Following up: The arm injuries are still bad

Considering Carlos Rodón had already mentally accounted for Tommy John surgery before he even officially knew it might be necessary, Jon Heyman’s report shouldn’t catch anybody by surprise.

Heyman said on Monday that TJS has indeed been recommended for Rodón. Rodón is seeking a second opinion before proceeding, but he probably believes that it’s truuuuuuuuuuuueeeeeee….

Along the lines of serious forearm woes, Nate Jones was moved to the 60-day injured list as part of the roster shuffling that opened a roster spot for Charlie Tilson. The White Sox are calling it a flexor pronator strain in his right forearm, which is an injury I still associate with Gavin Floyd, who battled it in 2012 before succumbing to Tommy John surgery in in 2013. Jones has already had his elbow opened up once, and it may not be in either party’s interest to do it again.


On Monday, I read a couple of separate pieces on the state of baseball that resonated to me as related, mainly because they both show how fan interest has taken a back seat to an ecosystem that doesn’t need them right now, but maybe can’t be expected to last for all that long.

Over at Baseball Prospectus, Craig Goldstein railed against the idea of “financial flexibility” as an end, rather than a temporary state. It was most brazenly touted by Alex Anthopoulos and the Braves, but Rick Hahn and Kenny Williams pulled a similar ploy, as this paragraph might remind you:

Teams will say that their young, cheap players — which they are capitalizing on now — will eventually be expensive, and that is part of why they need to maintain their current flexibility, ignoring that contracts drop off of payroll most every year.

Then they’ll tell you that that undermarket contract they just signed a burgeoning superstar to is how they’ve chosen to invest the money they haven’t been spending this whole time, ignoring that those deals are the kind that allow you to spend more liberally elsewhere to build a championship team. If you’re not spending that money elsewhere then all you’ve done is build a cheaper team, which doesn’t imply a better team. Teams are using this phrase as a way to recalibrate fan expectations in regards to the budget, focusing their energy on the “positive” aspects of the opportunities that are afforded by unspent money, ignoring all the while that the point of achieving that flexibility is to ultimately spend it to enhance the on-field product and win a championship.

Indeed. Williams and Hahn pointed to potential contract/arbitration numbers for Eloy Jiménez and Yoan Moncada as bogeymen for extending themselves for Manny Machado, even though there were other ways to cap costs, as Jiménez eventually showed. They just didn’t want to sacrifice their financial flexibility, even though a string of subsequent contract extensions have made it harder to exercise said flexibility. Then again, if you never really intend to use it, then it doesn’t really matter.

Some writers aid and abet this approach with really poor presentation …

… but I think fans, at least locally, detect BS, even if there are limited ways to act against it.

Speaking of which, a Detroit Tigers beat writer decided to go to a game like a fan on an off day, and was surprised with what he found:

What I found made me wonder not just about the future of baseball, but of live, in-person spectator sports in general.

After nearly three hours in the seats, I began to think we in the media were asking the wrong questions about the dwindling attendance that has been a consistent trend across baseball and other sports. Instead of bemoaning the shrinking crowds, perhaps we should marvel that there are still thousands and thousands of people willing to pay a premium price and endure all sorts of inconveniences to come to games.

The thought about paying a premium had crossed my mind while watching the White Sox play Boston on Sunday in front of a capacity crowd. The White Sox drew more people than usual because of built-in advantages — most people don’t work on Sunday and the Red Sox have a national fan base — but they drew 36,000 because of a concerted marketing effort stressing affordability. Family Sundays feature lower ticket prices, half-price parking and autograph sessions for kids. That’s a lot of added value reducing the mental barrier to buying a ticket, and fans respond.

Granted, you can get in for similarly cheap during the week, whether via SeatGeek (promo code SOXMACHINE) or the Sox’ own ballpark pass, although you give them a lot of data to mine for the latter privilege. But it’s strange when face values remain high even in the face of sagging demand due to a poor product. And compared to something like the zoo — which the writer went to the day after — it’s odd that expectations for attendance persist when the market remains committed to a certain cost per fan. You can spend less money for a comparable amount of entertainment, and you typically don’t leave complaining about the giraffe’s off night or how much the pandas suck.

It does seem like more baseball writers are treating attendance as a problematic result of business conditions, or at least a leaguewide trend instead of the failure of isolated fan bases. Maybe it’s because the teams that spent (Philadelphia and San Diego) are doing so much better at the gate year over year than the teams that prized their flexiblity.

However they’ve come to realize it, it’s part of a greater reckoning where the normal forces are muted by an influx of money and worth that’s immune from day-to-day demand, and when most teams make a profit before anybody steps in the park or turns on the TV, the league as a whole ends up flirting with how little it needs fans to care.

