PDA

View Full Version : disapointed on sox fans


soxwon
05-15-2004, 12:01 PM
whats up people-the biggest series of the year -and only 15,000fans there- thats disgusting.
i know the weather was bad but, only 15.000
it should be filled.
no wonder we get bad write ups in the dailys.

ChiWhiteSox1337
05-15-2004, 12:04 PM
most of the tickets sold for sox games are walk up sales. when you have weather like yesterday, not a lot of people are going to show up.

OEO Magglio
05-15-2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by soxwon
whats up people-the biggest series of the year -and only 15,000fans there- thats disgusting.
i know the weather was bad but, only 15.000
it should be filled.
no wonder we get bad write ups in the dailys.
How about being disappointed in the sox? I was at the game last night and I honestly could care less what the attendance is, how about we stop worring about attendance and worry about the sox winning this series.

MRKARNO
05-15-2004, 12:18 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=370883

And just a question: Where you at the game?

soxwon
05-15-2004, 12:19 PM
well if the place is full- it gives the players a boost, no question there.
a loud crowd- is like one run lead, to the guys.

ewokpelts
05-15-2004, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=370883

And just a question: Where you at the game?

Well...I wasnt...but I'll be at the game tonite and tomorrow.
Gene

Lip Man 1
05-15-2004, 12:51 PM
Let's see it was 50 degrees in mid May, the weather was so damp that you could see the breath coming out of the players noses in the 9th inning and the Sox had lost 5 of the previous 8 games.

Yea those are incentives to come on out!

Lip

TornLabrum
05-15-2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Let's see it was 50 degrees in mid May, the weather was so damp that you could see the breath coming out of the players noses in the 9th inning and the Sox had lost 5 of the previous 8 games.

Yea those are incentives to come on out!

Lip

Well, little things like that don't keep Cubs fans from going out to games!

MarqSox
05-15-2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Let's see it was 50 degrees in mid May, the weather was so damp that you could see the breath coming out of the players noses in the 9th inning and the Sox had lost 5 of the previous 8 games.

Yea those are incentives to come on out!

Lip
You forgot to complain about how JR wasn't at the turnstiles greeting the fans as they came in.

SaltyPretzel
05-15-2004, 01:00 PM
:threadsucks

voodoochile
05-15-2004, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
You forgot to complain about how JR wasn't at the turnstiles greeting the fans as they came in.


Ooooooo... great idea to improve attendance. Fans could hand him a ticket and give him a smack in the puss. The only problem is the line at his turnstyle would be backed up for miles

Lip Man 1
05-15-2004, 01:09 PM
Marq says with sarcasm dripping in his voice (although he didn't say if he was at the game Friday night...)

You forgot to complain about how JR wasn't at the turnstiles greeting the fans as they came in.

Good ole Uncle Jerry doesn't have the guts to do that and to do it he'd have to spend more money he doesn't have (LOL) on hiring more bodyguards then the ones he had around him at Sox Fest.

Lip

SoxxoS
05-15-2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Well, little things like that don't keep Cubs fans from going out to games!

When you are piss drunk it warms you up about 20 degrees...so it would feel a balmy 70 to the people at the Urinal yesterday.

RKMeibalane
05-15-2004, 01:54 PM
Two words: bad weather. Nobody wants to sit through a game if it's raining. It's not fun. The Sox haven't had good weather at all this season when they've been at home. That should change once June rolls around, but for the time being, attendance is going to be lower than normal.

I wish people would stop worrying about how many fans show up to games. Let's focus on the big picture: winning the division. Everything else will fall into place once that's taken care of.

soxwon
05-15-2004, 01:56 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MRKARNO

And just a question: Where you at the game?

i wasnt either but ill be at tonights and tommorows game, that will be my 7th and 8th games of the year.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
most of the tickets sold for sox games are walk up sales. when you have weather like yesterday, not a lot of people are going to show up.

The genius of the Rob Gallas marketing plan revealed yet again! :smile:

:gallas
"It would have been a totally different story if last night had been 1/2-priced walk up tickets with an empty carton of Pall Mall cigarettes night!"

CHISOXFAN13
05-15-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by soxwon
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MRKARNO

And just a question: Where you at the game?

i wasnt either but ill be at tonights and tommorows game, that will be my 7th and 8th games of the year.

No offense, but how can you start an attendance thread when you weren't even at the game?

And before you ask, yes, I was.

bafiarocks03
05-15-2004, 03:00 PM
Hey! i was there!!! yes it was cold and rainy! but i got great pictures!!!

iwannago
05-15-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
Two words: bad weather. Nobody wants to sit through a game if it's raining. It's not fun. The Sox haven't had good weather at all this season when they've been at home. That should change once June rolls around, but for the time being, attendance is going to be lower than normal.

I wish people would stop worrying about how many fans show up to games. Let's focus on the big picture: winning the division. Everything else will fall into place once that's taken care of.

Isn't that what you call fair weather fans?

Dan H
05-15-2004, 03:14 PM
Why do people have to justify themselves? This is no obligation to go to a Sox game whatsoever. And if attendance equals success on the field, then why haven't the cubs had back to back winning seasons in over 30 years? There is just another round of blaming of the fans. The real blame lays with the management and the players. And remember, Comiskey was filled in the early '90's. But Jerry Reinsdorf wanted a strike instead. Be careful of what you want, you just might get it. Complaining about attendance is a waste of time. Complain to Jerry Reinsdorf next time he doesn't want to sign a pitcher or thinks changing a manager is the only way to change a team.

soxwon
05-15-2004, 03:22 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
[B]No offense, but how can you start an attendance thread when you weren't even at the game?


so your asking me to be at all three games, i got to every sat-sun game, how many have you been to.?
ive been to over 600 sox games since 65
can you match that?
im a real fan, but i cant go to every game.
this team is my life- i love em.
how many people here have been to 6 or more games.?
ill go to 25 games atleast this year prob 30.

im just disaponted for the biggest series of the year, despite the weather, there was only 15k.

why dont people buy advanced seats?
atleast for the big teams?

pearso66
05-15-2004, 03:26 PM
well its tough for me to go to a game, I havn't been in Chicago since March. I will go to as many as time and money allow me this year. But I don't expect many people to go to a game that is cold and rainy. those are die hards out there. I would love to be out there no matter what the weather is, but casual fans will not go if they will be uncomforatable. If it was 80 and a slight breeze last night, and there were 15000 thats another story.

