PDA

View Full Version : Lame and wrong Mariotti column: volume 2466


batmanZoSo
04-23-2004, 09:01 AM
Click to lower your intelligence level (http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay23.html)

So there was Jerry Reinsdorf, in a far-flung corridor beyond center field, unveiling a life-size statue of the man whose name he sold to a cell-phone firm for $68 million. And there was the upper deck, very high above him, still among America's biggest stadium farces despite using almost half of that $68 million to remove eight rows of seating and add -- yes, add -- a series of poles to support a new roof.

Hey, he doesn't like the renovations!

God will it ever end? This guy is a total jackass. The Cell is easily in the upper half or better of the current ballparks yet he still can't say anything good about it. I expected this column all offseason and here it is.

Hokiesox
04-23-2004, 09:12 AM
Did you read the whole article? He actually dumps on JR throughout the article...and, even wishes the Sox well! How sincere he was or not, who knows...but I thought the whole article was fair, and perhaps an olive branch to Sox fans.

munchman33
04-23-2004, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Hokiesox
Did you read the whole article? He actually dumps on JR throughout the article...and, even wishes the Sox well! How sincere he was or not, who knows...but I thought the whole article was fair, and perhaps an olive branch to Sox fans.

It's way too late for that. I'm so sick of this guys bull****.

woodenleg
04-23-2004, 09:21 AM
Jesus Christ, it isn't THAT bad. I swear, some people must stay away from the park because they've merely HEARD about the "awful" upper deck. I've actually had people who have never been to the Cell tell me about the "scary" upper deck. Where did they hear about it?

You'd think it was the only park in the universe with nosebleed seats.

SSN721
04-23-2004, 09:24 AM
Its the same anti-JR stuff that he manages to put into just about every Sox article, but at least it was most of the Anti-JR stuff I agree with. I didnt think it was bad, just a rehash of the same old article he has been writing for the last few years. I still think that his animosity for management of this team must slant his views on the ball park itself. I dont know how anyone can go there and say how awful of a place Mariotti makes it out to be. That is the only think that irks me about it, if it is an olive branch to the fans, dont spit on our home and tell us how awful it is when I think the majority of the people on this site (and most Sox fans in general) have no problem with it at all and actually think it is a great place to watch a game. At least I do. If I am wrong about that then I am sorry, didnt mean to put words in peoples mouths.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Hokiesox
Did you read the whole article? He actually dumps on JR throughout the article...and, even wishes the Sox well! How sincere he was or not, who knows...but I thought the whole article was fair, and perhaps an olive branch to Sox fans.


I didn't get that at all from the article. The guy is a jerk. He still can't say anything nice about our ballpark. All his talk about the upper deck....I'm sick of it. Does he even to go any of the new ballparks UD's at all for comparison?

And what does the term ballmall really mean? He's used that for years. I don't get it. If you're talkinga about a mall, I think malls look pretty nice, so what's up with that?

I read his article before this thread started, and I'm sorry I did. Maybe I'll learn my lesson now. He's such an idiot.

batmanZoSo
04-23-2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Hokiesox
Did you read the whole article?

Yeah, and I thought it was garbage. Not only that, it was lame, beaten-into-the-ground drivel with no new insight--or any for that matter. Someone should send him a rake as a symbol of his wonderful journalism.

cheeses_h_rice
04-23-2004, 09:25 AM
He keeps calling the park an "obsolete ballmall."

Please, Moron, TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT ABOUT OUR BEAUTIFUL BALLPARK IS "OBSOLETE." Please, I'm dying to learn how our wide concourses, comfortable seats, rustic historical touches throughout the park, excellent food choices, even, carpet-like playing surface (that drains quickly when it rains) -- unlike that truly obsolete POS up north -- etc. are somehow OBSOLETE.

I'll even look it up for you:

obĚsoĚlete ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bs-lt, bs-lt)
adj.

1. No longer in use: an obsolete word.
2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction:

WHAT DO YOU WANT, MORON? Bricks? A novelty-sized Coke bottle in the outfield? A choo-choo train that rolls along the tracks? A guy sliding down a curvy slide every time the Sox hit a home run?

Please. Tell me. I'm dying to know.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
Its the same anti-JR stuff that he manages to put into just about every Sox article, but at least it was most of the Anti-JR stuff I agree with. I didnt think it was bad, just a rehash of the same old article he has been writing for the last few years. I still think that his animosity for management of this team must slant his views on the ball park itself. I dont know how anyone can go there and say how awful of a place Mariotti makes it out to be. That is the only think that irks me about it, if it is an olive branch to the fans, dont spit on our home and tell us how awful it is when I think the majority of the people on this site (and most Sox fans in general) have no problem with it at all and actually think it is a great place to watch a game. At least I do. If I am wrong about that then I am sorry, didnt mean to put words in peoples mouths.

I'm with ya. :smile:

batmanZoSo
04-23-2004, 09:26 AM
I didnt think it was bad, just a rehash of the same old article he has been writing for the last few years.

That's precisely why it's so irritating. I knew this article was coming..we all did. I thought I would enjoy it and have a laugh but it just ticked me off.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by woodenleg
Jesus Christ, it isn't THAT bad. I swear, some people must stay away from the park because they've merely HEARD about the "awful" upper deck. I've actually had people who have never been to the Cell tell me about the "scary" upper deck. Where did they hear about it?

You'd think it was the only park in the universe with nosebleed seats.


No kidding, he is so freaking biased about our ballpark it's pathetic.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
He keeps calling the park an "obsolete ballmall."

Please, Moron, TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT ABOUT OUR BEAUTIFUL BALLPARK IS "OBSOLETE." Please, I'm dying to learn how our wide concourses, comfortable seats, rustic historical touches throughout the park, excellent food choices, even, carpet-like playing surface (that drains quickly when it rains) -- unlike that truly obsolete POS up north -- etc. are somehow OBSOLETE.

I'll even look it up for you:

obĚsoĚlete ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bs-lt, bs-lt)
adj.

1. No longer in use: an obsolete word.
2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction:

WHAT DO YOU WANT, MORON? Bricks? A novelty-sized Coke bottle in the outfield? A choo-choo train that rolls along the tracks? A guy sliding down a curvy slide every time the Sox hit a home run?

Please. Tell me. I'm dying to know.




That's what I'd like to know as well. He has all these criticisms, but fails to offer what he would like in a ballpark, besides wanting one in the South Loop---well jack***, that's not going to happen, so pony up a constructive answer dufus........ :angry:

batmanZoSo
04-23-2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
He keeps calling the park an "obsolete ballmall."

Please, Moron, TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT ABOUT OUR BEAUTIFUL BALLPARK IS "OBSOLETE." Please, I'm dying to learn how our wide concourses, comfortable seats, rustic historical touches throughout the park, excellent food choices, even, carpet-like playing surface (that drains quickly when it rains) -- unlike that truly obsolete POS up north -- etc. are somehow OBSOLETE.

I'll even look it up for you:

obĚsoĚlete ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bs-lt, bs-lt)
adj.

1. No longer in use: an obsolete word.
2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction:

WHAT DO YOU WANT, MORON? Bricks? A novelty-sized Coke bottle in the outfield? A choo-choo train that rolls along the tracks? A guy sliding down a curvy slide every time the Sox hit a home run?

Please. Tell me. I'm dying to know.

He'd tell ya, but....

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/moron.jpg
"I've got a radio show to do!"

cheeses_h_rice
04-23-2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
He'd tell ya, but....

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/moron.jpg
"I've got a radio show to do!"

:moron

It's easy, Cheeses.

In my world, the ideal ballpark would be small and cramped, with early 20th century plumbing. Men would stand around troughs to go to the bathroom, after standing in line for several minutes watching other guys peeing. To get from point A to point B, you'd have to walk through narrow corridors with low ceilings. The food choices would be limited and not very tasty at all. Seating-wise, you would ideally be crammed in like cattle next to everyone else. The constrant stream of people walking in front of you would add that extra ambiance. A good portion of the seats in the lower deck would have obstructed views, either from beams in front of you, or from the overhang of the upper deck, that would block your view of any flyball hit. In the upper deck, the worst seats would be like sitting on a 747 flying above the park, with the added bonus of having beams in front of you. The scoreboard would be old fashioned, with scant information about the action happening onfield. Statistics like the current batter's average, what he did earlier in the game, pitch count, pitch speed, the lineup, who's pitching, etc. wouldn't be shown.

There would be a slew of choices of bars around this park, too, because in my mind, what surrounds the park is much more important than the actual park attributes. Oh, and there would be plenty of attractive 20-something babes and dudes in the neighborhood, so as to give the impression that where I go to watch baseball games is somehow hip and happening.

Add these things, Cheeses, and I think the ballmall down south has a chance of not being "obsolete" anymore.

Rocky Soprano
04-23-2004, 09:47 AM
The Cubs game was rained out so this moron wasnt able to kiss any Cubbie ass. So of course he decided to go back in his archive and print the same old crap.

This guy is a joke.

Iwritecode
04-23-2004, 09:47 AM
add -- yes, add -- a series of poles to support a new roof.

Yet all those poles holding up the roof AND upper deck of Wrigley are what gives it it's charm...

cheeses_h_rice
04-23-2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Yet all those poles holding up the roof AND upper deck of Wrigley are what gives it it's charm...

Ssshhhh, IWC, you wouldn't dare point out the Moron's blatant hypocrisy, would you?

:)

Iwritecode
04-23-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
:moron

It's easy, Cheeses.

In my world, the ideal ballpark would be small and cramped, with early 20th century plumbing. Men would stand around troughs to go to the bathroom, after standing in line for several minutes watching other guys peeing.

You forgot to add that you would be able to smell the bathrooms from any seat in the park as well...

Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
To get from point A to point B, you'd have to walk through narrow corridors with low ceilings. The food choices would be limited and not very tasty at all.

This is absolutely true. I felt like I was walking around a basement the first time I went down there. I was sorely dissappointed with the selection of food.

Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
A good portion of the seats in the lower deck would have obstructed views, either from beams in front of you, or from the overhang of the upper deck, that would block your view of any flyball hit. In the upper deck, the worst seats would be like sitting on a 747 flying above the park, with the added bonus of having beams in front of you.

Great minds think alike I guess. :D:

Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
The scoreboard would be old fashioned, with scant information about the action happening onfield. Statistics like the current batter's average, what he did earlier in the game, pitch count, pitch speed, the lineup, who's pitching, etc. wouldn't be shown.

I'm really surprised this point isn't brought up more. IMO, it's the #1 reason half the people in the ballpark don't pay attention and don't have a clue what's going on...

Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
There would be a slew of choices of bars around this park, too, because in my mind, what surrounds the park is much more important than the actual park attributes. Oh, and there would be plenty of attractive 20-something babes and dudes in the neighborhood, so as to give the impression that where I go to watch baseball games is somehow hip and happening.

This point has been beat to death but I have to say again, I'd rather have a good park with fun stuff to do and eat INSIDE rather than have to wait until the game is over.

Great post BTW!! :gulp: :D: :smile: :gulp:

batmanZoSo
04-23-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
:moron

It's easy, Cheeses.

In my world, the ideal ballpark would be small and cramped, with early 20th century plumbing. Men would stand around troughs to go to the bathroom, after standing in line for several minutes watching other guys peeing. To get from point A to point B, you'd have to walk through narrow corridors with low ceilings. The food choices would be limited and not very tasty at all. Seating-wise, you would ideally be crammed in like cattle next to everyone else. The constrant stream of people walking in front of you would add that extra ambiance. A good portion of the seats in the lower deck would have obstructed views, either from beams in front of you, or from the overhang of the upper deck, that would block your view of any flyball hit. In the upper deck, the worst seats would be like sitting on a 747 flying above the park, with the added bonus of having beams in front of you. The scoreboard would be old fashioned, with scant information about the action happening onfield. Statistics like the current batter's average, what he did earlier in the game, pitch count, pitch speed, the lineup, who's pitching, etc. wouldn't be shown.

