PDA

View Full Version : Good (but depressing) Rogers Article on Maggs


hold2dibber
04-16-2004, 08:06 AM
For those who are Trib-registered, Phil Rogers has a pretty good article (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/cs-040415rogers,1,5959896.column?coll=cs-home-utility) in today's paper concerning the Sox ability to re-sign Maggs. As he points out, maggs is making about 1/4 of the Sox payroll right now, and that generally is not a recipe for success. Worse yet, he notes that the Sox have really been living off of their radio/tv deals the last few years as the Cubs have taken away market share and that those deals were signed in tandem with the Bulls when the Bulls were a hot property - the point is, it is likely that when those current deals expire (one more year, I believe), those revenue streams are likely to diminish, making signing Maggs for the $14 million/year he allegedly wants, even less feasible.

poorme
04-16-2004, 08:18 AM
Maybe they should front-load his contract...

SEALgep
04-16-2004, 08:54 AM
Maybe the Trib is saying we should scalp our own tickets too, in order to afford him. Or maybe we should just give up and trade him to the Cubs so they can win a WS.

Tekijawa
04-16-2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
he notes that the Sox have really been living off of their radio/tv deals the last few years as the Cubs have taken away market share and that those deals were signed in tandem with the Bulls when the Bulls were a hot property - the point is, it is likely that when those current deals expire (one more year, I believe), those revenue streams are likely to diminish,

Actually with the TV deal with Comcast for Bulls Sox Cubs and (either Bears or BlackhawkS) for their own Channel I would imagine that their TV revenues would only increase and at least hold with both Sides of town being serviced for baseball... I really don't see the TV revenues being any less...

Just the Trib Trying to throw watter on the Sox great start! And if we do lose him for some odd reason I wouldn't mind using that 14 mil a year on pitching and watching Sweeney roam Right feild for the next 6 seasons...

Brian26
04-16-2004, 09:18 AM
I thought Phil's article was mostly truthful, and I agree that it was a bit depressing. However, I don't think we should be too alarmed. The Sox are close enough on this one that we're going to re-sign him.

munchman33
04-16-2004, 09:40 AM
Honestly, I love Maggs but for the money he's asking I'd rather give to someone like Carlos Beltran or Edgar Renteria, who play positions where stars are tougher to acquire, and also add a true leadoff hitter. Then Reed, Borchard, et al can fight it out for the right field spot.

hold2dibber
04-16-2004, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Tekijawa
Actually with the TV deal with Comcast for Bulls Sox Cubs and (either Bears or BlackhawkS) for their own Channel I would imagine that their TV revenues would only increase and at least hold with both Sides of town being serviced for baseball... I really don't see the TV revenues being any less...

Just the Trib Trying to throw watter on the Sox great start! And if we do lose him for some odd reason I wouldn't mind using that 14 mil a year on pitching and watching Sweeney roam Right feild for the next 6 seasons...

Can you (or anyone) provide more details on the TV deal with Comcast? I don't remember any of the specifics.

Tekijawa
04-16-2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Can you (or anyone) provide more details on the TV deal with Comcast? I don't remember any of the specifics.

http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20031202&content_id=610731&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cha

Starts in October of this year... Looks like they are shooting to play some games there this year!

kittle42
04-16-2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by munchman33
Honestly, I love Maggs but for the money he's asking I'd rather give to someone like Carlos Beltran or Edgar Renteria, who play positions where stars are tougher to acquire, and also add a true leadoff hitter. Then Reed, Borchard, et al can fight it out for the right field spot.

But if JR isn't going to give that cash to Maggs, he isn't going to give it to these guys, either.

soxtalker
04-16-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Tekijawa
Actually with the TV deal with Comcast for Bulls Sox Cubs and (either Bears or BlackhawkS) for their own Channel I would imagine that their TV revenues would only increase and at least hold with both Sides of town being serviced for baseball... I really don't see the TV revenues being any less...

Just the Trib Trying to throw watter on the Sox great start! And if we do lose him for some odd reason I wouldn't mind using that 14 mil a year on pitching and watching Sweeney roam Right feild for the next 6 seasons...

