PDA

View Full Version : 2005 invoices are out - Price increases


ewokpelts
10-04-2004, 12:25 AM
Hey,
I was just on my online ticket manager for my season tickets. I'm already invoiced for 2005, and my seats went up...again. No concrete details, but my average per game went up over 2 bucks. I have a weekend bleacher plan.
Discuss.
Gene

Whitesox029
10-04-2004, 12:29 AM
Hey,
I was just on my online ticket manager for my season tickets. I'm already invoiced for 2005, and my seats went up...again. No concrete details, but my average per game went up over 2 bucks. I have a weekend bleacher plan.
Discuss.
GeneYou're being charged so much for those seats they might just turn green.....:wink:
I know that was fairly bad, but that's all I got right now at half past 11.

Unregistered
10-04-2004, 12:40 AM
:reinsy
"... and we fully expect to be $2 better than we were in 2004."

Whitesox029
10-04-2004, 12:41 AM
:reinsy
"... and we fully expect to be $2 better than we were in 2004."I'd have to say that this trumps my feeble attempt at humor.

chisoxmike
10-04-2004, 01:01 AM
Yeah, I heard that prices will go up and that single-game tickets go on sale during SoxFest this year.

Unregistered
10-04-2004, 01:05 AM
I'd have to say that this trumps my feeble attempt at humor. Nah, we're all equals when it comes to trash-talking management... :D:

SSN721
10-04-2004, 06:49 AM
Yeah, I heard that prices will go up and that single-game tickets go on sale during SoxFest this year.

When the single game tickets go on sale, strictly at Sox fest or through the Sox website/box office as well? Thanks for the info in advance. :smile:

SoxFan78
10-04-2004, 10:16 AM
Hey,
I was just on my online ticket manager for my season tickets. I'm already invoiced for 2005, and my seats went up...again. No concrete details, but my average per game went up over 2 bucks. I have a weekend bleacher plan.
Discuss.
Gene
It makes sense. Two more games lost this year then last year, about a two dollar increase in tickets. Great business.

What a great time to purchase my first ever season tickets...

CubKilla
10-04-2004, 10:41 AM
It's complete BS like this that makes me happy that I do not attend games anymore by contributing to the "Make JR Richer" fund. Give me a reason to spend my money, from now on, and I will.

Lip Man 1
10-04-2004, 01:12 PM
A member of the media who is a Sox season ticker holder has provided me with the details.


"Got my invoice in the mail Saturday........... our seats, which were $22 for all games in 2002 and $25 in 2003, are now $30 for Monday thru Thursday games, $34 for Friday thru Sunday games, either $38 or $39 for the 10 "premium" dates (three weekend games vs. the Dodgers in June, 4 games Thurs thru Sun vs. Boston in late July, and three weekend games vs, Yankees in mid-August), and $44 for the three Cub games..............

Ah, but holding the line on parking ............still only $13 !!!"



Geez I wonder what this will do to the argument that Uncle Jerry is losing money?

Lip

jshanahanjr
10-04-2004, 01:57 PM
Still a good value in comparison to the Hawks, Bulls, and Bears. I guess that's like saying Garland is good next to our 5th starter.

gosox41
10-04-2004, 02:27 PM
A member of the media who is a Sox season ticker holder has provided me with the details.


"Got my invoice in the mail Saturday........... our seats, which were $22 for all games in 2002 and $25 in 2003, are now $30 for Monday thru Thursday games, $34 for Friday thru Sunday games, either $38 or $39 for the 10 "premium" dates (three weekend games vs. the Dodgers in June, 4 games Thurs thru Sun vs. Boston in late July, and three weekend games vs, Yankees in mid-August), and $44 for the three Cub games..............

Ah, but holding the line on parking ............still only $13 !!!"



Geez I wonder what this will do to the argument that Uncle Jerry is losing money?

Lip

Huh?? Hey Lip, maybe JR is going to raise payroll again. I bet he does. Don't know for sure how much.

If you want a higher payroll, you (or not you since you are boycotting the team and Uncle Jerry unless the Sox make the World Series where you will gladly attend with bells on-what do they call those people again????:D: ) you're going to have to pay for it.

And before you say something about me being a mouth piece for Uncle Jerry, consider prices the Sox charge compared to the Cubs, or the Red Sox, or the Yankees. They all have higher ticket prices and put that money in payroll. JR does the same thing, he just doesn't (can't) charge as much or draw as well...but that's a different debate.

And I'm not getting into a debate about ticket prices and payroll and which leads to what. Ticket revenue is a major source of revenue for a team.


Bob

kittle42
10-04-2004, 02:39 PM
Still a good value in comparison to the Hawks, Bulls, and Bears. I guess that's like saying Garland is good next to our 5th starter.
The only teams worth comparing baseball ticket prices to are other baseball teams. They play double the NBA/NHL schedule and ten times the NFL schedule.

Rocky Soprano
10-04-2004, 02:53 PM
I'm actually thinking about buying 1/2 season tickets for 05. But I will wait to see what moves the team makes. Any season ticket holder like to recommend a specific ticket rep?

JoseCanseco6969
10-04-2004, 03:11 PM
It's complete BS like this that makes me happy that I do not attend games anymore by contributing to the "Make JR Richer" fund. Give me a reason to spend my money, from now on, and I will.
Excuses, excuses. There are many cheap promotions that allow the average fan to go to as many games as they want to. Granton??? half price night?? several other teacher night blah blah stuff. Is it a surprise we raise tickets? not at all. Did you expect a lowering in tickets?? doubt it. I dont buy into the whole get jerry rich crap because youre too darn cheap to fork out some cash to see our Sox play. I for one could care less about Jerry's pockets. I just want him to put out a good baseball team like the rest of us. But either way, I enjoy watching Sox games and attend as many as I can. If you want to compare payrolls, look at the twins vs Sox payrolls the last few years. You cant blame Jerry or KW for injuries to 3 and 4 hitter, as well as several player hitting and pitching like garbage. Point is, if you love baseball and watching a live baseball game from the park, you will go to games and support the team. If you like just bitching and watching games on TV, more power to you. I just dont understand the price increase by $2 as an excuse for not going to games.

Rocky Soprano
10-04-2004, 03:14 PM
Excuses, excuses. There are many cheap promotions that allow the average fan to go to as many games as they want to. Granton??? half price night?? several other teacher night blah blah stuff. Is it a surprise we raise tickets? not at all. Did you expect a lowering in tickets?? doubt it. I dont buy into the whole get jerry rich crap because youre too darn cheap to fork out some cash to see our Sox play. I for one could care less about Jerry's pockets. I just want him to put out a good baseball team like the rest of us. But either way, I enjoy watching Sox games and attend as many as I can. If you want to compare payrolls, look at the twins vs Sox payrolls the last few years. You cant blame Jerry or KW for injuries to 3 and 4 hitter, as well as several player hitting and pitching like garbage. Point is, if you love baseball and watching a live baseball game from the park, you will go to games and support the team. If you like just bitching and watching games on TV, more power to you. I just dont understand the price increase by $2 as an excuse for not going to games.
AMEN! :gulp:

Rex Hudler
10-04-2004, 03:17 PM
Excuses, excuses. There are many cheap promotions that allow the average fan to go to as many games as they want to. Granton??? half price night?? several other teacher night blah blah stuff. Is it a surprise we raise tickets? not at all. Did you expect a lowering in tickets?? doubt it. I dont buy into the whole get jerry rich crap because youre too darn cheap to fork out some cash to see our Sox play. I for one could care less about Jerry's pockets. I just want him to put out a good baseball team like the rest of us. But either way, I enjoy watching Sox games and attend as many as I can. If you want to compare payrolls, look at the twins vs Sox payrolls the last few years. You cant blame Jerry or KW for injuries to 3 and 4 hitter, as well as several player hitting and pitching like garbage. Point is, if you love baseball and watching a live baseball game from the park, you will go to games and support the team. If you like just bitching and watching games on TV, more power to you. I just dont understand the price increase by $2 as an excuse for not going to games.
Don't mind CubKilla. He is bitter and will be until Reinsdorf sells the team and KW is fired. That is, of course, until the Sox lose under new ownership. He knows more about how to run a club than anyone, just ask him!

chisoxmike
10-04-2004, 05:36 PM
When the single game tickets go on sale, strictly at Sox fest or through the Sox website/box office as well? Thanks for the info in advance. :smile:
I would assume at all locations. It would be a total disaster if they were only sold at SoxFest. But its strange that tickets would go on sale so early. That would mean that season tickets, split season, and starting nine plans would all have to be in before that weekend. (Jan 14-16)

BTW- SoxFest 2005 tickets go on sale Friday October 15. Damn, the baseball season has just ended, and we have to start buying more Sox tickets.

LVSoxFan
10-04-2004, 05:51 PM
So how does one get access to season ticket plans? I sent them an email to the address on the website and they never responded.


Want to get set up for next year...

