, but he and Mobutu Sese Seko are said to be in the team's prayers

Greg1983
09-06-2003, 09:31 AM
I had no idea I'd get flamed so badly. A couple of quick points:

An earlier thread was discussing the possibility of 2003 being the year the Sox become irrelevant, especially if the Cubs make/win the World Series.

My main argument is that the ballpark issues have not gone away. And anyone who thinks these issues are somehow no longer relevant to the survival of the Sox franchise in Chicago is seriously deluded.

The Cubs have routinely outdrawn the Sox, even in the 1993 Division Championship year. In general there is no "marketing plan" in the sports business like winning, but it doesn't seem to help much on the South Side.

Spare me the nonsense about the Cell being "better" than Wrigley. As I said myself, I like the Cell fine. But if you can muster just an ounce of detachment and objectivity, you'll see there is no way the Cell can compete with one of the great meccas of baseball and one of the great landmarks of Chicago. And hell, I don't even care for Wrigley myself. I do prefer the Cell. But you don't fill ballparks with guys like us; you get 40% guys like us, and fill the rest with families and out-of-towners looking for entertainment.

In other words, I'm not disagreeing with you that JR's poor markeitng/PR is the cause of the Sox troubles. But I am definitely arguing that new Comiskey was one of those marketing blunders. And I think it's sad how so many of the flamers appear to know very little about the history of the new ballpark as they call other people morons. Read a book, why don't you?

Right or wrong, people think Wrigley Field is a shrine. You can't build a HoJo next to the Waldorf-Astoria and compete. Likewise, you can't build a suburban ball-mall 7 miles from one of the most popular ballparks in the history of the game and compete. If the Sox are to stay in Chicago for the long-term, these ballpark issues will have to be revisited. Wouldn't surprise me at all if the Sox start pressing for a new stadium within the next 10-15 years. And trust me, sports leases are never ironclad.

To the ruder, more hostile people:

Funny how similar you guys are to Reinsdorf. He repels the fans, you discourage new people from posting on WSI, and it's all because you don't know how to treat people with even a modicum of civility and respect. You guys and Reinsdorf really deserve each other.

OBTW...I really love the Sox. Sorry if anything in my post obscured that. I'd go see them at goddamn South Side Park if they rebuilt it.

Greg1983

voodoochile
09-06-2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Greg1983
To the ruder, more hostile people:

Funny how similar you guys are to Reinsdorf. He repels the fans, you discourage new people from posting on WSI, and it's all because you don't know how to treat people with even a modicum of civility and respect. You guys and Reinsdorf really deserve each other.

OBTW...I really love the Sox. Sorry if anything in my post obscured that. I'd go see them at goddamn South Side Park if they rebuilt it.

Greg1983

It's just that this topic has been beaten to death and back alive again here and people are sick of it. Also, your post comes across as whiney, because there isn't a damn thing anyone can do short of inventing a time machine to fix the problem. You also ignore the several other reasons that fans don't attend the park and blame it all on the park, giving Jerry a free ride when he doesn't deserve one (see PHG's post in particular for a better understanding of why this is true).

There are more posters at WSI than at any time in the past, so I seriously anyone is being chased off unless they have an awfully thin skin.

anewman35
09-06-2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by TommyJohn
I do know a guy from Pakistan who works where I work. He
loves baseball and he's a Cub fan.

Heh, I know a guy from Pakistan too, and (in large part because of me), he's the only other Sox fan in the office. He says he just got annoyed with how everybody else loved the Cubs so much and wanted to be different.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Greg1983
I've seen this hinted at in some of the other threads, but none that dealt with this topic specifically:

The Sox are in danger of irrelevance, especially if the Cubs outperform them this season, principally because JR decided to build a cheap, awful ballpark in 1990.

Look, I like the Cell. I think it's fine. I like the easy access off the Red Line, I like the food, I like the fact that it's no-frills. I don't even mind the upper deck, which in reality is not much steeper or higher than any of the new ballparks.

But it is a bland facility in a part of town where no one would otherwise go and where there is nothing else to do. Wrigley and Wrigleyville are attractions and landmarks all by themselves. JR might have had an opportunity to develop something similar on the South Side had he pursued the Armour Field designs you can read about right here on WSI. But he pissed away that opportunity and refused to spend a dime other than taxpayer money in building the new stadium.

The franchise and the fan base are paying the price now. Had the finished product looked more like the Armour Field designs, the Sox/Cubs balance in Chicago might have been very, very different.

Obviously, the ballpark itself doesn't solve everything; ask the folks in Pittsburgh and Detroit. But there's no way a first-place Sox team, even the inconsistent, poorly-managed one of 2003, would struggle to draw 20,000 if they played in a nicer ballpark closer to the Loop or someplace else scenic. The Sox will always be at a disadvantage as long as they play at the Cell...and there's no All Star Game or naming rights or coat of paint that will fix that.

:(:

I'm quoting your original post because I agree you've been handled a bit unfairly in many of the subsequent replies.

