Chisoxfn

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 02:12 PM) If only the White Sox had only taken a 20% after their title years. Then even when the team was awful, the attendance started going up again. They gained fans after a .366 and .280 winning percentage. The White Sox lost fans after winning a division title. But, let's hear about all of things that make it different for the White Sox again. Curry and Chandler were exciting times. Many fans thought if that went right, we would have another dynasty on our hands. It was even looking like that potential in 05 when they made the playoffs and Curry made major strides. Then Curry had the heart issue and signed his mega deal to New York. Bulls took short step back and then got Rose and were right back into being extremely competitive. Bulls had only a few teams that were horrifically uninteresting (and those were the very early years post-Jordan where we whiffed on some major free agents). I can't compare the two. If Sox had a NY Yankee like run and then stunk for 5 years, attendance would take a hit, but the attendance wouldn't be where it is today and it wouldn't have peaked where it did in 05/06.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:56 PM) I think there's a better chance of Avi turning things around as a hitter, as opposed to defensively. Probably true. Also probably far more likely he ends up like Dayan then anything else. Bright side is he's young and we stink, so we clearly should keep giving him at bats. His value diminishes pretty significantly if he's purely a DH though and give n the negative value of his D, you really have to have a good bat to be a good DH.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:58 PM) Even when the Bulls were a perpetual laughing stock, they were amongst the NBA's attendance leaders. Yes, but by that point they were coming off of 6 titles and one of the most dominate runs in sports history. Additionally, they had 13+ years with the greatest player on the planet so the fan base and generations growing up got to watch a run of special (even before the Bulls started winning titles). Hell, even during their drought, their were reasons to watch the team. People had to watch to see if Curry / Chandler would pan out (hype existed). Since Jordan was drafted by the Bulls, they have made the playoffs 24 times in 31 years. If the Bulls reverted to a run of 15 or 20 years with limited playoff appearances or even a 10 year run with 1 playoff appearance you might have saw something different. Heck, had they not been aggressive and tried the Curry / Chandler twin towers experiment, attendance might have finally gotten a hit. You also have to remember the fact that you don't have other competition like Sox do (w/Cubs).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:53 PM) It isn't just the Cubs. The Bulls and Bears do the exact same thing. We all know what a great fan sight the United Center is, right? All of the great bars to hang out at Solider Field? All of those titles the Bears and Bulls have put up in the 2000's... Their attendance doesn't falter based on the record of the team. The Sox fan base continues to be different. Bulls won 6 titles and along with the Lakers and Celtics have the best brand awareness in the league (and history of the greatest player and probably the best global brand in the NBA). The Bulls also have been one of the most successful basketball franchises over the past 10 years (in terms of won / loss, unfortunately they haven't gotten the title but consistent playoffs have been made). They had the dark era after the dynasty but I really don't see how you can compare the two and the Bears were a once great team but it is also the NFL and 16 games and almost everything in the NFL sells out, let alone when you are talking about a major market like Chicago (with no split). In the case of the Bears, 8 games in a market like Chicago...how pathetic would it be if you didn't sell out? Plus the product of the NFL is the most popular thing in the states when it comes to sports and has been for at least the past decade and more realistically since the 94 lockout.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 11:11 AM) Trade Avi or make him the DH. Avi is down to 159th out of 164 in terms of WAR, and showing no signs of improvement. Most of his hits of late have been bloopers. Eaton's defense should improve as the season goes on, but Avi's never even had a stretch of solid defense. How does making him DH help? I agree that AVI's defense is a huge negative and a reason why he'll probably never amount to that much, but I don't know that his bat plays at DH either. That said, if their is a taker for LaRoche and it provides freedom to see if Avi can play at DH and allow us to upgrade outfield defense, I'm okay with it.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 12:11 PM) I noticed today that on ESPN's Park Factors, the Cell was dead last in hitter's park factors in 2015, basically making it the #1 pitcher's park in baseball. Is this a sign of how absolutely putrid this offense is? I'm no expert on this, so am I missing something? Here's a rank of the previous years. (above 1.0 favors hitters, below 1.0 favors pitchers) 2015 - .733 (30th) 2014 - 1.052 (7th) 2013 - .998 (14th) 2012 - 1.268 (2nd) 2011 - .991 (14th) edit: Here's the link http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor Combo of Sox offense and our pitching staff (w/effects of small sample size and our pitching staff having some horrific road performances).