Ol' No. 2
10-04-2004, 05:55 PM
I would assume at all locations. It would be a total disaster if they were only sold at SoxFest. But its strange that tickets would go on sale so early. That would mean that season tickets, split season, and starting nine plans would all have to be in before that weekend. (Jan 14-16)

BTW- SoxFest 2005 tickets go on sale Friday October 15. Damn, the baseball season has just ended, and we have to start buying more Sox tickets.This is very early for season ticket invoices. The deposit is normally due in December with the balance due the first week in Feb. Sounds like they're accelerating it this year. Must be taking lessons from the Tribune Co.

Rex Hudler
10-04-2004, 05:59 PM
I would assume at all locations. It would be a total disaster if they were only sold at SoxFest. But its strange that tickets would go on sale so early. That would mean that season tickets, split season, and starting nine plans would all have to be in before that weekend. (Jan 14-16)

BTW- SoxFest 2005 tickets go on sale Friday October 15. Damn, the baseball season has just ended, and we have to start buying more Sox tickets.
I'm sure that they will hold some back for additional season ticket sales. They may even hold back some games (Cubs series, Yanks, etc.) and not put those on sale until later.

Mohoney
10-04-2004, 06:10 PM
Any season ticket holder like to recommend a specific ticket rep?
Ask for Brian Jordan. He's always been helpful to me.

Lip Man 1
10-04-2004, 07:16 PM
Bob says: "And before you say something about me being a mouth piece for Uncle Jerry."

Well Bob if the shoe fits... :smile:

Lip

benjamin
10-04-2004, 07:23 PM
It's complete BS like this that makes me happy that I do not attend games anymore by contributing to the "Make JR Richer" fund. Give me a reason to spend my money, from now on, and I will.
Being that the Sox operate at a point very near to break-even, shouldn't that be a "Make Jon Garland Richer" fund, instead?

dickallen15
10-04-2004, 08:23 PM
I'm actually thinking about buying 1/2 season tickets for 05. But I will wait to see what moves the team makes. Any season ticket holder like to recommend a specific ticket rep?
If they try to give your account to Chris, hang up the phone and try again some other day.

cwsox
10-04-2004, 11:33 PM
This is very early for season ticket invoices. The deposit is normally due in December with the balance due the first week in Feb. Sounds like they're accelerating it this year. Must be taking lessons from the Tribune Co.
Respectfully, no, it is not at all early let alone very early for season ticket invoices, it is indeed right on time, as always. I got my invoice today exactly when I expected it since it always is dealt with this time of year.

I am a bit unhappy with the price increase. I will pay it. But I am really disliking all these levels of prices, weekday vs weekend vs premium vs Cubs game prices. Unhappy. But I will pay it.

ewokpelts
10-05-2004, 12:12 AM
Ask for Brian Jordan. He's always been helpful to me.Brian's my rep. I've had a pretty good experience with him. Mind you, he's been trained by this guy :reinsy , but if you're interested in season tickets, I'd call him. And tell him Gene Kelly sent ya.
Gene

p.s. Brian's number at the cell is 312-674-5328

Hangar18
10-05-2004, 10:52 AM
If you want a higher payroll, you .......you're going to have to pay for it.

And before you say something about me being a mouth piece for Uncle Jerry, consider prices the Sox charge compared to the Cubs, or the Red Sox, or the Yankees. They all have higher ticket prices and put that money in payroll. JR does the same thing, he just doesn't (can't) charge as much or draw as well...but that's a different debate.

Bob:reinsy
"Hey Kids, In Order for me to RAISE PAYROLL NEXT YEAR, I have to raise ticket prices .....across the board. You want Beltran? You got it! But 1st, you have to come. If we get 1.9 Million, I'll Raise Payroll Dagnabbit"

Ummm, Im going to disagree. We came this year, and he quietly has changed the subject, regarding GETTING GOOD PLAYERS. Weve been hoodwinked. As far as comparing our ticket prices to the Evil Corporation up north, the Yanks and BoSox, theres a big difference, all those teams were playoff teams, except the Evil Corporation, the Goat had his say regarding that. HIGH TICKET PRICES = HIGH PAYROLL/PLAYOFF TEAMS

3rd Class Baseball at 1st Class Prices.
You'll have to try a little bit harder Jerry

Hangar18
10-05-2004, 11:04 AM
My cousin just emailed me moments ago, regarding the Price Increase.
Id like to post the email here, but theres a lot of Cussing and Swearing,
and he went off the deep end a bit. But he basically said Jerry Reinsdorf
can go to **** and that if Jerry thinks hes getting MORE of his money, all the while not Retaining Players and getting Cheaper Players, hes got another thing coming. He basically said if they dont finally get players this offseason, he
said " (screw) the White Sox in 2005" because hes not going. He seems to have really turned on Jerry Reinsdorf.

Cant say I blame him

Rocky Soprano
10-05-2004, 11:29 AM
Brian's my rep. I've had a pretty good experience with him. Mind you, he's been trained by this guy :reinsy , but if you're interested in season tickets, I'd call him. And tell him Gene Kelly sent ya.
Gene

p.s. Brian's number at the cell is 312-674-5328
Thanks Gene, I just called him and told him you sent me. He appreciated the reference. We will be e-mailing me some info. and then we will have a talk about prices and seats.

Now Reindsdorf go sign Betran and Pavano, that way my decision will be a no brainer.

gosox41
10-05-2004, 11:45 AM
:reinsy
"Hey Kids, In Order for me to RAISE PAYROLL NEXT YEAR, I have to raise ticket prices .....across the board. You want Beltran? You got it! But 1st, you have to come. If we get 1.9 Million, I'll Raise Payroll Dagnabbit"

Ummm, Im going to disagree. We came this year, and he quietly has changed the subject, regarding GETTING GOOD PLAYERS. Weve been hoodwinked. As far as comparing our ticket prices to the Evil Corporation up north, the Yanks and BoSox, theres a big difference, all those teams were playoff teams, except the Evil Corporation, the Goat had his say regarding that. HIGH TICKET PRICES = HIGH PAYROLL/PLAYOFF TEAMS

3rd Class Baseball at 1st Class Prices.
You'll have to try a little bit harder Jerry
Except how have we been hoodwinked? Team payrol lwas up 20% form 2003 to 2004 and the Sox went out and added payroll during the season.

You're confusing 2 issues. The Sox did add payroll before and during the season.

Now if you wish to talk about how that money is spent and why the team on the field wasn't any better I'll be in100% agreement with you. That falls on KW. He was given more money to spend, he misspent it.


Bob

voodoochile
10-05-2004, 11:46 AM
Huh?? Hey Lip, maybe JR is going to raise payroll again. I bet he does. Don't know for sure how much.

Bob
Really? But the "how much" is the biggest part of that equation.

What is the current amount of payroll under contract?

How much free money to spend to get back to this year's level?

How much more will they add?

How will that money be spent?

These are the key issues. Saying he will raise payroll does nothing. If he gets to $66M by signing a retread 3B and a few set up guys, it doesn't do much to improve the team now does it?

But, you will be able to say, "I told you so. See, he raised payroll."

It's not exactly a huge endorsement of the product nor a giant selling point. All of the rest of it will mean way more. I hope they succeed, but find myself seriously doubting it will be much more than the lip-service I have seen so far.

Prove me wrong, JR. Please, prove me wrong...

Otherwise...

:selljerry

Please...

:selljerry

ewokpelts
10-05-2004, 12:40 PM
My cousin just emailed me moments ago, regarding the Price Increase.
Id like to post the email here, but theres a lot of Cussing and Swearing,
and he went off the deep end a bit. But he basically said Jerry Reinsdorf
can go to **** and that if Jerry thinks hes getting MORE of his money, all the while not Retaining Players and getting Cheaper Players, hes got another thing coming. He basically said if they dont finally get players this offseason, he
said " (screw) the White Sox in 2005" because hes not going. He seems to have really turned on Jerry Reinsdorf.

Cant say I blame himHenry,
That's kinda how i felt when i got my renewal letter.
Gene

ewokpelts
10-05-2004, 12:41 PM
Thanks Gene, I just called him and told him you sent me. He appreciated the reference. We will be e-mailing me some info. and then we will have a talk about prices and seats.

Now Reindsdorf go sign Betran and Pavano, that way my decision will be a no brainer.Next time you talk to Brian, tell him he owes me. :rolleyes:
Gene

:reinsy
Gene, We dont owe you anything.

maurice
10-05-2004, 01:40 PM
We came this year, and he quietly has changed the subject, regarding GETTING GOOD PLAYERS.
It certainly looks that way. In recent interviews, KW and OG have quietly backed away from their previous stance that they'll add a good free agent SP, a RP, and some speedy position players with high OBPs.

Despite increased revenues (don't forget the Comcast deal), it's beginning to look like JR's gonna try to feed us basically the same (inadequate) team, plus an injured Frank . . . but minus Ordonez, Valentin, both Alomars, Shoeneweis, and Konerko. I won't be sad to see some of those guys go, but that doesn't mean I want their starting spots filled by the likes of Valdez, Perez, and Grilli.

