southsider2k5

Chris Cotillo ‏@ChrisCotillo 28m28 minutes ago White Sox RHP James Shields will officially opt in to the final two years of his deal, source confirms to @SBNation. Was a formality.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 12:05 PM) This is false. Wallow in your own ignorance if you enjoy it. Continue to ignore the numbers in front of you if you like.

Anyone else sticking with Designated Survivor so far?

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 11:30 AM) It has been a Cubs town since 1984. 32 years which is hard to believe how fast time goes by. 32 years is a long long time. However, this was not a Cubs town in the 1970s. no way. You don't need to embellish the truth to make your broader point. Nothing in there is embellished.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 10:40 AM) Why are you so angry today? I didn't say anyone was going to build it. I just said if I was a billionaire (which I'm not and probably never will be) and if I built a new stadium (which I won't). We were talking about where to build one. Lakefront isn't possible, Bridgeport is ok. I made a suggestion of a site. That's all. Really that isn't for you, it is for the guy who started this thread who apparently that thinks billionaires just randomly show up building billion dollar facilities for people.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 11:05 AM) I'm fascinated by your posts, frankly... how somehow could have no idea what they are talking about, yet continue to hammer away, as if they are the definitive authority Here's a little friendly advice...If you're not sure about certain periods of Sox history, my suggestion would be .. ask someone who actually knows.. the White Sox had a great run from 1951-1967. consecutive streak of winning seasons.. The Cubs were an afterthought in this town behind the Bears, Blackhawks and White Sox.. the Cubs didn't achieve any sort of notoriety whatsoever until Durocher and the gang in and around the crazy 1969 season.. Also fascinating is how you've arbitrarily picked less than half of the 116 years as relevant to how we currently view the state of the Sox vs Cubs, attendance. etc... If you want to make an honest assessment of the situation, you probably narrow your search and should consider the people who are actually alive today. The actual circumstances are for the vast majority of the people who are alive today and going to games who are fans of either team, Pure BS... Your narrow viewpoint of the world tells you that no one that followed the Sox before 1975 is alive today.. I could go on and on.. I'm on a mission of mercy here.. just stop.. please.. just stop.... Apparently you ignored it, but I explained it pretty clearly. 9 of the last 50 years. We are talking about 3 full generations of Sox fans who haven't seen the Sox as the #1 team in this town. The vast majority (I noticed even when you quoted my exact words, you STILL got them wrong in translation, I didn't say NO ONE, I said the VAST MAJORITY) of people are going to fall into those three generations who fall into the camp that remember this as a White Sox town. You would have to be in your 60's to remember the time in the late 50's and early 60's. To add to the point, approximately 10% of Chicago is age 65 or older. I am very comfortable with using the statement "vast majority" to cover something that applies to 90% of the current population. Yes, I "arbitrarily" pick the time that people were alive to judge what they would remember. To me that is common sense. Apparently it isn't as "common" as I thought. In a discussion about what people in Chicago have seen, I would think that when they were actually alive would be the most applicable, no? This isn't complex. Apparently you remember the 50's Great. 90% of people alive today, don't. When it comes to a "narrow viewpoint of the world", that would be your own. Mine is covering 90% of people. Do me a favor, and if you are going to be a on a "mission of mercy" at least have the facts on your side.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 10:39 AM) I want a full scale rebuild, but I have a feeling Sox will trade Hansen and Fulmer this off season The Sox haven't traded their TOP prospects for years. It won't happen this year either. With the fall that Hansen had, there is zero chance he get dealt. I could see a chance at Fulmer getting dealt, but what that means is the Sox saw something in him they didn't like.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 10:27 AM) This Chris Hansen guy in Seattle does. Although that's more of an anomaly. The only guy that comes to mind as paying for his own stadium is Jerry Jones, and even that was only 2/3 of it. Arlington paid for the other 1/3. Am I missing someone? I mean it is cute and all to build this myth of a benevolent prince owner who is going to rescue us from our castle stadium and whisk us away to live happily ever after build us a new palace on the lake, but then real life calls. That doesn't actually happen anywhere. Billionaires get to be billionaires by being business savvy and having other people pay for things like a new stadium.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 10:22 AM) With the billions I earned starting Google...I would cover the tracks south of Roosevelt with a new stadium, point it NE. Close to Expy. Close to trains. South side. Close to Manny's. Close to Chernin's for the ladies. Who's with me?!?! And rich people always give away all their money, so totally.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 10:06 AM) Having them win it all might not be a bad thing in the long run. The national fascination with them will likely erode as it did with Boston. Yeah, that was the worst thing that could have happened to their fan base though. They have become insufferable.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 08:38 AM) poop This thread should end right here.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 09:08 PM) It's mind boggling, isn't it, how the constant lack of winning results in the constant empty seats in the ballpark. Well for one fan base in this town...