Take a second to support Sox Machine on Patreon
70 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
karkovice squad

Lazy goddamn pandas.

mikeyb

I hate when the zoo tries to sell me Red Pandas as some kind of cuter version of real Pandas. They know it’s bullshit. I know it’s bullshit. But my dumbass niece doesn’t know it, so they still rope her in. If I’m paying a premium price to see real Pandas, don’t give me this knockoff shit.

Ted Mulvey

“Man, I came to the zoo expecting the giraffes to eat the daylights out of those acacia leaves, and they barely ate anything! What a waste of money. Don’t even get me started on those lazy pandas.”

That zoo bit is great, and gave me a good chuckle. Good, good stuff.

Right Size Wrong Shape

The worst part is that we’re wasting the prime years of the cheetah and the okapi. That’s what happens when you are cheap and surround them with dieting giraffes and lazy pandas. Next year they’ll probably just flip them for a baby bull python and international animal exchange rights.

patrickcroberts

Why can’t I read Jim’s stuff when I am in class waiting for my students to finish an assignment? Cause of lines like the panda one that make me laugh out loud.

Lurker Laura

Me, too. However, sometimes the zoo IS disappointing entertainment, like when all the good animals are “off exhibit.” I hate that. 

asinwreck

Reserve “giraffe’s off night” for a recap when Giolito gets shelled.

As Cirensica

Family Sundays feature lower ticket prices, half-price parking and autograph sessions for kids.

Bobblehead giveawys, autographs, fireworks, mascots, t-shirts, ridiculous food options like sundaes on a baseball cap, 1 mile long hotdogs, etc, etc, etc… All these marketing strategies always make think if teams are in the business of selling baseball or just a suburban very expensive thematic park where, hey, by the way, there is a baseball game on the side.

As Cirensica

My comment wasn’t directed to yours (just in case), but as something I think when some FO try to ‘cover up” with shinny sugary sprinkles their terrible ice cream.

Right Size Wrong Shape

We went to the Tigers Sunday game last week. The kids got to run on the field after the game, and they really liked the fundamentals deck. I have a lot of kids, so the ticket and parking discounts made it do-able.

KenWo4LiFe

The only thing is you have to pay to meet the players now. They did away with all players signing. Now you have to get some autograph ticket to do it. I personally find it completely ridiculous.

karkovice squad

They’re selling the baseball game to the media licensees and advertisers. They’re selling the theme park to the fans.

As Cirensica

Yes…more like this

Josh Nelson

Well put.

mikeschach

Had you picked the right game, you would have, rather improbably, seen a Panda hit a home run, steal a base, make a diving stop and throw from his knees and pitch a scoreless inning. https://www.mlb.com/video/must-c-sandoval-does-it-all

I tell ya, it’s a zoo out there!

Milky✌️

Come for the insights, stay for The Unauthorized Biography of Reinhold Messner.™

Torpedo Jones

The discussion of attendance and costs is spot-on. It feels odd that taking the family to one of 81 annual home baseball games typically remains so expensive when the in-home experience is great. Particularly in an era where rebuilds (and the related bad baseball) take place openly for multiple seasons at a time.

It seems strange that there aren’t more consistent and drastic price cuts for tickets, parking and food/beverage. Dollar Dog night is a great move, and the family Sunday plan is good too. But I would think it benefits the org long-term to draw in more fans even at notably lower gate and concession rates.

I enjoy the thought of some imaginary behind-the-scenes baseball business discussion that includes phrases like:

– “Guys, we’re going to lose our ass on these Miller Lites if we charge less than $8 apiece! This isn’t a beer charity!”

– “Poor fans are yucky. We don’t want our fancy brand associated with fans who can’t spend $150 on food, beverages and a souvenir to watch our crappy product.”

– “Great news! Our attendance is way down, but we’ve increased average spend per fan by a small margin year-over-year!”

Is there a future where small-market stadiums are much smaller? “Coming to you live in-front of a rowdy studio audience of 100 people, the Rays versus the White Sox!”

Greg Nix

I’m sure they’ve calculated that they make more by drawing 18,000 rich fans who spend a shitload on expensive beer than 22,000 “poor” fans who don’t buy concessions.

If MLB teams are anything like the media companies I’ve worked for, they’re more concerned about short-term profit than long-term growth — even if that means they’re cutting off their nose to spite their face. For example, Viacom shows are essentially not streamable. That means marginally higher live TV ratings (their most immediate income) but it’s been slowly killing the company’s future prospects. Yet the board and execs don’t notice/care because they’re still collecting yearly bonuses.