There would be a slew of choices of bars around this park, too, because in my mind, what surrounds the park is much more important than the actual park attributes. Oh, and there would be plenty of attractive 20-something babes and dudes in the neighborhood, so as to give the impression that where I go to watch baseball games is somehow hip and happening.

Add these things, Cheeses, and I think the ballmall down south has a chance of not being "obsolete" anymore.

Problem was, plenty of upper-deck seats were available for all three games of the Yankees' only 2004 appearance, one of the highlights on your pocket schedule

LMAO. Um, a-hole, the average temperature was like 48 degrees for the series, including the opener during which multiple TORNADOS ripped through the southwest. Not to mention it poured for most of the day prior to the game, no doubt discouraging thousands of would-be walk-ups. Oy vey.

When Gallas made his surprise announcement, some clueless observers viewed the resignation as his admission of failure.

He even ripped into us here at WSI. So when the next inept marketing boss comes in and fails he can say "I told you Gallas wasn't the problem."

I know, I know, I'm dreaming.

I agree.

southpaw40
04-23-2004, 10:13 AM
I know he has been accused of writing about what happened at the ball park while not even being there. Does anyone know if he was even AT the Cell yesterday?

Over By There
04-23-2004, 10:14 AM
My policy is to no longer read or listen to Mariotti. It's simple, really. If we don't read/listen, and stop making such a huge fuss over him, then he's useless to the Sun-Times and AM1000, and he'll lose his job. I'm sure he'll be with the ST for a long time to come, but I would think his future on the radio is far less certain.

It's similar to a shock-jock situation. They have to offend people and be morons to keep people talking about them so they can keep their jobs.

woodenleg
04-23-2004, 10:32 AM
And another thing - he keeps talking about attracting people from downtown. The thing is, the L ride to the Cell from downtown is actually pretty short. I take it from work on game days, and it's faster than the trip to Addison, where I lived for a long time.

sas1974
04-23-2004, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
Does he even to go any of the new ballparks UD's at all for comparison?

The real question is "Does he even go to THIS ballpark?" Has he ever sat in the upper deck? I highly doubt it. Does he actually go to the games? I've never seen him there.

Can you imagine the response he would get if someone actually saw his face?

bobj4400
04-23-2004, 10:40 AM
It is as simple as this: Moronotti and Reinsdorf hate each other. Because of this, the Moron will continue to rip the White Sox at every turn. It is his way of getting to Reinsdorf. Just the same as Reinsdorf pulling JM's parking pass for US Cellular earlier this season. They are acting like ten year old's in a tit for tat game of one upsmanship. And b/c JM has a radio show, newspaper column, and tv show, he will continue to win this war and spin the White Sox in a bad way until one or the other is gone...

cheeses_h_rice
04-23-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by bobj4400
It is as simple as this: Moronotti and Reinsdorf hate each other. Because of this, the Moron will continue to rip the White Sox at every turn. It is his way of getting to Reinsdorf. Just the same as Reinsdorf pulling JM's parking pass for US Cellular earlier this season. They are acting like ten year old's in a tit for tat game of one upsmanship. And b/c JM has a radio show, newspaper column, and tv show, he will continue to win this war and spin the White Sox in a bad way until one or the other is gone...

I have no problems with the Moron cutting down Reinsdorf. We've all read the various litanies of complaints about Sox ownership on this site.

It's his continuing denigration of the ballpark and the baseball experience on the South Side that pisses me the hell off. US Cellular Field is a good place to see a game; all the modifications to the park in the last few years to take away some of the sterile concrete feel to it, have made it a much homier place to see a game. I would MUCH, MUCH rather have the Cell as my park over the Urinal, considering how many games I go to a year.

All the Moron's constant negativity and bashing do is worsen the public perception of the ballpark the Sox play in, and yes, this does translate into reality for the vast majority of people for whom baseball is not a big part of their lives, but something more on the periphery.

Why can't there be a loudmouthed columnist in this city who stands up for the Sox and can bash the **** out of the Flubs for the jackasses who populate that aging, smelly park on the North Side? Is that too much to ask?

DrummerGeorgefan
04-23-2004, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
I have no problems with the Moron cutting down Reinsdorf. We've all read the various litanies of complaints about Sox ownership on this site.

It's his continuing denigration of the ballpark and the baseball experience on the South Side that pisses me the hell off. US Cellular Field is a good place to see a game; all the modifications to the park in the last few years to take away some of the sterile concrete feel to it, have made it a much homier place to see a game. I would MUCH, MUCH rather have the Cell as my park over the Urinal, considering how many games I go to a year.

DrummerGeorgefan
04-23-2004, 11:15 AM
Sorry about that...

I was gonna say Amen brother. The park is great to see a game. Its got some of the best homeplate sight lines around, even from the UD.

I am glad he got his parking pass revoked.

joecrede
04-23-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by southpaw40
I know he has been accused of writing about what happened at the ball park while not even being there. Does anyone know if he was even AT the Cell yesterday?

My guess is he was at a restaurant or bar nowhere near U.S. Cellular field last night.

batmanZoSo
04-23-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
My guess is he was at a restaurant or bar nowhere near U.S. Cellular field last night.

:)

jackbrohamer
04-23-2004, 11:34 AM
Seriously, *** is this guy so angry about? I almost had to wipe the spittle off my glasses after I read that idiotic (excuse me, Moronic) article.

And Chuck Comiskey seemed to enjoy the statue & ceremony, which the Moron didn't get around to mentioning. Probably because he at a bar instead of the ballgame.

joecrede
04-23-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
I have no problems with the Moron cutting down Reinsdorf. We've all read the various litanies of complaints about Sox ownership on this site.

It's his continuing denigration of the ballpark and the baseball experience on the South Side that pisses me the hell off. US Cellular Field is a good place to see a game; all the modifications to the park in the last few years to take away some of the sterile concrete feel to it, have made it a much homier place to see a game. I would MUCH, MUCH rather have the Cell as my park over the Urinal, considering how many games I go to a year.

All the Moron's constant negativity and bashing do is worsen the public perception of the ballpark the Sox play in, and yes, this does translate into reality for the vast majority of people for whom baseball is not a big part of their lives, but something more on the periphery.

Why can't there be a loudmouthed columnist in this city who stands up for the Sox and can bash the **** out of the Flubs for the jackasses who populate that aging, smelly park on the North Side? Is that too much to ask?

My thing is, he can rip Reinsdorf all he wants, but the guy has less than zero credibillity. By being so wrong about the upper deck and the park in general, doesn't one also have to allow for the idea that he is also wrong about Reinsdorf?

Further, taking a page out of Pres. Kennedy's book during the Cuban missille crisis, I think we should regard any criticism by Mariotti on the Sox, the park, or the neghborhood as an attack on Sox fans and the entire south side. :gulp:

JRIG
04-23-2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
He keeps calling the park an "obsolete ballmall."

Please, Moron, TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT ABOUT OUR BEAUTIFUL BALLPARK IS "OBSOLETE." Please, I'm dying to learn how our wide concourses, comfortable seats, rustic historical touches throughout the park, excellent food choices, even, carpet-like playing surface (that drains quickly when it rains) -- unlike that truly obsolete POS up north -- etc. are somehow OBSOLETE.

I'll even look it up for you:

obĚsoĚlete ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bs-lt, bs-lt)
adj.

1. No longer in use: an obsolete word.
2. Outmoded in design, style, or construction:

WHAT DO YOU WANT, MORON? Bricks? A novelty-sized Coke bottle in the outfield? A choo-choo train that rolls along the tracks? A guy sliding down a curvy slide every time the Sox hit a home run?

Please. Tell me. I'm dying to know.

I love this post. Love it.

That's all I have.

jackbrohamer
04-23-2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by woodenleg
And another thing - he keeps talking about attracting people from downtown. The thing is, the L ride to the Cell from downtown is actually pretty short. I take it from work on game days, and it's faster than the trip to Addison, where I lived for a long time.

It's exactly a 10-minute CTA trip from mid-Loop to either ballpark. Of course, he'd have to actually go to a ballgame to ever figure that out on his own

joecrede
04-23-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Over By There
My policy is to no longer read or listen to Mariotti. It's simple, really. If we don't read/listen, and stop making such a huge fuss over him, then he's useless to the Sun-Times and AM1000, and he'll lose his job. I'm sure he'll be with the ST for a long time to come, but I would think his future on the radio is far less certain.


I think ignoring the guy is the wrong thing. People have been doing that for years (check his previous radio ratings for proof.), but he's still here.

sas1974
04-23-2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by jackbrohamer
It's exactly a 10-minute CTA trip from mid-Loop to either ballpark. Of course, he'd have to actually go to a ballgame to ever figure that out on his own

And technically, Wrigley is at 3600 North while The Cell is at 3500 South. We're actually one block closer to the heart of The Loop(State/Madison 0/0).

batmanZoSo
04-23-2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by sas1974
And technically, Wrigley is at 3600 North while The Cell is at 3500 South. We're actually one block closer to the heart of The Loop(State/Madison 0/0).

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/moron.jpg

"It's simple...the length of the blocks must be shorter on the south side, making Comiskey's address seem closer to downtown."

bobj4400
04-23-2004, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by sas1974
And technically, Wrigley is at 3600 North while The Cell is at 3500 South. We're actually one block closer to the heart of The Loop(State/Madison 0/0).

:moron

"I have never let the facts stand in the way of my arguments before, why should I start now...afterall, you are just a stupid White Sox fan."

cheeses_h_rice
04-23-2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by jackbrohamer
It's exactly a 10-minute CTA trip from mid-Loop to either ballpark. Of course, he'd have to actually go to a ballgame to ever figure that out on his own

I'm pretty sure there are a lot fewer stops heading to 35th than there are going to Addison.


:moron

Yep, those extra stops on the way up to Wrigley sure add to the ol' ballpark experience!

soxnut
04-23-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
:moron

It's easy, Cheeses.

In my world, the ideal ballpark would be small and cramped, with early 20th century plumbing. Men would stand around troughs to go to the bathroom, after standing in line for several minutes watching other guys peeing. To get from point A to point B, you'd have to walk through narrow corridors with low ceilings. The food choices would be limited and not very tasty at all. Seating-wise, you would ideally be crammed in like cattle next to everyone else. The constrant stream of people walking in front of you would add that extra ambiance. A good portion of the seats in the lower deck would have obstructed views, either from beams in front of you, or from the overhang of the upper deck, that would block your view of any flyball hit. In the upper deck, the worst seats would be like sitting on a 747 flying above the park, with the added bonus of having beams in front of you. The scoreboard would be old fashioned, with scant information about the action happening onfield. Statistics like the current batter's average, what he did earlier in the game, pitch count, pitch speed, the lineup, who's pitching, etc. wouldn't be shown.

There would be a slew of choices of bars around this park, too, because in my mind, what surrounds the park is much more important than the actual park attributes. Oh, and there would be plenty of attractive 20-something babes and dudes in the neighborhood, so as to give the impression that where I go to watch baseball games is somehow hip and happening.

Add these things, Cheeses, and I think the ballmall down south has a chance of not being "obsolete" anymore.




That's good. We should send him this entire thread.

zach23
04-23-2004, 12:18 PM
I know it isn't going to put them out of business, but I finally had enough and cancelled my subscription to the cubtimes. I sent them this:

"Please cancel my current subscription to the Sun-Times. While I have enjoyed your paper for years, I have grown tired of the biased reporting of your sports columnists when it pertains to the city's baseball teams. The sports section is one of my favorite parts of a newspaper, and I can't stomach to read what is written in your paper anymore. It is too bad that you hire writers that seem on a mission to drive the baseball team I love out of this city by only writing about the negative things involving the team while the other team gets a free pass on any negative press. I love the rest of your paper, but the negative garbage written by Jay Mariotti, Rick Telander, Carol Slezak, and Chris Deluca have made it so I don't even feel like walking out to the driveway to pick up the paper in the morning anymore. It amazes me that when a team starts good, shows promise and is energized by an enthusiastic new manager, there is no mention of any of these things. Instead, the fan incidents of the past are rehashed to give the idiots more publicity and the same tired columns about attendance and the upper deck are dusted off to be stuck in the fan's faces. Even the visiting team gets more positive press than our own in your paper. In the past I have tried to ignore it, but it would be nice to hear about both the good and bad surrounding the team instead of just the same tired mantra of hatred toward the ownership and the stadium. It would be nice to see some columns discussing the players instead of the upper deck and attendance. Please don't send me your newspaper anymore. I will not be renewing the subscription. You can forward this to the editor of the sports department if you so choose."

