PDA

View Full Version : Dan Helpingstine's column


MarqSox
03-28-2002, 05:22 PM
He had good ideas, and I can't say I disagree with anything he wrote, but I do take issue with one point. He says ownership needs to recognize that average fans are the backbone of the team. He concedes that fans who can afford to spend more should have more perks, but that Average Joe is really what the franchise is built on.

I agree totally, but he never actually gives a SOLUTION. How should the Sox go about recognizing the average fan? Cheaper tickets would certainly be nice, but even when upper deck tickets were just $10 a couple years ago, people wouldn't buy them. On top of that, the Sox offer as many deals as any team out there, between Sox 7 and Half-price Mondays and Pepsi Half-price Tuesdays.

Dan's column was purported to be suggestions of how to improve Sox ownership. There were a few there, but this particular issue seemed to be a loose end.

TornLabrum
03-28-2002, 08:37 PM
"He had good ideas, and I can't say I disagree with anything he wrote, but I do take issue with one point. He says ownership needs to recognize that average fans are the backbone of the team. He concedes that fans who can afford to spend more should have more perks, but that Average Joe is
really what the franchise is built on.

"I agree totally, but he never actually gives a SOLUTION."

I disagree. I think Dan's entire column states the solution. Boiled down to its bare bones, it is, "Treat your fans with respect." That starts by not blaming the fans for not showing up when it is the manner in which this organization has been run which has driven them away. It means, as I have been stating in my three-part series, that Sox management has to be accountable for their own actions and take responsibility for them rather than looking for scapegoats.

Nellie_Fox
03-28-2002, 08:56 PM
I've never let management affect my attitude toward the team. I have always believed that I was here when this management got here, I'll be here when they're gone. The Comiskeys owned the club when I first became a fan. Since then, I've been through Veeck I and II, the Allyn brothers and the Allyn brother, finally Reinsdorf and Einhorn (whatever happened to Eddie anyway? Never hear a peep about him.) My attendance during any of these tenures was not predicated on who the owner was, just how interested I was in the particular club.

hold2dibber
03-29-2002, 12:21 PM
I couldn't agree more, to a point. The fact is that many current and former Sox fans view the Reinsdorf-run team as positively hostile to the team's fans. It's hard for people to say "I don't care who the owner is, I like the team" when they view the owner as having taken repeated action (or inaction, as the case may be) that is contrary to the interest of the fans. Val Hickey's article on the front page of the web site today chronicles some (but not all -- how could he leave out Ribbie and Rhubarb and the replacement of a beautiful and charismatic old ballpark with a serviceable but entirely sterile new one?) of the indignities that Sox fans have suffered under the JR regime. Although I believe that JR does want to win and has done some good things, the fact of the matter is, the reason the Sox don't draw well today is because of bone headed decisions the organization has made over the past 12 years.

MarqSox
03-29-2002, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Although I believe that JR does want to win and has done some good things, the fact of the matter is, the reason the Sox don't draw well today is because of bone headed decisions the organization has made over the past 12 years.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they share a market with one of the most popular franchises in all of sports would it?

voodoochile
03-29-2002, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
I've never let management affect my attitude toward the team. I have always believed that I was here when this management got here, I'll be here when they're gone. The Comiskeys owned the club when I first became a fan. Since then, I've been through Veeck I and II, the Allyn brothers and the Allyn brother, finally Reinsdorf and Einhorn (whatever happened to Eddie anyway? Never hear a peep about him.) My attendance during any of these tenures was not predicated on who the owner was, just how interested I was in the particular club.

You know, Nellie and I don't often see eye-2-eye, but I completely agree with this post. Well said, Nellie. I have only rooted for the Sox since the late days of Bill Veeck, and truth be told, he was part of the reason I become a Sox fan. Reinsdorf has for the most part fielded competitive teams, some of them have had horrible luck - some of that is JR's doing. Still, I only stayed away one season - as many of you did - the season after they canceled the WS. All I can do is love the team, I have no other choice, it is in my blood. I figure I'll see at least 2 more owners in my lifetime. Hopefully they have better luck than the ones in the past. Hopefully the present ones do better before they sell...

voodoochile
03-29-2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox


Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they share a market with one of the most popular franchises in all of sports would it?

Yes, that is part of it, but JR's decision to sterilize the Sox home experience has chased off a good core of fans - many of whom used to love to live it up at old Comiskey. Right at the time they started cleaning up the image, the Flubbies opened their arms to the wild party crowd. The results have been rather predictable attendance wise...

TornLabrum
03-29-2002, 05:11 PM
There are two reasons I didn't mention the tearing down of the old ballpark in my article. First of all, I've talked extensively with Rich Lindberg on the matter, and he insists that Reinsdorf was telling the truth when he said the old structure was falling apart and couldn't be saved. Second, I don't think the new ballpark is all that bad. People loved it until Camden Yards was built. Then suddenly it was out of date. Yes, fans griped about the upper deck that first year, but that didn't stop them from coming through the 1994 season. It was only after the strike that the upper deck became a major issue. I never did buy that excuse.

I've sat everywhere from row 8 behind the Sox dugout in the lower deck to the "reserved" seats to the bleachers to the club level to the upper deck box to row 28 of the upper deck reserved seats, and I can honestly say I never had a bad seat. What I did have was a near heart attack from climbing to row 28. So I'd say the main reason I didn't include the new ballpark in my list of gripes is that it didn't help turn me against Reinsdorf, and remember in the column, I was listing my reasons for questioning Reinsdorf.

Finally, I think my feelings about missing old Comiskey should be apparent in the name of my column. "Fallen Arches" doesn't refer to my feet.