Ol' No. 2
10-05-2004, 01:40 PM
Respectfully, no, it is not at all early let alone very early for season ticket invoices, it is indeed right on time, as always. I got my invoice today exactly when I expected it since it always is dealt with this time of year.

I am a bit unhappy with the price increase. I will pay it. But I am really disliking all these levels of prices, weekday vs weekend vs premium vs Cubs game prices. Unhappy. But I will pay it.OK, I'll go check my invoice from last year. Here it is...let's see. The date of the invoice is 11/26/03. The first payment was due on Dec 15. They also asked for only a $500 deposit with the rest due in Feb. This year they want 10% by 10/29, 40% by 12/3 and the remaining 50% by 2/4/05. That counts as much earlier in my book.

gosox41
10-05-2004, 01:46 PM
Really? But the "how much" is the biggest part of that equation.

What is the current amount of payroll under contract?

How much free money to spend to get back to this year's level?

How much more will they add?

How will that money be spent?

These are the key issues. Saying he will raise payroll does nothing. If he gets to $66M by signing a retread 3B and a few set up guys, it doesn't do much to improve the team now does it?

But, you will be able to say, "I told you so. See, he raised payroll."

It's not exactly a huge endorsement of the product nor a giant selling point. All of the rest of it will mean way more. I hope they succeed, but find myself seriously doubting it will be much more than the lip-service I have seen so far.

Prove me wrong, JR. Please, prove me wrong...

Otherwise...

:selljerry

Please...

:selljerry

I would love to see a significant increase in payroll just like everyone else. The end of the season payroll was around $68 mill or so. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

But in terms of player personnel and getting old washed up third basemen, that falls solely on KW.

I thought I read that the Sox have $54 mill committed to 8 or 9 players for next season. I haven't done the math to see if it's accurate though.


Bob

voodoochile
10-05-2004, 01:48 PM
OK, I'll go check my invoice from last year. Here it is...let's see. The date of the invoice is 11/26/03. The first payment was due on Dec 15. They also asked for only a $500 deposit with the rest due in Feb. This year they want 10% by 10/29, 40% by 12/3 and the remaining 50% by 2/4/05. That counts as much earlier in my book.:reinsy
"Damned right. There is an extra 2 months of interest to be had on that money. I am having an extension built on my winter mansion in Hawaii and need that money. Where's the love, Sox fans. I give and I give and I give and now you deny me this. That does it. I'm moving the team to Washington D.C."

:tool
"psst... JR, remember? You told me to move the Expos there."

:reinsy
"I have just been informed that Washington is out, so I am asking MLB to fold this financially unsound franchise and pay me $500M. How the heck can anyone make a profit in only the third largest market in the country? It's preposterous..."

Ol' No. 2
10-05-2004, 02:32 PM
How the heck can anyone make a profit in only the third largest market in the country? It's preposterous..."I'm not here to defend Reinsdorf, but let's be realistic. Chicago may be the third largest market, but they SHARE it. With a team with the Tribune Co. and it's marketing machinery behind it. Which would you rather have: half of the Chicago market or all of the Boston market? Or Houston, Dallas, etc. There are four markets with two teams (now 5 if you count Baltimore-DC). Chicago is third in size. And when you consider the entire bay area, I'm not so sure Chicago isn't 4th. Even if the Sox had half of the Chicago market, they would be a lot closer to the middle of MLB than to the top.

ewokpelts
10-05-2004, 02:39 PM
I'm not here to defend Reinsdorf, but let's be realistic. Chicago may be the third largest market, but they SHARE it. With a team with the Tribune Co. and it's marketing machinery behind it. Which would you rather have: half of the Chicago market or all of the Boston market? Or Houston, Dallas, etc. There are four markets with two teams (now 5 if you count Baltimore-DC). Chicago is third in size. And when you consider the entire bay area, I'm not so sure Chicago isn't 4th. Even if the Sox had half of the Chicago market, they would be a lot closer to the middle of MLB than to the top.But...with these great ticket prices, we're charging MORE Than one team towns WITH new stadiums. When you add the skyboxes and comcast deal, this team MAKES a lot of money. I'm tired of paying first class organization prices, and getting third class organization play.
Gene

Ol' No. 2
10-05-2004, 02:50 PM
But...with these great ticket prices, we're charging MORE Than one team towns WITH new stadiums. When you add the skyboxes and comcast deal, this team MAKES a lot of money. I'm tired of paying first class organization prices, and getting third class organization play.
GeneYou've obviously never been to a game at Fenway. Sox average ticket prices (2004) are 11th in MLB. I doubt they will be the only ones raising prices, so they'll probably stay about the same ranking.

http://www.teammarketing.com/fci.cfm?page=fci_mlb2004.cfm

Lip Man 1
10-05-2004, 03:37 PM
Ol #2:

Of course the Red Sox payroll is 95 million dollars and they make the playoffs every other year. I'd say their fans get a nice return on the money they have to spend.

Do White Sox fans?

Lip

Ol' No. 2
10-05-2004, 03:54 PM
Ol #2:

Of course the Red Sox payroll is 95 million dollars and they make the playoffs every other year. I'd say their fans get a nice return on the money they have to spend.

Do White Sox fans?

LipThe Sox outspend the Twins every year. Let's celebrate our third straight division title!!!! Wait, you mean the Twins won??? Again??? So the obvious solution is...spend more money!!!!

Sorry, but the logic here escapes me.

pinwheels3530
10-06-2004, 05:36 AM
Ol #2:

Of course the Red Sox payroll is 95 million dollars and they make the playoffs every other year. I'd say their fans get a nice return on the money they have to spend.

Do White Sox fans?

Lip

Nope!!!! That's why I am not renewing my season tickets I am tired of JR and they way he does business! He says "he can't afford to lose money", well neither can I !!!:angry:

SOXSINCE'70
10-06-2004, 08:19 AM
Can't afford weekend season tickets this year.:(: :(: :(:


Thanks for upping your ticket prices and concessions,
but not improving the quality of talent on the team Uncle Jer.:angry: :angry: :angry:

SaltyPretzel
10-06-2004, 08:21 AM
Sorry, but the logic here escapes me.
It would be logical if we had someone who knew how to spend the money.

Lip Man 1
10-06-2004, 12:59 PM
Ol No. 2 says: "The Sox outspend the Twins every year. Let's celebrate our third straight division title!!!! Wait, you mean the Twins won??? Again??? So the obvious solution is...spend more money!!!!

Sorry, but the logic here escapes me.__________________


7 of the 8 teams in the post season, just this season alone are big payroll teams. Do you see a trend there 2?

Should I reprint for the 10th time the statistical breakdown in large / small payroll teams in the playoffs?

The indisputable fact is that if you spend more money it significantly increases your chances of making the playoffs.

Does it guarantee it? No.

Does it increase your chances...yes.

Unless you feel the Sox average seasonal record of 83-79 since 1998 is fine, then it's clear a new philosophy is needed.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
10-06-2004, 01:38 PM
Ol No. 2 says: "The Sox outspend the Twins every year. Let's celebrate our third straight division title!!!! Wait, you mean the Twins won??? Again??? So the obvious solution is...spend more money!!!!

Sorry, but the logic here escapes me.__________________


7 of the 8 teams in the post season, just this season alone are big payroll teams. Do you see a trend there 2?

Should I reprint for the 10th time the statistical breakdown in large / small payroll teams in the playoffs?

The indisputable fact is that if you spend more money it significantly increases your chances of making the playoffs.

Does it guarantee it? No.

Does it increase your chances...yes.

Unless you feel the Sox average seasonal record of 83-79 since 1998 is fine, then it's clear a new philosophy is needed.

LipSorry, but if you look at payrolls, only 5 of the eight are in the top third. Minnesota, St. Louis and Houston are all in the middle third of the payroll rankings.

I've spent some time analyzing this. Since 1995 when MLB went to a 3-division+WC format, it's really only the teams at the very top of the payroll rankings (the top 10% or so) that have seen a big increase in their probabilities of winning their divisions. Teams at the 50th percentile win their divisions about 18% of the time, which is essentially the same as the "pure chance" probability of 20%. The increased probability for the top payroll teams comes mainly at the expense of the bottom payroll teams. Teams at the 90th percentile win their division about 42% of the time while teams at the 10th percentile win their division only about 6% of the time. But the big differences are only at the extremes. For most teams, spending more money improves your chances, but not by as much as you might think. And even if you're in the top 10% in payroll (that's the top three teams), you're still less than 50-50. So unless you can spend Steinbrenner-type money, the effect of increasing payroll doesn't improve your odds that much. Another $10M or so will be hardly noticeable.

