Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Maury Brown Posted: November 02, 2005 at 08:27 PM (#1716356)
Certainly some of the blame has to go to Shaughnessy. He played the part of the shill.
   2. Kevin Sweet Child Romine (aco) Posted: November 02, 2005 at 08:28 PM (#1716362)
There's a slew of quotes from the press conference here. Nothing earth shattering. Both Theo and Henry deny there were chain of command issues. Henry stated that money wasn't the ultimate reason Theo left. Theo also said: "It's sad for me to leave with a lot more work to be done…" and "I am not burned out. I have tremendous passion for the game. I have tremendous dedication to the game… but I have no immediate plans."

So: it wasn't about money, he's not tired of the game, and there were no chain of command issues. Some percentage of this news conference is B.S. Probably upwards of 50%, considering how many quotes were about Lucchino.
   3. Kevin Sweet Child Romine (aco) Posted: November 02, 2005 at 08:33 PM (#1716368)
Certainly some of the blame has to go to Shaughnessy.


Plenty of blame to go around. I think the events of the last week or so came together in a such a perfect ####storm that Theo just decided he had to get the hell out of Dodge.
   4. tfbg9 Posted: November 02, 2005 at 10:01 PM (#1716571)
Two part radio interview with CHB about the whole mess:

http://www.weei.com/audiovault.asp
   5. villageidiom Posted: November 03, 2005 at 12:21 AM (#1716892)
Epstein also said a few times that he couldn't go "all in", that he couldn't put his heart & soul into "everything" they were doing. Larry or not, obviously there's something going on inside the FO that troubles Epstein enough to leave.

It's impossible to judge whether he's being naive or responsible to walk away from whatever they're doing, since we don't know what it is. But I trust him enough to think he's not being naive.

Larry is the ugly duck in this mess. For his sake the team better be in the playoffs next year.

My fear is that he'll trade away Manny, then burn up all the prospects trading for whatever he can get to make sure they make the playoffs next year and turn the bad press into good. I guess in the Star Wars vein that would mean:

Steinbrenner = Palpatine
Lucchino = Anakin
Epstein = Luke
   6. karlmagnus Posted: November 03, 2005 at 01:57 AM (#1717026)
Henry is surely aware that Lucchino's lunacies are very likely to cost him huge amounts of money. The $700mm he paid for the Sox included at least $300mm for goodwill in both the Sox and NESN. If Lucchino trades away Manny, Damon and all the prospects for a mediocre shot at "win now" in 2006, that goodwill value will disappear. There's no law of nature that says the Red Sox have to be a well supported team; they weren't before 1980 or so, and certainly not before 1967.

The goodwill value as of the season-end 2005 is probably a little above what Henry inherited; this mess will already have dinged a substantial amount off it (recoverable with good management at this stage, I grant you) and a year of say Lucchino/Bowden will cost Henry way into 9 figures.

Don't forget Frazee got a lot less for the Sox than he'd paid when he sold in the mid 1920s. This could happen again.
   7. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: November 03, 2005 at 02:41 AM (#1717095)
Does LL have ownership equity in the team? If so, I doubt he will take the short run view of things.
   8. Darren Posted: November 03, 2005 at 02:59 AM (#1717114)
Why wouldn't he take the short run view of things? What makes you think they're going to own the team for a long time?
   9. Vance Law Revue Posted: November 03, 2005 at 03:03 AM (#1717122)
There's no law of nature that says the Red Sox have to be a well supported team;

No, but there is a law of nature that says they will be well supported as long as they are good.

Steinbrenner = Palpatine
Lucchino = Anakin
Epstein = Luke


I like this game!

Tito = Jar-jar
Johnny = Chewbacca
Gammons = Yoda
   10. Vance Law Revue Posted: November 03, 2005 at 03:07 AM (#1717125)
Why wouldn't he take the short run view of things? What makes you think they're going to own the team for a long time?

Even if they plan on selling the team tomorrow, they have to presume that their potential buyer will care about the long term.

The Klan Trust got top dollar (considering the sale was a bag job)for the team because they sold a team that was poised to compete for World Championships. The same will apply to the current ownership group.
   11. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: November 03, 2005 at 03:14 AM (#1717134)
Why wouldn't he take the short run view of things? What makes you think they're going to own the team for a long time?

Could be. I said as much in the other thread with quotes from the press conference. I figure that if you are destroying good will and future value by mortgaging your future, sophisticated basebally advisers will reflect that in the price. Firms like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers get involved in the advisory process these days--I think they did on the sale of the Red Sox last time. Maybe the prospective buyers and their advisers <u>will</u> overvalue the franchise even if the future is mortgaged in 2006. Karlmagnus suggested they would somehow destroy value (which I think is clearly contrary to the interests of an equity owner) anyway because he thinks Lucchino is lunatic. I doubt it but if it takes one to know one, I don't.
   12. Darren Posted: November 03, 2005 at 03:54 AM (#1717157)
The Klan Trust got top dollar (considering the sale was a bag job)for the team because they sold a team that was poised to compete for World Championships.