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:43 PM) Forget about the Cubs. It's almost like comparing apples to oranges. In the '80s, due primarily to the combination of the ultimate salesman in Harry Caray and the power of WGN, they very successfully marketed the Wrigley Field/Wrigleyville experience. The popularity skyrocketed in the mid 80s and has carried to this very day. People go there primarily to experience the ballpark and neighborhood. The Sox have neither of those two things working for them. If the Cubs had neither, they'd have attendance issues, too, given their poor track record for winning. But they do have those two advantages, and therefore you cannot compare the two teams fairly on the attendance front. As for this "excuse du jour", your argument continues to be upside down on all of this. Do you think Sox attendance is what it is this year because Sox fans wake up every day and make a different excuse for not going out to the ballpark? That's ridiculous. They are not going because Reinsdorf, Williams, and Hahn have given them no compelling reason to do so because the team they've given us is about as dreadful as it could get. Sox fans don't need to make an excuse - the team being awful is enough to keep them away. And with no other draw in the form of an amazing ballpark and/or great neighborhood experience, then the low attendance is no surprise. Well said.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:15 PM) Not one person alive said, I am hungry, let's get something eat. Where shall we go...U.S. Cellular field. The food is good but it is not drawing in fans same as the food at Wrigley is not driving the fans away. Stadium food may not draw in fans but I have been to a lot of MLB stadiums (20+) and the cell is near the top of my list when it comes to foods. It might be the foods I get that are in particular, but the sausages with the sweet peppers and onions are amongst the best in baseball (and the other food I've had has been solid). I actually am in general a very huge fan of the lower bowl at the cell in comparison to many of the stadiums I've been too. Clearly the cell won't compare to places like San Fran or Camden or even a Fenway (which has the history...although I would be apalled if I was a season ticket holder because if I go to many games, I want to have some of those amenities like comfortable seats w/leg room for this generation (and I'm not a big guy). Product is what in most cases drives tickets or no tickets. Product on field has suffered past few years and we never were able to get past consistently contending and consistently making the the playoffs (which would have been a huge game changer).

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:30 PM) Perhaps the NBA should make verbal agreements binding. It really screws with teams. I don't believe you can. I'm not a lawyer but from what I recall from my business law class, certain agreements can be verbal and binding in a court of law and I remember something about a dollar threshold and year threshold (also things like real estate, IIRC, had to no matter what be in writing). I thought no verbal agreement in excess of 1 year can be binding. I also presume that the offered contract far exceeds any threshold on $'s. So bottom line, even if Mark wanted to say it was a verbal agreement, the actual agreement would be completely illegal and unenforceable. Note: I'll let one of our attorney's blow my argument up but I think generally speaking I'm correct.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 01:20 PM) Yeah I think teams will start making sure players sign the contract ASAP after they verbally agree after this whole debacle. That is the problem, you aren't allowed to sign the contract until 12:01 AM Thursday. Right now you can only verbally agree. I presume this was done so you could meet w/multiple people without offers being made but I say forget it, let people go crazy and not know what is going to happen.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 12:52 PM) Personally, I think a verbal commitment is a commitment and a deal is a deal, but didn't Billy Donovan make a commitment to coach an NBA team years ago, but backed out? In college football, verbal commitments seemingly mean next to nothing. I'm sure Jordan's Clipper teammates called him and had a lot to do with his flip flop, but that has never been considered tampering. In fact, I would bet Cuban has had Mav players talk to guys in the past. I do think Jordan is a doofus if he backs out. It does screw Dallas a bit, and with the salary cap I find that a bit unfair. The big thing that it does to Dallas too is they wouldn't have signed Wes Matthews if they didn't have Jordan (at least I don't think). I agree on Jordan's part, an agreement is an agreement, that said, I don't see how the verbal commitment is binding (given the type of contract being discussed). Reality is it is a risk that exists if the league is going to have this non-sense of you can verbally agree, but not sign. I think its all junk and you should be able to recruit and sign people at the same time. I know it in theory allows everyone to get their ducks in a row but if people are going to agree they are going to agree anyway.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 11:42 AM) Apparently he is talking legal action for tampering. the grand offseason of Doc River, GM extraordinaire, continues How the heck have they tampered? Guy isn't under contract and he was last with the Clippers.