I don't see how you can assume that the revenues would increase. It has been reported (discussions on this board, I believe) that WMVP has been losing big money on the Sox contract. I'm not saying that it couldn't be turned around -- particularly if this season is a success -- but it is hardly obvious or easy.

Why is it that when the Tribune publishes anything even slightly (and this article was mostly complimentary to Maggs and the Sox) negative that people want to see a conspiracy? I'm glad that Rogers wrote this; I want to understand the issues in the negotiations. JR or KW (correctly) won't say much about those; the fact that they put something up on the team web site was amazing. The press and bulletin boards are full of fans and others saying that the Sox should just sign Maggs at any price. Unless you are the Yankees, there are limits. Even the Cubs, who were facing similar fan pressures on the Maddux signing, weren't going to go above a certain amount.

ChiSoxBobette
04-16-2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
For those who are Trib-registered, Phil Rogers has a pretty good article (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/cs-040415rogers,1,5959896.column?coll=cs-home-utility) in today's paper concerning the Sox ability to re-sign Maggs. As he points out, maggs is making about 1/4 of the Sox payroll right now, and that generally is not a recipe for success. Worse yet, he notes that the Sox have really been living off of their radio/tv deals the last few years as the Cubs have taken away market share and that those deals were signed in tandem with the Bulls when the Bulls were a hot property - the point is, it is likely that when those current deals expire (one more year, I believe), those revenue streams are likely to diminish, making signing Maggs for the $14 million/year he allegedly wants, even less feasible.

Just more Cubune bullcrap to undermine signing Magglio, gee wiz Phil maybe we should just give our best player to your beloved scubs and call it a year. I've never seen a city where the sports media is so biased as in Chicago. From this guy Rogers to Moronotti, try reading his colum this morning, its unbeleiveable how they all know whats going to happen with Maggs not only that but they all know that Maggs wants to leave the White Sox. I really can't think of any sports writer on one of the major papers in Chicago who is a homer for the White Sox as they sure are for the scrubs.

Tekijawa
04-16-2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
I don't see how you can assume that the revenues would increase. It has been reported (discussions on this board, I believe) that WMVP has been losing big money on the Sox contract. I'm not saying that it couldn't be turned around -- particularly if this season is a success -- but it is hardly obvious or easy.

Because the "middle Man" is essentially eliminated with this TV channel, which is where I would assume a large portion of the revenues would come from, not only that we're tied in with one of the largest most foolish fanbases in the whole world, the Cubs (Now they help with our pay roll by subscribing to this new nets work) Look what the Yankees have Done with the YES Net work. I really don't think that there will be too much of a difference between what we are bringing in now through Both TV and Radio rev. and what we will be making next year or many years in the future...

tebman
04-16-2004, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
Why is it that when the Tribune publishes anything even slightly (and this article was mostly complimentary to Maggs and the Sox) negative that people want to see a conspiracy? I'm glad that Rogers wrote this; I want to understand the issues in the negotiations. JR or KW (correctly) won't say much about those; the fact that they put something up on the team web site was amazing. The press and bulletin boards are full of fans and others saying that the Sox should just sign Maggs at any price. Unless you are the Yankees, there are limits. Even the Cubs, who were facing similar fan pressures on the Maddux signing, weren't going to go above a certain amount.

There are limits, and as much as JR has irritated me over the
years, I have to agree. The Sox have to be able to pay their
bills like everybody else. Steinbrenner is in the same category
as Donald Trump: he can command resources that other people
in his business don't have access to. Not just money, but municipal
support, media commitments, historical mythology, and so on.
What makes me hopeful in this Ordonez-contract story is the
suggestion that Magglio wants to stay here. If he was simply
chasing money they wouldn't even be talking now.