I know I am just one person and they will probably not care, but at least I don't have to see this idiot's stuff in print anymore and I made my opinion known to them.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 12:20 PM
BallPark comments not withstanding, I happen to agree 100% with what Marrioti wrote about Jerry Reinsdorf..... ESPECIALLY the part about Jerry Reinsdorf having decision one about what a publically funded baseball stadium would look like and reside.

anewman35
04-23-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
BallPark comments not withstanding, I happen to agree 100% with what Marrioti wrote about Jerry Reinsdorf..... ESPECIALLY the part about Jerry Reinsdorf having decision one about what a publically funded baseball stadium would look like and reside.

If Jerry didn't get to decide, then who? Were we supposed to have a public vote? Or just randomly pick somebody? Or have the governor decide? Or what? None of those in any way would guarantee that the park would have been any better.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
BallPark comments not withstanding, I happen to agree 100% with what Marrioti wrote about Jerry Reinsdorf..... ESPECIALLY the part about Jerry Reinsdorf having decision one about what a publically funded baseball stadium would look like and reside.

CubKilla, it's just the same old rehashing from this guy about the Sox, regardless if it is about Reinsdorf or the ballpark. It's getting old. This guy has been on the same three subjects about the Sox(JR, stadiu,.attendance) since at least 1992. You could exchange one article for another---it's all the same bs. And for fringe sports fans, who might want a nice casual night out to see a ballgame, more than likely will be steered away from ours.

As for where the ballpark would reside, there wasn't any choice. Addson said no, and Mayors prior to Daley said 35th and Shields.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
If Jerry didn't get to decide, then who? Were we supposed to have a public vote? Or just randomly pick somebody? Or have the governor decide? Or what? None of those in any way would guarantee that the park would have been any better.

Couldn't have been any worse either. IMHO, since the taxpayer paid for the albatross, I find it laughable that not one taxpayer other than JR had any input into what was built at 35th and Veeck Dr.

Over By There
04-23-2004, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I think ignoring the guy is the wrong thing. People have been doing that for years (check his previous radio ratings for proof.), but he's still here.

I'm not suggesting it's a quick fix by any means.

If everyone is talking about him, that means everyone is reading his garbage or listening to his drivel. That's all the newspaper or radio station wants.

Unless he makes some horrendous, non-politically correct statement, there's likely only one thing that will get him off the pages/airwaves - an apathetic public.

poorme
04-23-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by zach23
I know it isn't going to put them out of business, but I finally had enough and cancelled my subscription to the cubtimes.

What kind of newpaper fan are you? You should have bought 10 subscriptions and hoped they hired somebody better!

soxnut
04-23-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Couldn't have been any worse either. IMHO, since the taxpayer paid for the albatross, I find it laughable that not one taxpayer other than JR had any input into what was built at 35th and Veeck Dr.

So I guess you don't like the ballpark?

anewman35
04-23-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Couldn't have been any worse either. IMHO, since the taxpayer paid for the albatross, I find it laughable that not one taxpayer other than JR had any input into what was built at 35th and Veeck Dr.

Again, if you think it was such a bad way to do things, how would you have done it? Would it really have changed a damn thing if there was some stupid committee or something? It's not like any normal people would have had any input, and they;'d have probably just done what the Sox wanted anyway.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
So I guess you don't like the ballpark?

Never have

soxnut
04-23-2004, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Never have

Ok What is it you want in a ballpark?

mdep524
04-23-2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by zach23
I know it isn't going to put them out of business, but I finally had enough and cancelled my subscription to the cubtimes. I sent them this:

"Please cancel my current subscription to the Sun-Times. While I have enjoyed your paper for years, I have grown tired of the biased reporting of your sports columnists when it pertains to the city's baseball teams. The sports section is one of my favorite parts of a newspaper, and I can't stomach to read what is written in your paper anymore. It is too bad that you hire writers that seem on a mission to drive the baseball team I love out of this city by only writing about the negative things involving the team while the other team gets a free pass on any negative press. I love the rest of your paper, but the negative garbage written by Jay Mariotti, Rick Telander, Carol Slezak, and Chris Deluca have made it so I don't even feel like walking out to the driveway to pick up the paper in the morning anymore. It amazes me that when a team starts good, shows promise and is energized by an enthusiastic new manager, there is no mention of any of these things. Instead, the fan incidents of the past are rehashed to give the idiots more publicity and the same tired columns about attendance and the upper deck are dusted off to be stuck in the fan's faces. Even the visiting team gets more positive press than our own in your paper. In the past I have tried to ignore it, but it would be nice to hear about both the good and bad surrounding the team instead of just the same tired mantra of hatred toward the ownership and the stadium. It would be nice to see some columns discussing the players instead of the upper deck and attendance. Please don't send me your newspaper anymore. I will not be renewing the subscription. You can forward this to the editor of the sports department if you so choose."

I know I am just one person and they will probably not care, but at least I don't have to see this idiot's stuff in print anymore and I made my opinion known to them.

Way to go Zach! I admire that. Someone has got to start telling these goofs what we think. I emailed Rich Morrisey yesterday for his terribly inaccurate article and I did the same today to Mariotti/the Sun Times. Will it make a difference? Probably not. But this White Sox reputation slamming has got to stop somehow.

sas1974
04-23-2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by poorme
What kind of newpaper fan are you? You should have bought 10 subscriptions and hoped they hired somebody better!

Ok, I am usually on the side saying "Go to the park, cheer on your team and stop complaining about the owner," but THAT was a good one. It definitely puts a new perspective on things.

pudge
04-23-2004, 12:58 PM
I can't believe an editor doesn't step up and say, "Um, Jay, why are you writing about events that happened over seven years ago?"

Let's see, White Flag trade: Seven years old

1994 strike: 10 years old.

Now the Sox make a commitment to improve their ballpark, and open the season with the highest payroll in club history, and all Jay can write about is 1997 and 1994?

Pathetic.

alohafri
04-23-2004, 01:11 PM
To Zach23:

What an excellent letter to the cubtimes!! If I was a subscriber, I would ask your permission to copy and send it to the paper. You should send a copy of it to the cubune too, just to let them know too how fed up Sox fans are with the media in this town.

---Mrs. Aloha



:gulp: a toast to Zach!

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Again, if you think it was such a bad way to do things, how would you have done it? Would it really have changed a damn thing if there was some stupid committee or something? It's not like any normal people would have had any input, and they;'d have probably just done what the Sox wanted anyway.

Back in the mid-to-late 80's, when JR began his quest for a publically funded stadium, there were plenty of locations on the near Southside of Chicago, near downtown with skyline views, where USCF could have been built. Problem with that is, JR would have had to buy the land from the City or the State AND pay for his own baseball stadium. Paying for either or was out of the question for JR. Why spend your money when you can spend someone else's? So he extorts the City and State with threats of moving the White Sox to St. Petersburg, which was dumb enough to build JR another eyesore in their fair city, unless the City and State approve public funding for his new baseball stadium. The White Sox are all but property of the City of Tampa Bay when Jim Thompson and the City of Chicago get last minute approval from the Illinois General Assembly to build JR a publically funded baseball stadium at the location of 35th and what is now Veeck Dr. JR knows what stadium he wants built for his franchise at our expense. It's the "future" of baseball stadiums built on a grid suitable for Addison but Addison, wisely, has already told JR to "stick it". Considering the Illinois Legislature saved the Sox for Chicago at the last minute and fearing public outcry that the public had no say so in what or where the stadium that they were funding would materialize, the City re-routes streets and the State buys up the property south of Old Comiskey Park to build JR's new stadium to JR's specifications. No other locations, other than the Armour Park area, are considered since JR knows what White Sox fans want. Time is now of the essence, so little things like, let's see, maybe getting landmark status for the Oldest Park in Major League baseball is either not thought of or deemed unnecessary considering JR needs parking lots for his new behemoth. When the businesses and surrounding homes south of Comiskey Park find out JR, the City and State have scheduled their properties for the wrecking ball, JR breaks another of his many promises to the Bridgeport business owners atleast by lying to them about letting them rebuild across from the BallPark once his BallPark is completed. JR once again extorts begruding approval from the business owners south of Comiskey Park taking JR at his word of future rebuilding. By now, the City and State are feeling the heat from the taxpayers of Illinois who aren't happy that they're paying for JR's new stadium AND that the City and State allowed JR to extort the stadium from them. But after the property south of USCF is bulldozed, ground is broken and the foundation is laid for JR's BallPark at taxpayer expense because the City and State allow one person to dictate the entire building of Comiskey II and razing of Comiskey I.

To answer your question, I am of the opinion that when the public is paying for a recreation facility, the public should be consulted and the public should have a voice on everything from location to design be it through through vote, public hearings, referendum, etc.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
Ok What is it you want in a ballpark?

A ballpark should be an extension of the city it represents and the fans that inhabit it. USCF does neither.

bobj4400
04-23-2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Back in the mid-to-late 80's, when JR began his quest for a publically funded stadium, there were plenty of locations on the near Southside of Chicago, near downtown with skyline views, where USCF could have been built. Problem with that is, JR would have had to buy the land from the City or the State AND pay for his own baseball stadium. Paying for either or was out of the question for JR. Why spend your money when you can spend someone else's? So he extorts the City and State with threats of moving the White Sox to St. Petersburg, which was dumb enough to build JR another eyesore in their fair city, unless the City and State approve public funding for his new baseball stadium. The White Sox are all but property of the City of Tampa Bay when Jim Thompson and the City of Chicago get last minute approval from the Illinois General Assembly to build JR a publically funded baseball stadium at the location of 35th and what is now Veeck Dr. JR knows what stadium he wants built for his franchise at our expense. It's the "future" of baseball stadiums built on a grid suitable for Addison but Addison, wisely, has already told JR to "stick it". Considering the Illinois Legislature saved the Sox for Chicago at the last minute and fearing public outcry that the public had no say so in what or where the stadium that they were funding would materialize, the City re-routes streets and the State buys up the property south of Old Comiskey Park to build JR's new stadium to JR's specifications. No other locations, other than the Armour Park area, are considered since JR knows what White Sox fans want. Time is now of the essence, so little things like, let's see, maybe getting landmark status for the Oldest Park in Major League baseball is either not thought of or deemed unnecessary considering JR needs parking lots for his new behemoth. When the businesses and surrounding homes south of Comiskey Park find out JR, the City and State have scheduled their properties for the wrecking ball, JR breaks another of his many promises to the Bridgeport business owners atleast by lying to them about letting them rebuild across from the BallPark once his BallPark is completed. JR once again extorts begruding approval from the business owners south of Comiskey Park taking JR at his word of future rebuilding. By now, the City and State are feeling the heat from the taxpayers of Illinois who aren't happy that they're paying for JR's new stadium AND that the City and State allowed JR to extort the stadium from them. But after the property south of USCF is bulldozed, ground is broken and the foundation is laid for JR's BallPark at taxpayer expense because the City and State allow one person to dictate the entire building of Comiskey II and razing of Comiskey I.

To answer your question, I am of the opinion that when the public is paying for a recreation facility, the public should be consulted and the public should have a voice on everything from location to design be it through through vote, public hearings, referendum, etc.

But you still havent really said what it is that you want that USCF doesnt have. I will give you that the process leading to USCF was corrupt and wrong, but come on we live in Chicago and have a mayor named Daley. What did you expect? I am of the opinion that we have made the best of a bad situation, and now have one of the nicer ballparks in baseball. What do you want instead of what we have??

sas1974
04-23-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
To answer your question, I am of the opinion that when the public is paying for a recreation facility, the public should be consulted and the public should have a voice on everything from location to design be it through through vote, public hearings, referendum, etc.