Bottom line: Money matters, but other stuff matters a lot more.

ewokpelts
10-06-2004, 06:48 PM
Bottom line: Money matters, but other stuff matters a lot more.Try telling that to jerry. Meanwhile, we are paying him 1st place prices for 2nd place results.
Gene

soxwon
10-06-2004, 07:03 PM
It's complete BS like this that makes me happy that I do not attend games anymore by contributing to the "Make JR Richer" fund. Give me a reason to spend my money, from now on, and I will.

then dont come.
im sorry i love this team, ill pay whatever it takes to see them
win or lose they are and have been my team since i was a kid
i only have positive thinking when it comes to the sox(most of the time anyways)
the 2005 sox will be great-kw will see to it.
jr isnt the best by any means, a bunch of monkees could run this team and id still be there.
from spring training to the final out

the sox are SOXWONS team
ill allways love the sox if the tix cost $100 each.
have a nice offseason
179 days to the opener
sox baseball-soxwons life in a nutshell

voodoochile
10-06-2004, 11:08 PM
Sorry, but if you look at payrolls, only 5 of the eight are in the top third. Minnesota, St. Louis and Houston are all in the middle third of the payroll rankings.

I've spent some time analyzing this. Since 1995 when MLB went to a 3-division+WC format, it's really only the teams at the very top of the payroll rankings (the top 10% or so) that have seen a big increase in their probabilities of winning their divisions. Teams at the 50th percentile win their divisions about 18% of the time, which is essentially the same as the "pure chance" probability of 20%. The increased probability for the top payroll teams comes mainly at the expense of the bottom payroll teams. Teams at the 90th percentile win their division about 42% of the time while teams at the 10th percentile win their division only about 6% of the time. But the big differences are only at the extremes. For most teams, spending more money improves your chances, but not by as much as you might think. And even if you're in the top 10% in payroll (that's the top three teams), you're still less than 50-50. So unless you can spend Steinbrenner-type money, the effect of increasing payroll doesn't improve your odds that much. Another $10M or so will be hardly noticeable.

Bottom line: Money matters, but other stuff matters a lot more.
I wonder if there is a way to up your odds by outspending the next highest team by a certain percentage. Also, maybe spending big alone doesn't increase the odds of going to the playoffs, but what causes that fact?

Currently there are 8 playoff slots and 30 teams. So, being in the top half of the league in payroll won't matter that much. What about being in the top third? As you pointed out, 63% of the current playoff teams are in the top third. One of the other teams wasn't competing against any teams in the top third (Minnesota) and the other two aren't exactly low payrolls - though where they stack up, I don't actually know at present.

It is simplistic to say that payroll alone increases or does not increase the odds of making the playoffs, because there are far more teams in the top half of the league payroll wise than can make the playoffs (roughly twice as many).

Is that a factor of payroll or the number of slots available?

There was no way for St Louis, Houston AND the flubbies to make the playoffs - not enough slots.

There was no way for a Big payroll team to win the ALC either.

Going back to the stats I generated in my article. All but three teams who averaged in the top half of payroll also averaged more than their expected win total. All the teams but 3 in the bottom half averaged less than their expected win total. Maybe my math was too simplistic, but could the same be said for the opposite viewpoint?

Does big money not guarantee a playoff slot because it is meaningless or because there are too many other big money teams competing for the same number of limited slots?

How about this? Does a team in the lower portion of payroll stand as good a chance to get into the playoffs. Run those numbers and tell me what you get. Saying high spending teams don't all get in is too simple. Do low spending teams get in at equal rates?

Lip Man 1
10-06-2004, 11:08 PM
No 2:

Have you seen the Cardinals and Astros payrolls????? Only in a bizarre accountant's world are they medium market payrolls.

They are big payroll teams.

Fine, try arguing with this comment:

"The record is clear. From 1995 through 2001, a total of 224 MLB postseason games were played. Only five were won by clubs whose payrolls were in the lower half of the industry. None advanced past the Division Series, and no team, other than those whose payrolls are in the top fourth of payroll, has won a World Series game during this period. The seven-year postseason record is 219-5 in favor of the high payroll teams"--Bud Selig April 2002.

So basically what you are saying then is that the Sox are stuck on the horns of a dilemma. They won't spend money on a big payroll which could enable them to overcome injuries, bad luck or slumps.

But they also won't spend money on getting the top executives in the game, the top GM's, the top talent evaluators.

So how in the hell do they win anything? Luck???

Whatever way you go 2 they HAVE TO SPEND MONEY. Until they do the treadmill to nowhere will continue endlessly.

Lip

gosox41
10-07-2004, 12:00 AM
Ol #2:

Of course the Red Sox payroll is 95 million dollars and they make the playoffs every other year. I'd say their fans get a nice return on the money they have to spend.

Do White Sox fans?

Lip
Red SOx fans pay more money and actually sell out their stadium. They've been drawing for years. We get fans choose not to support the team unless they're in the World Series, and they'll justify paying to see the team.


Bob

gosox41
10-07-2004, 12:01 AM
Sorry, but if you look at payrolls, only 5 of the eight are in the top third. Minnesota, St. Louis and Houston are all in the middle third of the payroll rankings.

I've spent some time analyzing this. Since 1995 when MLB went to a 3-division+WC format, it's really only the teams at the very top of the payroll rankings (the top 10% or so) that have seen a big increase in their probabilities of winning their divisions. Teams at the 50th percentile win their divisions about 18% of the time, which is essentially the same as the "pure chance" probability of 20%. The increased probability for the top payroll teams comes mainly at the expense of the bottom payroll teams. Teams at the 90th percentile win their division about 42% of the time while teams at the 10th percentile win their division only about 6% of the time. But the big differences are only at the extremes. For most teams, spending more money improves your chances, but not by as much as you might think. And even if you're in the top 10% in payroll (that's the top three teams), you're still less than 50-50. So unless you can spend Steinbrenner-type money, the effect of increasing payroll doesn't improve your odds that much. Another $10M or so will be hardly noticeable.

Bottom line: Money matters, but other stuff matters a lot more.
I like real stats. Some don't acutally like reading into the numbers. Thanks for the info.


Bob

gosox41
10-07-2004, 12:15 AM
I wonder if there is a way to up your odds by outspending the next highest team by a certain percentage. Also, maybe spending big alone doesn't increase the odds of going to the playoffs, but what causes that fact?


I'm sure the more money you spend helps just because you can cover up holes fast and easier.

But it all comes down to good managment of player personnel. Each player needs to be treated as an asset and needs to be compared to other assets around the league in determining monetary as well as trade value.

Spending big helps and increases odds, there's no doubt.

But playing devil's advocate here, look at things from the flipside.

It's been shown that Sox fans only draw when the team is winning. It's been talked about here for awhile. SO what if JR goes and gives KW an $85 mill payroll. And let's say bad luck and KW's incompentence come into play and this team wins between about 70-75 wins. If you think it can't happen, ask the Mets.

Will Sox fans feel an obligation to show up to see a bad product? It's not been proven to be the case. And as some have admitted here (not you but you know who they are) they will not support JR, think tix. are too expensive or whatever, but if the team happens to make the Series, they'll shell out the $150 'for the greater good.'

But if the team stinks the same vicious cycle comes up. Fans don't show. Fans complain JR is cheap. And it continues. If you believe Forbe's projections on the Sox making a prfoit last year of $12 mill. (when they hosted the All Star game) then you can see that every last penny of profit went into the 2004 payroll. People still complain, as is their right.

So the point is, if you're an investor in the team who wants to win (and I believe there are some who are in this to win) but doesn't want to go bankrupt to do it, is it worth the risk of taking a $20 mill. loan out for a season?

If fans are going to be fickle, they're going to be fickle no matter what. No matter what JR spends, they'll complain it's not enough. It's a fact of ownership and goes on in just about every sport and has been going on for years.

Fans have a right to feel what they want, but if all certian fans do is complain and not show up it's not helping the cause.


Bob

voodoochile
10-07-2004, 09:30 AM
I'm sure the more money you spend helps just because you can cover up holes fast and easier.

But it all comes down to good managment of player personnel. Each player needs to be treated as an asset and needs to be compared to other assets around the league in determining monetary as well as trade value.

Spending big helps and increases odds, there's no doubt.

But playing devil's advocate here, look at things from the flipside.

It's been shown that Sox fans only draw when the team is winning. It's been talked about here for awhile. SO what if JR goes and gives KW an $85 mill payroll. And let's say bad luck and KW's incompentence come into play and this team wins between about 70-75 wins. If you think it can't happen, ask the Mets.

Will Sox fans feel an obligation to show up to see a bad product? It's not been proven to be the case. And as some have admitted here (not you but you know who they are) they will not support JR, think tix. are too expensive or whatever, but if the team happens to make the Series, they'll shell out the $150 'for the greater good.'

But if the team stinks the same vicious cycle comes up. Fans don't show. Fans complain JR is cheap. And it continues. If you believe Forbe's projections on the Sox making a prfoit last year of $12 mill. (when they hosted the All Star game) then you can see that every last penny of profit went into the 2004 payroll. People still complain, as is their right.