But just as Dan H said, having a packed park doesnt guarantee wins, so why do we even care?

white sox bill
05-15-2004, 03:36 PM
More attendance, more revenue, better chance JR will spend his moldy $$ buying us players that are good. Get it?

pearso66
05-15-2004, 03:38 PM
we had pretty good attendance in 2000, did any of that money spill over to the next year?

mdep524
05-15-2004, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
most of the tickets sold for sox games are walk up sales. when you have weather like yesterday, not a lot of people are going to show up.

I really don't care about the attendance issue, but FWIW, THIS is the answer. If a team is going to rely on walk ups as much as the Sox do, they are going to be totally dependant on the weather. If the Cubs played at home last night, Wrigley would have been significantly more filled because a lot more of their seats go to season ticket holders and advance sales, who have purchased their tickets before they see the 50 degrees and rain.

It's a huge flaw in the Sox outlook, and the way to correct it is to encourage more season tickets or advance sales, and you know what encourages that? Making moves in the WINTER to get fans excited about your team in the off season, not waiting for a mediocre team to get hot in the middle of the season.

Playing great baseball the rest of the way (and being in first place) and seeing KW make some midseason moves, along with imporving weather and no school for college/high school kids will certainly boost attendance in the 2nd half of the season. But the only way the hedge against fluctuations in attendance is season ticket plans.

white sox bill
05-15-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by pearso66
we had pretty good attendance in 2000, did any of that money spill over to the next year?

IIRC yes 2k was good attendance, and we were somewhere in the middle of the pack budget wise. A good research would be dollars spent to winning percentage. The flubs may be exception, although this yr payroll in high.

Angels.Fish has mediocore payroll and won. The Brew Crew has what a 35$ million payroll. Should equate to last place

voodoochile
05-15-2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
More attendance, more revenue, better chance JR will spend his moldy $$ buying us players that are good. Get it?

You actually believe that?

Man, I have got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

There is NO evidence that JR will up payroll with increased attendance.

He believes in fiscal responsibility over everything else. He is a hard liner on holding down player salaries and he proves it time after time after time after time. Now you come in and say, go to the game and presto, more payroll. Once again, it's all the fans' fault.

JR, is that you?

CHISOXFAN13
05-15-2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by soxwon
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
[B]No offense, but how can you start an attendance thread when you weren't even at the game?


so your asking me to be at all three games, i got to every sat-sun game, how many have you been to.?
ive been to over 600 sox games since 65
can you match that?
im a real fan, but i cant go to every game.
this team is my life- i love em.
how many people here have been to 6 or more games.?
ill go to 25 games atleast this year prob 30.

im just disaponted for the biggest series of the year, despite the weather, there was only 15k.

why dont people buy advanced seats?
atleast for the big teams?

Actually, I was born in 1975 and have been to 40 or more games in each of the past five seasons. My family had partial seasons in the early 90's, so I'd venture to say that I've been to more than 600 games in my lifetime.

Why are you criticizing fans who go to the games? Last night was a true reflection of the weather. If people didn't already have tickets, they certainly weren't going to brave that cold mist. It was a miserable evening in many ways.

I share your feelings on this subject. Sox fans need to undersdtand that we
1. won't draw in April, early May and September.
2. won't get any walk-up crowds with weather like we have had to endure this season.

It sucks, but it's reality.

That being said, I'm sure there will be 30-35,000 tonight.

soxtalker
05-15-2004, 04:46 PM
I was at the game, and the conditions were miserable. There was a constant mist / light rain. I was in the upper deck, and the new overhang seemed to shield most of us up there. But everyone was still cold and wet. It must have been worse for the players. Numerous plays were affected by the wet conditions (nothing that stood out, but there was little traction).

I think that they shouldn't have even tried to play. It was clear as soon as one walked up to the ticket windows that the attendance would be low. Unfortunately, they probably didn't have an accurate enough forecast to know that it would be raining throughout. The predictions that I heard before the game were that the rain would stop about 5:30.

CubKilla
05-15-2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You actually believe that?

Man, I have got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

There is NO evidence that JR will up payroll with increased attendance.

He believes in fiscal responsibility over everything else. He is a hard liner on holding down player salaries and he proves it time after time after time after time. Now you come in and say, go to the game and presto, more payroll. Once again, it's all the fans' fault.

JR, is that you?

You beat me to it Voodoo. Fans came out in July of '03 when the Sox gave the fans something to be excited about (Everett and Alomar which cost JR essentially nothing in $$$$$) and how did JR repay the fans? By not resigning one White Sox FA in the offseason.

And why do people start attendance threads on a diehard White Sox fansite anyway? You're preaching to the choir. The diehards usually go to as many games as possible. Want to increase attendance? Bring someone to the games you go to with you that wouldn't ordinarily go to a White Sox game.

white sox bill
05-15-2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You actually believe that?

Man, I have got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

There is NO evidence that JR will up payroll with increased attendance.

He believes in fiscal responsibility over everything else. He is a hard liner on holding down player salaries and he proves it time after time after time after time. Now you come in and say, go to the game and presto, more payroll. Once again, it's all the fans' fault.

JR, is that you?

Never said he would top the Yankee Mes payroll. Let the attendance slip below 1.2 million. Watch the last place Sox. Now about that bridge....

LongLiveFisk
05-15-2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
More attendance, more revenue, better chance JR will spend his moldy $$ buying us players that are good. Get it?

Yeah I think I get it. Without the extra revenue, how could we afford Konerko at $8 mil and Koch at over $6 mil? That would be devastating!

Hey, I understand the concept, but having $ doesn't mean it gets spent wisely. When I see this $14 mil going for some better players, it will lend some credence to this argument that gets stale year after year.

SoxxoS
05-15-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by LongLiveFisk
Yeah I think I get it. Without the extra revenue, how could we afford Konerko at $8 mil and Koch at over $6 mil? That would be devastating!