I think we're talking about different things. By "taking the long view," I mean things like making sure you have a nicely stocked minor league system. What you're talking about is having a competitive team on the field that's ready to compete right away. I would call that taking the short view, but YMMV.
   13. scotto Posted: November 03, 2005 at 04:16 AM (#1717166)
they weren't before 1980 or so, and certainly not before 1967.

Really? It looks to me like they were pretty popular before 1980. Did you forget about the '75 Sox?

Year Attendance Game Avg
20052,847,88835,159
20042,837,29435,028
20032,724,16533,632
20022,650,86232,727
20012,625,33332,412
20002,585,89531,925
19992,446,16230,200
19982,314,70428,577
19972,226,13627,483
19962,315,23128,583
19952,164,41030,061
19941,775,81827,747
19932,422,02129,901
19922,468,57430,476
19912,562,43531,635
19902,528,98631,222
19892,510,01230,988
19882,464,85130,430
19872,231,55127,894
19862,147,64126,514
19851,786,63322,057
19841,661,61820,514
19831,782,28522,004
19821,950,12424,076
19811,060,37920,007
19801,956,09224,149
19792,353,11429,414
19782,320,64328,301
19772,074,54925,932
19761,895,84623,406
19751,748,58721,587
19741,556,41119,215
19731,481,00218,284
19721,441,71818,484
19711,678,73220,984
19701,595,27819,695
19691,833,24622,633
19681,940,78823,960
19671,727,83221,331
1966811,172 10,014
1965652,201 8,052
1964883,276 10,905
1963942,642 11,783
   14. scotto Posted: November 03, 2005 at 04:18 AM (#1717169)
Ugh, I'm so sorry. That looked good in preview and came out hideous. Do the pre tags still work? Red Sox attendance during my years on this earth:

<pre>
20052,847,88835,159
20042,837,29435,028
20032,724,16533,632
20022,650,86232,727
20012,625,33332,412
20002,585,89531,925
19992,446,16230,200
19982,314,70428,577
19972,226,13627,483
19962,315,23128,583
19952,164,41030,061
19941,775,81827,747
19932,422,02129,901
19922,468,57430,476
19912,562,43531,635
19902,528,98631,222
19892,510,01230,988
19882,464,85130,430
19872,231,55127,894
19862,147,64126,514
19851,786,63322,057
19841,661,61820,514
19831,782,28522,004
19821,950,12424,076
19811,060,37920,007
19801,956,09224,149
19792,353,11429,414
19782,320,64328,301
19772,074,54925,932
19761,895,84623,406
19751,748,58721,587
19741,556,41119,215
19731,481,00218,284
19721,441,71818,484
19711,678,73220,984
19701,595,27819,695
19691,833,24622,633
19681,940,78823,960
19671,727,83221,331
1966811,172 10,014
1965652,201 8,052
1964883,276 10,905
1963942,642 11,783
   15. scotto Posted: November 03, 2005 at 04:19 AM (#1717170)
Sorry folks, I don't get how to do this.
   16. fret Posted: November 03, 2005 at 04:51 AM (#1717186)
Let's see if this works. The system doesn't like tabs.
2005   2,847,888   35,159
2004   2,837,294   35,028
2003   2,724,165   33,632
2002   2,650,862   32,727
2001   2,625,333   32,412
2000   2,585,895   31,925
1999   2,446,162   30,200
1998   2,314,704   28,577
1997   2,226,136   27,483
1996   2,315,231   28,583
1995   2,164,410   30,061
1994   1,775,818   27,747
1993   2,422,021   29,901
1992   2,468,574   30,476
1991   2,562,435   31,635
1990   2,528,986   31,222
1989   2,510,012   30,988
1988   2,464,851   30,430
1987   2,231,551   27,894
1986   2,147,641   26,514
1985   1,786,633   22,057
1984   1,661,618   20,514
1983   1,782,285   22,004
1982   1,950,124   24,076
1981   1,060,379   20,007
1980   1,956,092   24,149
1979   2,353,114   29,414
1978   2,320,643   28,301
1977   2,074,549   25,932
1976   1,895,846   23,406
1975   1,748,587   21,587
1974   1,556,411   19,215
1973   1,481,002   18,284
1972   1,441,718   18,484
1971   1,678,732   20,984
1970   1,595,278   19,695
1969   1,833,246   22,633
1968   1,940,788   23,960
1967   1,727,832   21,331
1966     811,172   10,014
1965     652,201    8,052
1964     883,276   10,905
1963     942,642   11,783
   17. scotto Posted: November 03, 2005 at 05:08 AM (#1717192)
Thanks fret, I guess I'll fret not. So much for taking HTML, dumping into Excel and then pasting into EE. How do you get that cool formatting?
   18. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 03, 2005 at 05:38 AM (#1717213)
I just read the WEEI transcript of when Curt called in.

I love that guy again. He may be a douche, but he's MY douche.
   19. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 03, 2005 at 09:57 AM (#1717353)
So 1967 was the big attendance spike. Not surprising at all, really.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2694 seconds
41 querie(s) executed