The White Sox wanted a new ballpark. The White Sox wanted a ballpark of their own design. The White Sox wanted to make more money, and the new ballpark was central to their strategy--both for fielding a competitive team and dropping profits to the bottom line. The White Sox wanted the taxpayers to pay for the new stadium, and after years of political wrangling and public threats, they got their way. The ONLY thing the Sox didn't get was their original location--in Addison. The Sox voluntary stepped away from this earlier preference (after voters in Addison narrowly voted "no" in a non-binding referendum), so I would argue that was no concession at all.

In other words, the Sox got EXACTLY what they wanted.

To suggest New Comiskey Park has been anything other than the worst new ballpark of the last 20 years is to be in complete denial of reality. The Sox and the State have spent tens of millions of dollars already just to fix the most obvious flaws in the Sox' design. The ballpark hasn't even reached its 13th birthday! Meanwhile the biggest flaw (the upper deck) remains beyond anyone's budget to correct. All of this was 100 percent avoidable and 100 percent the fault of the White Sox that it happened anyway.

The Sox FAILED to generate the added revenue from their new ballpark even though they got EXACTLY what they wanted. Once the novelty wore off-- helped along immensely by Reinsdorf himself in 1994 and 1997-- the new ballpark failed to deliver even its most important revenue stream: EMPTY Diamond Suites. Do you people realize there are still Diamond Suite spaces left unfinished--because in the 13 years since the ballpark opened there has NEVER been demand for the Sox to complete them? This is a travesty and mismanagment of the first order!

The people who post here love the Cell. I'm one of them. However that ballpark has become a financial albatross for the franchise that is totally, utterly, and unequivocally a burden of their own making. Get over it...

And for chrissakes-- for the millionth time-- stop blaming the fans!

anewman35
09-06-2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The book "Ballpark: The Story Of The Building of Camden Yards," has an entire chapter devoted to the building of the new Comiskey Park.

In that chapter the HOK company is quoted as stating that they offered Uncle Jerry a design similar to Camden Yards BUT HE TURNED THEM DOWN.

They specifically said him, not an associate or a flunky but him.

Lip

Yes, in retrospect this looks like a horrible decision. But you have to remember, back in 89 or whatever, nobody had built a new baseball-only park in over a decade, nobody knew that retro was the wave of the future. Could have have guessed that? Probably, if he'd looked at the example of the horrible parks from the 60s. But still, it wasn't as simple a decision as it might seem now, there was every chance the whole retro ballpark thing could fail and have people wishing they'd went for a brand new ultra-modern thing they did go for.

anewman35
09-06-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

To suggest New Comiskey Park has been anything other than the worst new ballpark of the last 20 years is to be in complete denial of reality.

You're probably not counting it, but come on, worse than Tropicana Field?

Anyway, it would be different if it had been built in, say, 1994, and they saw Camden Yards be the huge hit it was. But it wasn't, it was the very first of the new parks (well, SkyDome, but again that's hardly comparable). They took a chance, it failed. In any industry or buisness, the first people to do something are taking a risk. If what they do fails, they look like idiots, if it turns out great, they are visionaries. Yes, the White Sox made the wrong decisions, but it wasn't as obviously a bad decision as it would be if they'd built the same park right now.

hose
09-06-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by hose
Still haven't seen a fan in a sari yet at the Cell :D:



Before Wednesday game against Boston "3 Men in Kilts" sang the National Anthem. :?:


After further review : A sari is the traditional garb from India NOT Pakisatan.....oh boy , those two countries are just itching to go a few rounds, don't want to throw any fuel on the fire : :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
09-06-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
You're probably not counting it, but come on, worse than Tropicana Field?

Anyway, it would be different if it had been built in, say, 1994, and they saw Camden Yards be the huge hit it was. But it wasn't, it was the very first of the new parks (well, SkyDome, but again that's hardly comparable). They took a chance, it failed. In any industry or buisness, the first people to do something are taking a risk. If what they do fails, they look like idiots, if it turns out great, they are visionaries. Yes, the White Sox made the wrong decisions, but it wasn't as obviously a bad decision as it would be if they'd built the same park right now.

Tropicana is also bad, but the Devil Rays didn't build that ballpark to their specifications, did they? Do you see the difference? The Devil Rays aren't responsible for the mistakes at Tropicana, but the Sox are SOLELY responsible for the mistakes at New Comiskey.

I wouldn't be upset about this except that we have people on this thread whining about Greg pointing out the obvious flaws in the SOX OWN DESIGN. That's unfair, and totally uncalled for--especially since the people who post here are unquestionably among the biggest supporters of the team.

As for the notion that the Sox didn't know any better, that's just plain untrue. I have quotes from the HOK architect Rick deFlon putting the torch to that assertion, and a copy of the original architectural critique of the design of New Comiskey from June, 1991 by the Tribune's architectural critic, Blair Kamin. Even he knew New Comiskey was a bust compared to Camden--and that was MONTHS BEFORE the first slack-jawed fan walked through the turnstiles in Baltimore. If you wish, I'll post them for you and anyone else interested.

The Sox had PLENTY OF WARNINGS. They ignored all of them. They paid the price--and now we fans are, too.

Greg1983
09-06-2003, 11:23 AM
Voodoochile, (and everyone else),

First of all, I'm assuming you love the White Sox and Hendrix, which means you and I would probably make pretty good drinking buddies. I was just listening to the "Band of Gypsys" album in the car last night. So I hope you take this as an olive branch.