Hey, I understand the concept, but having $ doesn't mean it gets spent wisely. When I see this $14 mil going for some better players, it will lend some credence to this argument that gets stale year after year.

That is a great point.

We have
Koch: 6 million
Konerko 8 million
Valentin: 5 million
Ordonez: 14 million

36 million on 4 players...with Koch and Konerko that should be making half of what they make...COMBINED.
Valentin should be about 3-3.5 million, and Ordonez (although he contract was backloaded...it's still 14 million bucks) should be making about 12 million.

Add that savings up: 11 million wasted on 4 players. 11 million could buy you 3 good players. Or 2 awesome ones.

NOT TO MENTION: That not only do Koch and Konerko hurt the payroll, they actually hurt the team b/c you HAVE to play them b/c they are making so much money, and they don't perform. So it's like two strikes. (Although Koch has looked OK, I am a)Not convinced b)Still deathly afraid when he comes into the game. Not something worth 6 million dollars.

CubKilla
05-15-2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
That is a great point.

We have
Koch: 6 million
Konerko 8 million
Valentin: 5 million
Ordonez: 14 million

36 million on 4 players...with Koch and Konerko that should be making half of what they make...COMBINED.
Valentin should be about 3-3.5 million, and Ordonez (although he contract was backloaded...it's still 14 million bucks) should be making about 12 million.

Add that savings up: 11 million wasted on 4 players. 11 million could buy you 3 good players. Or 2 awesome ones.

NOT TO MENTION: That not only do Koch and Konerko hurt the payroll, they actually hurt the team b/c you HAVE to play them b/c they are making so much money, and they don't perform. So it's like two strikes. (Although Koch has looked OK, I am a)Not convinced b)Still deathly afraid when he comes into the game. Not something worth 6 million dollars.

One of the myriad of reasons why I think KW is a crap GM.

MRKARNO
05-15-2004, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by soxwon
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
[B]No offense, but how can you start an attendance thread when you weren't even at the game?


so your asking me to be at all three games, i got to every sat-sun game, how many have you been to.?
ive been to over 600 sox games since 65
can you match that?
im a real fan, but i cant go to every game.
this team is my life- i love em.
how many people here have been to 6 or more games.?
ill go to 25 games atleast this year prob 30.

im just disaponted for the biggest series of the year, despite the weather, there was only 15k.

why dont people buy advanced seats?
atleast for the big teams?

You were criticizing people for not being at a Specific game, last night's game. If you weren't at that very game that you were criticizing people for not being at, then you personally have no right to criticize people for not going to the game. Look at the mirror if you want to criticize someone. I did indeed go to the game despite the weather and I couldn't care less if only 16k were there. The weather was pretty darned awful for a mid-May game and this team depends on walk-ups to fill the park and you wont get a lot of bad weather days. Wouldn't we all love to see 40k every game? But the fact is that it doesnt happen and the only way that you can help it is by going yourself, which you did not.

LongLiveFisk
05-15-2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
One of the myriad of reasons why I think KW is a crap GM.

Well don't forget also that the '83 and '84 Sox drew millions of fans, while the '86-'89 teams were some of the worst I can remember. We really weren't even competitive. So much for all that money and great attendance making a difference then. You would have thought we'd have a little more to show for it than a couple of last place teams and very little hope.

And who WAS the GM back then anyway??

OEO Magglio
05-15-2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
You were criticizing people for not being at a Specific game, last night's game. If you weren't at that very game that you were criticizing people for not being at, then you personally have no right to criticize people for not going to the game. Look at the mirror if you want to criticize someone. I did indeed go to the game despite the weather and I couldn't care less if only 16k were there. The weather was pretty darned awful for a mid-May game and this team depends on walk-ups to fill the park and you wont get a lot of bad weather days. Wouldn't we all love to see 40k every game? But the fact is that it doesnt happen and the only way that you can help it is by going yourself, which you did not.
Well said.

PINWHEELS
05-15-2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
One of the myriad of reasons why I think KW is a crap GM. :KW We Need To Go Out And Get Some Grinders!

PINWHEELS
05-15-2004, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by PINWHEELS
:KW We Need To Go Out And Get Some Grinders! :KW But What You Didn't Know is That I was Talking About The Sandwich. Man am I Hungry!

white sox bill
05-15-2004, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by LongLiveFisk
Well don't forget also that the '83 and '84 Sox drew millions of fans, while the '86-'89 teams were some of the worst I can remember. We really weren't even competitive. So much for all that money and great attendance making a difference then. You would have thought we'd have a little more to show for it than a couple of last place teams and very little hope.

And who WAS the GM back then anyway??

Wasn't it Roland Hemond? The Hawk came aboard in 86 IIRC

CubKilla
05-15-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
Wasn't it Roland Hemond? The Hawk came aboard in 86 IIRC

I know Hemond was GM in '83. The Harrelson debacle followed shortly thereafter although Hawk's first complete year as GM escapes me. I just remember the Bonilla for DeLeon trade :whiner:

Daver
05-15-2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
Wasn't it Roland Hemond? The Hawk came aboard in 86 IIRC

Larry Himes was the GM,he had some of the best drafts in Sox history,and built the farm system that Ron Schueler lived off of for years.

white sox bill
05-15-2004, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I know Hemond was GM in '83. The Harrelson debacle followed shortly thereafter although Hawk's first complete year as GM escapes me. I just remember the Bonilla for DeLeon trade :whiner:

Ah THAT trade...worse than Corky trade, at least Taco Bell got us the Div. title

voodoochile
05-15-2004, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
Never said he would top the Yankee Mes payroll. Let the attendance slip below 1.2 million. Watch the last place Sox. Now about that bridge....

Saying he will cut payroll if they don't draw fans is not the same thing as saying he will increase payroll if they draw more fans. I agree completely with the first part, but do not agree with the second part, which is the part I thought we were discussing.

Sure, you can have that bridge for a song, or at least really cheap...

Lip Man 1
05-15-2004, 10:23 PM
Bill says:

Let the attendance slip below 1.2 million. Watch the last place Sox.

It won't matter to ownership, remember the lease agreement states that ANYTIME attendence falls below 1.2 million the state has to BUY 300,000 tickets.