So the point is, if you're an investor in the team who wants to win (and I believe there are some who are in this to win) but doesn't want to go bankrupt to do it, is it worth the risk of taking a $20 mill. loan out for a season?

If fans are going to be fickle, they're going to be fickle no matter what. No matter what JR spends, they'll complain it's not enough. It's a fact of ownership and goes on in just about every sport and has been going on for years.

Fans have a right to feel what they want, but if all certian fans do is complain and not show up it's not helping the cause.


Bob
Some of that money would come back immediately in terms of increased season ticket sales. That has been proven time and time again. Remember when they signed Colon? If the Sox went out this winter and signed Pedro and Beltran to increase the team payroll to $90M they would immediately up their season ticket base by probably 5-10K this coming season. Yeah, if they stunk it up, they wouldn't draw as many casual fans later this season, but they would have already sold a bunch of extra seats before the season even started.

If you don't give people a reason to buy season tickets, you rely on day to day sales. That is a half-assed way to run a club. The only surefire way of increasing ticket revenue is to build a season ticket base - which adds people to the seats in April when it is cold and in August if the Sox still suck. The only surefire way to do that is to add talent - lots of it - during the off season.

We've been around this merry-go-round so many times. JR has tried it his way - wait to see if the team is good and then bring in some talent. So the fans do the same - wait to see if the team is good AND if JR will make moves to improve it (or go the other way if things get tough) and then buy (or not buy) day of game tickets in droves once the weather gets warm.

This is where we sit in October of 2004, watching a diminishing season ticket base, watching a team getting older, watching an owner who won't authorize the additional money to make the team serious contenders - next year. The plastic horses go round and round, but the team goes nowhere.

Something needs to change, Jerry... er... Bob... :wink:

gosox41
10-07-2004, 09:51 AM
Some of that money would come back immediately in terms of increased season ticket sales. That has been proven time and time again. Remember when they signed Colon? If the Sox went out this winter and signed Pedro and Beltran to increase the team payroll to $90M they would immediately up their season ticket base by probably 5-10K this coming season. Yeah, if they stunk it up, they wouldn't draw as many casual fans later this season, but they would have already sold a bunch of extra seats before the season even started.

If you don't give people a reason to buy season tickets, you rely on day to day sales. That is a half-assed way to run a club. The only surefire way of increasing ticket revenue is to build a season ticket base - which adds people to the seats in April when it is cold and in August if the Sox still suck. The only surefire way to do that is to add talent - lots of it - during the off season.

We've been around this merry-go-round so many times. JR has tried it his way - wait to see if the team is good and then bring in some talent. So the fans do the same - wait to see if the team is good AND if JR will make moves to improve it (or go the other way if things get tough) and then buy (or not buy) day of game tickets in droves once the weather gets warm.

This is where we sit in October of 2004, watching a diminishing season ticket base, watching a team getting older, watching an owner who won't authorize the additional money to make the team serious contenders - next year. The plastic horses go round and round, but the team goes nowhere.

Something needs to change, Jerry... er... Bob... :wink:

Like the last sentence. Of course I'm not Jerry because if I were I'd run things differently. I can just see JR's philosophy an don't necessarily agree with it.

But you mentioned 2003 and signing Colon. It's hard to prove that Colon himself had an increase in season ticket sales when the All Star game was a big seller that year. And the fact is fans didn't start coming out to the ballpark in droves until after the All Star break when the team began playing well.

JR's way hasn't worked. But if he does it the way of taking out a ton of debt to make the team better and it doesn't work there's not a big enough loyal fan base to support the team so it won't have to do that the 1997 Fla. Marlins did.

On the flipside, a lot of the erosion of hte fan base is due to JR. But some of those same people who hate JR will gladly go to a WS game if the Sox were in it. And these same people claim to love the team having been a fan all their lives and so forth and so forth. I believe we call fans that come to games only after the team has succeeded 'Bandwagon Jumpers'.

Now there's nothing wrong with this attitude. But it takes away a lot of their credibility when they complain about how unfair life is because JR is to cheap yet they'll be happy to support the team once it gets to the prize. Nice loyalty. Like it or not it sums up why JR and his investors won't take the risk of huge debt. Even if JR went to a World Series his way (on the cheap) these fans would still go to the game.


Bob

A.T. Money
10-07-2004, 10:20 AM
You know, if the Sox actually won a division, I'd maybe renew. But because they continue to suck ass, and NOT spend on FAs, they won't be getting my guarenteed money (season ticket renewal) this season.

I'm tired of it.

ewokpelts
10-07-2004, 10:26 AM
Red SOx fans pay more money and actually sell out their stadium. They've been drawing for years. We get fans choose not to support the team unless they're in the World Series, and they'll justify paying to see the team.


Bobthier park hold less than 35 thousand......when you get wrapped up in thier yankmee obsession, it's easy to sell out 35k a night
Gene

ewokpelts
10-07-2004, 10:35 AM
HELLO!
Dosent anyone realize that the Sox AREN'T going to spend all this money we're giving them in the price increases? No matter how much we argue about big market money vs little market money, jerry will still pocket it. He's going to get away with charging 10 BUCKS extra for flubs tickets(and five bucks more for ny/bos/la) vs the "regular" weekend rate. Wher's that money going? Why are we paying this much? It's not for the rennovations...we sold out our history for cell phone money, and we're getting money from soldier field too. We're not going to pay salaries, cuz the "savings" from losing maggs is already absorbed by contrera and garcia's salaires, and cmon...we're not getting beltran/pavano/mighty mouse...cuz we got everett!
face it......we pay this much because we LET jerry charge it......I work at lasalle bank, and we handle the sox invoice payments....i know for a fact that yesterday morning alone, there were over 50 payments, most of them from regular people like you and me.....paying jerry our first 10 percent and bending over for another year of "fun". Only a few buisness accounts, and one of them was cancelling thier order!
I'm sick of all this bickering over HOW the money should or would be spent...cuz it's NOT GOING TO BE SPENT!
Gene

ewokpelts
10-07-2004, 10:38 AM
Like the last sentence. Of course I'm not Jerry because if I were I'd run things differently. I can just see JR's philosophy an don't necessarily agree with it.

But you mentioned 2003 and signing Colon. It's hard to prove that Colon himself had an increase in season ticket sales when the All Star game was a big seller that year. And the fact is fans didn't start coming out to the ballpark in droves until after the All Star break when the team began playing well.

JR's way hasn't worked. But if he does it the way of taking out a ton of debt to make the team better and it doesn't work there's not a big enough loyal fan base to support the team so it won't have to do that the 1997 Fla. Marlins did.

On the flipside, a lot of the erosion of hte fan base is due to JR. But some of those same people who hate JR will gladly go to a WS game if the Sox were in it. And these same people claim to love the team having been a fan all their lives and so forth and so forth. I believe we call fans that come to games only after the team has succeeded 'Bandwagon Jumpers'.

Now there's nothing wrong with this attitude. But it takes away a lot of their credibility when they complain about how unfair life is because JR is to cheap yet they'll be happy to support the team once it gets to the prize. Nice loyalty. Like it or not it sums up why JR and his investors won't take the risk of huge debt. Even if JR went to a World Series his way (on the cheap) these fans would still go to the game.


Bobsox sold 10 thousand tickets(groups/season tix) in the 24 hour period after the colon trade . It's in the papers.

ewokpelts
10-07-2004, 10:41 AM
Some of that money would come back immediately in terms of increased season ticket sales. That has been proven time and time again. Remember when they signed Colon? If the Sox went out this winter and signed Pedro and Beltran to increase the team payroll to $90M they would immediately up their season ticket base by probably 5-10K this coming season. Yeah, if they stunk it up, they wouldn't draw as many casual fans later this season, but they would have already sold a bunch of extra seats before the season even started.

If you don't give people a reason to buy season tickets, you rely on day to day sales. That is a half-assed way to run a club. The only surefire way of increasing ticket revenue is to build a season ticket base - which adds people to the seats in April when it is cold and in August if the Sox still suck. The only surefire way to do that is to add talent - lots of it - during the off season.

We've been around this merry-go-round so many times. JR has tried it his way - wait to see if the team is good and then bring in some talent. So the fans do the same - wait to see if the team is good AND if JR will make moves to improve it (or go the other way if things get tough) and then buy (or not buy) day of game tickets in droves once the weather gets warm.

This is where we sit in October of 2004, watching a diminishing season ticket base, watching a team getting older, watching an owner who won't authorize the additional money to make the team serious contenders - next year. The plastic horses go round and round, but the team goes nowhere.

Something needs to change, Jerry... er... Bob... :wink:Voodoo's right. Buils your ST base, and your day of game sales will be a bonus. Anaheim has had 2 season of 3 million fans. Thay maintained that pace by keeping st holders happy with big signings and goals of another ws in thsi lifetime. nuff sed
Gene

Ol' No. 2
10-07-2004, 10:45 AM
I wonder if there is a way to up your odds by outspending the next highest team by a certain percentage. Also, maybe spending big alone doesn't increase the odds of going to the playoffs, but what causes that fact?