I'm not forgetting the other horrendous decisions JR has made (White Flag, ticket prices, and on and on...). I'm simply arguing that the ballpark was the most damaging of them all. Like PHG said, it has become an albatross for the franchise. And the design of the stadium was largely JR's decision.

Granted, the Sox went first, and built their ballpark before Camden Yards and the Jake, etc. But Reinsdorf was presented with retro, neighborhood-park alternatives, and he turned them down because he's either so cheap or so stupid. I think we as Sox fans have a right to be angry that his stewardship of our team was so poor on a decision as monumental as this.

I disagree that my post sounds whiney...I actually think you're sounding more defeatist than I. My position is that at some point relatively soon, much sooner than it should have been, Sox ownership will start clamoring about needing a new stadium. And I think Sox fans who care about the team and want it to stay in Chicago should be prepared for this.

I think your attitude is "What's done is done." I understand and respect that, but I disagree with it. The ballpark sucks money and life out of the franchise every day. Paint jobs and green seats won't stem the losses. There is no way the White Sox will get 80 years out of this ballpark. I think we need to ready ourselves. 1988 will look like a walk in the park compared to the next stadium battle. At least that's my hypothesis. Anyone is free to disagree with that, but I really don't think it warrants calling me a moron.

And I'm glad to know the number of posts on the board is going up, but if you and the others keep it up with the flaming and the name calling, that trend will reverse itself. We're on the same side and pulling for the same team. If you catch me throwing back a home run ball, flame me. But I really don't think I deserved what I got here.

Greg 1983

jabrch
09-06-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Greg1983
Voodoochile, (and everyone else),

First of all, I'm assuming you love the White Sox and Hendrix, which means you and I would probably make pretty good drinking buddies. I was just listening to the "Band of Gypsys" album in the car last night. So I hope you take this as an olive branch.

I'm not forgetting the other horrendous decisions JR has made (White Flag, ticket prices, and on and on...). I'm simply arguing that the ballpark was the most damaging of them all. Like PHG said, it has become an albatross for the franchise. And the design of the stadium was largely JR's decision.

Greg 1983



Greg,

Honestly, I think this is a very good park to go see games at and that it has a far worse image than it deserves.

1) It is easy for everyone to get to
2) The place seats 47,000 - lets say of those, 15,000 seats are generally undesireable due to height. The remaining 32,000 are fantastic. Anywhere in the lowers or the OF are great seats, with no obstructeds anywhere.
3) The food is top notch
4) In general, the park is fan friendly and has become moreso lately.

I have been to 10 games this season and I have tickets for two more (KC and NYY). Ultimately, I think the problem is with the image of the club. And while I don't think the media helps the organization, I think it is the job of maketing/promotions to somehow make that happen.

Remember the passion that this city had for the Sox in the 70s and 80s? I want that back. If we had that, nobody would care about the park. We'd sell 35,000 every day and even sell more for big games.


Jason

Daver
09-06-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


And for chrissakes-- for the millionth time-- stop blaming the fans!

Stop blaming the blue seats too.


:bandance:

harwar
09-06-2003, 12:43 PM
The time machine idea sounds good to me.I miss old Comiskey & Soldier fields more than i can say.
As for the crowds,i'm going to all the twins games and i fully expect over 30k for all 4.

voodoochile
09-06-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Greg1983
Voodoochile, (and everyone else),

First of all, I'm assuming you love the White Sox and Hendrix, which means you and I would probably make pretty good drinking buddies. I was just listening to the "Band of Gypsys" album in the car last night. So I hope you take this as an olive branch.

I'm not forgetting the other horrendous decisions JR has made (White Flag, ticket prices, and on and on...). I'm simply arguing that the ballpark was the most damaging of them all. Like PHG said, it has become an albatross for the franchise. And the design of the stadium was largely JR's decision.

Greg 1983

No need for an olive branch, I wasn't upset in the first place. I wish I could join you listening to BOG, but unfortunately Hendrix no longer comes through clear enough with my hearing loss. Enjoy it one time for me, and watch the volume. I will be glad to join you in tipping a glass to the Sox anytime anyplace.

I disagree with your statement about the stadium being the most damaging part of the JR regime. The WFT and being a leader/hawk in the labor impasse that led to the cancelation of the WS in 1994 both strike me as much larger reasons for people to resent the current ownership and stay away. For evidence, I turn to the attendance figures after the new park was built (1990 is still the record for Chicago baseball attendance, though the flubbies may break it this year) and after the strike and then again after the WFT. The WFT was probably the single most fan trust damaging act any owner has ever made in any sport, IMO. Maybe Modell taking the Browns out of Cleveland compares, but since he was no longer trying to draw fans from Cleveland, it isn't like it matters.