Conspiracy theories involving the Tribune are fun, but I don't
think they consciously tilt their energy toward the Cubs. I *do*
think, however, that there's an implicit assumption among the
editors that the corporate purposes of Tribune Company are
well served if the sister company is given a nod. As business-friendly
as the Tribune and its corporate parent are, I think it's just an
automatic, almost subliminal response to take care of The Company. The net result is bright color pictures of Cub games
above the fold and smiley-faced discussions about them on
channel 9 and 720 radio.

I think if the Sox started making big money, the Trib would fall
madly in love with them too. I always think of meetings at the
Tribune as being held in dark-paneled conference rooms with
portraits of Colonel McCormick glaring down at them, and the
officers and editors sipping brandy and puffing cigars as they
congratulate each other on their prudent stewardship of The Company. :smile:

- tebman

JohnBasedowYoda
04-16-2004, 10:23 AM
everyone quick buy out the suites and then get season tickets, one for you, one for your chick, two for friends and another for your dog

joecrede
04-16-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Worse yet, he notes that the Sox have really been living off of their radio/tv deals the last few years as the Cubs have taken away market share and that those deals were signed in tandem with the Bulls when the Bulls were a hot property - the point is, it is likely that when those current deals expire (one more year, I believe), those revenue streams are likely to diminish, making signing Maggs for the $14 million/year he allegedly wants, even less feasible.

The radio deal is likely to be a lot less, BUT the Sox are partners with an even hotter property than the 90's Bulls for their new TV deal - the Cubs. The increased TV revenue could and probably should more than make up for the diminished radio revenue. I wonder how much research Rogers put in to this column ...

Lip Man 1
04-16-2004, 11:14 AM
Regretably I see the points that Rogers was trying to make. I disagree with his conclusions about good ole Uncle Jerry's resources but if you assume that this is factual then Rogers' perspectives appear sound.

However I wanted to mention a point in Phil's story that hasn't been brought up. Find the part where Phil says (and I'm paraphrasing here...) that Reinsdorf has basically priced his fan base out of being able to get tickets except on half price nights and kids days.

Would you rather sell one ticket at 100 dollars or five tickets at 25 dollars? Just something for Sox management to think about.

When I worked in TV advertising sales here in this area for the cable company, that was my philosophy. Especially when I evaluated the market and also realized that the big spending companies (car dealers etc...) were affiliated with the senior advertising people.

Paul Sullivan mentioned something along these lines in his interview with WSI : "All I can say about this is that the Sox are poorly marketed. Whoís fault it is, I canít say. If I were the marketing director of the Sox, I could increase attendance by a half a million fans or so. The first thing I would do is make the upper deck a party deck with very cheap seats. Keep the riff raff up there and not in the bleachers where they can cause trouble. The fact that the Sox refuse to cut ticket prices in the upper deck proves they donít understand how much people dislike sitting up there."


Lip

owensmouth
04-16-2004, 11:21 AM
One question that I have about the new television agreement is how do they devide up the money? The Bulls, the White Sox, the Cubs and the Blackhawks aren't going to take 25% each.

Who is going to sell the advertising? How much say will the individual advertisers have?

If I only want to advertise during White Sox games, do they get all of that money? If the rates are higher for the Cubs games, do they get more? If someone determines that twice as many television sets are on for Cub games than White Sox games is the split 50/50 or 66/33?

If the Sox are able to increase the interest in the team to cause a parallel increase in viewership, will they get more money? And what the opposite occurs?

longshot7
04-16-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by ChiSoxBob
Just more Cubune bullcrap to undermine signing Magglio, gee wiz Phil maybe we should just give our best player to your beloved scubs and call it a year. I've never seen a city where the sports media is so biased as in Chicago. From this guy Rogers to Moronotti, try reading his colum this morning, its unbeleiveable how they all know whats going to happen with Maggs not only that but they all know that Maggs wants to leave the White Sox. I really can't think of any sports writer on one of the major papers in Chicago who is a homer for the White Sox as they sure are for the scrubs.

You have got to be kidding me. Rogers is as unbiased as I've seen - he even picked the Sox to win the pennant last year.

The artcle was informative & not negative. Is Mags' contract up after next year? YES. Is it possible that he won't be back? YES. We don't need stupid fluff pieces. I want facts. If you can't handle it, too bad.

