LVSoxFan

I really, really miss Rowand. I know we got Thome out of the deal, but it's still weird to not see him in CF.

Buehrle vs. Santana is about as good as it gets--I was at that game here last time around. Hey at least you can't get rained out!

Ahhh... Sox withdrawal. Mercy! After last night's collapse, maybe a day off will do us some good.

Didn't it all come down to, basically, we need to have good backup? That's all I'm sayin. I'm not second-guessing anybody. I was psyched to see Jenks walk out last night after we pulled within one. I would have done the same thing. Turns out he didn't have his stuff last night. Oh well. Next game, please...

Dude, you should have seen the change downtown and on the north side where I live. It used to be that downtown sports apparel stores had like 95% Cubs stuff and once we got to the WS it completely inverted. And yes, all of a sudden you saw people walking down Michigan Ave. wearing Sox gear, and in my 'hood now you see Sox hats way more than before. But it doesn't bother me so much anymore; I think a lot of people are just showing their Chicago pride. I can tell you though, for the first time in history, the gift shop in the Tribune building actually has a Sox pullover. I have NEVER seen that before. The ONLY reason they would have any Sox stuff is probably because people were asking for it.

QUOTE(Drew @ May 11, 2006 -> 04:19 AM) Hit Scioscia when he is giving the ump the lineup. LMAO! Good idea. "Bean the bull. Yes, I want you to BEAN THE BULL."

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 11, 2006 -> 11:12 AM) Wrigleyville was once a cesspool. Now its an incon. The city is changing, the west side, and south loop are becoming nicer, and gentrification is making its way into the downtrodden areas of the city. Bridgeport and the area around the cell has changed by leaps and bounds over the last 10 years, and I expect that to continue. Not all baseball stadiums are in neighborhoods like the cubs. The yankees play in a pretty s***t area of the city, but they continue to draw lots and lots of fans. If you win, they will come. Now THIS I will concede. If the area around the Cell experiences the kind of rocket growth/gentrification that has hit, say, the West Loop, I can't argue with this. Touche. But I still think it's pointless to sit around and wait for the day that the Sox will become the "Chicago" team. And anyway: who cares? It's OUR team. If other people don't get it, then so what?

Fine. Bet's on then. Because I say: the loveable loser thing will never go away--it's their fallback. But really, WilliamTell is on the money: it has more to do with the park than anything. In other words, put the Sox at Wrigley and the Cubs at the Cell and I s*** you not the Cubs would be lucky to sell 5,000 per game. So this isn't so much about attendance/loyalty as location, location, location. And the best explanation I ever heard of this whole topic was this: The Cubs and Sox probably have an equal number of "diehard" fans. When it comes to CASUAL fans, though, the Cubs blow us away. Certainly, since last year, that has changed for us (hello, bandwagon!), but I thought that made a lot of sense. Because, for instance, out-of-towners wanting to have a "Chicago" experience will naturally gravitate to Wrigley, just like they want to have deep dish pizza or go to a blues bar. Having said all that, it's not a dig on Sox fans or their loyalty at all. It is what it is.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 11, 2006 -> 10:42 AM) Chicago was once a Sox town and will be again. These things are cyclical. I disagree. I think the Cubs are iconic in Chicago, like the lakefront or Michigan Ave. And trust me, I hate the Cubs. Even moreso their fans. Attendance-wise you're right, it has historically been cyclical, but think about it: the Cubs are in a win/win position. If they suck for years ahead (as they apparently will), they bank on that whole "loveable loser" mystique. If they somehow get in the running, then it becomes the whole "curse-ending" attraction. Or, even the fact that we won it and they haven't. Me personally I do not want the Sox to become Cubs-like in attendance. No, that does not mean I want a return to 14,000 paid games because I'm some nostalgist who's bitter that the bandwagon showed up, and it's apparently pretty damn full. Let me put it this way: I like being the Stones to their Beatles. Dig? However, I could be wrong. Let's make it a gentleman's bet. I say that, in the next decade, the Sox will never surpass the Cubs no matter how many WS we win. Also factor in the idea that, regardless of the team... location, location, location. Are we on?

I will NEVER fault Ozzie for doing anything unconventionally. Arguably, isn't that why he's turned out to be a great manager? I for one you won't see complaining about when Ozzie does things that, as you note, the board goes nuts over. I figure: hey, the man won us a World Series for f***'s sake. I'm not about to second-guess him. Or KW. I trust them. I personally like Thorton's potential and the fact, as you mention, that he's a lefty with Jenks-like heat. So the next time everyone goes apes*** when it's not Jenks, I've got your back.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 11, 2006 -> 10:25 AM) Fixed that for you. Thanks. See people we're even better off than I thought! Cheers!

That was an ugly, ugly loss. The worst I've seen in a while, especially in person (and I've seen some nasty ones). But I would be the last person to start thinking the sky is falling. Hey, look at it this way: we are 3-1 against FREAKIN ANAHEIM thus far. Until the ALCS last year, people forget, playing them was like a GUARANTEED loss. Like with Oakland. Not only did we SWEEP them OUT THERE--!!!--but if we take this series, I'd say things are looking pretty damn good. I think we need to get our asses kicked once in a while to keep everybody's feet on the ground. And hey: KC beat freakin' Cleveland! You gotta love that.