The only problem I had with your first post was the complete lack of acknowledgement about the response ownership has been making to make the park more fan friendly and the point about not blaming JR for not attending. JR is the single biggest impediment to fans returning to the ballpark. He has damaged the Sox fanbase beyond his ability to repair, barring a WS title, IMO. His comments, actions and complete disregard for anything other than the all mighty dollar (short term dollars too boot) has decimated the fan base of one of the origninal AL teams. If the stadium had been built as is and the Sox had won the WS in 1994, none of this would be an issue. If that didn't happen and JR just avoided the incrediblely idiotic move that was the WFT in 1997 (only the second season that fan attendance started to return to normal levels after the strike canceled the '94 WS) then maybe this wouldn't be an issue, but the series of events piled on top of years of abuse (including the original stale USCF design) was too much for the fan base to handle. Now JR is the problem and until he proves all of us wrong, he will remain the main problem this team has. Heck, if he could find a way to get the sports reporters to stop trashing his ballpark, it wouldn't be perceived as negatively as you view it. Unfortunately, JR doesn't speak to the Chicago media anymore, so the situation continues to get worse, not better. Now, whose fault is that?

doogiec
09-07-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
Greg,


Remember the passion that this city had for the Sox in the 70s and 80s? I want that back. If we had that, nobody would care about the park. We'd sell 35,000 every day and even sell more for big games.


Jason

The White Sox averaged 13,470 fans per date (1,113,000 over 81 dates) during the 1970's, almost moved to Milwaukee (end of the 60's) and Seattle for financial reasons, and had trouble even getting a TV contract. The passion you refer to only lasted a couple of months during a couple of seasons.

The White Sox averaged 18,641 fans per date (1,509,000 over 81 dates) during the 1980's and the team almost moved to Denver for financial reasons.

The only passion shown for the Sox during those decades existed when the Sox were in first place, and I hardly can call that passion.

The White Sox only averaged 35,000 one season...1991.

And, attendance at the new ballpark has exceeded the 1970's average 12 out of 12 complete seasons, and has exceeded the 1980's average 10 out of 12 seasons.

ewokpelts
09-07-2003, 07:00 PM
Hi.
First......this is a dead horse topic...but since it is a underlying theme of fan apathy...it will be trotted out untilsome thing MAJOR happens(i dunno....a ws title? or the urinal's destruction due to an asteroid...not to be confused with sham-me's steroids).....


Second......we tend to forget that the cell was designed in 88...while there were cadmen like designs out there...the idea was that a kaufman/dodger stadium concept for a baseball only stadium was preferable...the sox attempted to add extra amenities/corporate programs based off that train of thought...was it a success....um...no.......but look at miller park....it's not a pretty reto stadium...nor is the bob...but both were able to learn from teh cell's mistakes and thier skyboxes and premium eateries are located in areas that wont raise the seating bowl as high as the cell...we all forget that Wrigley Field takes design cues from old comiskey's flaws.......wrigley was one of the last stadiums built in the early 20th century...when teams were moving into "baseball only parks" after spending time in makeshift grandstands or polo fields....AND both stadiums were modified throughout the years...just like how the cell and fenway are.........in retrospect...if they removed at least one skybox level and put the ud concourse in the middle of the ud's seats...it would be a pretty decent field....but fans might not have come anyways after wft and the strike......

third...the Sox' pr is not as bad as you think...is it as good as veeck's? probably not...since i Have no way of knowing, seeing as i'm 23...but jerry does take care of loyalists(at least those that have season tickets/do groups/use suites)....in my first year as a season ticket holder, I've gotten to go on the field, gotten free stuff, and was able to order additional playoff tickets(even though i'm a partial plan holder)..and since i'm runing a group outing, I again was able to order more play off tickets AND was offered a playoff patio party...the people in the ticket office bust thier asses off to keep people happy..yeah this is thier job..and guys like me are thier paychecks...but a facts a fact.....I feel like i'm a valued part of that organization.....does Gallas/Jerry need to reinvent thier strategy...YES! YES! YES!......but it's not horrible either...they have tried to lure families into the cell, and while they have done ok...they need to attract the main reason people go to wrigley.....young people like to have a good time...the fan deck was a start, until that ****head dybas had to close off the ld to ud ticket holders...but guess what....when i go to a game in teh ld....i see lots of people who paid upwars dof 29 bucks STAND ON A CONCRETE SLAB...and talk...some not paying attention to the game...this is the crowd we need...those guys spend way too much to ignore.....i dont care if they arent fans, or are just there to have fun...those are "butts" in seats......what jerry needs to do is think outside the box...try new ways to bring in fans without losing money(lowering ticket costs is both a money drain and stupid.......less money in the coffers wont allow you to sign top free agents...and 'sides.....the cubs do just fine with $30+ tickets...the market will bear those prices)....yes, people are value minded, but making the product cheeper also cheapens the product......

so..there you go....I have MUCH more to say about marketing, but I'll post later......'sides.....jerry should be the one hearing that
Gene

Lip Man 1
09-07-2003, 10:12 PM
Gene:

PLEASE use capital letters and break up your paragraphs.

It's very hard to read your thoughts when they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

See what I mean? Thanks...

Lip

Kilroy
09-07-2003, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
JESUS CHRIST! Get over it people. Support this team or don't, frankly I don't care, but this horse was beaten to death long ago.

MOVE ON!

This is one of the best posts ever.

All the whining about attendance doesn't change anything. Just sit back and enjoy the September games that could decide the division.

The number of people on hand to see them doesn't change the significance...

ewokpelts
09-08-2003, 09:57 AM
sorry...words kept flowing oput of my brain...and i did use these lil' bad boys a lot.....


