Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jack Parkman

Can the 20s be the best decade in Sox history?

Recommended Posts

Right now, the current bar is the 2000s that came with 3 division titles(2000, 2005, 2008)  and a WS title in 2005. The Sox also won 86 games in 2003 and 90 in 2006 while failing to make the postseason. 

What would it take the Sox achieving to surpass that over the next decade, in your opinion? 

First thing on my list: Consecutive postseason appearances for the first time in franchise history. 

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

First thing on my list: Consecutive postseason appearances for the first time in franchise history

Wow, I can't believe we haven't done that, so yes this is #1 followed by back to back World Series Championships.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Right now, the current bar is the 2000s that came with 3 division titles(2000, 2005, 2008)  and a WS title in 2005. The Sox also won 86 games in 2003 and 90 in 2006 while failing to make the postseason. 

What would it take the Sox achieving to surpass that over the next decade, in your opinion? 

First thing on my list: Consecutive postseason appearances for the first time in franchise history. 

Can't project much about the 2nd half of the decade right now. We can project a lot about the first 5 years though. Basically every important piece of this team is under control through at least 2023 and many under control beyond that.

The next 5 years have a chance to provide multiple postseason appearances. We may very well see the winningest stretch of baseball for the Sox in this decade, but without that World Series title, the 2000s trump all. Let's hope we win a ring or 2 or 3 or 4 this decade.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the boat that I just want to have a competitive team, consistently. That's what I watch for. 

I know a lot of people on here would MUCH rather have 1 World series win and no other playoff appearances, but for me, I'd prefer to have 10 years of playoffs and 0 WS wins.

I love when this team is competitive and can follow along and watch the games with joy. I can do that with or without a WS. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

I'm in the boat that I just want to have a competitive team, consistently. That's what I watch for. 

I know a lot of people on here would MUCH rather have 1 World series win and no other playoff appearances, but for me, I'd prefer to have 10 years of playoffs and 0 WS wins.

I love when this team is competitive and can follow along and watch the games with joy. I can do that with or without a WS. 

I know that's just like your opinion, man. But it's the wrong opinion.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Chisox378 said:

Wow, I can't believe we haven't done that, so yes this is #1 followed by back to back World Series Championships.

Well, in the 50s and 60s you went straight to the World Series. The Sox had 17 straight winning seasons and we're consistently blocked by the Yankees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everytime I hear the "20's" I feel old. And yes it will be the best decade, but it's not hard to top the others. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Quin said:

Well, in the 50s and 60s you went straight to the World Series. The Sox had 17 straight winning seasons and we're consistently blocked by the Yankees.

What about the 50 years that followed? We were close in 2006 but it is about time we go on a six year run of success. We are due. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, KrankinSox said:

I know that's just like your opinion, man. But it's the wrong opinion.

Totally wrong.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

I'm in the boat that I just want to have a competitive team, consistently. That's what I watch for. 

I know a lot of people on here would MUCH rather have 1 World series win and no other playoff appearances, but for me, I'd prefer to have 10 years of playoffs and 0 WS wins.

I love when this team is competitive and can follow along and watch the games with joy. I can do that with or without a WS. 

I hear what you are saying. I'm not quite with you. A lot of people would take one WS win and no other playoff appearances as you say. I would gladly take 1 WS win, preferably early in the decade and three more playoff appearances and be very happy. And ideally have us in contention each of the other years of the decade. If the Sox have to tank again in the relatively near future, that will be annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very likely to be THE decade. We have a tremendous core and plenty of money.  Somewhere in this decade is probably when JR turns over the reins.  I'm sure going out on top is part of the plan.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, poppysox said:

It's very likely to be THE decade. We have a tremendous core and plenty of money.  Somewhere in this decade is probably when JR turns over the reins.  I'm sure going out on top is part of the plan.

I hope JR realizes his mortality and pulls an Illitch. Not with FA spending, but retaining their own good players. 

Just my opinion, but the following players have a chance to be top 3-5 in baseball at their position: 

Moncada

Robert

Giolito

Kopech

 

If the Sox could find a way to keep them all for the majority of their careers, I can live with the back end of those contracts being bad and going down the Tigers path. 

If they all reach that height, if they kept just those 4 around I'd be happy. 

 

I'm also smart enough to know that if Giolito didn't go to school last winter and change things up, I would have looked like a moron as he washed out of baseball and became the biggest disappointment in awhile. I expect him to continue to get better now that he doesn't have to worry about mechanics anymore. 

