White Sox Interactive Forums
What's The Score?

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > What's The Score?
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-07-2013, 12:10 PM
dickallen15 dickallen15 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitmen77 View Post
I'm guessing that the Cubs will still have games on WGN-TV after 2014. All they did hear was exercise their option on their contract. They'll probably be back at a higher fee for WGN.

The Cubs have a deal with CSN until 2019, but I wouldn't be surprised if they end their partnership with CSN and the other Chicago teams after that to start their own cable network.



MLB.TV isn't just for computers. If you have a streaming device like a Roku, you can stream games to your TV in HD quality. The last two years, I got MLB.TV starting around mid-June through the rest of the season for $50 for the remainder of those seasons.
I agree. This is like threatening to move out of Wrigleyville. Where else are they going to go? They will get more money, but I can't see them leaving WGN. They could create their own station, but that requires a ton of money and they would have a ridiculous amount of programming to fill. Ask Oprah about starting your own network.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-07-2013, 01:21 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,094
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses_Scurry View Post
For me, the solution is not putting more games on WGN. It's removing or at least revising the blackout restrictions so that I can get the games on EI or MLB.TV if I want. It pisses me off every season. I don't care as much when the team sucks, but in 2005, 2006, 2008, etc, I was forced to listen to games on my XM radio setup. It sucked.
I agree 100% but that's more of an MLB-level decision, I don't know whether or not the Sox support the blackout, but I do know they don't have the power to change their blackout market.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-07-2013, 01:29 PM
Steelrod Steelrod is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,529
Default

The current Cubs management is 100% about profit. In the Epstein regime, they are among the most profitable in baseball. They continue to reduce payroll and invest in income producing projects in Chicago and Mesa. Selling their tv rights and taking them off the air, will be the next step. The Sox did this 30 years ago and were crucified for it! They have dismantled the Cubs look and image in just 3 years!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-07-2013, 01:33 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,094
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelrod View Post
They have dismantled the Cubs look and image in just 3 years!
FWIW, we are talking about a team whose look and image for the past century has been one of "Lovable Losers." It's not like the Ricketts walked into the Bronx and tried to rebrand the Yankees.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-07-2013, 01:38 PM
SephClone89 SephClone89 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oswego, IL
Posts: 5,961
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelrod View Post
The current Cubs management is 100% about profit. In the Epstein regime, they are among the most profitable in baseball. They continue to reduce payroll and invest in income producing projects in Chicago and Mesa. Selling their tv rights and taking them off the air, will be the next step. The Sox did this 30 years ago and were crucified for it! They have dismantled the Cubs look and image in just 3 years!
Slightly different situation.
__________________
Attendance Records

2014: 4-8 plus Fenway and HOF weekend
2013: 4-6 plus St. Louis and Milwaukee
2012: 7-4
2011: 6-4 plus NYC parks and Minnesota
2010: 5-6
2009: 2-4 plus Pittsburgh

"Genius is not replicable. Inspiration, though, is contagious, and multiform and even just to see, close up, power and aggression made vulnerable to beauty is to feel inspired and (in a fleeting, mortal way) reconciled."
--David Foster Wallace, () "Roger Federer as Religious Experience"
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-07-2013, 03:03 PM
SoxandtheCityTee SoxandtheCityTee is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: South Loop
Posts: 3,256
Default

To anyone who knows, how do these team-owned networks like YES fill up their content when they don't have ball games to air? Is it all re-runs of sports events they own the rights to, or what? I've wondered that. If you have to go buy or license or create content beyond the ball games, that would seem to eat into the profits, yet you always hear that these networks are hugely profitable to the team.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-07-2013, 03:47 PM
asindc's Avatar
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 7,535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoxandtheCityTee View Post
To anyone who knows, how do these team-owned networks like YES fill up their content when they don't have ball games to air? Is it all re-runs of sports events they own the rights to, or what? I've wondered that. If you have to go buy or license or create content beyond the ball games, that would seem to eat into the profits, yet you always hear that these networks are hugely profitable to the team.
In this area, MASN airs almost all the local teams aside from the 'skins. They also air college sports, both local and national, and have local sports talk shows. I know YES does the same, and adds the Italian Serie A to their lineup as well.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-07-2013, 05:21 PM
Steelrod Steelrod is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
FWIW, we are talking about a team whose look and image for the past century has been one of "Lovable Losers." It's not like the Ricketts walked into the Bronx and tried to rebrand the Yankees.
You are right. They are changing from lovable to profit before anything. I think their model is the Padres!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-07-2013, 05:27 PM
Noneck Noneck is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nw Side
Posts: 7,182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelrod View Post
The current Cubs management is 100% about profit.
That holds true for the vast majority of Mlb franchises including the Sox.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-07-2013, 05:37 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 28,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
That holds true for the vast majority of Mlb franchises including the Sox.
I don't even know if it's true, either.