DeAndre to have final meeting w/Clippers. Has their been a high profile player who reached a verbal agreement who then switched. Not one of those, people reported but one of those, everyone reported and even Mark commented on it (and got fined) type of deal? Just curious. I presume their has, I just can't think of it. I guess you had Boozer leaving Cleveland for Utah, but that was a bit different.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 10:49 AM) It's either the fans fault or the Cubs fans credit. It certainly isn't because the Cubs have been more successful on the field since then. predates my time, but how much were the Sox impacted by Cubs being on WGN and Sox being on cable vision or whatever the pay per view like network they were on which I presume significantly narrowed the fan base. You also wonder how much Harray Carray actually helped drive the value as well (as he kind of symbolized everything as well). And also you have to give some credit to the Cubs for marketing the events as giant parties and I guess the overall corporate culture of Chicago which ensures enough people can get to the games and have a blast (and the location of Wrigley maybe helps in this way, not sure). Ahhh, I should stop rambling.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 10:42 AM) The fact is there are always excuses...the Cubs were playing, there was wrestling in Rosemont, it looked like it might rain, those are fine, legitimate excuses, but they are excuses, and it is one reason why the White Sox seem to always have to do things half-assed, and hope they get lucky. Their excuse is just as valid as any of ours. The Sox have their own reasons to make excuses but I never saw the Angels make massive excuses when they were a huge secondary market team in comparison to the Dodgers (far more so then the Sox / Cubs based upon my eye test) prior to the Angels winning a world series. Then the Angels won a world series and went on a collective long-term run of winning baseball and at the same time a collective long-term run of 3M+ fans and being one of the top teams in terms of attendance and revenues (and even got a pretty massive TV contract as a result) all while playing second fiddle to a gigantic behemoth of the Dodgers (much more of a behemoth in terms of revenues, etc then the Cubs). The Angels even drew during the ocassional down year (although in those down years they had a plan and some exciting players and a team to watch, just some guys who didn't work). I think their owner is a jackhole, but you know what, if the Sox built a winning team and did it over the long haul they'd see their fan base grow and with consistent winning comes consistent generations who will cheer and follow your team. I don't want to hear excuses and cries from a front office, I want to see results. You have limitations, you need to adjust your strategy and work through those limitations. The Sox have played at a payroll where they absolutely could be contending year in and year out (and relevatively speaking during the great extent of the KW run we did...however, unlike the Angels, we didn't get those multiple division titles that truly help cement the fan base) but you know what we could have and while some more money might have helped, better decisions or performance might have helped too. A lot of luck goes into things but I don't see many franchises more public about impacts of attendance on the team. Heck, attendance is #3 in what drives revenue (behind national and local tv money). Build an exciting team and consistent winner and the other stuff happens. It isn't easy to do it but when it doesn't work, I don't want to hear excuses, I want to see changes and results.

You know what drives attendance more then anything...winning and exciting baseball and the Sox provide none of it. I have a hard time freaking watching the games and I am as diehard as it gets. They are terrible and play terrible baseball. With some of the consistent mental and just poor fundamental mistakes these guys make, it is just hard to watch. I can purely sit and watch Sale and be mesmerized and then the team hits or fields and I just get annoyed and irritated as can be. I've watched a lot of bad Sox teams and been able to enjoy watching the game, I have a hard time enjoying much anything with Sox baseball right now and if that is how I feel, I can't imagine how Joe fan feels and why they would go, other then the, we haven't caught a game this year, lets go.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 09:23 AM) Urias is the #3 prospect in baseball, c'mon, you'd be lucky to get him if you offered Quintana. I've long said Q to the Dodgers would make a lot of sense. I'd even do something like Q and Shark to the Dodgers for Urias, Puig and 2 more prospects. Not sure if Dodgers would but that would significantly bolster their rotation this year and give them flexibility long term (which they want a long-term starter who is under contract...i.e., Q). Also, please note, I do not think the Dodgers would trade Urias for Shark. I absolutely love Urias.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 08:50 AM) Yes and the team collapsed down the stretch and all the pundits pointed at that move as huge reason why. MLBTR says AA will deal from the ML roster though. If thats the case, I can see a deal with Navarro coming back in some sort of package for Shark. I never said the move worked. You said people don't do it and I gave you a direct recent example where it happened. White Sox and Yankees did it when they swapped Contreras for Loaiza. Sox were still at the time (attempting to contend), although they were also looking to get a guy they thought had more long-term upside and could be here in another year.