Somehow I don't think the money would be going to improve the team... LOL

Bill if I haven't made myself clear please allow me to elaborate

Sox fans do not trust Uncle Jerry and never will make the first move...not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow. It will never happen. It's up to ownership to put a product on the field the fans want.... same as any other business.

But why fight, Jerry's 68. He's said on Chicago Tonight his family isn't interested in owning the team therefore it's only a matter of time before Reinsdorf / Einhorn are just a memory on the blighted landscape that is White Sox baseball.

Lip

JohnBasedowYoda
05-15-2004, 10:44 PM
we had 32k today and still lost. let the attendance issue drop

pearso66
05-15-2004, 10:46 PM
Thank you yoda. I mentioned that in the chat when someone brought up attendence. Having a packed stadium does not equate to winning. And we all know that nobody other than die hards will make the trip out to the park on a consistant basis until the team shows us they are serious about winning.

CubKilla
05-15-2004, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by pearso66
Having a packed stadium does not equate to winning.

Obviously. If that was the case, the team up north would be World beaters.

TornLabrum
05-15-2004, 11:12 PM
Tonight's attendance was over 32,000. I wonder what the media will have to say about that...Oh, yeah...Sox fans only come out on half-price and fireworks nights.

Never mind.

CubKilla
05-15-2004, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Tonight's attendance was over 32,000. I wonder what the media will have to say about that...Oh, yeah...Sox fans only come out on half-price and fireworks nights.

Never mind.

Don't forget Opening Day :)

THE_HOOTER
05-15-2004, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You actually believe that?

Man, I have got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

There is NO evidence that JR will up payroll with increased attendance.

He believes in fiscal responsibility over everything else. He is a hard liner on holding down player salaries and he proves it time after time after time after time. Now you come in and say, go to the game and presto, more payroll. Once again, it's all the fans' fault.

JR, is that you?

Where are you getting your facts from?

The payroll was raised this year wasnt it?

Blame the owner for not signing bigger names, but dontblame several highly paid players for mediocore play lately.


It's Jerry's fault that Lee, Konerko, Crede, and whoever else cannot get the job done.

Give me a ****ing break.

Reinsdorf gets more money he spends it. in contention, he'll make a deal.

Keep blaming Reinsdorf--its easy.

Lip Man 1
05-16-2004, 03:23 AM
Hooter says: "Keep blaming Reinsdorf--its easy."

and it's true.

Hey Hoot, who hires the general manager and the field manager? Thank You.

The Sox haven't hired a field manager with previous MLB experience since Jeff Torborg in the late 80's!

They have NEVER hired a G.M. with previous MLB experience in that position.

The results show the folly of trying to save a penny by hiring cheap, inexperienced people. In the long run you cost yourself millions. But that's the White Sox way!

Lip

rahulsekhar
05-16-2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Hooter says: "Keep blaming Reinsdorf--its easy."

and it's true.

Hey Hoot, who hires the general manager and the field manager? Thank You.

The Sox haven't hired a field manager with previous MLB experience since Jeff Torborg in the late 80's!

They have NEVER hired a G.M. with previous MLB experience in that position.

The results show the folly of trying to save a penny by hiring cheap, inexperienced people. In the long run you cost yourself millions. But that's the White Sox way!

Lip

Cheap, inexperienced people like....Billy Beane? Theo Epstein? Brian Cashman? (all hired with no prior GM experience)

Or maybe you mean guys like Mike Scoscia? Ron Gardenhire? Terry Francona?

There's a reason Bobby Valentine, Cito Gaston, etc are sitting at home(or in Japan). No many good veteran managers & GMs are ever on the market.

white sox bill
05-16-2004, 09:28 AM
First, IMHO, the free agents we lost:
*Colon, JR made very strong offer to, backloaded as it was. How could he refuse? Halos overpaid period.
*Flash. he's a injury waiting for the DL again!! JR's been burned overpaying pitchers. Yanks got that him, they may be sorry
*Robbie, there was ill feelings from KW trying to get him to sign w/o agent. Glad he went elsewhere now we have Juan and Wiilie
*Everett--Can't recall the terms offered, we could use a CF, but he's not a natural one. Maybe JR cheaped on this one
*Sullivan--was unimpressed albeit unused reliever that we rented
*Graff--one of JR's favorite, he chose KC to be a regular. JR cheaped us on him I would imagine

Sure I would like to see a couple of those back, but the fact remains we DIDN'T win division with them. Time to change chemistry,players whatever, new approach.

I can't wait to see JR sell, don't get me wrong. The sports salaries have all made us amatuer CPA's. I guess if I had to sum it up:

If attendance is good and we are in the thick of it, we have a "prayer" of getting good players near deadline. If attendance sucks, we don't have prayer. I'll take the former not the latter.

rahulsekhar
05-16-2004, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by pearso66
Thank you yoda. I mentioned that in the chat when someone brought up attendence. Having a packed stadium does not equate to winning. And we all know that nobody other than die hards will make the trip out to the park on a consistant basis until the team shows us they are serious about winning.

Yet somehow, the Royals, a terrible team acknowledged to be losing their best player after this year, that's disappointed all year, gets 35k for a game with similar weather against a non-divisional opponent while we get 15k after contending all year for a game against against our top rival.

Sox fans are one of few groups that demand wins before they'll come out (and evn early wins won't guarantee that). like it or not, that puts the team at a disadvantage relative to other MLB teams because any major expense carries greater risk, making it more unlikely to happen.

rahulsekhar
05-16-2004, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by white sox bill

*Everett--Can't recall the terms offered, we could use a CF, but he's not a natural one. Maybe JR cheaped on this one


IIRC, Carl wanted a big contract, so Sox passed. Then, when he realized he couldnt get anything close to what he wanted, we couldnt negotiate due to MLB rules. No fault to the team there.

If attendance is good and we are in the thick of it, we have a "prayer" of getting good players near deadline. If attendance sucks, we don't have prayer. I'll take the former not the latter.

AMEN!!!