It definitely seemed true about Sam Zell, but the Ricketts family strikes me more as fans who are in over their head and think they have more business sense than they actually do.
__________________
Attendance records:
09 : 3-2.
10 : 2-3.
11: 0-1.
12: 2-1.
14: 1-2.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-07-2013, 06:28 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
That holds true for the vast majority of Mlb franchises including the Sox.
If you believe that, I believe you're missing Steelrod's point.

Obviously, most owners of sports franchises, investors in sports franchises hope to make a profit, but I'm sure there are years without dividends. The White Sox haven't placed profit above efforts to field a completive team, as the Cubs could be accused of doing. Maybe you build a winner by trading for young talent. Maybe you get fans excited about the future that young talent promises, which most often goes unfulfilled when teams trade for young talent. But I don't know that the motivation is building a winner so much as maximizing profit, which also happens when you trade for young talent.

If the White Sox were all about profit, they wouldn't have signed Dunn. It didn't increase ticket sales, even before fans came to think of him as a bust. I don't know that signing Abreu has been a profitable move, although if he fulfills his promise, the team will be more profitable. There have been some bad baseball decisions, but every team that tries to be competitive makes some bad business decisions.

You can be cynical about White Sox management and about the lack of a competitive team on the field, but if the White Sox were only about profit, they could have lost 99 games with a much smaller payroll.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-07-2013, 06:41 PM
DickAllen72 DickAllen72 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
While we're at it, maybe the team can drop the price of tickets to $1 for every seat, force every other team to trade us their best players, and have Free Beer Night 7 days a week.
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-07-2013, 08:15 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 28,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
If you believe that, I believe you're missing Steelrod's point.

Obviously, most owners of sports franchises, investors in sports franchises hope to make a profit, but I'm sure there are years without dividends. The White Sox haven't placed profit above efforts to field a completive team, as the Cubs could be accused of doing. Maybe you build a winner by trading for young talent. Maybe you get fans excited about the future that young talent promises, which most often goes unfulfilled when teams trade for young talent. But I don't know that the motivation is building a winner so much as maximizing profit, which also happens when you trade for young talent.

If the White Sox were all about profit, they wouldn't have signed Dunn. It didn't increase ticket sales, even before fans came to think of him as a bust. I don't know that signing Abreu has been a profitable move, although if he fulfills his promise, the team will be more profitable. There have been some bad baseball decisions, but every team that tries to be competitive makes some bad business decisions.

You can be cynical about White Sox management and about the lack of a competitive team on the field, but if the White Sox were only about profit, they could have lost 99 games with a much smaller payroll.
If anything, I think White Sox management has been rather penny wise and dollar foolish in the last decade or so by not spending money on the draft and amateur talent. Trading for established veterans and signing free agents seems a more expensive tactic in the end.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-07-2013, 08:27 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
If anything, I think White Sox management has been rather penny wise and dollar foolish in the last decade or so by not spending money on the draft and amateur talent. Trading for established veterans and signing free agents seems a more expensive tactic in the end.
You could certainly make that argument and likely defend it. But finding fault with the White Sox for bad baseball decisions that turned out to be bad business decisions would be inconsistent with finding them "100 percent about profit."
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-07-2013, 09:57 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 14,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
If anything, I think White Sox management has been rather penny wise and dollar foolish in the last decade or so by not spending money on the draft and amateur talent. Trading for established veterans and signing free agents seems a more expensive tactic in the end.
That has been a hallmark of the White Sox for pretty much the entirety of JR's tenure.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.