Edited by Jack Parkman
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Quin said:

Well, in the 50s and 60s you went straight to the World Series. The Sox had 17 straight winning seasons and we're consistently blocked by the Yankees.

I looked it up and the Sox came in 2nd place 8 times before the ALCS was implemented in '69. This includes the 1963-65 teams that won 94, 98, and 95 games. 

I wonder what would have happened if they implemented it at the start of the decade vs the end. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

What about the 50 years that followed? We were close in 2006 but it is about time we go on a six year run of success. We are due. 

I mean yeah, that's bad.

But sometimes, people act like the Sox have a history akin to the Mariners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quin said:

I mean yeah, that's bad.

But sometimes, people act like the Sox have a history akin to the Mariners.

However, if you put it in terms of playoff appearances over number of opportunities...since the inception of the franchise...we're dead last.

Sure, we can look the records from the 1950's to 1967 season and retroactively count those high 80's and 90+ win teams as "playoff-like" teams, but it still doesn't change the overall narrative.

And there's arguably more baseball fans who still fondly remember Griffey, Jr., A-Rod, Big Unit, Edgar Martinez, Ichiro and those late 90's/early 2000's teams...due to the sheer number of HofF players, compared to the White Sox with "stars" like Buehrle, Konerko, Ordonez, C-Lee, Dye and AJ (the Big Hurt being the one exception in terms of star power).  

And they have a nicer stadium, as well.

All that said, the Mariners are in a terrible position right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A stadium is a stadium. I'd rather not further entrench the idea that residents need to pay money to get a better stadium for some unknown reason. Sports, food and beer. This is Chicago, I don't need the stadium  to be a culinary destination. We have plenty of those already. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

However, if you put it in terms of playoff appearances over number of opportunities...since the inception of the franchise...we're dead last.

Sure, we can look the records from the 1950's to 1967 season and retroactively count those high 80's and 90+ win teams as "playoff-like" teams, but it still doesn't change the overall narrative.

And there's arguably more baseball fans who still fondly remember Griffey, Jr., A-Rod, Big Unit, Edgar Martinez, Ichiro and those late 90's/early 2000's teams...due to the sheer number of HofF players, compared to the White Sox with "stars" like Buehrle, Konerko, Ordonez, C-Lee, Dye and AJ (the Big Hurt being the one exception in terms of star power).  

And they have a nicer stadium, as well.

All that said, the Mariners are in a terrible position right now.

The Sox have been around for 118 seasons and have yet to get into double digits in playoff appearances. 3 of them were 100+ years ago. They have 6 playoff appearances in the last century. Half of them came from 2000-2008. 

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

However, if you put it in terms of playoff appearances over number of opportunities...since the inception of the franchise...we're dead last.

Sure, we can look the records from the 1950's to 1967 season and retroactively count those high 80's and 90+ win teams as "playoff-like" teams, but it still doesn't change the overall narrative.

And there's arguably more baseball fans who still fondly remember Griffey, Jr., A-Rod, Big Unit, Edgar Martinez, Ichiro and those late 90's/early 2000's teams...due to the sheer number of HofF players, compared to the White Sox with "stars" like Buehrle, Konerko, Ordonez, C-Lee, Dye and AJ (the Big Hurt being the one exception in terms of star power).  

And they have a nicer stadium, as well.

All that said, the Mariners are in a terrible position right now.

Comiskey Park >>> Both of the Mariners parks. And the narrative that the Cell is terrible has been worn out for years since renovations.

Yes, they have Griffey and Ichiro, A-Rod made his legacy with the Yankees. But we can give them to him.

But sure.

If the Mariners get Johnson, we get Fisk. Frank is one of the single best hitters of all time. Nellie Fox and Luis Aparicio are in. Minoso, despite not being in, was one of the best players of the 50s. Luke Appling, Ed Walsh, and Eddie Collins are some of the best players of all time. Shoeless Joe would be in the hall if he could read.

Remember, if the playoff system that has existed for the entirety of the Mariners' existence had been around for the Sox, we're counting things differently.

You might be shocked to learn the Sox have the 11th best win percentage in league history. The Mariners, for all the star power you listed, are 25th. The Padres are dead last. Unlike those two teams, the White Sox have won the World Series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Spicy gar said:

A stadium is a stadium. I'd rather not further entrench the idea that residents need to pay money to get a better stadium for some unknown reason. Sports, food and beer. This is Chicago, I don't need the stadium  to be a culinary destination. We have plenty of those already. 

