PDA

View Full Version : Sox in Wrigley?


kittle42
01-08-2004, 04:12 PM
This is coming close to being discussed in other threads, but I thought I would give it its own.

Would the Sox draw as much as the Cubs if they switched ballparks? I believe they would, or would come very close. One of my major problems with the people who are "Cub fans" who just like them because of the trendy ballpark, etc. is that they will swear up and down that there is no way it could be true.

What do you think?

Fridaythe13thJason
01-08-2004, 04:27 PM
I don't think they would if it happened tomorrow. I think there is enough of a stigma with the Sox that it would take years for people to convert. It would be so strange that their attendance might be awful. Sox fans would be turned off to Wrigley and Cubs fans would be turned off to the Sox in the home of the loveables.

I think after 5-10 years, you might end up having terrific attendance because of the park again.

Hangar18
01-08-2004, 05:00 PM
IF you put 9 Monkeys out there, and put little blue
cubby uniforms on them, Fans wouldnt Notice until
about the 5th inning .......... I reallly really really would
Love to test this theory out sometime ..........

ChiWhiteSox1337
01-08-2004, 05:07 PM
Maybe if it was priced like a minor league game because of the stadium and to some extent the product on the field. :(:

maurice
01-08-2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by kittle42
Would the Sox draw as much as the Cubs if they switched ballparks?

Only if they were owned by the Trib or equivalent competent ownership. If JR still owned the team, he would end the Trib's marketing of Wrigley "tradition," take down the Carray statue, demolish the park, trade Sosa to cut payroll, and try to move the team to Addison or Tampa.

The cubs outdraw the Sox because they have a competent owner, not because they have a better park.

jabrch
01-08-2004, 05:12 PM
I think the Sox would draw MORE than the Cubs. right now, in a bad year, the Sox average about 1.5mm. About 1mm of us would come if they play at Comiskey, in Wrigley, or just south of hell. Add that to the 2.5mm that come to Wrigley regardless of who is on the field and let the 500,000 legit cub fans go whereever we move them to and you would overflow the park. There would be so many people there that the smell of stale urine would reverberate throught Soxville.

MarqSox
01-08-2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by maurice
The cubs outdraw the cubs because they ahve a competent owner, not because they haev a better park.
Presumably you meant to say "the Cubs outdraw the Sox."

You're partially right, but the bottom line is, tourists go to Wrigley to see the stadium, not the Cubs, and the yuppies go to Wrigley to get drunk, not for the team on the field. The Sox wouldn't draw as well as the Cubs, but they'd draw far better than they currently do at The Cell.

maurice
01-08-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Presumably you meant to say "the Cubs outdraw the Sox." You're partially right, but the bottom line is, tourists go to Wrigley to see the stadium, not the Cubs . . . .

Typos in previous post duly edited.

Tourists go to Wrigley because of the Trib's competent marketing plan. Previously, the park was empty (see Elia rant.) Tour buses used to be frequent both old and new Comiskey, but instead of promoting its stadium and neighborhood, Sox management sits silent while the media denigrates both. Perception becomes reality. Instead of developing businesses across from the park (like the Trib has done), JR makes sure that McCuddy's is never rebuilt and that no business can operate within two blocks of the park. It would be cake to build "the Soxy Bear" on the NW corner of 35th and Shields . . . or all the way up and down 35th St. for that matter. The yuppies, frat boys, and trixies would love it. Instead, JR does nothing. In fact, he actively discouraged the single, male, beer-buying fan when the new park opened, and attempted the promote the park as a destination for "families" (aka folks who are broke and don't like night games).

The disparity is 100% the fault of Sox managment.

:reinsy
"No, it's YOUR fault, Sox fans. You and those stupid fish!"

Tekijawa
01-08-2004, 05:29 PM
The sad fact of the matter is that Reinsdorf originally wanted to buy and looked into buying the Cubs. They were not for sale at that time, but did become available only a few months later... but let's stop playing coulda, shoulda, woulda... I'm getting depressed!

MarqSox
01-08-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Typos in previous post duly edited.

Tourists go to Wrigley because of the Trib's competent marketing plan. Previously, the park was empty (see Elia rant.) Tour buses used to be frequent both old and new Comiskey, but instead of promoting its stadium and neighborhood, Sox management sits silent while the media denigrates both.
The Trib marketing plan is a major part, no doubt ... but Wrigley's increased popularity has more to do with the evolution of time than anything. When Elia made his rant, Wrigley was just another of several old-time stadiums. Hell, it had competition across town. Between Wrigley, Comiskey, Fenway and Tiger Stadium, it didn't stand out. But you tear down Comiskey, and suddenly Wrigley is seen as a landmark. Tiger goes, and it emphasizes the point. Fenway is on its last legs, and when that goes, Wrigley will never again have an empty seat.