I respect your view and I would have loved a stadium in the South Loop, but complaining about that now it fruitless. They aren't going to move.

Out of curiosity, have any other publicly-funded stadiums been constructed in the manner you suggest? Does anyone know? I agree that would be the ideal way to do it, but I think it would be extremely difficult to coordinate so that a consensus could be reached. A "too many cooks spoil the broth" kind of thing.

joecrede
04-23-2004, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
A ballpark should be an extension of the city it represents and the fans that inhabit it. USCF does neither.

New Comiskey Park was a problem. U.S. Cellular Field is a park worthy of Chicago's wonderful architectural history in my view.

Take a look at photos of the park before and after the renovations, it's FAR from the eyesore it once was.

sas1974
04-23-2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
A ballpark should be an extension of the city it represents and the fans that inhabit it. USCF does neither.

It "didn't," but I sincerely think that it's getting there. In addition, there is currently a great deal of development going on, per a thread in the PL, and the landscape in the area will be vastly enhanced within the next ten years.

zach23
04-23-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by alohafri
To Zach23:

What an excellent letter to the cubtimes!! If I was a subscriber, I would ask your permission to copy and send it to the paper. You should send a copy of it to the cubune too, just to let them know too how fed up Sox fans are with the media in this town.

---Mrs. Aloha



:gulp: a toast to Zach!


Funny you should mention the cubune. I have never subscribed to them and stopped buying it from the newstand years ago because I have come to expect the bias from them and was tired of reading it. A week or so ago a guy came to the door looking for donations to charity. With the donation came a free subscription to the cubune (8 weeks I think). My wife wrote him a check and asked him to skip the free subscription since she doesn't bother with the paper and she knows I would just toss it into the trash. The guy said he would get in trouble for taking donations and not signing us up for the free subscription, so we were stuck. At first I took the paper each day and tossed it out, or used it in the fireplace on chilly nights (the Sunday version makes for a lot of kindling). But it seemed like such a waste that I figured I would contact them and cancel the freebies. This is what I wrote and the reply I got:


"I donated to a charity and in return I received a free subscription to your newspaper. I asked the person collecting for the charity if I could just give a donation and not receive the paper, but he said he could not do so. Could you please stop sending the papers to me? I am happy to give to the charity, but I don't want your paper. Each day it goes into the trash and does not even get removed from the plastic bag in which it came. It seems like such a waste of paper to send it to me. One of my favorite sections of the newspaper is the sports section and in the past I have read overly biased reporting from your sports columnists concerning the baseball teams in this city. I understand that your company owns one of the teams and would find it in their best interest to ignore the other team completely or have their columnists write negative things about them at every chance, and for this reason I was never interested in buying your paper. Please do the environment a favor and just stop sending the free papers to me. They are only going straight to the trash. If you can't stop the free subscription from coming, I guess the only thing I can do is to either keep wasting paper by throwing it in the trash, or get up before it is delivered and hand it back to the delivery person. Please don't bother sending a renewal form, as that is going straight to the trash also. Perhaps some day when your sports writers realize there are two baseball teams in this city and treat them both with the same level of fair reporting, I may read your paper again. Until then, I will find my news elsewhere."

The reply:
"Thank you for contacting the Chicago Tribune over the Internet. We appreciate your interest and readership.
We do our best to provide the best coverage and newsworthy articles. We apologize if some of our coverage upset you.

Per your request, we have canceled your subscription. You will receive your last newspaper on Sunday, April 25, 2004.

Would you be interested in just Sunday home delivery service? Please reply to this e-mail if you are interested in this offer. We value your business and regret losing you as a subscriber. I look forward to hearing from you!

Sincerely,

Claire Huber
Interactive Services Representative"

I found it funny that she asked if I wanted to still get the Sunday delivery. On Sundays do they refrain from bashing the park, fans, neighborhood, etc.?

JohnJeter
04-23-2004, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
Out of curiosity, have any other publicly-funded stadiums been constructed in the manner you suggest? Does anyone know?

Safeco Field was forced down taxpayers' throats. If I recall, funding was initially voted down in a referendum, but they somehow found a way to get around it.
Interesting read on Safeco here:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/9928/features-pastier2.shtml

rdivaldi
04-23-2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
A ballpark should be an extension of the city it represents and the fans that inhabit it. USCF does neither.

That's extremely subjective.

The Cell is a great ballpark and represents me as a fan very well. I can't see why you don't see it as an extension of the city.

Let's do the 8 million people in the metropoitan population a favor and not speak for them...

anewman35
04-23-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
To answer your question, I am of the opinion that when the public is paying for a recreation facility, the public should be consulted and the public should have a voice on everything from location to design be it through through vote, public hearings, referendum, etc.

Any sort of public hearing they did would be a mess. They'd have all sorts of different people wanting all sorts of different things, and then they'd either ignore them all and build what they wanted anyway or try to do a little of everything, making a disjointed mess of a ballpark. It's as stupid as, say, a CTA public meeting. Whenever I read about one, the majority of people don't want a fare increase, but the majority also don't want any service cuts. People don't seem to realize (or care) what's possible and what isn't.

rdivaldi
04-23-2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
I respect your view and I would have loved a stadium in the South Loop, but complaining about that now it fruitless. They aren't going to move.

I live in the South Loop, there is and was no land available to build a ballpark in the South Loop. Not to mention there would be unbearable traffic problems.

This South Loop ballpark stuff is a bunch of garbage, Kotex Boy has no idea what he's talking about.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 02:04 PM
It's obvious Moronotti has a lot of bitterness towards the Sox in general and Reinsdorf in particular.

While this is annoying, it doesn't change the truth of many of his points in this particular article. He just isn't very balanced in his examination of the issues.

It's true that had Sox Park been built in the South Loop and been surrounded by restaurant and condo development, there would be no qualms about low attendance or revenues.

However, it's also true that Reinsdorf apparently did not have much choice in the matter, since the ISFA and the Illinois legislature basically forced him to use already-owned land at 35th.

It's true that Reinsdorf's idiotic posturing before the strike left a very bitter taste in the mouths of working class sox fans.

But it's also true that players' money-grubbing in the strike left just as bad a taste in the predominantly working class sox fan base.

It's true that the basic design of the upper deck is fatally flawed - since Reinsdorf wanted an additional level of luxury suites (400) before the upper deck began, the UD was forced to become very steep and quite recessed, instead of hanging over the Lower bowl (like the 300 level). This does indeed contribute to a feeling of distance and separation.

And it's also true that the changes to the UD do not alter the main flaw, i.e. the angle and distance from the field. Sitting in a UD seat is identical to last year - the change is what's above you, not what's below you.

However, it's also true that the new roof is really nice-looking and does significantly alter the feel of the park. I'm willing to bet Moron has not attended a Sox game yet this year. (would he even be granted a media credential? I doubt it...)

Moronotti is an egotistical, bitter jerk-off. This much is obvious. Look at the way he dredges up some feud with Hawk, as if Moronotti was the first thing on the Sox' mind after White Flag. Talk about ego.

However, I think the thing that galls most of the Sox fans on this board (including myself), is that, unbalanced and full of agendas as he is, Moronotti's basically right about a lot of things when he bashes the Sox.

Too bad he isn't more constructive about it - I think his bitterness adds to the problem of fans staying away.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
I live in the South Loop, there is and was no land available to build a ballpark in the South Loop. Not to mention there would be unbearable traffic problems.

This South Loop ballpark stuff is a bunch of garbage, Kotex Boy has no idea what he's talking about.


I think you're right about that. Also I don't believe there were going to be any infrastructure improvements made, wherever they built a ballpark in the city. The best place to build the park in the city is the exact place the ballpark is today.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
Let's do the 8 million people in the metropoitan population a favor and not speak for them...

Don't worry. I won't and can't because JR has already spoken for "the 8 million people" with the construction of USCF.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
A ballpark should be an extension of the city it represents and the fans that inhabit it. USCF does neither.

Honestly, that is a generic, bs answer. Are you involved in politics?

mweflen
04-23-2004, 02:15 PM
He's also right about the new luxury "on the field jobs" being a REALLY stupid idea.

Wheee, if I pay $5000, I can drag the field and have a picnic!

This is a really valuable opportunity for the average fan who has trouble bringing a family of 4 to the park on a weekend because it costs $150 to park and sit down...

soxfan26
04-23-2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
I live in the South Loop, there is and was no land available to build a ballpark in the South Loop. Not to mention there would be unbearable traffic problems.

This South Loop ballpark stuff is a bunch of garbage, Kotex Boy has no idea what he's talking about.

You forget that he is a journalist. He doesn't have to prove that he has a valid point.

SpartanSoxFan
04-23-2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by mweflen
He's also right about the new luxury "on the field jobs" being a REALLY stupid idea.

Wheee, if I pay $5000, I can drag the field and have a picnic!

This is a really valuable opportunity for the average fan who has trouble bringing a family of 4 to the park on a weekend because it costs $150 to park and sit down...

I also agree with MORONotti on this one. In terms of what JR does, its not so much that his intentions are bad, its just that they way he comes off when he tries to do good things is tacky. In my mind, he could easily do the same thing, just implement it differently. How about a raffle? People love raffles, and if you sell a ticket for 4 or 5 dollars, lots of people would get in on it. I know I'd love to win a raffle and do batting practice on the field...

Hangar18
04-23-2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by woodenleg
Jesus Christ, it isn't THAT bad. I swear, some people must stay away from the park because they've merely HEARD about the "awful" upper deck. I've actually had people who have never been to the Cell tell me about the "scary" upper deck. Where did they hear about it?



Where did they hear it? The Same place that tells them that "Wrigleys a Shrine" & "Wrigleys the Best Park ever".
Who said the Media isnt Biased?

sas1974
04-23-2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
I live in the South Loop, there is and was no land available to build a ballpark in the South Loop. Not to mention there would be unbearable traffic problems.

This South Loop ballpark stuff is a bunch of garbage, Kotex Boy has no idea what he's talking about.

I really didn't follow the proceedings leading up to the construction all that close, so I guess I don't recall whether or not there was any discussion regarding the South Loop.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of areas around there that would have been potential spots. I am not talking about vacant lots. I am assuming it would have involved the purchase and demolition existing buildings. It would have been extremely expensive to pull off though. And there is no doubt that traffic would have been a nightmare. Anyone that has tried to navigate the East Lakeview area during a cubs game can attest to that.

bobj4400
04-23-2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by mweflen
He's also right about the new luxury "on the field jobs" being a REALLY stupid idea.


While it may not be something the average fan can afford to do and probably will have a negligible effect on revenue, the idea itself is harmless. It costs the Sox absolutely nothing and if some fatcats want to treat their kids to something different, why not? We need this franchise to take in as much money as possible so that JR will no longer have the built in excuse for why he refuses to pay for a team White Sox fans deserve. And who knows, if ideas like this coupled with steadily increasing attendance may raise the value of the club to the point where JR, being the shrewd businessman that he is, may actually sell the team! For these reasons, it really isnt a stupid idea. Probably not the greatest, but it really cant hurt.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 02:30 PM
It has to feel real good to be a grounds crew worker, getting paid a low wage for a part time job, to be told:

"Um, tonight you can stay home. Some rich fool with lots of money is paying us $5,000 to do your job tonight. Enjoy your night off!"

mweflen
04-23-2004, 02:32 PM
P.S. ... we're not giving you a $5,000 raise when you come back tomorrow night...

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
Honestly, that is a generic, bs answer. Are you involved in politics?

I'm not involved in politics.

How does USCF represent the blue collar White Sox fanbase? It was built with Skyboxes and the corporations that could afford them in mind first and foremost. The plebes came second.

What about USCF represents Chicago besides the fact that the White Sox play there?

mweflen
04-23-2004, 02:34 PM
Cubkilla - agreed!

A park SHOULD represent its fan base. When Satan added a 2nd tier of skyboxes, at the expense of the one affordable section of the park, he showed us who he really wants coming to the park.