Currently there are 8 playoff slots and 30 teams. So, being in the top half of the league in payroll won't matter that much. What about being in the top third? As you pointed out, 63% of the current playoff teams are in the top third. One of the other teams wasn't competing against any teams in the top third (Minnesota) and the other two aren't exactly low payrolls - though where they stack up, I don't actually know at present.

It is simplistic to say that payroll alone increases or does not increase the odds of making the playoffs, because there are far more teams in the top half of the league payroll wise than can make the playoffs (roughly twice as many).

Is that a factor of payroll or the number of slots available?

There was no way for St Louis, Houston AND the flubbies to make the playoffs - not enough slots.

There was no way for a Big payroll team to win the ALC either.

Going back to the stats I generated in my article. All but three teams who averaged in the top half of payroll also averaged more than their expected win total. All the teams but 3 in the bottom half averaged less than their expected win total. Maybe my math was too simplistic, but could the same be said for the opposite viewpoint?

Does big money not guarantee a playoff slot because it is meaningless or because there are too many other big money teams competing for the same number of limited slots?

How about this? Does a team in the lower portion of payroll stand as good a chance to get into the playoffs. Run those numbers and tell me what you get. Saying high spending teams don't all get in is too simple. Do low spending teams get in at equal rates?You make a good point in that some divisions have a lot of high payroll teams, and one might think it would be more important to spend in these divisions than in others, like the AL Central. I just looked at the overall payroll picture. However, the fact that the Sox outspend the Twins every year and the Twins are 3-time division champions should tell you something. There is an effect of payroll at all levels, but it's smaller at mid-levels than at the extremes. Very low spending teams do quite poorly, as I stated in my first post. At the 10th percentile, the probability of winning a division is only 6%.

Part of the problem in interpreting the data comes from the fact that the Yankees have been the biggest spending team every year since 1999 and won their division every one of those years. This really skews the distribution. Before that (1995-1998), the biggest spending team did not win their division even once, although there were two WC winners. Just looking at these facts it's easy to think that spending money is everything. But just looking at the extremes can be very misleading. For most teams, $180M is out of reach. The more relevant question is, "For a mid-level team, how much of an impact can they expect from a more modest payroll increase?" For a team at the average payroll, spending 10% more increases the odds of winning the division by about 4% (from about 18% to about 22%) - obviously not a huge advantage. The same payroll bump translates into an expected boost in winning percentage of about 0.01 (about 1.6 wins).

Bottom line: If you spend like the Yankees, you can significantly improve your odds. But more realistic increases have real, but much smaller effects. When you consider all the non-monetary factors, it's clear that these are more important.

ewokpelts
10-07-2004, 12:12 PM
You make a good point in that some divisions have a lot of high payroll teams, and one might think it would be more important to spend in these divisions than in others, like the AL Central. I just looked at the overall payroll picture. However, the fact that the Sox outspend the Twins every year and the Twins are 3-time division champions should tell you something. There is an effect of payroll at all levels, but it's smaller at mid-levels than at the extremes. Very low spending teams do quite poorly, as I stated in my first post. At the 10th percentile, the probability of winning a division is only 6%.

Part of the problem in interpreting the data comes from the fact that the Yankees have been the biggest spending team every year since 1999 and won their division every one of those years. This really skews the distribution. Before that (1995-1998), the biggest spending team did not win their division even once, although there were two WC winners. Just looking at these facts it's easy to think that spending money is everything. But just looking at the extremes can be very misleading. For most teams, $180M is out of reach. The more relevant question is, "For a mid-level team, how much of an impact can they expect from a more modest payroll increase?" For a team at the average payroll, spending 10% more increases the odds of winning the division by about 4% (from about 18% to about 22%) - obviously not a huge advantage. The same payroll bump translates into an expected boost in winning percentage of about 0.01 (about 1.6 wins).

Bottom line: If you spend like the Yankees, you can significantly improve your odds. But more realistic increases have real, but much smaller effects. When you consider all the non-monetary factors, it's clear that these are more important.the real way to win is to have a smart gm, strong farm system, and solid cash resources...spend wisely and trade smart.
Gene

CubKilla
10-07-2004, 12:19 PM
the real way to win is to have a smart gm, strong farm system, and solid cash resources...spend wisely and trade smart.
Gene
Too bad we have none of the first 3 (although JR and his investors just won't spend in regards to the 3rd) and, because of that, the Sox don't spend wisely or trade smart.

CubKilla
10-07-2004, 12:22 PM
HELLO!
Dosent anyone realize that the Sox AREN'T going to spend all this money we're giving them in the price increases? No matter how much we argue about big market money vs little market money, jerry will still pocket it. He's going to get away with charging 10 BUCKS extra for flubs tickets(and five bucks more for ny/bos/la) vs the "regular" weekend rate. Wher's that money going? Why are we paying this much? It's not for the rennovations...we sold out our history for cell phone money, and we're getting money from soldier field too. We're not going to pay salaries, cuz the "savings" from losing maggs is already absorbed by contrera and garcia's salaires, and cmon...we're not getting beltran/pavano/mighty mouse...cuz we got everett!
face it......we pay this much because we LET jerry charge it......I work at lasalle bank, and we handle the sox invoice payments....i know for a fact that yesterday morning alone, there were over 50 payments, most of them from regular people like you and me.....paying jerry our first 10 percent and bending over for another year of "fun". Only a few buisness accounts, and one of them was cancelling thier order!
I'm sick of all this bickering over HOW the money should or would be spent...cuz it's NOT GOING TO BE SPENT!
GeneYAY YAY! Sox fans would be much better off if they didn't get their hopes up. That way, if by some act of God something completely 180 of this Organization happens, it comes as a pleasant surprise and not as the usual downer..... like when Beltran signs with someone other than the Sox this year..... or Pavano..... etc.

Ol' No. 2
10-07-2004, 12:24 PM
the real way to win is to have a smart gm, strong farm system, and solid cash resources...spend wisely and trade smart.
GeneABSO-FRIKKIN-LUTELY!!!!! Look around. There are plenty of examples to show that you don't win just by throwing money at the team. Those things you mentioned are much more important than just spending money. You have to spend wisely.

Last winter there was a lot of talk about signing Sidney Ponson, but they didn't, mainly because Kenny couldn't unload enough payroll to fit him into the budget. They could have just increased payroll. Would that have been a wise move? On the other hand, they could have worked a deal with Seattle for Freddy Garcia, who the M's were ambivalent about re-signing. How would this deal have looked? Even if they had to increase payroll, they probably could have gotten him for a lot less in trade than they wound up spending. In the long run, it would have saved them money.

This is not meant as an endorsement nor an indictment of Sox management. It's neither all good or all bad. But being smart about how you spend your money is a lot more important than just how much you spend.

gosox41
10-07-2004, 01:05 PM
You know, if the Sox actually won a division, I'd maybe renew. But because they continue to suck ass, and NOT spend on FAs, they won't be getting my guarenteed money (season ticket renewal) this season.

I'm tired of it.
Feel free to send e-mails or call the team itself. The best way to get change is to let the right people in charge know why what you think.


Bob

Lip Man 1
10-07-2004, 01:11 PM
Bob:

For once we agree on something.

Lip

steff
10-07-2004, 01:13 PM
OK, I'll go check my invoice from last year. Here it is...let's see. The date of the invoice is 11/26/03. The first payment was due on Dec 15. They also asked for only a $500 deposit with the rest due in Feb. This year they want 10% by 10/29, 40% by 12/3 and the remaining 50% by 2/4/05. That counts as much earlier in my book.

Got ours on 10/7 last year, and 10/10 the year before. Maybe cause it's a different plan.

steff
10-07-2004, 01:16 PM
Can't afford weekend season tickets this year.:(: :(: :(:


Thanks for upping your ticket prices and concessions,
but not improving the quality of talent on the team Uncle Jer.:angry: :angry: :angry:

What's it matter.. he could sign Randy Johnson, Pavano, Beltran, and whoever else is on your wish list.. but you wouldn't see it.. cause you can't afford it... or will that change if the Sox make a move you approve of..?

steff
10-07-2004, 01:18 PM
thier park hold less than 35 thousand......when you get wrapped up in thier yankmee obsession, it's easy to sell out 35k a night
Gene

Their prices are double ours also...

Hangar18
10-07-2004, 01:18 PM
[QUOTE=Ol' No. 2]I'm not here to defend Reinsdorf, but let's be realistic. Chicago may be the third largest market, but they SHARE it. QUOTE]


Yeah, but the Angels have to share their market with the Dodgers. And the Yankees have to share their market with the Mets. The Urinal is smaller
and doesnt have triple-layered skyboxes. they got 3 Million. The Markets there, they just need to Spend Accordingly. No excuses. Chicago is the 3rd Biggest Market in the United States, arguably the most successful nation in the planet Earth. I took an informal survey in Minneapolis Metrodome last month. 100% or respondents agreed and said CHICAGO was the Big Market team while their Twinks were the Small Market team.