......
......
et al
Gene

SI1020
09-08-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
It's just that this topic has been beaten to death and back alive again here and people are sick of it. Also, your post comes across as whiney, because there isn't a damn thing anyone can do short of inventing a time machine to fix the problem. You also ignore the several other reasons that fans don't attend the park and blame it all on the park, giving Jerry a free ride when he doesn't deserve one (see PHG's post in particular for a better understanding of why this is true).

There are more posters at WSI than at any time in the past, so I seriously anyone is being chased off unless they have an awfully thin skin. You can count me among the thin skinned whiny babies then. I basically just read now, the site does have some great features not duplicated elsewhere IMHO. It's not disagreeing with me either. Some of my favorite posters here are far to the left of me politically and others have strongly rebuted some of my baseball opinions. I like these folks just the same. It's the in your face attitude that is so much a part of the culture now. It may be the norm but I don't have to like it. As far as the original post goes yes the upper deck is bad and the Cell can't compete with Wrigley for a variety of reasons. Bridgeport is gentrifying and there are signs that the areas east of the park may be in line for some of that soon too. One of the selling points of Wrigley is the neighborhood, etc. We all know that the danger factor is greatly overhyped regarding the Cell, but the park would benefit if the immediate area around it would undergo some development. Another poster mentioned that attendance figures at the Cell are relatively high when compared to the 70's and 80's. That may be true but the bar has been raised higher today and count me among those who are worried that the Sox are approaching irrelevancy both locally and nationally. I'm even further away from Chicago and Illinois since we moved in the spring so please Sox fans go to as many games that you can afford to. If we could just meet and then beat the Cubs in a real live World Series. No more talk of irrelevancy then.

maurice
09-08-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Greg1983
Spare me the nonsense about the Cell being "better" than Wrigley. As I said myself, I like the Cell fine. But if you can muster just an ounce of detachment and objectivity, you'll see there is no way the Cell can compete with one of the great meccas of baseball and one of the great landmarks of Chicago. . . . Right or wrong, people think Wrigley Field is a shrine.

Buy a dictionary. The folks who prefer Wrigley do not prefer it for detached and objective reasons. They prefer it for subjective, marking-based reasons. False perceptions can be changed, if the Sox bothered to try.

I do prefer the Cell.

Then you must be objectively wrong, since the "mecca of baseball" is objectively better.

I'm not disagreeing with you that JR's poor markeitng/PR is the cause of the Sox troubles. But I am definitely arguing that new Comiskey was one of those marketing blunders.

No, you're arguing that "[t]he Sox are in danger of irrelevance, especially if the Cubs outperform them this season, principally because JR decided to build a cheap, awful ballpark in 1990." Nobody disagrees that the Cell is less than ideal and can use improvements. Most folks here disagree that it's "awful" and the "principle" reason for the disparity in attendence. On the contrary, it's actually pretty nice and probably the principle reason that the Sox outdrew the Cubs in any of the last 12 years.

BTW: Detroit has a very nice new park with retro features. It's completely empty, notwithstanding the fact that it is not in direct competition with any proximate baseball shrines.

I'm not forgetting the other horrendous decisions JR has made (White Flag, ticket prices, and on and on...). I'm simply arguing that the ballpark was the most damaging of them all.

Now, at last, you've returned to your original, overstated argument. Please understand that people have perfectly reasonable, objective reasons for disagreeing with you on this point, that this point has been debated on this site in depth, that the Sox are aware of the stadium issue, that the Sox have taken steps to address the stadium issue, and that many here (apparently) feel that any further harping on the stadium is sour grapes.

I think we as Sox fans have a right to be angry that his stewardship of our team was so poor on a decision as monumental as this.

You arguably had the right to be angry 12 years ago. Now you really need to get over it. This board is popular principally because (unlike other boards) it is regulated, both by mods who execute trolls and by other posters who insist that folks make reasonable arguments. It is extremely difficult to construe your posts as anything other than the pointless beating of a dead horse.

ode to veeck
09-08-2003, 02:15 PM
The Sox were one of the first teams to pry Mexican players to play up north


Juan Pizzaro's still one of my favorite Sox pitchers of all time ...

hose
09-08-2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Juan Pizzaro's still one of my favorite Sox pitchers of all time ...


Juan was Puerto Rican.

Mexican and especially Japanese players coming to play in MLB is still relatively new in the history of the American and National Leagues, more so the Japanese player.

Best Sox pitcher is from Mexico.

There is a hot shot Japanese short stop that could end up in MLB next year. Can't think of his name , but he is hyped up there with Ichiro and Matsui from New York. Wouldn't be surprised to see Seattle go after this guy, at least that is the rumor.

Lip Man 1
09-08-2003, 11:28 PM
His name is Kazuo Matsui. They say the Angels, Dodgers, Giants and Mariners have interest but he may stay in Japan and take a very big offer from the Yomiuri Giants because he has two small children.

Lip

Unregistered
09-08-2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
His name is Kazuo Matsui. They say the Angels, Dodgers, Giants and Mariners have interest but he may stay in Japan and take a very big offer from the Yomiuri Giants because he has two small children.