LongLiveFisk
05-16-2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Yet somehow, the Royals, a terrible team acknowledged to be losing their best player after this year, that's disappointed all year, gets 35k for a game with similar weather against a non-divisional opponent while we get 15k after contending all year for a game against against our top rival.

This is true but don't forget that the Royals are the only team in KC. Chicago has two teams. While it won't deter the die-hard Sox fans, all the rest know they have a choice. And that, of course, is a whole different topic altogether that you can find discussed on numerous threads, I'm sure.

soxwon
05-16-2004, 12:55 PM
ok i started this thread , ill end it!!!
i went last night, and i thank you for showing up, 32k is more like it, now today lets put 38k in the seats.
some are right- we filled the place but didnt win, ok- but we are playing THE MIGHT TWINKIES!!!

Lip Man 1
05-16-2004, 01:14 PM
Rahul:

True those were inexperienced people and they all have won with someone else.

What have the Sox won with their inexperienced people?

Thank you.

Uncle Jerry's ways are not working.... time to try sometrhing else. (besides 'hoping' the Sox can 'luck' into something...that hasn't worked to well either has it?)

Lip

Lip Man 1
05-16-2004, 01:16 PM
Rahul:

Your point about the Royals drawing in lousy weather only proves my point that after 22 years of Uncle Jerry Sox fans have had enough.

And the Royals had a 'cinderella' season last year which meant a ton of tickets sold in the off season. Like has been said in the past, the league only annouces tickets sold, not how many fans actually showed up. I'm sure if the weather was as bad as it was in Chicago there were not 35 thousand actually there.

Lip

rahulsekhar
05-16-2004, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul:

True those were inexperienced people and they all have won with someone else.

What have the Sox won with their inexperienced people?

Thank you.

Uncle Jerry's ways are not working.... time to try sometrhing else. (besides 'hoping' the Sox can 'luck' into something...that hasn't worked to well either has it?)

Lip

The point is that that you can win with experienced or inexperienced management. So what you have to do is go with whoever you think can do the best job. That is IMO what happened with Ozzie this offseason, not that he was hired because he was cheaper than say Cito Gaston.

soxwon
05-16-2004, 09:52 PM
today was the most perfect day weather wise of the season, and only 26k showed up, thats awfull.
and we won huge 11-0
what excuse do we use now?

rahulsekhar
05-16-2004, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by soxwon
today was the most perfect day weather wise of the season, and only 26k showed up, thats awfull.
and we won huge 11-0
what excuse do we use now?

Exactly. What more can be asked for: a team that's played relatively well and been at or near the top of the division all season (ok - 1.5 months, but still), much better chemistry & attitude (Ozzie), a team that's played exciting baseball and won a lot of close games, a weekend game with a pretty good giveaway, great weather, and a game against our top rival the past few years.

If that can't get butts in the seats, then I for one am not surprised that they're reluctant to bump payroll significantly. Because if anything happened (player slump, injury, etc.) they'd end up with a half empty park and eating the salary.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-16-2004, 10:58 PM
Read carefully.

M-O-R-E-S-E-A-S-O-N-T-I-C-K-E-T-H-O-L-D-E-R-S.

Live by walkup sales, die by walkup sales.

Nobody got in for half-price with a Pepsi can the day of the game. Some of us think that's a good thing.

rahulsekhar
05-16-2004, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Read carefully.

M-O-R-E-S-E-A-S-O-N-T-I-C-K-E-T-H-O-L-D-E-R-S.

Live by walkup sales, die by walkup sales.

Nobody got in for half-price with a Pepsi can the day of the game. Some of us think that's a good thing.

The point is that the stars were virtually aligned to have great walkup sales - weather, performance, opponent, weekend. That attendance was subpar is VERY disappointing. As someone said earlier, not much more that could be asked for.

Anyone know the season ticket sales (and increase over prior year) the year they got Wells? Last year with Colon (although that's skewed by the ASG)? I don't remember it creating big early season bumps in attendance. IIRC, we saw some later in the season.

Bottom line, regardless of how the team got to where they're at, at this point you get what you pay for. If fans dont' come out to support the team when they're doing well, there's little to no reason for management to take on any risk by extending themselves financially (although from KW's comments at various times, he feels that he can get the necessary $$$ to make whatever midseason deals are necessary - despite the attendance issues).

Lip Man 1
05-16-2004, 11:42 PM
Rahul says: "when they're doing well..."

I guess that depends on your definition of 'doing well,' don't you think.

To some being four or five games over .500 is doing well...

To others getting off to a start like the Angels this year or the Yankees in past year's or the Tigers in 84 is 'doing well.'

I'd agree completely with you that if the Sox were 24- 10 and not drawing well then you'd have a problem. The Sox in 1982 for example started out 20-10 and drew very well.

Considering the lousy weather and the 'tepid' start by the Sox (fitting right in however with their mediocre performance in the last six seasons. Average record 83-79) I don't think that what you have to say is valid. When they played the Yankees they drew well, when they played the Twins they drew pretty well throwing out the miserable friday game played under conditions that were best suited to football in late October.)

Personally Rahul when you cut through all the rhetoric, all the 'excuses,' all the reasons you only are left with one and I simply don't understand why people refuse to believe it or simply don't understand it.

The reason plain and simply is that fans have had it with ownership or never became fans because of ownership in the first place. The Sox fan base is tremndously smaller then when current ownership bought the team in January 1981.

Short of a World Series title or a monumental off season spending spree nothing is going to ever bring them back.

I'm not saying that to be an ass, I think it's obvious this is the case. All other 'reasons,' have been debunked and this is all that's left.

Occem's razor: "The simplist explanation that covers all the facts is probably the correct one."

Lip

TornLabrum
05-16-2004, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
The point is that the stars were virtually aligned to have great walkup sales - weather, performance, opponent, weekend. That attendance was subpar is VERY disappointing. As someone said earlier, not much more that could be asked for.


On the postgame show Dave said there were over 7000 walk up sales. See George's post above.

TornLabrum
05-16-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul says: "when they're doing well..."

I guess that depends on your definition of 'doing well,' don't you think.

To some being four or five games over .500 is doing well...

To others getting off to a start like the Angels this year or the Yankees in past year's or the Tigers in 84 is 'doing well.'