QUOTE (BigFinn @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 09:10 PM) I've been flipping through the mlb pipeline website for prospects among the contending teams in the #3 to #5 range, and boy is it slim pickings. The Yankees top 5 prospects: #1 Luis Severino, an undersized 2-pitch pitcher #2 Aaron Judge, a 6'7" RF who has a lot of power with a lot of swing and miss #3 Jorge Mateo, a 20 year old shortstop in the Sally League who may have to move off short because of a weak arm #4 Greg Bird, a defensively challenged first baseman #5 Robert Refsnyder, a defensively challenged second baseman How about Houston: #1 Carlos Correa, SS, he's not going anywhere #2 Mark Appel, RHP, he's not going anywhere #3 Domingo Santana, he's a .300 hitting outfielder with some swing and miss problems #4 Vincent Velazquez, RHP, he's not going anywhere #5 Michael Feliz, RHP, I doubt that he's going anywhere The Dodgers (say it like Vin Scully): #1 Corey Seager, SS, will not be traded in a Samardzija deal #2 Julio Urias, LHP, probably will not be traded in a Samardzija deal #3 Grant Holmes, RHP, pitching in the Midwest League #4 Jose DeLeon, RHP, pitching at AA Tulsa, intriguing, fastball-slider-change. He's been a wee bit tateriffic since his promotion #5 Alex Verdugo, OF, playing in the Midwest League Three contenders, one intriguing prospect. That's not to say that Corey Seager isn't intriguing, but he won't be coming over in a trade for Samardzija. Toronto is looking like a good trading partner for the Shark. Urias would be intriguing and the Dodgers have other guys as well. I don't think they would give him up but I'd trade Jeff for Urias in a heart beat. Mega upside out of that kid (same time that is why Dodgers won't).

QUOTE (BigFinn @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 06:15 PM) That's a good value for Samardzija. CBS Sports baseball guru Jon Heyman has suggested Jeff Hoffman or Max Pentecost (#3 and #4, respectively, on the MLB.com Blue Jays top prospect list) as the centerpiece for a Chicago-Toronto trade. Hoffman has 9 starts at high-A Dunedin this season since coming off Tommy John surgery. Here's his stat line. Pentecost had his shoulder cleaned out last fall by Dr. James Andrews (his second shoulder surgery). He hasn't played since. His bat showed promise in his first season of pro ball: the stat line for Pentecost. Heyman must have read my post.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 08:08 PM) Do you two really believe the Blue Jays' FO is fickle enough to become more interested in Shark because of one start against their own team? Yes. Realism. To be honest, I do believe a start against your own team can actually drive you to be more interested in a player. It is a fickle business and everyone knows about what Jeff did last year (very strong season, including down the stretch with the A's). Now they know he had his early struggles but a FO could look at the recent splits and see how he has trended upward and then more guys get to watch the start against the team (just more top brass on hand) who can see the "stuff" and what he was capable of doing against what they know is one of the premiere offenses in baseball. So yes, it has impacts. Inherent one is more top people get recent eyes on a guy against a really good talent base. How much of an impact, I wouldn't quantify it as significant but I would still say it has a positive effect.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 07:47 AM) Runs Scored - Runs Allowed first 81 games: Top 5- KC, Hou, NY, LAA, Min (1749-1587) Average game 4.32-3.92 Middle 5- Tor, Bal, TB, Tex, Det (1800-1683) Average game 4.44-4.16 Bottom 5- Cle, Sea, Bos, Chi, Oak (1572-1710) Average game 3.88-4.22 White Sox 3.41-4.38 Not only is the Sox offense an embarrassment, their starting pitching has been below par besides Sale and Quintana, and the bullpen isn't that great either. How much are those runs allowed impacted by our crap defense?

QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 8, 2015 -> 08:47 AM) Jeep has had water pump issues for years. I don't get why they can figure it out. Jeep has had issues for decades. They are beautiful looking cars and do 4x4 right but they have horrific and I mean horrific build quality.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 08:32 PM) I wouldnt say constantly but didnt look good tonight. 1. Should've gotten smoked tonight. Guess this team still has a big head from their meaningless friendly wins. 2. Klinnsman still showing he has zero clue on a back line. That is the best four? That line was so bad that Chandler wasnt nowhere near being the worst of the bunch. 3. Klinnsman has he favorites(anyone with a German born parent) but if you end up on his s*** list then its lights out for you. 4. This ref sucked even by CONCACAF standards. Honduras was hacking away all match long and he let them get away with it. 5. But its always fun to be dirty/cheap ass Central American teams. Between the flopping and hacking, it's annoying watching these teams. I thought US was the superior team in the first half (and had a couple other golden ops that they didn't capitalize on). They got tired and were up and completely collapsed but by no means can I say they should have gotten smoked. Those last 20-30 minutes were ugly, but at the same time, a lot of those Honduras ops in the 2nd half were due to brutal non-calls by the officials. Defense was horrifically sloppy and technique was brutal. Just not aggressive in coming up to draw the off-sides and just very non-instinctive.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 7, 2015 -> 08:13 PM) The U.S. Men's team needs an Improvement in strength and conditioning. They constantly look out of shape. I actually think historically conditioning has been one of our strengths, however, yesterday, they looked totally out of shape.