Why should a working class fan NOT feel offended and stay away?

anewman35
04-23-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I'm not involved in politics.

How does USCF represent the blue collar White Sox fanbase? It was built with Skyboxes and the corporations that could afford them in mind first and foremost. The plebes came second.



You realize that Chicago has rich people and Corporations too, right? Even though you might not like them, they're just as much part of the city as you are.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
You realize that Chicago has rich people and Corporations too, right? Even though you might not like them, they're just as much part of the city as you are.

Too bad there aren't enough "rich people and corporations" that want to purchase one of a myriad of empty Skyboxes available at USCF every season.

anewman35
04-23-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Too bad there aren't enough "rich people and corporations" that want to purchase one of a myriad of empty Skyboxes available at USCF every season.

Well, there don't seem to be enough "blue collar White Sox fans" to fill the upper and lower decks, so what's the difference?

joecrede
04-23-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I'm not involved in politics.

How does USCF represent the blue collar White Sox fanbase? It was built with Skyboxes and the corporations that could afford them in mind first and foremost. The plebes came second.


This is insane. Ever think skybox sales help subsidize half-price nights?

soxnut
04-23-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I'm not involved in politics.

How does USCF represent the blue collar White Sox fanbase? It was built with Skyboxes and the corporations that could afford them in mind first and foremost. The plebes came second.

What about USCF represents Chicago besides the fact that the White Sox play there?


My question is still not answered as to what YOU want in a ballpark. What YOU think is missing in it's representation.

How do all of the other ballparks represent?

How did Comiksey represent? Yeah I like being represented by a shodddily taken care of ballpark-over-it's-lifetime, that smelled like urine, had uncomfortablly small-hard wooden seats, with awful sightlines. Oh that's was great representation wasn't it ?

What representation does that ballpark have---have you even looked at it lately, when was the last time you were at a game?

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
This is insane. Ever think skybox sales help subsidize half-price nights?

All those empty skyboxes?

joecrede
04-23-2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
All those empty skyboxes?

Not every skybox is empty, correct?

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
What representation does that ballpark have---have you even looked at it lately, when was the last time you were at a game?

Which ballpark are you talking about? Old or New?

Opening Day.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Not every skybox is empty, correct?

No. But there are only 4 Monday games this year.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 02:48 PM
You know, Cleveland is a "blue-collar" town and Jacobs Field has skyboxes piled just as high as our park does.

joecrede
04-23-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
No. But there are only 4 Monday games this year.

So 4 half-price nights need not be subsidized? I don't understand your thinking.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
You know, Cleveland is a "blue-collar" town and Jacobs Field has skyboxes piled just as high as our park does.

Jacobs Field was also a catalyst for the rejuvenation of downtown Cleveland.

sas1974
04-23-2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I'm not involved in politics.

How does USCF represent the blue collar White Sox fanbase? It was built with Skyboxes and the corporations that could afford them in mind first and foremost. The plebes came second.

What about USCF represents Chicago besides the fact that the White Sox play there?

First of all, I definitely agree that there was no need for the second level of skyboxes. But in today's climate you surely aren't suggesting that they should have built a park completely devoid of skyboxes. I am not sure of the exact figures, but I think they are leased for about 70K+/year. IF they were actually full, that would be a good chuck of change.

Second, I respect the fact that you don't like the park the way it is(although I disagree), but what do you suggest they change? What do you think would make the park more like Chicago? More blue collar, as you put it?

joecrede
04-23-2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Jacobs Field was also a catalyst for the rejuvenation of downtown Cleveland.

Wrong again Killa.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Which ballpark are you talking about? Old or New?

Opening Day.


You know I'm talking about new when I've asked if you've gone to a game lately. And you still have not answered the question as to what YOU would SPECIFICALLY include in a ballpark that YOU would feel properly represents White Sox fans.

And considering you haven't been able to answer that question yet, I don't think you've given it that much consideration. Therefore it seems like you are just one to complain, and criticize without offering any actual specific constructive ideas. That is also why I asked yo if you were involved in politics.........

soxnut
04-23-2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Jacobs Field was also a catalyst for the rejuvenation of downtown Cleveland.


I'ver been to Cleveland, man if that's what rejuvenated is.......yikes.....how bad was it before??????

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
So 4 half-price nights need not be subsidized? I don't understand your thinking.

My point is that half-price Mondays are only half-price on ticket sales. Parking, concessions, merchandise, programs, scorecards, etc., aren't half-price on Monday. And if the Sox draw, for arguments sake, and average of 18,000 on a Wednesday at full price but 28,000 on a Monday at half-price I'm saying that the cost incurred on the skybox owners and/or the White Sox Organization is negligible once parking, concessions, merchandise, programs, scorecards, etc. are factored in.

rdivaldi
04-23-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Don't worry. I won't and can't because JR has already spoken for "the 8 million people" with the construction of USCF.

The ownership should have the biggest voice, they OWN the team. The Cell is a great ballpark, let's enjoy it shall we?

jabrch
04-23-2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Yet all those poles holding up the roof AND upper deck of Wrigley are what gives it it's charm...

As if we sell enough tickets right now that ANYONE has to sit behind the poles? Geez - you'd think with the way he talks about the poles that EVERY seat is immediately behind a pole. Other than the fact that last night I sat between a Kaslowsky and a Bartowski, I didn't hardly even see a pole around. And I SAT IN THE UPPER DECK.

What a pile of feces.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
I'ver been to Cleveland, man if that's what rejuvenated is.......yikes.....how bad was it before??????

Must have been terrible considering every broadcaster I've heard announcing an Indians game, be it Hawk, DJ, one of the FOX broadcasters, etc., always marvel at how Jacobs Field has brought people and business back to that section of Cleveland.

anewman35
04-23-2004, 02:59 PM
I think the park should have represented Chicago by being shaped (and painted) like a giant Chicago-style pizza! And we could have a life-sized Sears Tower in the outfield! And El trains could circle the outfield whenever we hit a homer!

jabrch
04-23-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
I'ver been to Cleveland, man if that's what rejuvenated is.......yikes.....how bad was it before??????

You can only imagine...Have you ever seen downtown Detroit? Downtown Cleveland used to be just as bad. It is WORLDS BETTER today than it was a few years ago.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
I think the park should have represented Chicago by being shaped (and painted) like a giant Chicago-style pizza! And we could have a life-sized Sears Tower in the outfield! And El trains could circle the outfield whenever we hit a homer!



LOL--------------WE have a winnner!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) :smile: :D: :o: :whiner: :)

sas1974
04-23-2004, 03:04 PM
The structure isn't what makes the park "like Chicago." It's the PEOPLE that make it like Chicago. It's the food. It's the "O-E-O." The sea of black and white jersey's and hats. That's what makes The Cell ours.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
You can only imagine...Have you ever seen downtown Detroit? Downtown Cleveland used to be just as bad. It is WORLDS BETTER today than it was a few years ago.


I have friends form Michigan and they tell me how bad Detroit is. But I still want to see a game at Comerica. I don't think Cleveland is horrible, but man it must have been bad.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
The structure isn't what makes the park "like Chicago." It's the PEOPLE that make it like Chicago. It's the food. It's the "O-E-O." The sea of black and white jersey's and hats. That's what makes The Cell ours.


THAT'S WHITE SOX BASEBALL........THE KIDS CAN PLAY.....GODD GUYS WEAR BLACK.........YEARS FROM NOW, YOU'LL SAY YOU WERE THERE............. :whiner: :D:

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
You know I'm talking about new when I've asked if you've gone to a game lately. And you still have not answered the question as to what YOU would SPECIFICALLY include in a ballpark that YOU would feel properly represents White Sox fans.

And considering you haven't been able to answer that question yet, I don't think you've given it that much consideration. Therefore it seems like you are just one to complain, and criticize without offering any actual specific constructive ideas. That is also why I asked yo if you were involved in politics.........

Why do I need to be specific? PNC, SBC, and Camden Yards are 3 examples of ballparks that, not only represent the city they reside in, but have become intertwined with the teams that call said ballpark home.

Of course I haven't put much consideration into it. That's not what I do and it is not my area of expertise. But when I see a great ballpark, I know it. USCF, while improved, is NOT a great ballpark and will never be held as in high regard as the aforementioned ballparks that represent the city and the team.

And as much as it appears to you that all I do is complain and criticize, the opposite can be said of you. From reading your posts, the White Sox, JR, and the Organization are above criticism. Everyone that criticizes either the team or JR doesn't know what they're talking about or isn't a real fan of the White Sox according to what you almost exclusively post. It's called a differing opinion and the majority of White Sox fans I know aren't looking at the White Sox through the same pair of glasses you're looking at them through.

sas1974
04-23-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
I think the park should have represented Chicago by being shaped (and painted) like a giant Chicago-style pizza! And we could have a life-sized Sears Tower in the outfield! And El trains could circle the outfield whenever we hit a homer!

I heard HOK is hiring. You should give them a call. :D:

sas1974
04-23-2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
THAT'S WHITE SOX BASEBALL........THE KIDS CAN PLAY.....GODD GUYS WEAR BLACK.........YEARS FROM NOW, YOU'LL SAY YOU WERE THERE............. :whiner: :D:

Ok. I admit it. Rob Gallas gave me that one before he left! :D:

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
I think the park should have represented Chicago by being shaped (and painted) like a giant Chicago-style pizza! And we could have a life-sized Sears Tower in the outfield! And El trains could circle the outfield whenever we hit a homer!

Bothering you much that you're losing the argument?

anewman35
04-23-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Bothering you much that you're losing the argument?

How is it I'm losing when you haven't explained yourself at all? You haven't given even one thing they possibly could do to make the park "represent Chicago", how are we supposed to take you seriously?

Would you say Wrigley Field "represents Chicago"? If so, why?

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Would you say Wrigley Field "represents Chicago"? If so, why?

Unfortunately, Wrigley Field represents Chicago the same way Fenway Park represents Boston, Yankee Stadium represents NY, SBC represents SF in that when you see the ballpark you think Chicago.

Sad but true.

Corlose 15
04-23-2004, 03:16 PM
Here's my take on the whole moronotti column.

1. People are mad about '94 and '97

Duh. You must have done some stellar investigative work on that one Jay, and by the way, it was 7 years ago.

2. He complains about the park being an obsolete ballmall (whatever that means) before the renovations, then complains about selling the naming rights, then complains about the renovations, then complains about Reinsdorf trying to honor the Comiskey name and the old Roman with a statue.

Make up your mind Jay, you complain about Reinsdorf's mistakes, then when he tries to fix them you complain about fixing them.

3. He mentioned the location of the statue and that no one goes to the outfield concourse.

What? Oh thats right, no one goes out there to see the fan deck, shower, fundamentals, mist room, or burrito stand in right field. and no one was out there opening day.

This and his constant harping on the upper deck make me wonder if he's been to a game since 1994 and I'm willing to bet he's never sat in the UD.


P.S. Soxnut, Detroit is an absolute DUMP of a city with more abandoned buildings in its skyline than occupied ones.

anewman35
04-23-2004, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Unfortunately, Wrigley Field represents Chicago the same way Fenway Park represents Boston, Yankee Stadium represents NY, SBC represents SF in that when you see the ballpark you think Chicago.

Sad but true.

But that's just because it's been around for decades. If it had been in Cleveland, it would represent Cleveland.

So, by your logic, a park is only as good as other people think it is? If suddenly the Sox got hot and everybody knew what the Cell looked like, and that it was in Chicago, it would be a better park?

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
But that's just because it's been around for decades. If it had been in Cleveland, it would represent Cleveland.

So, by your logic, a park is only as good as other people think it is? If suddenly the Sox got hot and everybody knew what the Cell looked like, and that it was in Chicago, it would be a better park?

Nope. I've said in previous posts that SBC and Camden Yards are two examples of what to do when building a new ballpark and Camden is 11(?) and SBC is still very young.

Mammoo
04-23-2004, 03:26 PM
Yes, for $1,500, you can drag the infield or deliver the lineup card. For $1,000, you can change the bases. For $10,000, you can take off-day batting practice. Ten percent of proceeds will be donated to White Sox Charities. Ninety percent will be kept by the ballclub

Is this true?