I'd agree completely with you that if the Sox were 24- 10 and not drawing well then you'd have a problem. The Sox in 1982 for example started out 20-10 and drew very well.

Considering the lousy weather and the 'tepid' start by the Sox (fitting right in however with their mediocre performance in the last six seasons. Average record 83-79) I don't think that what you have to say is valid. When they played the Yankees they drew well, when they played the Twins they drew pretty well throwing out the miserable friday game played under conditions that were best suited to football in late October.)

Personally Rahul when you cut through all the rhetoric, all the 'excuses,' all the reasons you only are left with one and I simply don't understand why people refuse to believe it or simply don't understand it.

The reason plain and simply is that fans have had it with ownership or never became fans because of ownership in the first place. The Sox fan base is tremndously smaller then when current ownership bought the team in January 1981.

Short of a World Series title or a monumental off season spending spree nothing is going to ever bring them back.

I'm not saying that to be an ass, I think it's obvious this is the case. All other 'reasons,' have been debunked and this is all that's left.

Occem's razor: "The simplist explanation that covers all the facts is probably the correct one."

Lip

Let's not forget that they were coming off a very disappointing week that climaxed with two humiliating defeats to their chief divisional rival. That's hardly the type of play to encourage those walk up sales.

rahulsekhar
05-17-2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul says: "when they're doing well..."

I guess that depends on your definition of 'doing well,' don't you think.

To some being four or five games over .500 is doing well...

To others getting off to a start like the Angels this year or the Yankees in past year's or the Tigers in 84 is 'doing well.'

The team has been hanging around the best record in the AL untilo about a week ago. I'd consider the Angels or Tigers in '84 to have great starts, not good ones. If it takes an almost perfect start for fans to come out for a meaningful game on a great day, that's pretty sad.



Considering the lousy weather and the 'tepid' start by the Sox (fitting right in however with their mediocre performance in the last six seasons. Average record 83-79) I don't think that what you have to say is valid. When they played the Yankees they drew well, when they played the Twins they drew pretty well throwing out the miserable friday game played under conditions that were best suited to football in late October.)

I saw a note of 19k for today's attendance at the start of this thread. If that's what you consider drawing well, I'd have to disagree. If today was in the 30-34 range, we wouldn't be having this discussion.



The reason plain and simply is that fans have had it with ownership or never became fans because of ownership in the first place. The Sox fan base is tremndously smaller then when current ownership bought the team in January 1981.

Short of a World Series title or a monumental off season spending spree nothing is going to ever bring them back.

I'm not saying that to be an ass, I think it's obvious this is the case. All other 'reasons,' have been debunked and this is all that's left.

Occem's razor: "The simplist explanation that covers all the facts is probably the correct one."

Lip

I'm not disagreeing with you Lip, but the fact is that what you just said confirms that it is highly risky for ownership to go out on a financial limb because the fan base is not there to support it and provide a return on that salary investment. You may not like it and you may think that they should go out on that limb, or that they "owe it to the fans" (few in number though they might be), but based on the current fan base, that is a fact. There's a lot of slamming of the team acting like a small market team - guess what, if you have a small fan base - then unless you're willing to invest for a while, you ARE a small market team regardless of where you're located.

Combine the degree of risk required to hope to increase the fan base and the downside protection that the team has due to their stadium deal and you have a recipe for exactly what we have here - a team that tries to win within a "reasonable" budget, that IMO spends right around their revenues but not beyond and with no risks taken to increase them, and a team that therefore is never bad but never awesome, and makes the playoffs and has a shot every so often. As I said earlier - you get what you pay for.

pearso66
05-17-2004, 12:22 AM
I have to disagree that this game should have drawn based on performance. Someone said that since we won 11-0 today we should have drawn well. No one can predict that before the game, and after the miserable first 2 games of the series, plus the last 2 of the last series, I'd say that we havnt performed well. We did draw 30+ yesterday, and i heard 26? today, I'll take that with the way they've been playing. Anyway, why do we keep having attendance discussions, unless you can get 10,000 of your closest friends to attend, you cant change it. People here go to the games when they can, we aren't average fans, most are die hard. Go talk to the people on the ESPN boards or MLB boards, theya re the ones that need convincing.

rahulsekhar
05-17-2004, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by pearso66
I have to disagree that this game should have drawn based on performance. Someone said that since we won 11-0 today we should have drawn well. No one can predict that before the game, and after the miserable first 2 games of the series, plus the last 2 of the last series, I'd say that we havnt performed well. We did draw 30+ yesterday, and i heard 26? today, I'll take that with the way they've been playing. Anyway, why do we keep having attendance discussions, unless you can get 10,000 of your closest friends to attend, you cant change it. People here go to the games when they can, we aren't average fans, most are die hard. Go talk to the people on the ESPN boards or MLB boards, theya re the ones that need convincing.

IMO if 2 bad games are going to prevent fans from comig out when the team had lost all of 2 series YTD (TOR & NYY), that's a sad commentary on the fickleness of the fan base.

That said, 26k while disappointing is not as bad as what I initially heard for attendance (19k). 19k would be downright shameful.

My point is not to convince people to go to game (I don't believe I have that much influence, although it would be nice!). My point is that given what we see in terms of attendance, it's not surprising the way the team manages it's finances.

jackbrohamer
05-17-2004, 10:55 AM
The commenters blaming Sox fans for low attendance remind me of high school when the gym teachers tried to make us show school spirit by showing up for the big football game with Benet.

CubKilla
05-17-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by SaltyPretzel
:threadsucks

Agreed.

People complain about all of the Cubs talk on this site but alot of posters on this site sound like Cub fans when talking about USCF attendance. Ever get into a "baseball" discussion with a Cubs fan? When they're on the ropes, they invariably bring up attendance.

Face it, attendance will increase when JR starts acting like an owner of a MLB team in the countries third biggest market.

rahulsekhar
05-17-2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla

Face it, attendance will increase when JR starts acting like an owner of a MLB team in the countries third biggest market.