Shingos Cheeseburgers

On top of that lower attendance = lower staffing costs so they’re definitely aiming for a sweet spot of per fan spend and total attendance.

karkovice squad

Attendance shaming aside, the Sox have definitely made it a point to cultivate a particular market segment. It’s more akin to cell cos, Internet providers, and banks deliberately creating churn instead of pursuing overall retention.

lil jimmy

I went to a half price night years back. Chuck full of the “poor”fans. Should have been called “show us your skull and crossbones tatoo” Night.

Torpedo Jones

Agreed all around. I was being flippant and certainly they’ve done the math. I do think it has the makings of a solid sketch-comedy bit, all the same. “Those Poor Owners” or something of the sort.

mikeyb

If the White Sox hit 1.9 million in tickets, they have to pay rent to the state. Under that number, no rent payment.

karkovice squad

The deal was renegotiated awhile ago. They pay a nominal rent regardless now. Above 1.9m they pay an additional tax on each ticket sold. It’s also always been part of the deal that below something like 1.5m the state pays them a ticket subsidy. And the hotel and entertainment tax was also meant to pay off the stadium.

But yeah, TLDR the Sox have a sweetheart deal.

Anohito

I’ve always wondered about this deal where the org basically pays less and makes more money if the attendance is low which leads many to think they’re intentionally putting a bad product on the field to achieve that result. Whether correct or incorrect in their thinking, this still seems super shady to reward lower attendance. So I wonder how this can even be allowed, and is there actually any criminality involved here, or like what is going on with this?

lil jimmy

This was an over the counter deal. The under the counter deals are the criminal ones.

mikeyb

Ah thanks, somehow I missed (or forgot) about that.

BeefLoaf108

I’m interested in this, as someone that pays for 81 games, I’m unsure how many more people you could get in the park by lowering tix even more. I do think lower concessions and parking prices would help, but if cost is your main concern there are ways around both. I have a lower level seat and my average cost per game is $20. Which might seem like a lot, but if you want to go to a random music venue and see some local bands or smaller touring acts, you are looking at around the same price. I don’t think there is likely a lot of attendance gain from lower pricing even more (for the WhiteSox) maybe for other teams.

My memory is foggy, but 12 years ago when I first got season tix (Sat/Sun) I think my average ticket price was $28 per game, for the same seat.

Shingos Cheeseburgers

I’m interested to see if the Sox get good again if the fans come back the way they did in the late 2000s. The media and economic landscape has changed a ton so I’m not sure ‘if they win they will come’ is a sure thing. 

But in general I agree the new reality that simply a baseball game is not enough to get families through the gates. 

egib52

I’ve kind of wondered the same thing on a bigger scale. In the future will new ballparks actually get smaller, but offer more amenities? It might make sense to have less actual seats and more themed areas.

soxfan

Yes. 

Anohito

From what I’ve seen on many popular 30k+ attendance games that involve giveaways or better yet, homages to past good times (paulie day, buerhle day, etc) there are many many passionate fans and we will come out for the ballgame and this team. If the Sox can be successful and sustain success, I have no doubt mind that given the population in the CMA and even with it being a split market, the Sox can and will draw lots. But the problem is they have to get to that success first. I ascribe passionately to “if they win they will come”. Just wish it would happen for real for us.

Neat_on_the_rocks

A huge reason family sundays work, in my opinion, is that its on Sunday. They could make entrance free on all their weeknight games and suburban, not centrally located fans, still wouldn’t go.

GrinnellSteve

This is where I’m contractually obligated to report you can see Will Bennett & The Tells and Blind Adam & The Federal League for no cover at
The Owl on N. Milwaukee tomorrow night. They kick off a short upper Midwest tour.

Watch the Sox stick it to Cleveland on TV then head out for some live rock and roll.

soxfan

The cost of the ticket isn’t a barrier for me, but the cost of getting my ass off the couch, negotiating traffic or public transportation, and keeping my kids up late precludes me from going to many games. Then again I’m anti social.

Neat_on_the_rocks

I dont even have kids, just me and the wife, and same. The problem is getting to the park. Its a huge pain in the ass. To take public transit I have to train into union station, walk 10 min the the red line, then sit through the red line. its probably 2 hours total. On weeknights, traffic makes driving a complete non starter.