Does the team keep ninety percent?

Very tacky!!!

anewman35
04-23-2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Nope. I've said in previous posts that SBC and Camden Yards are two examples of what to do when building a new ballpark and Camden is 11(?) and SBC is still very young.

You didn't answer the second question. If baseball fans across the country identified the Cell with Chicago (but it was the exact same park it was now), wouldn't it then (using your logic) represent Chicago, and thus be a better park?

anewman35
04-23-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo
Yes, for $1,500, you can drag the infield or deliver the lineup card. For $1,000, you can change the bases. For $10,000, you can take off-day batting practice. Ten percent of proceeds will be donated to White Sox Charities. Ninety percent will be kept by the ballclub

Is this true?

Does the team keep ninety percent?

Very tacky!!!

Why? There's no reason they have to give any money at all to charity.

Baby Fisk
04-23-2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Unfortunately, Wrigley Field represents Chicago the same way Fenway Park represents Boston, Yankee Stadium represents NY, SBC represents SF in that when you see the ballpark you think Chicago.

Sad but true.

Not entirely true, CubKilla. When I see USCF I think Chicago too.
The pinwheels and exploding scoreboard always mean Chicago to me. Whenever I see fireworks go off at a ballpark, it brings Bill Veeck to mind, which brings the White Sox to mind.

When I see a giant apple pop out of a hat for a HR, that says New York to me as much as Yankee Stadium does. Likewise, Chicago has two teams and two stadiums, each evocative of their own team in their own way.

Honestly, some folks don't know how good you have it. What if the Sox played in something like the Metrodome? Imagine Moronotti's columns then!

soxnut
04-23-2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Why do I need to be specific? PNC, SBC, and Camden Yards are 3 examples of ballparks that, not only represent the city they reside in, but have become intertwined with the teams that call said ballpark home.

Of course I haven't put much consideration into it. That's not what I do and it is not my area of expertise. But when I see a great ballpark, I know it. USCF, while improved, is NOT a great ballpark and will never be held as in high regard as the aforementioned ballparks that represent the city and the team.

And as much as it appears to you that all I do is complain and criticize, the opposite can be said of you. From reading your posts, the White Sox, JR, and the Organization are above criticism. Everyone that criticizes either the team or JR doesn't know what they're talking about or isn't a real fan of the White Sox according to what you almost exclusively post. It's called a differing opinion and the majority of White Sox fans I know aren't looking at the White Sox through the same pair of glasses you're looking at them through.


Hey, I'm not the only one on here that has asked you for an explanation of what you consider a fair representation of a ballpark for Sox fans and the city of Chicago.

As for your choices, I think they're great. They are some of my favorites. But it took you a while to answer after I had asked you in many posts beforehand. And you seemed to answer my questions with either a non-descript answer, or another question, much like you did at the beginning of this post---but you did answer. Thanks.

And sure many aren't looking at the Sox through the same pair of glasses as me and hey that's ok. But, all of the complaining that is done that just seems to go on and on about JR and the organziation has done nothing to better the situation. And I doubt you feel any better about things after anyway. So I figure, why bother? I'm just going to enjoy my team, because they're here an not somewhere else.

I don't consider those who complain and whatever as "not knowing what they're taling about" or "isn't a fan". I know people complain--have the right to do so, and have valid points and differing opinions. I'm just not one to complain, and I feel great about it. But hey, that's what makes life interesting. :smile:

patbooyah
04-23-2004, 03:34 PM
i wrote 20 page term paper about baseball stadium design, and in my research i came across a few interesting points. most of them have been forgotten, but here are a couple:

1. the new comiskey held roughly the same number as the old, but used up 40% more space.

2. cubkilla is right when he says that the stadium should reflect the neighborhood- thats one of the most important things architectural historians consider when they judge parks.

2. HOK had a different design for comiskey that was more "in line with the neighborhood," but JR refused to change it from the original because he thought it would jeopardize all his funding.

i love going to games at us cell, don't get me wrong, but i do think that the park could have been much better if JR wasn't so busy bamboozling people out of their $$.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 03:35 PM
joecrede - the statement that luxury suite sales "subsidize" half-price nights is ridiculous. Do you personally work for Rob Gallas? Do you personally figure the budgets for the Sox? I didn't think so.

So basically, none of us have this kind of information - so it's ignorant and asinine to make sweeping statements about what pays for what.

If luxury suites subsidize half price nights... why is there a Pepsi promotion on tuesday? I thought THAT subsidized half price nights.

And since there are only 4 monday games this year, does that mean that suite holders are not doing their part, and working class fans are suffering for it? For shame, Chicago corporate suiteholders...

----------

I like the renovations at the Cell. I think they go some ways towards fixing or at least distracting from the many problems that the park had from its ocnstruction.

The bullpens and outfield wall "moat" were a stupid idea from the outset. Reorienting the bullpens and filling the moat with seats was a terrific way to bring outfield fans closer to the game.

Bulging out the foul-line seats was a good thing, too. It's nice to be closer to the action, not so far removed like in Oakland or NY.

However, unfortunately they did not increase restroom capacity on the LD to accomodate for these several thousand new seats. Thus, on sell-out dates, "holding it" is far more advisable than going to the john.

Creating a plush, enclosed 300 level concourse is fine, but it still doesn't justify the outrageous prices for 300 level seats.

But none of this changes the fact the the Upper deck starts 20 feet too high and 20 feet too far back. the "400" level of suites is the reason for this. The Sox spent millions of Cell money this year to lop off that 20 feet from the TOP of the uper deck, when the problem is that they need to ADD 20 feet to the BOTTOM of the deck.

JR screwed the pooch bigtime when New Comiskey was constructed. His motivation for this proverbial pooch-screwing was greed, pure and simple.

When he insisted on a 2nd level of luxury suites, surely some architect or exec suggested "Gee, Jerry, won't that push the Upper Deck up pretty high and far away from the action?"

Obviously, JR didn't give a flying rip about the average fan. He was concentrating on the bottom line.

Now, both that upper level of skyboxes AND the upper deck are perenially empty.
---

People generally perceive the Cell's UD as extremely high and remote. There s some good reason for this perception, and there is also a lot of media negativity (back to the ORIGINAL topic of this thread) which reinforces that perception.

But none of this changes the fact that it's Reinsdorf's fault, pure and simple. He pushed for it, now we're all paying the price in lower attendance, lower payrolls, fewer victories, fewer playoff appearances.

anewman35
04-23-2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by patbooyah
i love going to games at us cell, don't get me wrong, but i do think that the park could have been much better if JR wasn't so busy bamboozling people out of their $$.

"Busy bamboozling people out of their $$"? What exactly do you think the point of a buisness is?

soxnut
04-23-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
Not entirely true, CubKilla. When I see USCF I think Chicago too.
The pinwheels and exploding scoreboard always mean Chicago to me. Whenever I see fireworks go off at a ballpark, it brings Bill Veeck to mind, which brings the White Sox to mind.

When I see a giant apple pop out of a hat for a HR, that says New York to me as much as Yankee Stadium does. Likewise, Chicago has two teams and two stadiums, each evocative of their own team in their own way.

Honestly, some folks don't know how good you have it. What if the Sox played in something like the Metrodome? Imagine Moronotti's columns then!

Love the examples of the pinwheels and the scoreboard. I think that the pinwheel should be used to identify the White Sox brand more than it does currently.

I don'e mean in putting pinwheels all over the ballpark either, but there's got to be some merchandising aspects and other ad venuse that should be explored.

patbooyah
04-23-2004, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
"Busy bamboozling people out of their $$"? What exactly do you think the point of a buisness is?

i like to think that maybe there is a lick of honesty in there somewhere- not just empty promises. if you want specific examples of how JR lied and connived himself the park then you have about 120 posts to read.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
"Busy bamboozling people out of their $$"? What exactly do you think the point of a buisness is?

The point of a business is to have a sustainable business model - one which allows people to keep patronizing your business.

The Sox, on the other hand, have priced many fans out of their ability to attend ballgames.

From '91-'93, people WENT to Sox Park in droves.

Since then, ticket prices on every section except for the UD have been raised increased at many times the rate of inflation. (Bleachers, for instance, increased 263%, while a 5% compounded annual rate would be 89%)

This business model has kept people AWAY from the park in droves. It has also begun a downward spiral of decreasing revenues-decreasing payrolls-decreasing victories.

patbooyah
04-23-2004, 03:41 PM
i would like it if the cell was in the middle of a blue-collar southside mecca. bars that dont really have a name- just a schlitz sign on the front door. a park made of brick with some sort of park or nature spot outside of it. the inside i love- especially since they started changing up the colors.

my dream is that the area around sox park becomes a spot that people enjoy being.

soxnut
04-23-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by mweflen


People generally perceive the Cell's UD as extremely high and remote. There s some good reason for this perception, and there is also a lot of media negativity (back to the ORIGINAL topic of this thread) which reinforces that perception..



You know, I would really like to see some solid facts on our upper deck compared to the other new parks around MLB.

I want to know the steepness and height of all of the new ballparks constrcuted, their distance from home to the first/last seat in each ballparks highest level. I wonder where that type of information could be retrieved?

bobj4400
04-23-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by mweflen
The Sox, on the other hand, have priced many fans out of their ability to attend ballgames.



So has every other team in MLB...How are the Sox to compete with these other teams without raising prices? I wish that tickets to sit in the bleachers were $10 also, but that just isnt realistic, so why blame the White Sox for that??

patbooyah
04-23-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
You know, I would really like to see some solid facts on our upper deck compared to the other new parks around MLB.

I want to know the steepness and height of all of the new ballparks constrcuted, their distance from home to the first/last seat in each ballparks highest level. I wonder where that type of information could be retrieved?

i found this on the web(old reliable):

The symmetrical dimensions of New Comiskey; the clean, sterile, look; and the fact that fans in the upper deck are 60 feet higher than they were in the original ballpark, and must always look down on the action, are constant sources of complaint now. Indeed, Seats in the front row of the upper deck are farther from home plate than those in the last row at old Comiskey.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 03:48 PM
soxnut - i don't know where such info could be obtained, but it would indeed be interesting.

My point though, is that people PERCEIVE the UD to be extremely high and remote. I don't think this can be debated. I know dozens of people personally who've said it, and I read it everywhere in the Chicago media.

patbooyah
04-23-2004, 03:50 PM
i also found this:

"It's a shame the White Sox didn't build the alternative ballpark proposed by Philip Bess. His design harkened back to the classical era stadiums, with a fully roofed upper deck that extended over much of the lower deck. It was a human-scale design that was intended to better fit into (and thus revive) Chicago's formerly downtrodden and often-dangerous south side. (Remember Jim Croce's Bad, Bad, LeRoy Brown?) His nicely illustrated book City Baseball Magic was in large part a polemical tract against the dauntingly big new Comiskey Park."

poorme
04-23-2004, 03:50 PM
If you were ever in old Comiskey when they were building the new one, it was quite obvious the seats would be much higher.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by bobj4400
So has every other team in MLB...How are the Sox to compete with these other teams without raising prices? I wish that tickets to sit in the bleachers were $10 also, but that just isnt realistic, so why blame the White Sox for that??

Actually, many clubs have large sections (usually in their upper decks, surprise, surprise) which every game are budget sections - no special dates, no multi-tiered plans.

-Pro Player Stadium ("Fish Tank" $4)
-Great American BP in Cincy ("Outer View" UD tix at $5, upper bleachers at $8),
-Jacobs Field ("Corner Reserved" at $5 and Upper Outfield Reserved at $8)
-Turner Field (Upper Pavilion $5, "Skyline" $1)
-Miller Park ("Bernie's Terrace" $5)
-Kaufmann Stadium ("HyVee View Level" $7)
-Dodger Stadium (Top Deck and LF/RF Pavilion $6)
-SafeCo Field (Center Field Bleachers $7)

I think is the Sox implemented a true budget area for working class fans, they would see attendance and therefore ancillary revenues (parking, concessions, souvineers) increase dramatically, more than offsetting the "loss" (as if having someone pay $5 for a seat that would have gone empty is a "loss")

Lip Man 1
04-23-2004, 03:53 PM
Some background information for all.