:reinsy
"Those people have no idea what their talking about. Chicago is a small market my friends. Dont let the Hangar and the evil Chicago media tell you otherwise. What do the Twins know anyway?"

steff
10-07-2004, 01:21 PM
[QUOTE=Ol' No. 2]I'm not here to defend Reinsdorf, but let's be realistic. Chicago may be the third largest market, but they SHARE it. QUOTE]


Yeah, but the Angels have to share their market with the Dodgers. And the Yankees have to share their market with the Mets. The Urinal is smaller
and doesnt have triple-layered skyboxes. they got 3 Million. The Markets there, they just need to Spend Accordingly. No excuses. Chicago is the 3rd Biggest Market in the United States, arguably the most successful nation in the planet Earth. I took an informal survey in Minneapolis Metrodome last month. 100% or respondents agreed and said CHICAGO was the Big Market team while their Twinks were the Small Market team.


:reinsy
"Those people have no idea what their talking about. Chicago is a small market my friends. Dont let the Hangar and the evil Chicago media tell you otherwise. What do the Twins know anyway?"


It's all the media's fault, right Henry..?? :rolleyes:

By the way.. am I understanding you right.. you and your cousin did have ST this year..? What happened to that boycott of yours.. :wink:

Ol' No. 2
10-07-2004, 01:25 PM
Got ours on 10/7 last year, and 10/10 the year before. Maybe cause it's a different plan.I have a full-season plan. We've NEVER gotten invoices in October that I can recall. Regardless of when they send them out, I doubt the due date for deposits are different, and that's moved up this year by quite a bit.

steff
10-07-2004, 01:27 PM
I have a full-season plan. We've NEVER gotten invoices in October that I can recall. Regardless of when they send them out, I doubt the due date for deposits are different, and that's moved up this year by quite a bit.
Full season also last year.. got the invoice on 10/7. Don't know what to tell ya.. but that's when we got ours.

dickallen15
10-07-2004, 02:18 PM
The deposits are due at about the same time. Last year, there was playoff tickets that had to be paid for. I just let them hold it. The thing that came out earlier this year was the schedule.

gosox41
10-07-2004, 03:01 PM
Bob:

For once we agree on something.

Lip
I'm all for change. I'm unhappy with JR, but not as unhappy as you are. And for completely different reasons. My issues have nothing to do with payroll, but have everything to do with the incompetent people he has working underneath him, specifically the GM.


Bob

Flight #24
10-07-2004, 04:17 PM
No 2:

Have you seen the Cardinals and Astros payrolls????? Only in a bizarre accountant's world are they medium market payrolls.

They are big payroll teams.

Lip: Per ESPN, Sox end of year payroll was 68mil, Astros 74mil, Cards 81mil.

That includes salary for all players on the team at end of the year, so if anything I think the #s are inflated for the Cards (IIRC, they didn't dump anyone, but they did get cash from Colorado in the Walker deal). So your "big payroll" teams are a whole 5-10mil higher than the Sox.

Per the ESPN ranking, the Sox ranked 15th in payroll, Houston 12, ST Louis 10. All in the middle 3d (OK, STL was just out of the middle 3d).

Are the Astros, Cardinals, etc cheap as well? (And I believe they also both have GMs who had never previously held that title).

ewokpelts
10-07-2004, 05:07 PM
I have a full-season plan. We've NEVER gotten invoices in October that I can recall. Regardless of when they send them out, I doubt the due date for deposits are different, and that's moved up this year by quite a bit.individual game tix go on sale at soxfest this year.....they're trying to secure the st holders early to meet the deadline.
Gene

A.T. Money
10-07-2004, 05:46 PM
Feel free to send e-mails or call the team itself. The best way to get change is to let the right people in charge know why what you think.


BobI have Bob-a-loo. Believe me.

Last year I backed out and I got suckered back in because she landed me some killer seats for less money than the previous year.

This year when she emails me over and over about renewing, I'll let her know....don't worry.

A.T. Money
10-07-2004, 06:15 PM
What's it matter.. he could sign Randy Johnson, Pavano, Beltran, and whoever else is on your wish list.. but you wouldn't see it.. cause you can't afford it... or will that change if the Sox make a move you approve of..?
It would for me. It's our right as fans to buy it or not.

I think it's gluton for punishment to continue to buy season tix if the team is boo boo.

See Voodoo's post above.

Ol' No. 2
10-07-2004, 06:35 PM
Some of that money would come back immediately in terms of increased season ticket sales. That has been proven time and time again. Remember when they signed Colon? If the Sox went out this winter and signed Pedro and Beltran to increase the team payroll to $90M they would immediately up their season ticket base by probably 5-10K this coming season. Yeah, if they stunk it up, they wouldn't draw as many casual fans later this season, but they would have already sold a bunch of extra seats before the season even started.

If you don't give people a reason to buy season tickets, you rely on day to day sales. That is a half-assed way to run a club. The only surefire way of increasing ticket revenue is to build a season ticket base - which adds people to the seats in April when it is cold and in August if the Sox still suck. The only surefire way to do that is to add talent - lots of it - during the off season.

We've been around this merry-go-round so many times. JR has tried it his way - wait to see if the team is good and then bring in some talent. So the fans do the same - wait to see if the team is good AND if JR will make moves to improve it (or go the other way if things get tough) and then buy (or not buy) day of game tickets in droves once the weather gets warm.

This is where we sit in October of 2004, watching a diminishing season ticket base, watching a team getting older, watching an owner who won't authorize the additional money to make the team serious contenders - next year. The plastic horses go round and round, but the team goes nowhere.

Something needs to change, Jerry... er... Bob... :wink:I don't know what the Sox season ticket base is, but I'd guess it's somewhere under 10K. So you're suggesting that by signing Pedro and Beltran the season ticket sales would DOUBLE? Not likely.

Suppose the Sox did increase their payroll by 50% next year. What are the chances that they could see a matching 50% increase in revenues? Attendance would have to jump from 2M to 3M. They certainly didn't come anywhere close to that in 2000 when they won the division title. The Cubs draw 3M and they have the relentless Cubs/Tribune Co. promotional mechanism behind them. And they didn't get there overnight - it took years. Perhaps with several years of WS appearances/wins they could get there, but in the meantime they're $30M/yr in the red on the chance that several years down the road they might break even. This does not sound like good business practice to me, and like it or not, it's a business.

Besides, increasing payroll by 50% is no guarantee of anything. The Cubs spent that kind of money and they're home watching. So are a lot of other teams with even bigger payrolls. As I said in my earlier post, even a team at the 90th percentile has less than a 50-50 chance of even winning their division, much less going to the WS.

So in essence, you want him to bet $30M/yr on the come against long odds and if it comes through he might break even.

The fact is, the Sox have increased payroll three years in a row. And until a couple of very unlucky breaks (no pun intended), they were on pace to increase attendance three years in a row. As a fan, I want a WS NOW. But realistically, in Reinsdorf's place, I would probably do the same thing. Well, I take that back. I would do A LOT of things different. But spending $90M isn't one of them.

ewokpelts
10-07-2004, 06:38 PM
I have Bob-a-loo. Believe me.

Last year I backed out and I got suckered back in because she landed me some killer seats for less money than the previous year.

This year when she emails me over and over about renewing, I'll let her know....don't worry.they gave you better seats cheeper than what you had?
Gene

Ol' No. 2
10-07-2004, 06:40 PM
they gave you better seats cheeper than what you had?
GeneYeah, who do I talk to to get a deal like that?

ewokpelts
10-07-2004, 06:41 PM
Yeah, who do I talk to to get a deal like that?:reinsy
Not me.

Lip Man 1
10-07-2004, 09:21 PM
Pray tell me Flight how long ago did the Astros have a payroll in the mid 80's and the Cardinals in the 90's?

Thank you.

And how many times have they made the playoffs say the past ten years.

Thank you again.

Those are big market clubs. 7 of 8 this year spend money liberally.

You continue to insist the Sox can win with a modest payroll (modest only this year by the way, it was only a few seasons ago where the payroll was in the low 50's wasn't it?) That's fine, that's your right. The reality and the numbers that go with it concusively say otherwise. Just look at Proud To Be Your Bud's numbers for 1997 through 2001. You can't ignore those just because it doesn't suit your theory.

For every Angels and Marlins (neither of whom even got back to the playoffs the following season after they won) there are ten Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Cardinals, Astros, Giants, Indians (from the late 90's) and Angels (with their large payroll again).

Lip

voodoochile
10-07-2004, 10:23 PM
I don't know what the Sox season ticket base is, but I'd guess it's somewhere under 10K. So you're suggesting that by signing Pedro and Beltran the season ticket sales would DOUBLE? Not likely.

