PDA

View Full Version : For people still upset about not signing Colon...


anewman35
01-19-2004, 02:26 PM
Intresting article here (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/col/madden/) about insurance and long contracts (with some mentions of Reinsdorf, too).

Part of the article that relates to Colon:

Of the four, the four-year, $51 million deal he gave Colon (who spurned Reinsdorf's White Sox) is being viewed with the most skepticism by his fellow lords.

"Arte bid against himself on that one," said one high-ranking major league exec. "Nobody was going four years with Colon."

Knowing this, are you still upset we didn't sign him? Should we have went 4 years just because the Angels wanted to?

SSN721
01-19-2004, 02:35 PM
I am quite glad we didnt, that could turn into one of the worst deals Iwould have ever seen the Sox make in my short lifetime. Good Riddance to the Angels, I have a feeling they will be lucky for him to show up in shape at ST and get 2 quality years out of him.

StepsInSC
01-19-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Intresting article here (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/col/madden/) about insurance and long contracts (with some mentions of Reinsdorf, too).

Part of the article that relates to Colon:



Knowing this, are you still upset we didn't sign him? Should we have went 4 years just because the Angels wanted to?

There seems to be a bad-karma in baseball always given to teams like the Angels who shell out a load of money, so I wouldn't be surprised if they fell on their face next year.

But to the topic, I don't think many, if any, feel we should have offered Colon a four year contract. Being "weighted" down with him that long is asking for trouble IMO.

depy48
01-19-2004, 02:59 PM
i jumped on the colon bandwagon meer seconds after the sox got him, and i was upset that he signed elsewhere. but that article did shed some light on the issue, and i feel confident that the sox made to correct move on the colon issue

TheRockinMT
01-19-2004, 03:57 PM
I liked Bart Colon and wish we could have signed him, but signing a pitcher to a long term deal is a crap shoot at best. You never know what the future will hold for a team and player locked into a 4 plus year contract. We may be glad we didn't sign Colon and then again...

voodoochile
01-19-2004, 04:16 PM
Yes, I'm still upset by the decision. If I read this correctly, the Sox could have had the first three years insured and then taken a chance he stays healthy and effective for a 4th year, or let him walk to a team which is putting a bigger priority on baseball then on business.

Of course Reinsdorf doesn't like Moreno. Of course he thinks Moreno is an idiot. Moreno makes Reinsy look cheap. Moreno makes Reinsy look like a businessman first and a fan second. Moreno is obviously one more deep pocket for JR to compete with, and one who is not constrained by the corporate nature of the previous ownership.

Moreno also took a team 1 year removed from a WS title that failed last year after adding more payroll and (gasp) added more payroll. OHMIGAWD! IT HAS GOT TO SUCK TO BE AN ANGELS FAN WITH THIS IDIOT RUNNING THE TEAM...

Chisoxfn
01-19-2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, I'm still upset by the decision. If I read this correctly, the Sox could have had the first three years insured and then taken a chance he stays healthy and effective for a 4th year, or let him walk to a team which is putting a bigger priority on baseball then on business.

Of course Reinsdorf doesn't like Moreno. Of course he thinks Moreno is an idiot. Moreno makes Reinsy look cheap. Moreno makes Reinsy look like a businessman first and a fan second. Moreno is obviously one more deep pocket for JR to compete with, and one who is not constrained by the corporate nature of the previous ownership.

Moreno also took a team 1 year removed from a WS title that failed last year after adding more payroll and (gasp) added more payroll. OHMIGAWD! IT HAS GOT TO SUCK TO BE AN ANGELS FAN WITH THIS IDIOT RUNNING THE TEAM...
Moreno is also one of the sharpest owners in the market. He is going to be a major thorn in the Dodgers side as he works on stealing away the hispanic/latin market in the Orange County and LA county from the Dodgers.

The Angels were bought for cheap and he will turn them into a very profitable and lucractive franchise. Too bad JR didn't have Moreno's ability to market and see the potential. Moreno is an absolute marketing genius, essentially its how he made his money.