The further baseball gets from its "Golden Era," the more popular any artifact from the era will be. Pretty soon, Wrigley will be the biggest artifact left.

doublem23
01-08-2004, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by maurice

The cubs outdraw the Sox because they have a competent owner, not because they have a better park.

I have to disagree... Granted, I am too young to remember the days when Wrigley Field was a wasteland and could barely muster 5,000 people for a game, but for as long as I can remember, the Cubs have been miserable, pathetic failures and still draw well because it's fashionable and people have the notion that the stadium is a shrine to yesteryear when decent indoor plumbing and sight lines were luxuries.

I think the bigger surprise wouldn't be a spike in Sox attendance (which I think would take a few years to develop, anyway... Give the trendy bastards a few years to forget about the Scrubbies and they'll want to be seen on TV with their cell phones sure enough), but the way Cub attendance would bottom out if they played at the Cell. Sure, there would be diehards and some fairweathers this year because there are people who buy into the idea that the Cubs might have back-to-back winning seasons for the first time since 'Nam, but give it 5 years and they would struggle to find 25,000 people a night to come to the game.

maurice
01-09-2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by maurice
The cubs outdraw the Sox because they have a competent owner, not because they have a better park.

Originally posted by MarqSox
The Trib marketing plan is a major part, no doubt ... but Wrigley's increased popularity has more to do with the evolution of time than anything. . . .

Originally posted by doublem23
for as long as I can remember, the Cubs have been miserable, pathetic failures and still draw well because it's fashionable and people have the notion that the stadium is a shrine to yesteryear when decent indoor plumbing and sight lines were luxuries. . . .

The attendance figures show that Wrigley clearly wasn't fashionable before the Trib's marketing made it so. IMHO, this is inseperable from the historical factors listed by Marq. The Trib marketed the team in conjunction with changing conditions perfectly. The Sox did the opposite, resulting in the current disparity.

Though a smart investor, JR is a PR lightweight. Unfortunately, I don't see this turning around as long as he's running the club.

:selljerry

kittle42
01-09-2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by maurice
The attendance figures show that Wrigley clearly wasn't fashionable before the Trib's marketing made it so. IMHO, this is inseperable from the historical factors listed by Marq. The Trib marketed the team in conjunction with changing conditions perfectly. The Sox did the opposite, resulting in the current disparity.


I actually had an argument witha Cub fan friend of mine about attendance a while back. Sure, the Cubs weren't packing them in before the early '80s, but they pretty consistently outdrew the Sox, even if not by too much.

maurice
01-09-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by kittle42
I actually had an argument witha Cub fan friend of mine about attendance a while back. Sure, the Cubs weren't packing them in before the early '80s, but they pretty consistently outdrew the Sox, even if not by too much.

According to my rough calculations, the Sox outdrew the cubs by a small margin from 1974 to 1984.

KingXerxes
01-09-2004, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
The Trib marketing plan is a major part, no doubt ... but Wrigley's increased popularity has more to do with the evolution of time than anything. When Elia made his rant, Wrigley was just another of several old-time stadiums. Hell, it had competition across town. Between Wrigley, Comiskey, Fenway and Tiger Stadium, it didn't stand out. But you tear down Comiskey, and suddenly Wrigley is seen as a landmark. Tiger goes, and it emphasizes the point. Fenway is on its last legs, and when that goes, Wrigley will never again have an empty seat.

The further baseball gets from its "Golden Era," the more popular any artifact from the era will be. Pretty soon, Wrigley will be the biggest artifact left.

I agree 100% with the above.

If you'll recall - in the early 80's - the Tribune was letting the centerfield scoreboard fall into disrepair by letting the paint fade and peel off. The rumor was that they were going to replace the scoreboard with some sort of DiamondVision board like Reinsdorf had installed in old Comiskey. For some reason however, the Trib stopped itself from making what would have been a HUGE mistake in retrospect, and decided to commit themselves into not owning just the Cubs, but Wrigley Field as well. They successfully merged both the team and the park into a single entity to the point where the two are now inseparable. The only other team that comes close (since the abortion of a renovation on Yankee Stadium) are the Red Sox.

Twin Killing
01-09-2004, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by maurice
According to my rough calculations, the Sox outdrew the cubs by a small margin from 1974 to 1984.

The reason for the swing in the the cubs favor since then is due to the changing demographics in the neighborhood. The trib marketing effort pales in comparison.

If the Sox played at wrigley they would easily outdraw the cubs.