In the book "Ballpark: The Story Of The Building Of Camden Yards," they have a chapter devoted to the new Comiskey Park since that was the last park built before Camden Yards opened.

One of the questions posed was why were the two parks so radically different. The HOK architects who designed both parks stated directly that they offered the Camden Yards design to Jerry Reinsdorf and that he specifically told them he did not want it.

It's important to note that it was the owner himself, not any of his assistants, or the person responsible for the day to day building of the park (Terry Savarise) that made this decision.

The architects state they tried to make the case for how 'unique' (for the time) this design was and how it would draw large numbers of fans but again the owner wasn't interested.

Just FYI, there have been two parks built with personal funding from the owners only, currently in use in MLB, Pac Bell in San Francisco (Peter McGowan) and Joe Robbie Stadium in Miami (Robbie Family) so it is possible to build a stadium without city / state tax money.

Finally I think if you speak with the people of Seattle they would say they have no regrets about having Safeco Field 'rammed' down their throats. The park is beautiful, the team has been winning and they've been drawing 3 million a year in a small city that was considered a baseball wasteland since 1970. I think there is a definate relationship between those listed factors in that success.

Lip

Baby Fisk
04-23-2004, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by bobj4400
So has every other team in MLB...How are the Sox to compete with these other teams without raising prices? I wish that tickets to sit in the bleachers were $10 also, but that just isnt realistic, so why blame the White Sox for that??
The cheapest seats in Skydome are $9 Canadian, which is, somebody correct me if I'm off a little...approximately $75 US.

anewman35
04-23-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by patbooyah
i also found this:

"It's a shame the White Sox didn't build the alternative ballpark proposed by Philip Bess. His design harkened back to the classical era stadiums, with a fully roofed upper deck that extended over much of the lower deck. It was a human-scale design that was intended to better fit into (and thus revive) Chicago's formerly downtrodden and often-dangerous south side. (Remember Jim Croce's Bad, Bad, LeRoy Brown?) His nicely illustrated book City Baseball Magic was in large part a polemical tract against the dauntingly big new Comiskey Park."

His design also had insanely stupid dimensions. 280 down the lines, IIRC. That would have been a nightmare.

Also found on the web:

One of the biggest problems people have with New Comiskey is that the front row of the upper deck is farther from the field than the back row of the upper deck was at Old Comiskey. Diagrams in Baseball City Magic back this up. The distance to the front row in New Comiskey is 160 feet, whereas it was 150 feet to the back row in Old Comiskey. Now for the big surprise. What's the distance to the front row of the upper deck in Armour Field? 160 feet, just like in New Comiskey. Granted, the back row isn't as far away, but that's only because it has fewer rows. The great Armour Field has the same upper deck problems as New Comiskey!

patbooyah
04-23-2004, 04:21 PM
i have no problem with the upper deck. i wouldn't want to sit there, but i dont have a problem with it. i just have a problem with comiskey standing out so much from the neighborhood it inhabits. it doesn't look like it "fits," and i dont like that.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
You didn't answer the second question. If baseball fans across the country identified the Cell with Chicago (but it was the exact same park it was now), wouldn't it then (using your logic) represent Chicago, and thus be a better park?

Of course over time casual fans may identify USCF as Chicago. That's inevitable, I think. That wouldn't make the ballpark better though by any stretch of the imagination. In my previous posts, I've held that the Chicago aspect of Comiskey II aka USCF should have been ingrained from the start. This was successfully done with PNC, SBC, and Camden Yards. All 3 of those ballparks are unmistable versions of ballparks that identify the city and identify the team which plays there. Comiskey II should have represented the fans and the neighborhood of the city in which it resides. I'll concede that the renovations are an attempt to make the ballpark more fan friendly. But the renovations do not make the ballpark seem any less out of place in a working class neighborhood on the southside of Chicago and the renovations fail to make USCF definable as a Chicago ballpark.

joecrede
04-23-2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by mweflen
Actually, many clubs have large sections (usually in their upper decks, surprise, surprise) which every game are budget sections - no special dates, no multi-tiered plans.

-Pro Player Stadium ("Fish Tank" $4)
-Great American BP in Cincy ("Outer View" UD tix at $5, upper bleachers at $8),
-Jacobs Field ("Corner Reserved" at $5 and Upper Outfield Reserved at $8)
-Turner Field (Upper Pavilion $5, "Skyline" $1)
-Miller Park ("Bernie's Terrace" $5)
-Kaufmann Stadium ("HyVee View Level" $7)
-Dodger Stadium (Top Deck and LF/RF Pavilion $6)
-SafeCo Field (Center Field Bleachers $7)

I think is the Sox implemented a true budget area for working class fans, they would see attendance and therefore ancillary revenues (parking, concessions, souvineers) increase dramatically, more than offsetting the "loss" (as if having someone pay $5 for a seat that would have gone empty is a "loss")

I think you are very condescending to the "working class fan" in your posts. The "working class fan" wants a good seat at a bargain price. The new upper reserves at the cell provide just that for a measly $12.00. The sections you point out are for the "cheap b**tard fans".

joecrede
04-23-2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by mweflen
joecrede - the statement that luxury suite sales "subsidize" half-price nights is ridiculous. Do you personally work for Rob Gallas? Do you personally figure the budgets for the Sox? I didn't think so.

I believe I wrote "help subsidize" half-price nights. If you think that statement is untrue then you lack a basic understanding of business and can't be reasoned with.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I think you are very condescending to the "working class fan" in your posts. The "working class fan" wants a good seat at a bargain price. The new upper reserves at the cell provide just that for a measly $12.00. The sections you point out are for the "cheap b**tard fans".

I'll take the $8 bleacher seat and $7 bleacher seat at GABP in Cincy and Seattle respectively over the $22 and $26 bleacher seat in USCF anyday.

After all, there are no bad seats from the lower bowl of USCF right? So I think the same could be said about new parks like Safeco and GABP right? So what does that have to do with being a "cheap b**tard fan"?

joecrede
04-23-2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I'll take the $8 bleacher seat and $7 bleacher seat at GABP in Cincy and Seattle respectively over the $22 and $26 bleacher seat in USCF anyday.

And most $12 upper reserves at the cell are better seats then all that you mentioned.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
And most $12 upper reserves at the cell are better seats then all that you mentioned.

That's strictly your opinion. I know many people that would rather pay the extra to sit in the lower bowl, if they can afford it after paying $16 for parking, than sit in the upper deck.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I think you are very condescending to the "working class fan" in your posts. The "working class fan" wants a good seat at a bargain price. The new upper reserves at the cell provide just that for a measly $12.00. The sections you point out are for the "cheap b**tard fans".

i AM a "working class fan." so i suppose I'm condescending to myself...

you are also mistaken about your "measly $12" figure. these seats are $16 on weekends (36 dates, when most fans are available to attend night games), $21 for 3 Sox/Cubs dates, $12 on weeknights (25 dates), $6 on half price nights (a "measly" 17 dates)

As a WORKING CLASS FAN myself, I can tell you I would absolutely go to more games if these seats were $6 EVERY night.

And if I may condescend enough to speak for other working class fans, judging by attendance on mondays and tuesdays, I think many of them agree with me.

I'd rather see 5,000 more "cheap bastards" in the park than another sea of empty blue seats...

jabrch
04-23-2004, 05:13 PM
The $12 UD seats in a good row are amazing values. I sat un 544 Row 2 yesterday night. Just past 3B, 2nd row. It was an awesome vantage point for the game. I usually sit in lowers and was not at all upset with where I sat. The only thing I missed was the concourse, but frankly, I agree with posters that say that those who pay 25$ for a ticket deserve a little more than those who are paying 12$.

The UD at Comiskey, for $12, is as good of a value as I have gotten at ANY SPORTING VENUE in the country. That's much better than paying $8 to sit in a back corner of the stadium somewhere.

Would it be a good idea to take the back half of the corner sections and sell them for 9$ instead of 12$? I guess it would be worth evaluation, but at the same time, is there much a difference between spending $9 seat and $12 a seat, even with a family of 4? (mathematically speaking, it is a total of 12$, I understand that) But fans on a budget could afford that trip to the park if they want - and the $3 per ticket wouldn't change that fact much at all.

joecrede
04-23-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by mweflen
i AM a "working class fan." so i suppose I'm condescending to myself...

you are also mistaken about your "measly $12" figure. these seats are $16 on weekends (36 dates, when most fans are available to attend night games), $21 for 3 Sox/Cubs dates, $12 on weeknights (25 dates), $6 on half price nights (a "measly" 17 dates)

As a WORKING CLASS FAN myself, I can tell you I would absolutely go to more games if these seats were $6 EVERY night.

And if I may condescend enough to speak for other working class fans, judging by attendance on mondays and tuesdays, I think many of them agree with me.

I'd rather see 5,000 more "cheap bastards" in the park than another sea of empty blue seats...

Sorry, but you don't qualify as a "working class fan" if you are complaining about the price of a $12 (or even $16) ticket in 2004.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 05:15 PM
Joecrede, our resident economist, must not have heard about two pesky little fellows named "supply" and "demand."

See, businesses that are successful can accurately guage supply and demand.

Since the Sox are averaging about 24,000 a night in a 40,000 seats stadium, demand for $12-$27 upper deck seats must be LOW. You have a large surplus of SUPPLY.

Naturally, if you want to increase demand for these seats, you REDUCE the prices.

THEN, when you have rebuilt a lagging fan base, DEMAND becomes high enough to justify an increase in ticket prices.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Sorry, but you don't qualify as a "working class fan" if you are complaining about the price of a $12 (or even $16) ticket in 2004.

I feel very condescended to by this remark. Are you saying I'm below working class?

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Sorry, but you don't qualify as a "working class fan" if you are complaining about the price of a $12 (or even $16) ticket in 2004.

Once again, that's opinion and he does have a legit gripe if he's working class and has a family that he always travels to the ballpark with.

CubKilla
04-23-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by mweflen
I feel very condescended to by this remark. Are you saying I'm below working class?

He's an a**hole mweflen. Pay it no mind.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
He's an a**hole mweflen. Pay it no mind.

oh, i'm not upset, just enjoy pointing out hypocrisy... :D:

dickallen15
04-23-2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by SSN721
Its the same anti-JR stuff that he manages to put into just about every Sox article, but at least it was most of the Anti-JR stuff I agree with. I didnt think it was bad, just a rehash of the same old article he has been writing for the last few years. I still think that his animosity for management of this team must slant his views on the ball park itself. I dont know how anyone can go there and say how awful of a place Mariotti makes it out to be. That is the only think that irks me about it, if it is an olive branch to the fans, dont spit on our home and tell us how awful it is when I think the majority of the people on this site (and most Sox fans in general) have no problem with it at all and actually think it is a great place to watch a game. At least I do. If I am wrong about that then I am sorry, didnt mean to put words in peoples mouths.

The problem with him ripping JR over and over and over again about the same things,and always getting his Hawk dig in, shows he has no idea on a column for that day. He just is going to rerun the old one. The problem I have with his criticism of the upper deck is that I doubt he has EVER been up there, and I guarantee he hasn't since the last round of renovations. He's a punk. I'm really suprised the Sun Times would let such trash in their paper. Oh wait, its the Sun- Times.

pinwheels3530
04-23-2004, 05:31 PM
What about kid Sundays, tickets that are just a $1 at the gate if that's not a bargain then what is? I have season tickets in the UD and have a great view of the game. The UD is a great place to watch the game but if everyone keeps hearing sox fans talk bad about thier own park, why would they want to come watch a sox game. Sox fans need to start talking about all the good things of being a White Sox fan, going to USCf etc.. The sox fan base is so divided, I hope I never become a grouch like cubkilla !

mweflen
04-23-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Would it be a good idea to take the back half of the corner sections and sell them for 9$ instead of 12$? I guess it would be worth evaluation, but at the same time, is there much a difference between spending $9 seat and $12 a seat, even with a family of 4? (mathematically speaking, it is a total of 12$, I understand that) But fans on a budget could afford that trip to the park if they want - and the $3 per ticket wouldn't change that fact much at all.