Lip IIRC, The Sox are also listed as a possible suitor.

hose
09-08-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
His name is Kazuo Matsui. They say the Angels, Dodgers, Giants and Mariners have interest but he may stay in Japan and take a very big offer from the Yomiuri Giants because he has two small children.

Lip


Another Matsui ? is he related to Matsui with the Yankees?


:farmer

" ah I believe that's Matt Suhey, not Shuey that would be wrong."

doogiec
09-09-2003, 07:00 PM
No relation.

Lip Man 1
09-09-2003, 11:55 PM
Just wondering...

Who is the source on the Sox being interested in him?

Thanks,

Lip

Unregistered
09-10-2003, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just wondering...

Who is the source on the Sox being interested in him?

Thanks,

Lip Who Is Kazuo Matsui? (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1612023) POSSIBLE MLB SUITORS: Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Mariners, Yankees, Red Sox, Padres, Diamondbacks, A's, White Sox, Cubs, Braves.
It's a long list (i remember it being shorter(?)), but like I said, they were listed as possible suitors...

Greg1983
09-10-2003, 08:22 AM
You, Maurice, are the one who needs a dictionary. Or at least the one who needs to start using your brain. If you want to rip me, fine, but at least take the time to respond my posts rather than copying and pasting something and then going off on a tangential non-issue.

I'm saying that those of you who refuse to acknowledge the role that the ballpark is playing in undermining the Sox' future as a franchise, and who are actually suggesting that it is superior to Wrigley, are not using a shred of objectivity.

The majority who love Wrigley so much will point to its aesthetics, particularly its smaller size and intimacy, and its surrounding neighborhood. If you think the Cell competes well with Wrigley on these counts, you're either very blind, very stupid, or so intent on beating your chest like an ape and proving you're a bigger Sox fan than me that you've lost all OBJECTIVITY.

I know Bridgeport isn't nearly as bad as some will have you believe. And as I've said at least three times in my threads, I LIKE THE CELL. I prefer it to Wrigley by a wide margin. But financially viable franchises don't cater solely to hard core baseball fans. They build facilities that appeal to casual fans, families, and tourists. Again, if you think the Cell competes well with Wrigley on attracting casual fans, families, and tourists, you're either blind, stupid, or incapable of OBJECTIVITY.

I do stand by my choice of words, "cheap" and "awful." If most people here like the Cell, fine. Once again, I like it myself. And once again, that's totally beside the point. Most of us would go watch the Sox play at a little league field if we had to. But as an economic and marketing decision, one of the most important decisions in the modern history of the team, Reinsdorf screwed up. For the purposes of attracting a large fan base that consists of more than hard core Sox/baseball fans, JR made cheap and awful choices, and got a cheap and awful product in the end. I know it's a perfectly good place to see the game itself, but there was much more at stake than that.

Of course Detroit still has an empty ballpark. If you read my very first post, you'll see that I state very clearly that a ballpark itself doesn't solve every problem, i.e. Detroit and Pittsburgh. But the Tigers, in case you haven't noticed, lost 100 games by September. They're awful. But if they were in first place on the 8th of September and still drawing as they do now, then it would be most logical to consider whether or not their facility was hampering their ticket sales.

The White Sox, meanwhile, have had several competitive teams since 1991 and a couple very good ones, yet they have been outdrawn consistently by weaker Cubs teams. Why? Frankly, normal, non-obsessed people don't spend their entertainment dollars based on poorly conceived trades from 1997. But they do think about whether or not a place would be a pleasant place to go. And they by and large don't find the Cell a pleasant place to go.

Finally, for you and everyone else accusing me of flogging a dead horse, YOU are now the ones doing the flogging. Get this straight right now: I didn't just wake up one morning and decide to bitch about the Cell. I was writing about a topic posed by someone else that was speculating on the health of the White Sox as a franchise, and the danger that the Sox could become irrelevant should the Cubs outperform them this season. My argument is that the main reason the relevance and viability of the Sox franchise is in jeopardy is the ballpark. If you think White Flag and all the other bad moves by JR are more important than the stadium, fine. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.

But if you're going to call me clueless and a moron; and try to pretend that the ballpark is irrelevant to health of the organization; and that the blunders committed in the design and construction of the Cell do not belong in a conversation about the danger of the Sox becoming irrelevant in Chicago; and that I shouldn't even bring up the topic because you in all your infinite, arrogant wisdom have decided you don't want to talk about it anymore; then move on to other threads, because you've clearly got nothing of value to contribute to this one.

Your suggestion that I had a right to be angry 12 years ago, but that now I need to get over it, is really as naÔve as it is stupid. Do you really think the Sox will get 80 years out of US Cellular Field? Do you really think they won't be clamoring for a new stadium in the relatively near future? Are you so blissfully ignorant that you think their new lease at the stadium is ironclad? If so, then your knowledge of sports economics is so laughably poor that you really ought to reconsider whether you should be posting so much on this board. Youíre clearly not the know-it-all you pretend to be.

When a team tied for first can draw only around 30,000 fans when they play the other team tied for first on a night with beautiful weather, then the stadium issues are still relevant. If you want to stick your head in the ground, go right ahead. There are plenty of other threads on this board for you to engage. Sox fans who are actually interested in the long-term survival of the team in Chicago, meanwhile, need to be thinking about these issues and preparing themselves. There is no way JR will stay in Chicago for the long haul and settle for 30,000 during a September pennant race.

hsnterprize
09-10-2003, 09:20 AM
Dude...I'm not here to rip or insult you, so you don't have to get defensive...just hear me out.