Suppose the Sox did increase their payroll by 50% next year. What are the chances that they could see a matching 50% increase in revenues? Attendance would have to jump from 2M to 3M. They certainly didn't come anywhere close to that in 2000 when they won the division title. The Cubs draw 3M and they have the relentless Cubs/Tribune Co. promotional mechanism behind them. And they didn't get there overnight - it took years. Perhaps with several years of WS appearances/wins they could get there, but in the meantime they're $30M/yr in the red on the chance that several years down the road they might break even. This does not sound like good business practice to me, and like it or not, it's a business.

Besides, increasing payroll by 50% is no guarantee of anything. The Cubs spent that kind of money and they're home watching. So are a lot of other teams with even bigger payrolls. As I said in my earlier post, even a team at the 90th percentile has less than a 50-50 chance of even winning their division, much less going to the WS.

So in essence, you want him to bet $30M/yr on the come against long odds and if it comes through he might break even.

The fact is, the Sox have increased payroll three years in a row. And until a couple of very unlucky breaks (no pun intended), they were on pace to increase attendance three years in a row. As a fan, I want a WS NOW. But realistically, in Reinsdorf's place, I would probably do the same thing. Well, I take that back. I would do A LOT of things different. But spending $90M isn't one of them.In 2000 the Sox had a season ticket base of 8K. That was following the 98 and 99 seasons where they sucked and drew 1.3M fans both years (roughly). This in turn followed the single most mind blowing act of fan base terrorism ever perpetrated by an owner in any sport (IMO) the White Flag Trade of 1997 whereafter Sox fans told ownership to suck eggs and drop dead by keeping their wallets in their collective pockets (rightfully so, again, IMO - though I went to games those years).

So, in 2000 with 640K tickets sold to start the season, they drew 1.3M walkups because the team rocked. Unfortunately, it was too good too early and late season attendance didn't jump dramatically as the division was already won. These last two years, with the Sox in the race (or appearing to be so early) they matched those 2000 attendance numbers (yes, last year was partially due to the ASG, but late season crowds were huge as the team was in the race).

In fact, it makes me wonder if JR is intentionally not spending more money so as to keep the division competitive so he will have a race to sell at year's end (conspiracys are great, no?). I mean if Frank and Maggs stay healthy, the Sox are at least in the race late in the season, if not winning the division and attendance would have easily cracked 2M.

I have no idea what season ticket base is. Last year it was in the area of 12K. This year, the team benefitted from a unique set of economic factors - like the flubbies being basically sold out before the season started, like a smaller stadium making supply scarcer for big games and driving demand up, etc.

So, right now, JR is going to benefit from the overflow principle - no room at Wrigley, let's watch baseball at Soxpark.

A few key additions could really drive season ticket revenue and thus drive those other factors harder. Tickets would become even more precious, big games would sell out earlier. People would start talking about buying early if you want to see the Sox at all - even if they sucked.

I don't make these things up - that's just basic economics in a Free Market society.

Would the season ticket base double? Probably not, but they would definitely sell more plans and that would in turn create scarcity and in turn drive demand. If they actually fielded a team worthy of the playoffs and pennant, and stayed healthy enough to stay in the race all year, they would see a huge jump in attendance - NEXT YEAR - which in turn would drive demand for the following year...

But, the first step is to give people a reason to buy season tickets. More marketing schemes won't do it. We want a winnner, NOW! :bandance:

Flight #24
10-07-2004, 10:54 PM
Pray tell me Flight how long ago did the Astros have a payroll in the mid 80's and the Cardinals in the 90's?

Thank you.

And how many times have they made the playoffs say the past ten years.

Thank you again.

Those are big market clubs. 7 of 8 this year spend money liberally.

You continue to insist the Sox can win with a modest payroll (modest only this year by the way, it was only a few seasons ago where the payroll was in the low 50's wasn't it?) That's fine, that's your right. The reality and the numbers that go with it concusively say otherwise. Just look at Proud To Be Your Bud's numbers for 1997 through 2001. You can't ignore those just because it doesn't suit your theory.

For every Angels and Marlins (neither of whom even got back to the playoffs the following season after they won) there are ten Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Cardinals, Astros, Giants, Indians (from the late 90's) and Angels (with their large payroll again).

LipHouston has not been a top 10 payroll team since 2000 (too lazy to check before that). St Louis has been a top 10 payroll the past 2 years and 2001. Houston has consistenly been in the 60s-70s (50s in 2000), STL 70s-80s. The big difference in those teams (especially the Cards), is that they don't really worry about plummeting attendance if things don't work out. See this season for the Sox for what their management is worried about if they extend themselves significantly payroll-wise.

And statistically, the Yankees skew things a ton. Of the 45 non-Yankee teams that ranked in the top 10 salary wise since 2000, 18 made the playoffs (40%).

I may not like it, but I certainly understand it if investors are reluctant to take those odds.

And for the record, I fully expect payroll to go up for next year and be in the 75+range based on this year and the Comcast deal.

I want Mags back
10-07-2004, 10:58 PM
Still a good value in comparison to the Hawks, Bulls, and Bears. I guess that's like saying Garland is good next to our 5th starter.Indeed, the Bears and Bulls suck ass, and the HAwks wont play. Plus, supporting the bulls puts more in JR's pocket. He should sell them and spend more on the team people care about

ewokpelts
10-08-2004, 01:49 AM
But, the first step is to give people a reason to buy season tickets. More marketing schemes won't do it. We want a winnner, NOW! :bandance:and quit rasing prices

ewokpelts
10-08-2004, 01:50 AM
Indeed, the Bears and Bulls suck ass, and the HAwks wont play. Plus, supporting the bulls puts more in JR's pocket. He should sell them and spend more on the team people care aboutthe bulls organization treats thier fanns better than the sox do...and it's the same owner...go figure
Gene

Lip Man 1
10-08-2004, 01:18 PM
Flight:

I'll remember that prediction of yours.

Just wondering...what if it doesn't go up as you surmise? Will that change your opinions of the organization at all?

Lip

Flight #24
10-08-2004, 01:51 PM
Flight:

I'll remember that prediction of yours.

Just wondering...what if it doesn't go up as you surmise? Will that change your opinions of the organization at all?

LipDepends - if the revenue base is increasing via the Comcast deal, then I'll start to question what appears to be the case over the past 10 years or so - that revenue increases generally go into payroll (attendance as a proxy for revenue).

However, absent that, I do think that this season the fans showed that with an exciting, winning team, they will come out, but that if that team goes south they'll stay home in droves. I hope that that would induce management to spend $$$, but it's understandable if they'd worry more about the downside potential than the upside. I would think that they were overly pessimistic about the potential for injury, etc and let that cloud what I think would be a good business decision.

JKryl
10-13-2004, 04:13 PM
I'm sure that they will hold some back for additional season ticket sales. They may even hold back some games (Cubs series, Yanks, etc.) and not put those on sale until later.
At $44 a pop, I don't think you're going to have to worry about sell outs.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2004, 04:17 PM
At $44 a pop, I don't think you're going to have to worry about sell outs.You're joking, right? They'd sell out the Sox v. Cubs games at $100 per seat.

ewokpelts
10-13-2004, 04:26 PM
You're joking, right? They'd sell out the Sox v. Cubs games at $100 per seat.:reinsy

Really? I can charge that much?!

JKryl
10-13-2004, 04:56 PM
You're joking, right? They'd sell out the Sox v. Cubs games at $100 per seat.
Sure, but then they'd have 41,000 corporate/Scrub fans present, but I don't think the ordinary fan is goofy enough to pay those kinds of prices. Remember, the newness has worn off the series. Once that happens, It will be the beginning of the end. Kind of like last season all over again.

A.T. Money
10-13-2004, 06:44 PM
they gave you better seats cheeper than what you had?
Gene
I was in the bleachers before.

I got moved to the upperdeck, 4th row, right behind home plate for 04. To me, those are better seats, and less money.

Parrothead
10-14-2004, 01:12 AM
Yeah !!!!! I get to post.....

:tomatoaward

ewokpelts
10-14-2004, 08:56 AM
I was in the bleachers before.

I got moved to the upperdeck, 4th row, right behind home plate for 04. To me, those are better seats, and less money.Yeah....us bleacher folk keep getting squeezed hardest.
Gene

JKryl
10-14-2004, 04:45 PM
Yeah !!!!! I get to post.....

:tomatoaward
I hope you feel special now. :bandance::bandance::bandance::supernana::bandance ::bandance:

Parrothead
10-14-2004, 09:08 PM
I do thanks !:D:

JKryl
10-17-2004, 11:29 PM
In case I missed it in the thread, I don't know if anyone discussed the new "scout seats". According to the Sox: "First Row Pricing : $200 per ticket
Rows 2-11 Pricing : $170 per ticket". They claim that they should have no problem selling the seats, but the view on the boob tube could be very interesting next September with all those wide open spaces behind the batter.