Reiny is sharp, but Moreno is sharp at marketing a product and in the Orange County area, there is a very large untapped market with money that will be flocking to Angel games. Souvenir sales and other sales will skyrocket and he will now tap an entirely new market for the Angels (the hispanic crowd) and he's already setting up a lot of ways for the hispanic speaking californians to catch angel games both on TV and on the radio.

munchman33
01-19-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, I'm still upset by the decision. If I read this correctly, the Sox could have had the first three years insured and then taken a chance he stays healthy and effective for a 4th year, or let him walk to a team which is putting a bigger priority on baseball then on business.

You forget about the millions of dollars it costs to get the insurance policy. And that previous injuries are not covered. Bartolo spent time a small time on the D.L. for problems with his shoulder. From now on, any shoulder injury is not covered. That kind of risk is not viable when talking about a pitcher.

Lip Man 1
01-19-2004, 08:29 PM
Anewman...

Just wondering, how are the Sox ever supposed to get pitching if they don't take a chance?

Obviously they can't develop it, so how the hell are they supposed to get it?

My impression from you is that NO pitcher is worth any guaranteed, long term deals. That's fine, then we get back to my original question, how do the Sox succeed without it?

Funny the Yankees never seem to have a lot of problems with the pitchers they sign. How many games did 'bad back,' 'overweight' 'bad attitude' David Wells win for them? "Over the hill" Roger Clemens did OK wouldn't you say? I haven't seen Mike Mussina on the injured list have you?

Or how many people last year were saying the Braves were done, that Mike Hampton was 'washed up,' and Atlanta was crazy to get him...yea crazy like an All Star.

Maybe it's more then the Sox making bad decisions on the guys they get, maybe the Sox medical staff isn't worth a damn because these same guys seem to do OK elsewhere don't they? Kenny Williams spent basically the whole off season after he took over trying to convince people the Sox doctors were good after the rash of pitching injuries. Hmmmmm...

If the Sox can't develop it and won't take a chance signing free agents (as opposed to TRADING for pitching, where you have to actually give up players) then I guess they are going to be the first team to try to win games without any pitching.

and I agree totally with Cub Killer, Uncle Jerry sees another owner doing things his way instead of Uncle Jerry's way and it pisses him off.

Well the Sox way has produced absolute squat in 23 years...maybe, just maybe, the Sox way is screwed up (or haven't you considered that possibility) since practically every team in baseball has made a World Series appearance since Uncle Jerry took over.

Lip

anewman35
01-19-2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Anewman...

Just wondering, how are the Sox ever supposed to get pitching if they don't take a chance?

Obviously they can't develop it, so how the hell are they supposed to get it?

My impression from you is that NO pitcher is worth any guaranteed, long term deals. That's fine, then we get back to my original question, how do the Sox succeed without it?


I never said that, I never even particularly said that I totally agreed with the article. I would have loved to have Colon back, I just think it would have been silly to get into a bidding war with somebody clearly much more willing to take risks and spend money. With the Sox payroll what it is (and, please, spare the replies about how it should be higher, we all know what everybody thinks), they can't afford to pay above market value for a player, and if they'd beat the Angels offer, that's what they would have been doing.

anewman35
01-19-2004, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Well the Sox way has produced absolute squat in 23 years...maybe, just maybe, the Sox way is screwed up (or haven't you considered that possibility) since practically every team in baseball has made a World Series appearance since Uncle Jerry took over.


Maybe the Sox way is screwed up, sure, that's quite possible. But it's not like the Sox haven't had chances - if 83 or 93 go the other way (and don't act like they couldn't have, anything can happen in a short series), I wonder what your opinion would be.

OEO Magglio
01-19-2004, 10:33 PM
I wouldn't mind if the sox offered him 4 years, but at 51 million dollars the angels can have him.

gosox41
01-20-2004, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, I'm still upset by the decision. If I read this correctly, the Sox could have had the first three years insured and then taken a chance he stays healthy and effective for a 4th year, or let him walk to a team which is putting a bigger priority on baseball then on business.