I can see where you're coming from as far as Wrigley's drawing the "casual" fan and such. Obviously, we all know that the casual baseball fan is all but completely lost as far as the Sox are concerned. Many of the frequent Sox game attendees, as far as writers/contributors of this site are 100%, full-fledged Sox fans who could care less whether the Sox played at their current ballpark or the city dump (formerly known as the Old Comiskey Park according to some people). However, it appears to me that you're either not old enough or familiar enough about Chicago baseball to remember, or too caught up in all the Cubbie-love hype to recall a day when the Cubs were fortunate enough to have enough fans to fill their lower tier. I can remember vividly the days when I'd come home from school and turn on channel 9, and see more empty seats than fans at "Allegedy beautiful Wrigley Field" (or as I like to call it, 'Urinal Park at Clark and Addison'). Back then, the popular mentality was that no one was going to support a losing team. The Cubs were, and still are to a certain extent, the "Loveable Losers" back then, and unless you were a true-blue, die-hard Cubs fan, you weren't going to waste one cent on the Cubs until they improved. Do you know about or remember the infamous explitive-filled rant 1983 manager Lee Elia gave to reporters one day after the Cubs lost a game and only 3,000+ people showed up? He was mad the fans were giving his team a hard time after another loss, and he really let the media and the fans have it. Shortly after, Elia was fired, and the Cubs' PR department went into overtime to clean up his mess. However, the truth was painfully obvious...the Cubs were pathetic losers, Wrigley Field was a dump, the neighborhood around the ballpark was uninhabitable, and there was no way in hell the Cubs would fill their ballpark. Until...

Harry Caray started working for the north siders. After being fired from the Sox by then-new owner Jerry Reinsdorf in 1981 (I think), Harry took his beer-laden play-by-play style to the Cubs, and as we say in America...the rest is history. He started singing TMOTTBG during the 7th inning stretch; making "root, root, root for the Cubbies" a household phrase. "Cub Fan, Bud Man" became a familiar mantra to Cub fans, 20-something yuppies began moving into the area near Wrigley, and all of a sudden, Wrigley Field turned from an ancient ballpark destined for the wrecking ball to the world's largest beer garden. People were unabashedly going to the ballpark and getting more suds than the Dial soap company. And you don't need to be rehashed about the tourism aspect of that place. Wrigley is one of the top tourist attractions in Chicago. I've talked to many people who would come to Chicago to see our great sites, and to visit Clark and Addison. More than enough space on this site has been dedicated to the Cubs' becoming the most popular team in this city, and unfortunately for Sox fans, we all know that our team's management either couldn't, or just plain didn't try to combat that trend. The result...more people going to see the sCrUBS on the road than seeing the Sox at home.

We all share your sentiment that the area around the Cell is better than how it's portrayed in the media. More than enough reporters have even admitted that notion publicly, but that's not stopping Cubs broadcasts from making Wrigleyville appear to be the Cubs fans' utopia. The image portrayed Wrigley Field as not only a place to watch a baseball game, but to also see hot women, get drunk out of your mind, and to have a great time. How have the Sox countered that? Beats the daylights out of me...at least as far as the non-baseball angle is concerned. But who cares about baseball at Wrigley, eh? Evidently, not the sponsors of Cubs baseball...their making a huge profit no matter how the Cubs are doing. But we all know that. I realize I'm preaching to the choir here, but there is something to made of all this.

I'm saying that we all know the Sox have a LONG way to go in order to draw the "casual fan" to the ballpark. But turning the area around the Cell isn't necessarily the answer. Making Bridgeport, Armor Square, Canaryville, and Bronzeville into the south-side's version of Wrigleyville isn't going to sit well with the residents there. Also, we all know that the Sox aren't going to get a fair shake in the press as long as the World's Gaudiest Narcisists and the Chicago Cubune are part-owners of the team. The only reason why they're giving the Sox any serious play is because we Sox fans are constantly on their case.

In the Sox' defense, they are trying to draw fans to the ballpark, and they are doing what's top priority in our eyes in order to do that...they're WINNING!!!!! Like I said earlier, the Cubs are known as the "lovable losers", and that's not something we Sox fans want linked to our team. And with all the new retro-looking ballparks coming up lately, of course U.S. Cellular Field has been and will continue to take a beating. However, we Sox fans don't go to the ballpark because of the ballpark itself. Too many places are relying on that "retro look" to draw fans, and for a while it was working. But, once the "newness" of the ballpark wears off, that place isn't such a "great place to watch a ball game" anymore. Gee...I wonder why? Could it be because the team that calls the place home isn't winning as much anymore? Teams like Baltimore, Texas, Colorado, Cleveland, Detroit, and other who were drawing in fans up the wazoo when their new ballparks were open are now unable to give tickets away. And why...it's because they're not winning, and people aren't going to spend top dollar to watch a losing team. Cubs fans are the exception, unfortunately, and with their national popularity, they'll continue to be that way until something catastrophic happens...like the White Sox winning the World Series.
We all know U.S. Cellular Field is a great place to watch a ballgame, but it's not going to get the respect it's deserving because it's not a tourist attraction. The area around it is decent, but it's not touristy. And as long as there are more than enough Cub-loving members of the press, the Sox aren't going to get the respect they deserve unless they win the World Series.