And what exactly proves that out? 2001 attendance was down despite getting David Wells.....the reason given here a while back when that was raised: the team started out so poorly and sucked all year. Now the team has started out decently, and outside of 2 series (TOR & this weekend), has played winning ball and been at or near the top of both the division and league in wins. And the word is: "well, they sucked the past week", or "they haven't spent money".

What incentive does management have to spend $$$ and take on financial risk when it doesn't appear that fans come out for a winning team?

Iwritecode
05-17-2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by pearso66
we had pretty good attendance in 2000, did any of that money spill over to the next year?

Actually, the payroll was more than doubled in 2001. That just goes to show how low it was in 2000.

It also went up somewhat this year based off a pretty good season last year.

It's interesting to note that gigantic drop between 1997 and 2001 though.

year - Sox attendance (ML rank) - Sox payroll (ML rank) - Top ML Payroll
1991 - 2.93M (3) - $16.8M (23) - $33.6M
1992 - 2.68M (4) - $28.4M (17) - $44.3M
1993 - 2.58M (9) - $34.6M (13) - $45.7M
1994 - 1.69M (14) - $38.4M (8) - $44.7M
1995 - 1.61M (17) - $39.6M (5) - $49.8M
1996 - 1.68M (18) - $41.9M (5) - $52.2M
1997 - 1.86M (15) - $54.4M (3) - $59.1M
1998 - 1.39M (27) - $36.8M (18) - $70.4M
1999 - 1.34M (28) - $24.6M (24) - $88.1M
2000 - 1.95M (20) - $31.2M (26) - $92.9M
2001 - 1.77M (26) - $65.6M (14) - $112.3M
2002 - 1.68M (23) - $57.1M (18) - $125.9M
2003 - 1.94M (21) - $51.0M (22) - $152.7M

rahulsekhar
05-17-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Actually, the payroll was more than doubled in 2001. That just goes to show how low it was in 2000.

It also went up somewhat this year based off a pretty good season last year.

It's interesting to note that gigantic drop between 1997 and 2001 though.

year - Sox attendance (ML rank) - Sox payroll (ML rank) - Top ML Payroll
1991 - 2.93M (3) - $16.8M (23) - $33.6M
1992 - 2.68M (4) - $28.4M (17) - $44.3M
1993 - 2.58M (9) - $34.6M (13) - $45.7M
1994 - 1.69M (14) - $38.4M (8) - $44.7M
1995 - 1.61M (17) - $39.6M (5) - $49.8M
1996 - 1.68M (18) - $41.9M (5) - $52.2M
1997 - 1.86M (15) - $54.4M (3) - $59.1M
1998 - 1.39M (27) - $36.8M (18) - $70.4M
1999 - 1.34M (28) - $24.6M (24) - $88.1M
2000 - 1.95M (20) - $31.2M (26) - $92.9M
2001 - 1.77M (26) - $65.6M (14) - $112.3M
2002 - 1.68M (23) - $57.1M (18) - $125.9M
2003 - 1.94M (21) - $51.0M (22) - $152.7M

Seems to me that when the Sox have a decent year, and either make the playoffs or are close - they do increase payroll (2000-2001, 2003-2004). When they stink, they cut back. There also seems to be a pretty solid correlation between payroll increases/decreases and attendance, furthering the story that the put revenues towards on-field product.

Lip Man 1
05-17-2004, 01:15 PM
Rahul:

ownership is obligated to correct the problems that they created in the first place. And this ownership group has created many of the issues they are constantly talking about.

That's why if they ever want good attendence again they have to take the risk.

Lip

rahulsekhar
05-17-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul:

ownership is obligated to correct the problems that they created in the first place. And this ownership group has created many of the issues they are constantly talking about.

That's why if they ever want good attendence again they have to take the risk.

Lip

Well, what an obligation is is subject to individual belief.

I see some good faith efforts to improve the team after 2000 including significantly increased payroll in 2001, and the correlation between attendance and payroll seems to me to validate the contention that resources are directed to the field.

At this point, we as fans know what Sox management is going to do and what they're not going to do. Complaining about things that aren't going to change is not IMO productive. Since available resources do seem to be directed to the field, why not enjoy a team that looks like they'll contend for the division and depending on midseason deals, might do more?

One things is for sure: not going to the park because you don't like the owner is NOT going to make him sell, it will only perpetuate the situation where they're reluctant to spend. Still that's every fans' personal choice to make.

Iwritecode
05-17-2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Seems to me that when the Sox have a decent year, and either make the playoffs or are close - they do increase payroll (2000-2001, 2003-2004). When they stink, they cut back. There also seems to be a pretty solid correlation between payroll increases/decreases and attendance, furthering the story that the put revenues towards on-field product.

So JR increases the payroll only when the attendance the year BEFORE was good.

Obviously this isn't working.

What he really needs to do is spend the money to get a team that everyone believes will contend for the playoffs at the beginning of the season. Then if/when they do, the attendance will more than cover the money he spend at the beginning of the season.

The problem is that he can't/won't because according to him, he has an obligation to the other investors to not lose money.

Obviously the owners of this team are in the wrong business...

rahulsekhar
05-17-2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
So JR increases the payroll only when the attendance the year BEFORE was good.

Obviously this isn't working.

What he really needs to do is spend the money to get a team that everyone believes will contend for the playoffs at the beginning of the season. Then if/when they do, the attendance will more than cover the money he spend at the beginning of the season.

The problem is that he can't/won't because according to him, he has an obligation to the other investors to not lose money.

Obviously the owners of this team are in the wrong business...

IMO, they've been somewhat burned in the past by that (see 2001, 1995). Made a good move to add to a good team (Wells, Belle), then the team slumps due to injury, general malaise, whatever, and they get no slack from fans but just poor attendance. In fact, despite being relatively well acclaimed at the time as moves that should have put the team over the top, both the Wells and Belle deals are often ripped now by fans (i.e. they traded for that bum Wells and the most fan-unfriendly guy - Belle). So, since there's a lot out of their control, they don't take those chances anymore.

What I still dont' get is why knowing that they do increase payroll after good attendance, fans don't come out to see a pretty solid team and increase the chances of them making even more additions. You think that if we were getting 30k+regularly (weather permitting) and selling out occasionally, they wouldn't be more inclined to take on a bigger salary, thereby making it easier to deal for rentaplayers without giving up top prospects? Instead, we seem to have a lot more negativity about losing only the 3d series this year while playing a more difficult schedule than our chief competitors.