Well, this being said, The Cell is consistently rated very highly in terms of food offered at the stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if they win a World Series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quin said:

Comiskey Park >>> Both of the Mariners parks. And the narrative that the Cell is terrible has been worn out for years since renovations.

Yes, they have Griffey and Ichiro, A-Rod made his legacy with the Yankees. But we can give them to him.

But sure.

If the Mariners get Johnson, we get Fisk. Frank is one of the single best hitters of all time. Nellie Fox and Luis Aparicio are in. Minoso, despite not being in, was one of the best players of the 50s. Luke Appling, Ed Walsh, and Eddie Collins are some of the best players of all time. Shoeless Joe would be in the hall if he could read.

Remember, if the playoff system that has existed for the entirety of the Mariners' existence had been around for the Sox, we're counting things differently.

You might be shocked to learn the Sox have the 11th best win percentage in league history. The Mariners, for all the star power you listed, are 25th. The Padres are dead last. Unlike those two teams, the White Sox have won the World Series.

I can objectively say they have a better stadium, if for no other reason than the retractable roof...and definitely not for the more overpriced/trendy food.   Based on having spent many games at OldComiskey, Kauffman (which was the original model and has a very similar upper deck) and GRF...and a handful in Seattle at Safeco.  I guess the best argument for Chicago now is that it's more of a home field advantage with the lower bowl full than a sparsely attended Mariners game in that bigger facility.

The problem is that the history of the M's goes back only until, what, 1977?

If you chop off 75+ years of White Sox history to make it an equivalent comparison in term of player comps, any list over time becomes much less impressive.

Just like if you only considered Griffey's rookie year through around the 2003 season for the Mariners...of course, you can do the same for the White Sox from 1990-2008 and argue they even had the 3rd or 4th or 5th best overall MLB record (behind the Braves, Yankees, Cardinals or Red Sox) over a nearly two decade-long stretch.

Of course, the obviously problem for the White Sox is that, other than 2005 and the last 2-3 weeks of 2008, they've been completely overshadowed by the Cubs in the city of Chicago, so we'll always have that stigma of being the second team in the market, like the Mets and A's.

 

 

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

I can objectively say they have a better stadium, if for no other reason than the retractable roof...and definitely not for the more overpriced/trendy food.

The problem is that the history of the M's goes back only until, what, 1977?

If you chop off 75+ years of White Sox history to make it an equivalent comparison in term of player comps, any list over time becomes much less impressive.

Just like if you only considered Griffey's rookie year through around the 2003 season for the Mariners...of course, you can do the same for the White Sox from 1990-2008 and argue they even had the 3rd or 4th or 5th best overall MLB record (behind the Braves, Yankees, Cardinals or Red Sox) over a nearly two decade-long stretch.

Of course, the obviously problem for the White Sox is that, other than 2005 and the last 2-3 weeks of 2008, they've been completely overshadowed by the Cubs in the city of Chicago, so we'll always have that stigma of being the second team in the market, like the Mets and A's.

 

 

The Mets, Angels, A's and Sox all have had similar issues over the years as 2nd fiddle in a large market. Think of what the Angels are doing with Trout and think back to the Sox with Sale/Abreu. The parallels are staggering. What sucks is that the Sox don't throw money at the problem like the Mets and Angels do. If the Sox had drafted Mike Trout in 2009 instead of Jared Mitchell, and all else being equal, would they have kept him? 

Edited by Jack Parkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

The Mets, Angels, A's and Sox all have had similar issues over the years as 2nd fiddle in a large market. Think of what the Angels are doing with Trout and think back to the Sox with Sale/Abreu. The parallels are staggering. What sucks is that the Sox don't throw money at the problem like the Mets and Angels do. If the Sox had drafted Mike Trout in 2009 instead of Jared Mitchell, and all else being equal, would they have kept him? 

And the White Sox and Angels were actually pretty similar until Moreno bought them and started going all Ilitch on their budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

Right now, the current bar is the 2000s that came with 3 division titles(2000, 2005, 2008)  and a WS title in 2005. The Sox also won 86 games in 2003 and 90 in 2006 while failing to make the postseason. 

What would it take the Sox achieving to surpass that over the next decade, in your opinion? 

 First thing on my list: Consecutive postseason appearances for the first time in franchise history

Win 2 World Series in the roaring 20s and we have our best decade ever. I'm not saying it's likely, but I'd love to see the Sox have a 20s, like the Blackhawks had in the 10s.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×