The ballpark hasn't made the Sox irrelevant, but for a while, it was. Now, the Sox are doing something about that, and I for one as a Sox fan and a member of the media am happy about the current and future renovations. But even if the Sox were to tear down the Cell and build a totally new ballpark, it's not going to guarantee a full crowd every night. We've seen other cities that seemed to have the upper hand in drawing crowds now wondering what happened. We Sox fans have always known it's more important to have a winning team ON THE FIELD rather than having the latest, greatest, retro-looking ballyard. It would've been nice to have a Camden Yards-style stadium, but it's even nicer to have a World Series banner flying over the outfield seats. That's a renovation no corporation can ever buy.

If Cub fans want to fill Wrigley Field day after day regardless of whether or not their team wins or not, then fine. There's no sense in complaining about it because the Cub marketing machine is rolling full speed ahead. The only way that can stop is if their competition beats them where it matters the most...on the field. And even if the Cubs and Sox don't meet in the World Series, if the Sox bring home Chicago's first Series title in generations, there's nothing the Cub machine can do about it.

I know I rambled, but understand that the "attendance" stories we constantly hear about are not new. They're frustrating, but they're not new. In short...we can react, but then, we need to let the agitation go. We're cheering on a team that has a chance to make Chicago history, so let's concentrate on that. The attendance won't make a difference, but it will be nice to see a full ballpark when the Sox play for the World Series Championship.

Take care.

maurice
09-10-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Greg1983
You, Maurice, are the one who needs a dictionary.

Hey, look guys! We found a graduate of the Pee Wee Herman school of comebacks! "I know you are but what am I? I'm rubber; you're glue!" Haven't heard those in years.

at least take the time to respond my posts rather than copying and pasting something and then going off on a tangential non-issue.

So what your saying is that, in your alternate reality, using the quote feature to show which specific point you're responding to is being non-responsive, but a non-specific, ten-paragraph rant is a succinct rebuttal? To paraphrase Sam Jackson, do they speak English in Indy? You really need to get that dictionary, bro.

I'm saying that those of you who refuse to acknowledge the role that the ballpark is playing in undermining the Sox' future as a franchise, and who are actually suggesting that it is superior to Wrigley, are not using a shred of objectivity.

Um, nobody suggested that it doesn't play a role. You're the only one suggesting (windsocking notwithstanding) that it plays the "principle" role. The reasons people give for preferring Wrigley are "subjective" reasons, not "objective" reasons.

I do stand by my choice of words, "cheap" and "awful." If most people here like the Cell, fine. Once again, I like it myself.

You're absolutely NOT standing by your choice of words. You set a new land speed record here by contradicting yourself within these three sentences, unless in your alternative universe an "awful" thing is something which you should "like." Nobody contested the fact that the park was relatively "cheap."

JR made cheap and awful choices, and got a cheap and awful product in the end. I know it's a perfectly good place to see the game itself, but there was much more at stake than that.

A "perfectly good place to see the game" is not "awful." Apparently, you're having trouble convincing even yourself to agree with your own argument.

The White Sox, meanwhile, have had several competitive teams since 1991 and a couple very good ones, yet they have been outdrawn consistently by weaker Cubs teams. Why?

They haven't. The early '90s teams drew very well on the strength of a "cheap and awful" park. Attendance plummeted following a series of horrible PR moves, resulting in the current attendance disparity. The ballpark is a constant in this equation, and therefore cannot be the "principle" cause of the decline. Your illogical conclusion is like saying that you have a rock that repels tigers, because there are no tigers around.

My argument is that the main reason the relevance and viability of the Sox franchise is in jeopardy is the ballpark. If you think White Flag and all the other bad moves by JR are more important than the stadium, fine. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.

Then stop beating the dead horse. You made a bad argument, and everyone else disagreed.

you're going to call me clueless and a moron; and try to pretend that the ballpark is irrelevant to health of the organization

This is typical of the problem with your argument. I don't believe I did call you a "moron," but I certainly didn't argue that the park was "irrelevant" either. I disagreed that it was the "principle" cause of the attendence disparity. You evince your cluelessness by proping up a straw man and beating him to death. Well, he's dead. Please bury him next to the horse.

As for your silly prediction that the Sox will be "clamoring for a new stadium in the relatively near future," the current stadium followed JR's bluffed threat to relocate. I'm sure JR's glad that he's not the Devil Rays. MLB can't even find a good place to relocate the team it owns. The economics of baseball have changed. If you think Illinois is going to fund another Sox stadium in the next several decades, you are more clueless than originally believed.

jabrch
09-10-2003, 02:06 PM
:threadsucks

This franchise/team is not irrelevant. We are one of the frontrunners due to our SP to go to the World Series. If anyone thinks this team is "Irrelevant" they should go to Montreal/PuertoRico, Tampa, Pittsburgh or some other crumby city to watch baseball.

I have nothing more to say about this.

:threadsucks