Lip Man 1
05-17-2004, 04:46 PM
Rahul:

Belle was signed in November 96 by the way and perhaps the answer to your question is because every time the team 'commits,' itself to winning they don't give it a long enough chance.

Your examples...Wells was a free agent after his abbreviated injury prone season. Did the Sox re-sign him? Look what he did the following season in New York.

Albert Belle was signed in November, Robin Ventura destroyed his leg, the team got off to a bad start, the General Manager stated in the Chicago papers the day after Robin's injury that he was going to get another 3rd baseman AND another left handed bat for the bench and did nothing, Robin worked his ass off to get back in late July, the team was 3 1/2 games out of first place and ownership 'gave up...'

Then after two seasons Belle had the option to become a free agent if the Sox did not make his salary one of the top three in baseball. (At that time it would have meant a raise of one million dollars). Did the Sox do it? This for a guy who had hit what 48 home runs?

Showing loyalty to 'winning' works both ways don't you think?

Lip

pinwheels3530
05-17-2004, 05:02 PM
Looking back I m glad they didn't resign Belle, the sox would have been stuck with his contract like Baltimore was, he got injured and then retired, besides they had somebody in the minors name Magglio ready to move up. Anybody heard of this guy? :D:

rahulsekhar
05-17-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1


Your examples...Wells was a free agent after his abbreviated injury prone season. Did the Sox re-sign him? Look what he did the following season in New York.

True, but Wells didn't want to be here and if I remember correctly, even took less $$$ than available elsewhere to return to NY. Now the real point here should be that they didn't go get another similar pitcher (well, unless you count Ritchie).




Then after two seasons Belle had the option to become a free agent if the Sox did not make his salary one of the top three in baseball. (At that time it would have meant a raise of one million dollars). Did the Sox do it? This for a guy who had hit what 48 home runs?

Showing loyalty to 'winning' works both ways don't you think?

Lip

Well, after 2 seasons of paying high salaries and not seeing it translate into either wins or attendance, I'm not surprised at all. Attendance dropped by 500k in 1998, so it doesn't surprise me 1 bit that they decided to trim payroll accordingly.

The point I'm making is that right or wrong, Sox fans don't give any slack to management. If they spend money and it doesn't work out for whatever reason, the fans won't come out. If they dont' spend money and the team plays decently, the talk is about how "if only they'd spent more money, they might do even better".

So where is the incentive for management to take risk? I'm not saying that I like that state of affairs, I'd certainly like it better if the team decided to spend whatever it took, and if they end up eating it, that's too bad. But while I may not like it, Ican certainly understand their position.

From what I can see, things are exactly as they say they are: they spend to the level of revenues, and not beyond because they don't want to take the risk Colon for example, ends up with a back injury, and for 2 years Sox fans don't come out and complain that the team wasted resources by tying up a fat guy with a big contract. Bottom line: the team is playing well and is a serious playoff contender. That should be enough to get fans to come out. If it's not, then I certainly don't expect them to spend MORE and hope they come out.

pinwheels3530
05-17-2004, 05:13 PM
Rahulsekhar is right!!! I wish I knew how to quote :?:

Lip Man 1
05-17-2004, 10:37 PM
Rahul says: "Attendance dropped by 500k in 1998, so it doesn't surprise me 1 bit that they decided to trim payroll accordingly."

Three words for you, perhaps you heard of them, to account for 1998 : WHITE FLAG TRADE.

Here's the result of not taking any risks : 83-79 record averaged for the last six seasons, losing market share to the Cubs every year and not even being able to win the A.L. Comedy Central.

Doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me does it?

Lip

Lip Man 1
05-17-2004, 10:39 PM
Pinwheels:

Absolutely no guarantees that Belle would have gotten hurt had he remained with the White Sox. Circumstances would have been different, history might have been different.

My point is the Sox seem to be one of the few teams always worried about a player getting hurt so they do nothing. Other teams aren't that particular....other teams have also gotten to the World Series.

Lip

joecrede
05-17-2004, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Pinwheels:

Absolutely no guarantees that Belle would have gotten hurt had he remained with the White Sox. Circumstances would have been different, history might have been different.

My point is the Sox seem to be one of the few teams always worried about a player getting hurt so they do nothing. Other teams aren't that particular....other teams have also gotten to the World Series.

Lip

Didn't Belle have a degenerative hip condition though Lip?

rahulsekhar
05-17-2004, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Pinwheels:

Absolutely no guarantees that Belle would have gotten hurt had he remained with the White Sox. Circumstances would have been different, history might have been different.

My point is the Sox seem to be one of the few teams always worried about a player getting hurt so they do nothing. Other teams aren't that particular....other teams have also gotten to the World Series.

Lip

Ummmm...Belle didn't have a freak injury of any kind, it was a degenerative condition.

rahulsekhar
05-17-2004, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1


Here's the result of not taking any risks : 83-79 record averaged for the last six seasons, losing market share to the Cubs every year and not even being able to win the A.L. Comedy Central.

Doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me does it?

Lip

Things have not worked out, but to say they haven't taken any risks and have neglected to try and build upon success is a bit unfair IMO. 2001, they added payroll and veteran pieces that were supposed to complete the puzzle. But I guess it's JR's fault that Wells & Thomas both got hurt. The answer was "they didn't spend enough money".

Regardless, I'm not here to debate what SHOULD happen, honestly I don't care about that. All I care about is what CAN or WILL happen. This is what I know as a Sox fan:

1) If fans come out to see a team that's generally playing well this year and seems poised not only to be a serious playoff contender, but seems also likely to add to the team during the season-->then IMO we're more likely to see moves to bolster the team both this year and next year

2) If fans don't come out, then there's little to no chance that management will increase payroll for the long term, and there is NO CHANCE that they'll suddenly decide to sell out to new ownership

It's a pretty clear choice to me. But to each his own. If some want to think they're "fighting the good fight" by witholding their attendance, then that's their perogative. I think they're fooling themselves, but that's still their perogative.