We're talking about two issues, really - the demographic of the fan base, and the perception of the Sox and their stadium.

Personally, I think Sections 509-506 and 555-558 (the corners of the UD) should become Budget sections at $5 a game, every game of the year.

In terms of a budget for the prototypical family of 4, it's a significant difference - at $12 a seat, you're talking $48 for tix, $16 for parking, and let's say $15 for concessions (which is light). That's a total of $79. Pretty hard to do more than say once a month if you're paying of your house, car, groceries, etc.

But really, families with kids don't go on weeknights. It's impossible with children who need to wake up for school the next day (or who just get tired and crabby). They go on weekends. So We're really talking $16x4, which brings the total to $95.

The same trip at $5 a seat is $51. A lot easier to handle a few more times a year.

As far as perception, I think a $5 budget section would be a good psychological motivator to get fans to the park. Notice the increases in attendance on Mondays, and more recently Tuesdays. It's OBVIOUS that Sox fansout there are looking for deals, searching for ways to attend more games. Why not let them? And this is with people not being really well informed about the half price promotions.

A well-publicized budget campaign would go a long way to luring more people out to the park.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by pinwheels3530
What about kid Sundays, tickets that are just a $1 at the gate if that's not a bargain then what is?

That's only 5 dates out of the year. Not every sunday is a kid's day.

Plus, it's hard to plan a day out with the kids if you aren't going to be absolutely SURE of getting your tickets. So the day-of-game aspect is limiting.

And people just don't know about it.

And, they've just ratcheted up the adult prices for weekend dates.

mweflen
04-23-2004, 05:46 PM
Anyway, I think publicity is a problem for the Sox.

I think the Sox need to do some print-ad campaigns to publicize their budget dates. And I think their TV ads need to be broadcast more widely (putting them on just during Sox games is like preaching to the choir), and emphasize the family and budget-friendly aspects of the Cell.

---

BACK TO THE TOPIC...

The Cub-Times is definitely a bit "lower brow" in tone - Moronotti fits that general feeling very well. They have a more tabloid feel to all sections of the paper, and a loudmouth firebrand fits that image in sports.

It's just too bad that the Sox are always on the receiving end!

row18
04-23-2004, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
:moron

It's easy, Cheeses.

In my world, the ideal ballpark would be small and cramped, with early 20th century plumbing. Men would stand around troughs to go to the bathroom, after standing in line for several minutes watching other guys peeing. To get from point A to point B, you'd have to walk through narrow corridors with low ceilings. The food choices would be limited and not very tasty at all. Seating-wise, you would ideally be crammed in like cattle next to everyone else. The constrant stream of people walking in front of you would add that extra ambiance. A good portion of the seats in the lower deck would have obstructed views, either from beams in front of you, or from the overhang of the upper deck, that would block your view of any flyball hit. In the upper deck, the worst seats would be like sitting on a 747 flying above the park, with the added bonus of having beams in front of you. The scoreboard would be old fashioned, with scant information about the action happening onfield. Statistics like the current batter's average, what he did earlier in the game, pitch count, pitch speed, the lineup, who's pitching, etc. wouldn't be shown.

There would be a slew of choices of bars around this park, too, because in my mind, what surrounds the park is much more important than the actual park attributes. Oh, and there would be plenty of attractive 20-something babes and dudes in the neighborhood, so as to give the impression that where I go to watch baseball games is somehow hip and happening.

Add these things, Cheeses, and I think the ballmall down south has a chance of not being "obsolete" anymore.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Call me crazy, but have Moron ever been to a SOX game? If so ,in the press box, because he's too scared to walk around the park during a game, unless he had armed security.
So he never exprienced the vibe of the crowd, so to me his opinion is worthless, Hell Jay if you read this i'll buy you a ticket, so you can experience a SOX game in the crowd where it should be.

pinwheels3530
04-23-2004, 07:07 PM
well if people don't know about it as sox fans let's talk about it more to the casual baseball family. We always talk about all the negative stuff.

Jesus Pena
04-23-2004, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
The cheapest seats in Skydome are $9 Canadian, which is, somebody correct me if I'm off a little...approximately $75 US.

I think youre way off, american currency is worth more than canadian money. So that 9 bucks is alor more like 6.50 or 7 bucks. I think...

batmanZoSo
04-23-2004, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Jesus Pena
I think youre way off, american currency is worth more than canadian money. So that 9 bucks is alor more like 6.50 or 7 bucks. I think...

We started with Jay Mariotti, shifted to arguing about ballparks, and naturally we end up with world currency. Wish I coulda been home for the bulk of this thread.

WSI, gotta love it.

rahulsekhar
04-23-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by mweflen
Joecrede, our resident economist, must not have heard about two pesky little fellows named "supply" and "demand."

See, businesses that are successful can accurately guage supply and demand.

Since the Sox are averaging about 24,000 a night in a 40,000 seats stadium, demand for $12-$27 upper deck seats must be LOW. You have a large surplus of SUPPLY.

Naturally, if you want to increase demand for these seats, you REDUCE the prices.

THEN, when you have rebuilt a lagging fan base, DEMAND becomes high enough to justify an increase in ticket prices.

Actually, the point is not to decrease price so that the park is full and you exhaust your supply (easy to do that - all tickets $1). The point is that you want to maximize revenues, i.e. Ticket price x attendance. Thus is it quite possible for higher prices and lower attendance to be a better deal for the Sox than lower priced sellouts. The key concept here is price elasticity (i.e. how quickly does the attendance vary with price decreases).

If they were to sell out at an average price of $10 (40k capacity), that's $400k/game. If they currently average 25k and have an average price of $18, that's $450k and a better business decision. However I have no idea what the average ticket price is or how elastic demand is.

The business that accurately gauge supply and demand are really profiting because they sell everything they make (i.e. they dont' incur cost to make anything that will go unsold). Given the set nature of the Sox "product" (81 games, set opponents, set stadium capacity, etc.) , they dont' make those decisions. About the only way they do is in managing payroll to be at or below their expected revenues.

batmanZoSo
04-24-2004, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Actually, the point is not to decrease price so that the park is full and you exhaust your supply (easy to do that - all tickets $1). The point is that you want to maximize revenues, i.e. Ticket price x attendance. Thus is it quite possible for higher prices and lower attendance to be a better deal for the Sox than lower priced sellouts. The key concept here is price elasticity (i.e. how quickly does the attendance vary with price decreases).

If they were to sell out at an average price of $10 (40k capacity), that's $400k/game. If they currently average 25k and have an average price of $18, that's $450k and a better business decision. However I have no idea what the average ticket price is or how elastic demand is.

The business that accurately gauge supply and demand are really profiting because they sell everything they make (i.e. they dont' incur cost to make anything that will go unsold). Given the set nature of the Sox "product" (81 games, set opponents, set stadium capacity, etc.) , they dont' make those decisions. About the only way they do is in managing payroll to be at or below their expected revenues.

Upper deck -- 5 bucks. First come, first serve. That's all there is to it. We wouldn't have any attendance problems anymore.

Jeremy
04-24-2004, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
My guess is he was at a restaurant or bar nowhere near U.S. Cellular field last night.

he was probably masturbating outside Wrigley Field with all the other ***** in the media.

mweflen
04-24-2004, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Actually, the point is not to decrease price so that the park is full and you exhaust your supply (easy to do that - all tickets $1). The point is that you want to maximize revenues, i.e. Ticket price x attendance. Thus is it quite possible for higher prices and lower attendance to be a better deal for the Sox than lower priced sellouts. The key concept here is price elasticity (i.e. how quickly does the attendance vary with price decreases).


I definitely agree that there is a point of diminishing returns in terms of peope in seats vs. dollars spent. However, I would be willing to bet that on half price nights, when there are generally 5,000 more people in attendance (this is based on my experience last year, when i had mostly monday and wednesday tickets, and attendences were generally 26,000 on Mon. and 21,000 on Wed...) that the additional 5,000 fans, many of whom buy parking, concessions, etc., made up for the revenue "lost" in ticket sales (though it's not lost, because those 5,000 would not have come otherwise...). The other thing to consider is that season ticket holders are generally 10-15,000 of any crowd - and they're not paying half price at all, they're paying more like 85% of the gate price with their discount.

So really, discounted gate tickets just put fannies in seats that would have otherwise been empty anyway, and thus bring their disposable income dollars into the park where they can be spent on other items at premium marked-up stadium prices.

I think the Sox would do well with a $5 budget section - even if it were just the obstructed seats in the UD (behind poles) and LD (adjacent to the batters eye), such a section would probably generate a few thousand extra ticket sales per game.

Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Upper deck -- 5 bucks. First come, first serve. That's all there is to it. We wouldn't have any attendance problems anymore.

Agreed! Great minds think alike :smile:

The Critic
04-24-2004, 08:35 AM
I stopped reading it when I saw him call the renovations "needless" ( or unnecessary, or some such word, I can't recall the exact word he used ). This is the same imbecile who harped incessantly about the horrific upper deck, and when the Sox address the PERCEIVED problem, then all of the sudden the renovations are needless???

He's a complete dope, and nothing he says or writes merits attention.

joecrede
04-24-2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
He's an a**hole mweflen. Pay it no mind.

I will accept an apology Killa for this unfortunate remark directed toward me.

voodoochile
04-24-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
He's an a**hole mweflen. Pay it no mind.

Wow, a personal attack AND a language violation all in one post. Are you looking to get kicked off the board?

LASOXFAN
04-24-2004, 12:48 PM
It's not often I'll agree with Mariotti, but in this case I do. He's right on two very important points:

(1)...the Sox will remain what they are as long as they play in an obsolete ballmall several miles from the core of a vibrant, magnificent downtown, where they would draw many sellouts and dramatically reshape their lost identity if they played in a new park in a bar/restaurant district that lured after-work crowds.

(2) I wish Reinsdorf would sell the team and give the Sox a fighting chance to be a big-market team, rather than a small-market team in a big market. But Jerry is right and the rest of us are wrong, even if you're sitting behind an upper-deck pole paid for by U.S. Cellular, at the expense of old Charlie Comiskey.


I strongly agree with both ideas.

TornLabrum
04-24-2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
It's not often I'll agree with Mariotti, but in this case I do. He's right on two very important points:

(1)...the Sox will remain what they are as long as they play in an obsolete ballmall several miles from the core of a vibrant, magnificent downtown, where they would draw many sellouts and dramatically reshape their lost identity if they played in a new park in a bar/restaurant district that lured after-work crowds.

And you've been to the renovated ball park how many times? And you know the trip from downtown is arduous because...?

voodoochile
04-24-2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
And you've been to the renovated ball park how many times? And you know the trip from downtown is arduous because...?

Because in LA there is no Public Transportation system :D:

soxnut
04-24-2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
It's not often I'll agree with Mariotti, but in this case I do. He's right on two very important points:

(1)...the Sox will remain what they are as long as they play in an obsolete ballmall several miles from the core of a vibrant, magnificent downtown, where they would draw many sellouts and dramatically reshape their lost identity if they played in a new park in a bar/restaurant district that lured after-work crowds.

(2) I wish Reinsdorf would sell the team and give the Sox a fighting chance to be a big-market team, rather than a small-market team in a big market. But Jerry is right and the rest of us are wrong, even if you're sitting behind an upper-deck pole paid for by U.S. Cellular, at the expense of old Charlie Comiskey.


I strongly agree with both ideas.


See, this is the kind of thinking that ends up happening when you're not in Chicago.

The ballpark is fine. Can you explain what a ballmall is, because as far as malls go, they're pretty nice places to go. And also, forget the IDEA OF THE SOX MOVING TO ANYWHERE CLOSER TO DOWNTOWN, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON.

As for sitting behind a pole, that is an obstruction of what 300 seats out of 40,000?? Big freakin deal. The new roof that causes the obstruction makes the ballpark look fantastic.