Of course Reinsdorf doesn't like Moreno. Of course he thinks Moreno is an idiot. Moreno makes Reinsy look cheap. Moreno makes Reinsy look like a businessman first and a fan second. Moreno is obviously one more deep pocket for JR to compete with, and one who is not constrained by the corporate nature of the previous ownership.

Moreno also took a team 1 year removed from a WS title that failed last year after adding more payroll and (gasp) added more payroll. OHMIGAWD! IT HAS GOT TO SUCK TO BE AN ANGELS FAN WITH THIS IDIOT RUNNING THE TEAM...

Just remember, under Moreno (and the 2002 Angels were not owned by Moreno) the Angels haven't won a thing yet. They may be in a good position. But what if Colon's weight plus all those innings catches up to him? What if Vald's back goes out again? What if they're in the toughest division in baseball and stil finish in second or thrid and don't make the playoffs?

If these were the Sox, the stadium would be empty. We'd be all calling the team underacheivers. There's no guarantee that Moreno is going to win (though he has made good moves) and there's no guarantee the fans will support a team taht flops. Fans here don't support the Sox when they flop, even if they were to actually show that kind of commitment to money.

Bob

voodoochile
01-20-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Just remember, under Moreno (and the 2002 Angels were not owned by Moreno) the Angels haven't won a thing yet. They may be in a good position. But what if Colon's weight plus all those innings catches up to him? What if Vald's back goes out again? What if they're in the toughest division in baseball and stil finish in second or thrid and don't make the playoffs?

If these were the Sox, the stadium would be empty. We'd be all calling the team underacheivers. There's no guarantee that Moreno is going to win (though he has made good moves) and there's no guarantee the fans will support a team taht flops. Fans here don't support the Sox when they flop, even if they were to actually show that kind of commitment to money.

Bob

Well, if this scenario played out for the Sox - they upped the payroll, floundered and then sold to a guy ho upped it a lot more with big name big ticket acquisitions - the Sox would sell a whole mess of season tickets the next day after the sale and a bunch more after the acquisitions. Let's say it happened this off season and Moreno added all those players to the Sox current roster.

They would have 15K season ticket holders next year, IMO and would definitely be in the race all year which would pay off in increased attendance. If the Sox failed, I doubt they would suffer that much as JR wouldn no longer be the leader. If they were a few games out at the AS break, Moreno seems like the kind of guy to go get a pitcher not dump the team built to be here for several years.

steff
01-20-2004, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
They would have 15K season ticket holders next year



Believe it or not.. a little over 13K have renewed or newly come on board. My rep didn't have the breakdown (not sure if he'd tell me if he did) but I found that # surprising.

voodoochile
01-20-2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by steff
Believe it or not.. a little over 13K have renewed or newly come on board. My rep didn't have the breakdown (not sure if he'd tell me if he did) but I found that # surprising.

It's partially a spill over effect from the flubbies basically being sold out already, IMO.

Iwritecode
01-20-2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
It's partially a spill over effect from the flubbies basically being sold out already, IMO.

Have you stumbled upon a new marketing slogan?

White Sox Baseball: The Cubs can only sell so many tickets, we'll take what's leftover.

washington
01-20-2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
The Cubs can only sell so many tickets, we'll take what's leftover.

Taking the leftovers also describes their offseason free agent "strategy."

voodoochile
01-20-2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Have you stumbled upon a new marketing slogan?

White Sox Baseball: The Cubs can only sell so many tickets, we'll take what's leftover.

They can put a huge statue of Reinsy outside the stadium holding a baseball bat up like the Statue of Liberty's torch and clutching a glove in his other arm. The caption can read:

"Give us your leftovers, the poor who like half price nights, the SRO wretched, the field running drunks, the companies yearning for promotional giveaways who got shut out up north. Sox baseball, we take what were given..."

steff
01-20-2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
It's partially a spill over effect from the flubbies basically being sold out already, IMO.