Lip Man 1
04-16-2004, 11:36 AM
From Phil Rogers interview with WSI:

"Itís kind of funny that some fans think Iím a Cubs fan. Iím actually more comfortable in Comiskey Park then Wrigley Field. I think the National League should have a DH. I grew up a Rangers fan and covered then for a long time. Iím an American League guy." -- Phil Rogers.

Lip

The Big Squirt
04-16-2004, 11:37 AM
Thank you Mr. Rogers :)

mweflen
04-16-2004, 01:31 PM
The most interesting part of the article to me:

It's easy to criticize Reinsdorf for not spending major-market dollars on his payroll. But the reality is that his revenue stream has not kept up with what you would consider a major market, and he has priced many of his fans out of tickets on all but half-price nights and kids-get-in-for-$1 Sunday afternoons.

It's such a tricky thing, balancing payroll, ticket prices, etc.

I think JR and Gallas have failed, personally. There's a point of diminishing returns, to be sure, when you lower prices - but there is also a point *before* diminishing returns when you profit from the additional fannies in the seats instead of lose money from the marginally lower prices.

If the Sox drew an average 5,000 more fans per game, we wouldn't be wringing our hands about Ordonez leaving via free agency. (This is a pure WAG estimate of course... but I think it's valid)

If JR and Rob Gallas hadn't priced their working class fans onto their living room couches, the Sox would draw 5,000 more fans per game.

So it all goes back to the "chicken and egg" issue. Who will spend first? Sox management, or Sox fans?

Personally, I think it's managements' turn.

joecrede
04-16-2004, 01:39 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lip Man 1
However I wanted to mention a point in Phil's story that hasn't been brought up. Find the part where Phil says (and I'm paraphrasing here...) that Reinsdorf has basically priced his fan base out of being able to get tickets except on half price nights and kids days.

As you're fond of pointing out Lip, Chicago is the third largest market in baseball. :D:

Just teasing Lip, but Rogers point isn't valid because there are about 3,000 excellent seats (3,000 additional pretty good-to-okay seats) available for $6.00 on half-price nights, $12.00 Wednesday and Thursday and $16.00 Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

The new upper deck reserve seating went into effect this year so a lot of people I'm sure still think of those seats as terrible ones. I suspect the "new and improved" UDR seats will become more and more popular as the season goes along. The Sox should have done a better job publicizing this aspect of the UD renovation.

SoxxoS
04-16-2004, 01:40 PM
I am sick about hearing about this dollar crap with the Sox.

I think I am going to start calling Reinsdorf "Mr. Bottom Line" b/c that is what he cares about, not the world series ring. I don't want him to have a 175 million dollar payroll like Boston or New York....that isn't necessary. I just want a payroll enough to compete in the playoffs. A payroll where KW doesn't have to make moves at the trading deadline trading our minor league players. That's all.

Most of all, I don't care if we win with 25 million dollar payroll as long as we win. If we win, everything will take care of itself.

mweflen
04-16-2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by joecrede

Rogers point isn't valid because there are about 3,000 excellent seats (3,000 additional pretty good-to-okay seats) available for $6.00 on half-price nights, $12.00 Wednesday and Thursday and $16.00 Friday, Saturday and Sunday.



There are only 4 mondyas on the home calendar this year. Coincidence? I wonder, given Satan's past ability to Jerry-mander the schedule to his liking.

There are 13 Tuesdays on the schedule. However, these tickets can only be purchased on the day of game, or online the night before.

So that's 17 half price dates out of 81. And on nights when most working class folks can't go to games - whether because of their own schedules or their kids school commitments.

Rogers is right - outside of those undesirable weeknights, tickets just cost too much for the average working class family to afford.

I like the dollar Sunday promotion a lot - but it should be EVERY Sunday! Why not make that a day when families can bring their kids to the park? I think you'd see a huge increase in attendance if the Sox put out a *well-publicized* and *comprehensive* discounting effort. Mondays and Tuesdays are a start, but it's obviously not enough.