QUOTE(WCSox @ May 11, 2006 -> 10:11 AM) I don't see any evidence that teams will "figure out" Jenks. It's just a matter of him commanding his offspeed pitches. When he does, he's lights-out. When he doesn't, he tends to give up some hits (and A LOT of hits when he's not locating at all). He's been used a lot recently, so maybe that has had something to do with his fastball being in the mid-90s last night. Who knows. Bobby's not Mariano Rivera, but he's already succeeded on the biggest stage of all. How about we wait a few weeks before declaring that he can't close or that the league now has him "figured out." Show me where I EVER said Jenks "can't close" and I SAID that I "worry" that teams will eventually figure him out if he's our only closer. Options, people, options. Call it "closer by commitee" if you want but I'm simply saying we should not put all our eggs in one basket. So Jenks blew one! Big deal! That's not why I'm thinking about this, and I am the BIGGEST Jenks fan, so let's knock it off already.

What is with everybody's knee-jerk response that I'm bashing Jenks because he had one bad outing? I'm not. I'm SAYING that I'd like to have more options besides Jenks and his--face it--94 MPH fastball right now. Southside, you're right: it was unfortunately a reminder of the 2004 Sox when we had the guaranteed loss when the fifth "starter" would come on (remember Arnie Munoz? BLAHHHH!). But whatever. This all happened because Jose was hurt so it's sort of moot. But it was what it was: Jenks didn't have it last night, and by the time he left, we weren't coming back. Whatever, one game. Big deal. But I stick by my concern that everybody will "figure out" Jenks if we only rely on him.

Good example with Farnsworth. Bingo. Just like nobody could figure out Mr. Zero's 70 mph slowness. I'm not about to bank on this assumption.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ May 10, 2006 -> 03:32 PM) My eyes hurt. Try to use a darker shade of green, y'all. Dude, this is what happens when you have a colorblind guy trying to pick "green" off that grid. Sorry! BTW I think "sock it" is the best nickname I've heard yet!

Who keeps perpetuating the delusion that one day Chicago will become a "Sox" town? The Cubs will always outdraw us and will always be the "Chicago" team. Because: they're more of a cultural phenom than a sports one. Plus the whole "Wrigley" experience/location. And you know what? That's fine with me. One of the bonuses of being a Sox fan is not being one of the herd.

Bingo. We will never outdraw the Cubs, period. Point being: we are World Series champions, so who the f*** cares?

Can we stop with the rain excuses? I was there and yes, it did not start raining hard until we had obviously pisssed the game away. It was almost bibical, come to think of it. Jenks I love but I worry that everybody's figured him out and we've got our '06 version of Takatsu. In his defense, he had a bad night. Whatever. It's gonna happen. What actually worries me is that we only have one "closer." We need options besides Jenks. Unless he comes up with a killer changeup IMO, people are gonna figure him out sooner or later. People also forget that, last night, the guy after Jenks (Thorton? Logan?) gave up another two runs including a dinger. Not good. Our bullpen is our achilles' heel right now, unless you think we can trot out Big Bad Bobby to save every game. BTW our starter was terrible. Every pitch that guy threw was high. But I don't blame him for the loss because we managed to score 5 runs with 2 outs. Then Jenks lost it for us. Period. We need a plan "B" for a closer. Not to rip on Jenks--I love the guy. But you can't have just one.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 10, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) his article is mostly garbage, but I do like one point he makes. Thome may eventually, or already be one of the most popular players in the whole city. The guy is great on the field and off. This is the biggest market he has played in, and he is prospering. I agree with this; it's electrifying whenever he comes up to bat.

Man he DOES look freakishly like that character. Thinking about this, I'm not sure that Thome would love a nickname based on a... cartoon character. I'm mean we've got PAUL-LIE! Which just sort of happened. GOOOOCH... a play on his name because nobody could think of anything that would work with "Tadahito." Maybe it could have been "Ta-da! HITO" But that's too Broadway; i.e., gay. Joe Crede got it best because all you have to do is say his name Hawk-style. JOE. CREDE! Pods--makes sense. When it was Aaron Rowand, the name stood by itself because you always pictured the Cell P.A. announcer saying it like he was the guy in the movie trailers: One town. One secret. Only one person that can face the danger. That person has a name. Aaron. ROWAND. J.D. for Dye, simple enough. A.J. is sort of a nickname unto itself. Going back, I think Borchard's nickname was "Ohhhh, s***!" And of course my favorite: Big Bad Bobby Jenks So thinking about all that, is "Mr. Incredible" really a great nickname just because he looks like the dude? QUOTE(Linnwood @ May 10, 2006 -> 03:14 PM) Wrong Jim Croce song. You Don't Mess Around With Jim Bad, Bad Leroy Brown Yeah and those songs are so musically dissimilar. Which is why I goofed. I stand corrected.

Gotcha.

I wouldn't count out Santana; he's a second half pitcher anyway. And look who our #1 is--last year, at the ASB a lot of us wanted to TRADE him! I don't think he's lost since, LOL. I think it's too early to tell, but it's fun to track the "predictor" and see how accurate they've been.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ May 10, 2006 -> 02:44 PM) I like it. Those lyrics are nice but... what? We're going to call him bad, bad, LeRoy... Jim?

No Johann Santana? Huh?