That might be a good excuse.. if they were sold out.

Last years # was just under 18K. A 4K increase due to the All Star game. Somehow I just don't see a Cub fan buying 40 or 80 games just "because".

steff
01-20-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
They can put a huge statue of Reinsy outside the stadium holding a baseball bat up like the Statue of Liberty's torch and clutching a glove in his other arm. The caption can read:

"Give us your leftovers, the poor who like half price nights, the SRO wretched, the field running drunks, the companies yearning for promotional giveaways who got shut out up north. Sox baseball, we take what were given..."


:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

voodoochile
01-20-2004, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by steff
That might be a good excuse.. if they were sold out.

Last years # was just under 18K. A 4K increase due to the All Star game. Somehow I just don't see a Cub fan buying 40 or 80 games just "because".

Don't kid yourself Steff, the flubbies are going to be practically sold out before the first pitch is ever thrown and I wouldn't be surprised to learn they are turning away season ticket requests, or will be soon.

Didn't they have a huge price jump too? If so that would push some business south just to save money...

voodoochile
01-20-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by steff
:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

I agree, the Sox marketing department makes me want to cry too...

steff
01-20-2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Don't kid yourself Steff, the flubbies are going to be practically sold out before the first pitch is ever thrown and I wouldn't be surprised to learn they are turning away season ticket requests, or will be soon.

Didn't they have a huge price jump too? If so that would push some business south just to save money...


Jim.. I'm well aware of the Cubs ST status, their prices, their signings, pretty much every step they take thanks to the dip **** idiot who sits in the corner office and takes credit for all the work I do...

And with that.. I will, again, say that I can't imagine someone, anyone.. even "stupid" Cub fans.. would shell out $5K to watch a baseball team that a. they don't like.. and b. will likely lose more than they will win.

The 13K at Comsikey is there because they want to be there Jim.

voodoochile
01-20-2004, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by steff
Jim.. I'm well aware of the Cubs ST status, their prices, their signings, pretty much every step they take thanks to the dip **** idiot who sits in the corner office and takes credit for all the work I do...

And with that.. I will, again, say that I can't imagine someone, anyone.. even "stupid" Cub fans.. would shell out $5K to watch a baseball team that a. they don't like.. and b. will likely lose more than they will win.

The 13K at Comsikey is there because they want to be there Jim.

Are you saying that not a single one of those 13K tickets is a company who bought them for perks or maybe got turned away or off by the flubbies and their pricing/availability problems?

I'd have a hard time believing that. I do think most of the ST holders are true fans who want to be there (95% say) but that still leaves 750 tickets or so what are there because of availability and logistics, not because they care about the sox per se.

I think the same is true for the flubbies BTW. But in their case, the demand is too high which pushes some over onto their competitor's product.

steff
01-20-2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Are you saying that not a single one of those 13K tickets is a company who bought them for perks or maybe got turned away or off by the flubbies and their pricing/availability problems?

I'd have a hard time believing that. I do think most of the ST holders are true fans who want to be there (95% say) but that still leaves 750 tickets or so what are there because of availability and logistics, not because they care about the sox per se.

I think the same is true for the flubbies BTW. But in their case, the demand is too high which pushes some over onto their competitor's product.


When did this become about companies..? If you want to talk corporate accounts I suppose I'd have to ask the corporate account rep as I doubt the individual rep has that info...

I'm sure companies buy tickets for the write off. But again what does that have to do with individual ST holders..?

voodoochile
01-20-2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by steff
When did this become about companies..? If you want to talk corporate accounts I suppose I'd have to ask the corporate account rep as I doubt the individual rep has that info...

I'm sure companies buy tickets for the write off. But again what does that have to do with individual ST holders..?

I assume that some of those 13K ST accounts are company accounts. Did I misunderstand? Are you saying that there are 13K individual season ticket holders?

I have to run. I will pick this up later.

steff
01-20-2004, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I assume that some of those 13K ST accounts are company accounts. Did I misunderstand? Are you saying that there are 13K individual season ticket holders?

