Re: Have you considered staying away from Fenway Park?
posted at 4/10/2012 2:54 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Have you considered staying away from Fenway Park?
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Have you considered staying away from Fenway Park? : I never really had a problem with Sox ownership dating back to 1967. The team more or less won in 86, probably would have won in 78 hadn't for Piniella's luck, certainly should have won in 03 due to manager trust issues. The Sox won for real in 04 and 07 and for that Henry/Lucchinno can take the credit. The Sox have been mostly competitive in a number of those seasons between 67 and now. Division pennants, playoff wild cards. Many blamed Jacobs and called him a Scrooge for all the years the B's went without a Cup. Lo and behold, he changed his ways (finally) and the B's won a Cup. I can call ownership or the front office 7,000 names and be right, and I still respect the fact that the current regime still won 2 WS titles in 10 years. As for staying away from Fenway? I wish I could go every night and live 3,000 miles away now.
Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]
The Boston ownerships tht I've had problems with were (no particular order):
1. Bruins -- Jacobs regime until post lockout. I've been vocal on that, but to give credit where it's due, once there was a cap, he's allowed the GMs to spend to the cap.
2. Celtics -- John Brown regime.
3. Patriots -- Billy Sullivan, only because he always operated on a shoe string budget. I would mention Victor Kiam, who was a joke but he didn't own the team long enough to get too worked up.
4. Red Sox -- Jean Yawkey Regime, with Haywood Sullivan and when Harrington ran things. Firing Dick O'Connell ruined the 1970s teams at the end of the decade and set back the franchise. And when Harrington took over and he and Duquette ran things -- they let Fenway go to pot and created an team atmosphere in the front office that made the Soviet Politbure look open.
I never can understand the criticism of the Henry Regime. What do we want from an ownerhips group.
-- We don't want meddling owners. Henry put a baseball guy Lucchino to run the team, and put an enterainment guy (Werner) on the marketing side. Henry doesn't meddle like a George Steinbrenner, Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, etc.
-- He's done things to try to attract all fans, casual fans and the hardcore. As much as hardcore fans might resent the casual fans, if the casual fans didn't spend the money, the Sox wouldn't have the revenue to compete. And it's a bit selfish for the hardcore fans when they complain about allowing others into the tent.
-- Henry has fixed up Fenway. Isn't that a good thing?
-- And under this regime, the team has spent on payroll. That they haven't always spent wisely is more on the GM than owership, but still -- it happens in all sports. If he was being cheap with payroll, he'd deserve criticsim. To expect unlimited spending is ridiculous.
And if people are going to complain about prices -- like I've posted before, it's like that everywhere. Like I posted earlier, the prices for similar good seats in Arizona are the same as Boston. As for all the other marketing things that are for sale -- coffee table book on Fenway, for example, don't buy it if you don't like it. That many of these things keep selling shows the demand is there.
So what to critics expect from an ownership group that a different owner would give? For all the complaints by some, I've never heard this question answered.