So I end up just going to weekend games, which in and of itself limits the options quite a bit.

lil jimmy

It’s easy to sit alone at a Sox game.

knoxfire30

Rodon will probably see the same guy that saw Dunning, go on a program for a few months to delay the inevitable and make sure he misses the entire 2020 season.

knoxfire30

Guess some sarcasm was lost on that post.

knoxfire30

As a former athlete who always tried to play thru everything and would always suggest rehab over surgery if possible believe me the last thing I want is for him to actually need TJS. Just my dour attitude for the sox that he is going to need it, and it would suck extra bad if it turned into a year and a half fiasco like Dunnings situation.

lil jimmy

Jim’s the baby sitter. we’re the babies!

Torpedo Jones

Agreed that forced surgery is creepy. But I agree with the spirit of @knoxfire30 – that it seems inevitable that he’ll end up needing TJS given our luck. If I recall correctly, Tanaka chose to forgo surgery a couple years ago. Did he end up avoiding it entirely? What other success stories are out there regarding pitchers taking an alternate route and coming out okay?

GrinnellSteve

At the mention of forced surgery the first thing that popped into my head was Boxing Helena, a terrible movie made terribler by not having the conviction to see its disgusting premise all the way through.

GrinnellSteve

Tigers, Indians, and Rangers kicking the tires on Big Game James.

karkovice squad

The Sox should just teach everyone a knuckleball and call it a day. It’d also get them over the need for a catcher who can frame instead of just buying the biggest mitt possible.

GrinnellSteve

I was thinking about Wilbur Wood today. Wouldn’t it be in some team’s interest to take every failed prospect they can find and teach them the knuckleball? Try to hit on one who could make 40+ starts or pitch in 90+ games. Where pitching staffs are so overtaxed, the possible return on a knuckleballer could be enormous.

Along those same lines would it be possible to use a softball delivery and befuddle hitters? Or would that be like slow-pitch batting practice? Just trying to think outside the bun.

karkovice squad

I kind of wonder how effective knuckleballers would be with a) the new ball and b) the launch angle revolution. I could see it getting ugly fast.

I do think there’s limited use for Eephus pitches or whatever Rondon was trying to do. Gearing down from mid-90s fastballs to sub-60mph whatevers isn’t easy. I wouldn’t want to see a starter try to get by with his arsenal, tho.

ParisSox

They still hit the balls hard, just right at somebody. Rondon’s outing could have gone a lot worse. And not just runs scored but if one of those weak pitches is squared up and comes right back at him, not good. The basic assumption I’m making is that it is easier to square up his pitches, hence increased percentage of danger for him.

MrStealYoBase

1. The results so far this year have given me hope that at least one of the late-round, lower-ranked arms in the system will emerge as a competent major league starter. This of course is contingent on them getting through the buzzsaw that is the current international league. Doesn’t make all the TJS any easier to stomach but maybe the rotation situation wont end up being that dire. They still should make a move for Cole regardless.

2. The business side of things is intrinsic to the game. However, it’s disappointing to see the lack of owners nowadays who treat their teams as vanity projects rather than cash cows. It seems like they are a dying breed. The Steinbrenner’s and Illich’s, although annoying from the perspective of a rival fanbase, are the guys who showed a passion for winning that is easy to respect as a fan of the game itself.

It’s even more annoying since owners that do invest in their teams certainly end up seeing a return on that investment. The Ricketts bought the Cubs for $900M 10 years ago, invested in the on-field product and in the fan experience, and now have a franchise valued at $3.1B. Loria and the Marlins struggled to fill seats at their new stadium and win games but he still received $1.2B on a $185.5M investment after 15 years.

Worrying about the yearly cash flow is stupid in my opinion. Good teams and high attendance build brand value, which is a significant component of the overall value of a franchise. For corporate owners, writing off losses is tax-advantageous. For private owners, the long-term return they would see is far greater than the payments they would have to make on a low-interest loan (which are widely available to high-wealth individuals).

tl;dr Maximizing yearly profits seems to be where baseball is going and it is frustrating.

ParisSox

This is an interesting discussion. To take it further, if baseball teams are making money without fan attendance, then wouldn’t increased attendance increase the revenue streams (advertising, merch, etc.) that are already making it possible to make money without fans? If that holds true then it could be in the team’s interest to fill the park with cheap tickets (the 1.9m attendance penalty excepted.) Get people in the seats before even testing the “win and they will come” premise. Stay with me here ..

Now all the owners are saying, you can just cut ticket prices! we aren’t a baseball charity! Ok fine, how about a White Sox subscription for x dollars per month? Depending on your subscription level you get entry into x amount of games, free stuff, mlb app free subscription, etc. etc.

So if I’m forking over 20 bucks a month (or whatever) because baseball, I’m getting my ass to some games, I’m buying food, maybe paying parking, buying merchandise for the kid, etc. etc. Boom, more revenue, more butts in the seats to sell the product on tv, and everything else that goes with it.