I have to run. I will pick this up later.


I wasn't clear.. yes, individuals. I don't think individual reps have access to corp account listings. The last I heard the Sox have very few corp accounts compared to the Cubs. I do know that BCBS is one of the main ones.

The 13K seats sold are a combination of individual packages.


I've gotta run, too. Later..

thepaulbowski
01-20-2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I agree, the Sox marketing department makes me want to cry too...

I didn't know the Sox had a marketing department. :D:

Iwritecode
01-20-2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
I didn't know the Sox had a marketing department. :D:

As Kelso would say on "That 70's Show":

BURN!!!

:)

voodoochile
01-20-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
As Kelso would say on "That 70's Show":

BURN!!!

:)

Burn using Business!

gosox41
01-21-2004, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well, if this scenario played out for the Sox - they upped the payroll, floundered and then sold to a guy ho upped it a lot more with big name big ticket acquisitions - the Sox would sell a whole mess of season tickets the next day after the sale and a bunch more after the acquisitions. Let's say it happened this off season and Moreno added all those players to the Sox current roster.

They would have 15K season ticket holders next year, IMO and would definitely be in the race all year which would pay off in increased attendance. If the Sox failed, I doubt they would suffer that much as JR wouldn no longer be the leader. If they were a few games out at the AS break, Moreno seems like the kind of guy to go get a pitcher not dump the team built to be here for several years.

Buw aht if the SOx upped their payroll to $80 mill an JR didn't have any plans to sell? Then assume the team floundered all year. Fans wouldn't show up. It was proven in 2001. The team upped it's payroll from $34 mill to $64 mill. They got a big name player in Wells. And the team started slow and attendence went down compared to 2000. It is a little odd because attendance usually goes up the year after a team wins their division. Not in this case.

This may have something to do with why JR doesn't raise payroll. He knows the truth. If the team doesn't play well, fans don't show. It was that way before JR became owner too.

Bob

gosox41
01-21-2004, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by steff
Believe it or not.. a little over 13K have renewed or newly come on board. My rep didn't have the breakdown (not sure if he'd tell me if he did) but I found that # surprising.

Me too. I can't believe that many people want to watch a below .500 team play ball for higher prices then last season. Then again, I fall into that category, but I thought there were a lot of pissed off fans that hated JR, hated the way the bills came in the mail (according to Hal), and most importantly hated the fact that this team didn't do anything in the offseason.

Last year, someone point out the lowest number of people the Sox drew to a game was just under 10K. Assuming those were tickets sold and were all season ticket holders, then why would attendance go up this season. There's no All Star game. The team is worse.

Is it the Ozzie Gullen effect. Make an ex-player manager and they will come?

Bob

voodoochile
01-21-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Buw aht if the SOx upped their payroll to $80 mill an JR didn't have any plans to sell? Then assume the team floundered all year. Fans wouldn't show up. It was proven in 2001. The team upped it's payroll from $34 mill to $64 mill. They got a big name player in Wells. And the team started slow and attendence went down compared to 2000. It is a little odd because attendance usually goes up the year after a team wins their division. Not in this case.

This may have something to do with why JR doesn't raise payroll. He knows the truth. If the team doesn't play well, fans don't show. It was that way before JR became owner too.

Bob

Season tickets sales jumped in 2001, but walkups floundered because the team did. They had a much better season ticket base and much of that is still here if Steff's 13K figure is correct.

Let's take your numbers at fave value. In 2000 they drew almost the same number of fans as last year. That means with half the payroll, they had very similar revenue. So, if they made 1.2M in 2002 (according to the Forbes estimate) how much profit did they make in 2000, $20M? And yet with the rotation coming apart at the seams the whole second half, they didn't acquire anyone to help except CJ. They must have made a killing that year AND the two previous ones even with the incredibly lower ticket sales that they caused to happen with the WFT and negative comments toward the fanbase because their payroll was INCREDIBLY LOW and ticket prices weren't that much lower than they are now.