The downside, we as fans are inadvertently rewarding the team for their intentional suck. So forget I said anything.

karkovice squad

It’s not in their interest to fill the stands with bargain-rate tickets because it would degrade their brand. They want to be Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s not Aldi or Costco.

They’re selling the quality of their audience to their licensees.

ParisSox

Ah right. The “No riff raff” school of economics. 

Lurker Laura

Speaking as a former (and possibly current) riff raff, they are missing out. Riff raff are very loyal.

Torpedo Jones

Agreed. But they don’t need us riff-raff anymore, I guess. And given the amount of money involved, I would hope their business partners do enough market research to know that Sox fans aren’t necessarily the Whole Foods crowd. (Speaking as a jabroni who is not part of the Whole Foods crowd. Preservatives and chemicals only make me stronger.)

soxfan

How much of this dynamic can be explained by the phenomena described in books like “Bowling Alone” or “Fractured Republic”? Is declining attendance and a predilection for watching baseball at home a sign that the product is bad or that the culture is changing and we no longer feel the need to feel connected to something larger than ourselves (or don’t feel we need to be with people to feel connected to something larger)?

ParisSox

we no longer feel the need to feel connected to something larger than ourselves (or don’t feel we need to be with people to feel connected to something larger)?

I don’t think basic human needs ever go away. Probably a deep philosophical discussion to be had here.

soxfan

On one hand I agree with you. On the other there’s significant evidence of the decline of what Levin calls “moderating institutions” in Fractured Republic. Whether it’s Boy Scouts, church attendance, bowling leagues or whatever people are joining less and spending less time around each other. Technology and social media seem to be an accelerator for the phenomenon but there’s evidence that it started before the dot com boom. Bowling Alone was published in 2001 so it was already observable then.

ParisSox

I’m going to have to read those. Being more “connected” sometimes drives us farther apart. Someone said about Facebook “I can keep up with relatives.” to which I answered, ok, but how often do you call them now to catch up, to actually hear their voice? Because you send a happy birthday post on their Facebook page, you feel less of a need to actually reach out physically to that person. I think we are all guilty of it to some extent.

soxfan

Thanks for the tip. Looks like a good read.

As Cirensica

I play in a bowling league, and the average age of people is pretty high. I am considered one of the young ones, and I am close to 50. Recruiting new teams have been incredibly difficult to the point I believe we have few years left until the league disappears. Not long ago we were more than 10 teams, this year we were 5

lil jimmy

as someone who lived in Berwyn for 13 years, I can tell you Bowling has been trending down for decades.

As Cirensica

Not according to this

Although that might be for various different reasons like diversification (bowling alleys offer some other forms of entertainment)

karkovice squad

All the studies I’ve seen show a strong correlation between attendance and both runs and win%. And the latter are strongly correlated with payroll.

I haven’t seen a specific breakdown of pre- and post-smartphone but given the overall trend isn’t weakening, it doesn’t seem like attendance behavior is all that different.

So I’d blame MLB for degrading the quality of its product.

Torpedo Jones

It’s been pointed out by many others before me, but MLB has a decision to make regarding their priorities. Do they want to see their franchises valued primarily as revenue generators for the already-wealthy, or do they want to invest in building a competitive, quality on-field product that draws in more fans across the market and generational spectrum?

Right now, there’s so much money to be had even with a bad product that there’s minimal incentive to risk big spending to build a winner. I think it was Trooper Galactus who asked the question a few months back if Reinsdorf sees the other owners or the players as his competition. This sums up the dilemma perfectly. Jerry seems most concerned with limiting his financial risk and suppressing player contracts, rather than putting his wallet on the line to get a Machado or any other top-shelf free agent. This also reminds me of the Sox brass comment (was it Hahn?) noting they weren’t interested in simply being used to bid up the contract for Bryce Harper. Because, you know, that would potentially hurt another franchise by making them spend more while helping a player get more money.

I remain convinced that winning is, for Reinsdorf and many other owners, a happy side-benefit that they may stumble upon while spending just enough money to keep their revenue streams comfortable. If MLB wants to regain the trust of casual fans that their teams are actually trying to win they’re going to have to penalize tanking or start doling out huge incentives for winning. That or they could start escalating salaries for good young talent faster or get them to free agency more quickly. But I doubt the owners care to do any of these things. The short term money is too good. For now, at least.

tl;dr: it feels like we as fans are stuck because it’s too easy for teams to make money without our attendance and associated revenue.

karkovice squad

It’s baseball brought to you by Bain Capital. Totally extractive. That approached worked out fine for the money people but not so hot for Toys R Us, Kmart, and Sears.