So, since they have had their huge windfall in 3 years leading up to the increased payroll and since they are still making SOME money, why not give back to the fans? Someone is saying, 'Why can't the fans make the first move?" Well, the fans have been supportive of JR's positive moves to date. Everytime he acquires big name big ticket players, people sign up for season tickets. The expectation of a big ticket acquisition and the close race last year has led to them retaining much of the season ticket base that has been built. The division is winnable and here we sit doing nothing. Spend some of the past profit, JR.

You have done nothing to change my mind...

steff
01-21-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Me too. I can't believe that many people want to watch a below .500 team play ball for higher prices then last season. Then again, I fall into that category, but I thought there were a lot of pissed off fans that hated JR, hated the way the bills came in the mail (according to Hal), and most importantly hated the fact that this team didn't do anything in the offseason.

Last year, someone point out the lowest number of people the Sox drew to a game was just under 10K. Assuming those were tickets sold and were all season ticket holders, then why would attendance go up this season. There's no All Star game. The team is worse.

Is it the Ozzie Gullen effect. Make an ex-player manager and they will come?

Bob


There were just over 17K individual ST holders last year. 15K the year before. The # is down this year.

CubKilla
01-21-2004, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by steff
There were just over 17K individual ST holders last year. 15K the year before. The # is down this year.

Rightfully so. But there's someone out there that would say a $58 million payroll for ZERO quality acquisitions and an increase in ticket prices to boot is.....

:reinsy

"..... the fans fault."

steff
01-21-2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Rightfully so. But there's someone out there that would say a $58 million payroll for ZERO quality acquisitions and an increase in ticket prices to boot is.....

:reinsy

"..... the fans fault."


At least that someone is consistant.. :D:

joecrede
01-21-2004, 01:04 PM
The payroll right now stands at about $62M, up from last year's figure of about $51M.

Attendance will decline this year despite the increased payroll because this year's team isn't as good as last year's.

Lip Man 1
01-21-2004, 02:42 PM
Gosox says:

It is a little odd because attendance usually goes up the year after a team wins their division. Not in this case.

With respect Go it's because most savvy Sox fans knew the 2000 season was a fluke. It ended in another gutless post season playoff loss AND most improtantly half of the pitching staff was crippled. The Sox got Wells (in a trade of course) but no one else.

Most fans were waiting to see what happened early in the season before deciding to start coming out. And we saw how it started didn't we? and those pitchers that Kenny spent all winter talking about and how he expeted some of them to come back in time to contribute didn't or didn't much because they were still hurt.

That's to be expected when an organization comes out of the blue to win one season... with no track record fans are going to be cautious.

Lip

voodoochile
01-21-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Gosox says:

It is a little odd because attendance usually goes up the year after a team wins their division. Not in this case.

With respect Go it's because most savvy Sox fans knew the 2000 season was a fluke. It ended in another gutless post season playoff loss AND most improtantly half of the pitching staff was crippled. The Sox got Wells (in a trade of course) but no one else.

Most fans were waiting to see what happened early in the season before deciding to start coming out. And we saw how it started didn't we? and those pitchers that Kenny spent all winter talking about and how he expeted some of them to come back in time to contribute didn't or didn't much because they were still hurt.

That's to be expected when an organization comes out of the blue to win one season... with no track record fans are going to be cautious.

Lip

Actually, they increased their ST base that season by almost 50% and they are still above those numbers this year...

gosox41
01-21-2004, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Season tickets sales jumped in 2001, but walkups floundered because the team did. They had a much better season ticket base and much of that is still here if Steff's 13K figure is correct.

Let's take your numbers at fave value. In 2000 they drew almost the same number of fans as last year. That means with half the payroll, they had very similar revenue. So, if they made 1.2M in 2002 (according to the Forbes estimate) how much profit did they make in 2000, $20M? And yet with the rotation coming apart at the seams the whole second half, they didn't acquire anyone to help except CJ. They must have made a killing that year AND the two previous ones even with the incredibly lower ticket sales that they caused to happen with the WFT and negative comments toward the fanbase because their payroll was INCREDIBLY LOW and ticket prices weren't that much lower than they are now.

So, since they have had their huge windfall in 3 years leading up to the increased payroll and since they are still making SOME money, why not give back to the fans? Someone is saying, 'Why can't the fans make the first move?" Well, the fans have been supportive of JR's positive moves to date. Everytime he acquires big name big ticket players, people sign up for season tickets. The expectation of a big ticket acquisition and the close race last year has led to them retaining much of the season ticket base that has been built. The division is winnable and here we sit doing nothing. Spend some of the past profit, JR.

You have done nothing to change my mind...

You (and Forbes) are making 2 big assumptions:
1. There was profit int those 3 years.
2. It's as big as you and Forbes think it is.

It's all speculation.

Bob

gosox41
01-21-2004, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by steff
There were just over 17K individual ST holders last year. 15K the year before. The # is down this year.

Then how were their games when the Sox drew less then 17K?

Bob

gosox41
01-21-2004, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Gosox says:

It is a little odd because attendance usually goes up the year after a team wins their division. Not in this case.

With respect Go it's because most savvy Sox fans knew the 2000 season was a fluke. It ended in another gutless post season playoff loss AND most improtantly half of the pitching staff was crippled. The Sox got Wells (in a trade of course) but no one else.

Most fans were waiting to see what happened early in the season before deciding to start coming out. And we saw how it started didn't we? and those pitchers that Kenny spent all winter talking about and how he expeted some of them to come back in time to contribute didn't or didn't much because they were still hurt.

That's to be expected when an organization comes out of the blue to win one season... with no track record fans are going to be cautious.

Lip

I don't necessarily agree with that. And if that is their attitude, then something is wrong. First reason I don't agree is because there are a lot of savvy Sox fans here and there's been optimism in each of the last 3 years by a lot of fans that post here. Second, how many savvy fans here liked such moves as signing PK to that extension or trading Foulke for Koch or think Thomas is washed up.

Look at the posts after these moves were made. A lot of "savvy" fans liked them. Some were in the minority, like me and saw the colossal mistakes they were. But if these fans are so savvy and like these moves, then shouldn't they start supporting the team earlier instead of taking a wait and see approach? If they didn't like the moves I can see not coming out, but to like moves at the time they are made only to not support the team is a little weak.

The fact is the team 2003 team had holes going in to the season. But did fans really not show up because there was no 5th starter? Fans were looking forward to Billyboy and were happy to have the "team leader" PK under a long term contract. And the fact is these guys cost the team more games then not having a 5th starter.

Lip, I think you give Sox fans too much credit. Savvy fans wouldn't like some of thse moves. But they did generate excitement here and no one came until the team started winning. Maybe when they get excited about a move or 2, they should buy a few tickets in April/May.

Bob

chisoxfan79
01-21-2004, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by SSN721
I am quite glad we didnt, that could turn into one of the worst deals Iwould have ever seen the Sox make in my short lifetime. Good Riddance to the Angels, I have a feeling they will be lucky for him to show up in shape at ST and get 2 quality years out of him. I would have to agree with you I had thought that if the sox re signed him that his elbow would go out on him because of the innings that he pitched the last couples of years.

steff
01-22-2004, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Then how were their games when the Sox drew less then 17K?

Bob


I don't understand the question... How were their games..? What do you mean?

Iwritecode
01-22-2004, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by steff
I don't understand the question... How were their games..? What do you mean?

I think he means how was it possible that there was, at times, games with the attendance lower than 17K if the season ticket base was at 17K.

Doesn't that have to do with how they count attendance?

Whether they use # of tickets sold or # of people that actually walked thru the turnstyles?

steff
01-22-2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I think he means how was it possible that there was, at times, games with the attendance lower than 17K if the season ticket base was at 17K.

Doesn't that have to do with how they count attendance?

Whether they use # of tickets sold or # of people that actually walked thru the turnstyles?


Ohhh.. how were there games.... :D:


I've been told many times the attendance game is actual turnstyle. That would be my guess anyway..

voodoochile
01-22-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by steff
Ohhh.. how were there games.... :D:


I've been told many times the attendance game is actual turnstyle. That would be my guess anyway..

Another possiblity is that the 17K includes the partial ST plans if 1/3 of the ST packages are partial plans split evenly among the three choices, they would only have 13K there on some nights.

Deoends on how the Sox count the packages...

joecrede
01-22-2004, 12:16 PM
I don't think there was any way the Sox had 17K season ticketholders last year even including partial plans.

I think full season ticket packages were around 9K and partials were around 4k.

steff
01-22-2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Another possiblity is that the 17K includes the partial ST plans if 1/3 of the ST packages are partial plans split evenly among the three choices, they would only have 13K there on some nights.

Deoends on how the Sox count the packages...


Yep, that too. I do remember a few nights in April where it was less than 10K... so you're theory is definitely a possibility.

Soxboyrob
01-22-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by steff
I've been told many times the attendance game is actual turnstyle. That would be my guess anyway..

Yo Steff...
Attendance is "tickets sold." They stopped using the turnstyle number some time ago. Anyone know when? Seems about 10-15 years ago. Maybe less. The fact that they can have a season ticket base of 17,000 people and sometimes have a game with less attendance is probably due to not all of those 17,000 people having full season ticket packages, if that point hasn't already been made.

steff
01-22-2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
Yo Steff...
Attendance is "tickets sold." They stopped using the turnstyle number some time ago. Anyone know when? Seems about 10-15 years ago. Maybe less. The fact that they can have a season ticket base of 17,000 people and sometimes have a game with less attendance is probably due to not all of those 17,000 people having full season ticket packages, if that point hasn't already been made.


Someone posted before reading Voodoo's comments... :D:

steff
01-22-2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I don't think there was any way the Sox had 17K season ticketholders last year even including partial plans.

I think full season ticket packages were around 9K and partials were around 4k.



You can easily figure it out. Take the total attendance - walkup = ST holders. Personally.. I don't really care and trust my rep.

TornLabrum
01-22-2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by steff
Ohhh.. how were there games.... :D:


I've been told many times the attendance game is actual turnstyle. That would be my guess anyway..

Attendance in the AL used to be measured by actual turnstyle count. They haven't done that for years. They've been using actual tickets sold since at least the '80s.

gosox41
01-22-2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by steff
I don't understand the question... How were their games..? What do you mean?

Thanks for the nitpicking. Let me try to be a little clearer. There were games last season in which the Sox drew fewer then 17K fans. How did this happen if they had sold 17K season tickets?

Is that better? Also, how's Ziff doing? :D:


Bob

gosox41
01-22-2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by steff
Ohhh.. how were there games.... :D:


I've been told many times the attendance game is actual turnstyle. That would be my guess anyway..

I always thought it was tickets sold. If the Sox are one of those teams that try to inflate numbers to sell more advertising, then they are selling themselves short by not including every ticket sold.

Bob

TornLabrum
01-22-2004, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I always thought it was tickets sold. If the Sox are one of those teams that try to inflate numbers to sell more advertising, then they are selling themselves short by not including every ticket sold.

Bob

It's tickets sold. It has been for a number of years.

steff
01-22-2004, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Thanks for the nitpicking. Let me try to be a little clearer. There were games last season in which the Sox drew fewer then 17K fans. How did this happen if they had sold 17K season tickets?

Is that better? Also, how's Ziff doing? :D:


Bob


Bob.. no offense.. but "their" could have fit there depending on your meaning.

The question has been answered.

And I have no idea how Ziff is.. never heard from him.

red faber
01-23-2004, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Intresting article here (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/col/madden/) about insurance and long contracts (with some mentions of Reinsdorf, too).

Part of the article that relates to Colon:



Knowing this, are you still upset we didn't sign him? Should we have went 4 years just because the Angels wanted to?



at least the angels are trying!!!!!!

what are we doing??????????????