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 07:27 PM) No,they couldn't. You cannot buy lakefront property in Chicago. And you can't have a stadium that faces slightly west. Not to mention you would spend the next decade in court.

QUOTE (Donaldo @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 08:34 PM) The site of the old USS South Works plant is available. Accessibility may be an issue though. http://forgottenchicago.com/articles/south-works/ http://www.nwitimes.com/business/steel/sou...fd0769ebd5.html I can only imagine the amount of remediation it would take to make that area worthy for mass usage again. I can only imagine that the cost would far outpace the cost of the actual ballpark.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 05:42 PM) Ok? It's a discussion of a counterfactual and not something with a provably right answer. We'll just agree to disagree on what a hypothetical Clinton vs Rubio/Kasich/etc match-up would be. I will be honest here. As the posts have trended more and more to the left wing's version of OBAMA WANTS SHARIA LAW, I have really reacted to them with the same sort of feeling. It is an intentional effort to paint a singular narrative based on extremist partisan sources. Despite claims to otherwise, the information being posted and their sources shows otherwise. I feel like I am reading the left's equal of Briebart every time I see a link posted.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 05:35 PM) Pointing out months of polling data shows her winning comfortably isn't propaganda though? I'm not saying that she would or wouldn't have won against Rubio or Kasich or Romney or whoever, I'm just saying that assuming it would have been a lock isn't necessarily backed up by solid evidence. Trump's had a solid floor of 38-40% despite pissing off every single voting bloc except non-college white males. Clinton would have a floor at least that strong without alienating everyone. I would probably lean towards the odds being in the GOP's favor, I just don't think it'd be such a clear runaway is all. Believe me, I have seen you play this film before. I am not buying the one sided evidence being sold here. Sorry.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 05:32 PM) Except for a blip for a couple of weeks in September, she's been at or near Obama '08 levels of blowout. Election could be over when the polls close on the eastern seaboard. It would definitely have been much closer, but Democrats still enjoy a structural advantage in the EC and Kasich was the guy who couldn't finish better than 4th in GOP primary. Plus as more recent polling shows, a majority of Clinton voters are voting for Clinton rather than against Trump at this point. Yeah, I will pass on the serving of propaganda, thank you.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 04:45 PM) Between 1972 and 1984 the Sox outdrew the Cubs in total attendance. I would go with the 16 out of 20 years personally as a clearer trend.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 05:09 PM) While that may be true, you can't say for sure that any candidate would or wouldn't win until they actually go against each other. Polls aren't accurate and no one knows what would happen. I'm also not saying Clinton would win against Kasich, because honestly, I don't and may never know. I'm not a big fan of absolutes in elections. With seeing how close this election still has been with an absolute loon running against Clinton, I can't see how that wouldn't be the obvious conclusion.

QUOTE (shipps @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 04:10 PM) Sounds like alcohol was a factor. http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/1789372...adly-boat-crash We'll have to see where the BAC's come out, and if he was driving, but yeah, it doesn't look good.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 01:49 PM) I dunno what you're getting at here. You mean another network going after Clinton? There's really not a Democratic equivalent of Fox News, but since most people think it's MSNBC I'll use them - Andrea Mitchell hates the Clintons and s***s on them fairly regularly. Gingrich embarrassed himself SO bad in that interview. If I didn't hate him so much it would've been painful to watch. I don't remember an instance of a key Clinton supporter being put in the spot to being asked a very direct question and explicit question like that on a supporting network.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 03:54 PM) Hillary's history is easier to hide when Trump is literally rewriting new lows every week. A solid candidate without so much distraction is able to legitimately expose Hillary way more. (not really replying to your post just adding on). This is exactly my line of thought. She hasn't really had to campaign on her record. Largely she has campaigned on Trumps.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 03:47 PM) Why do you say that? Because just about any other Republican would have beaten Hillary.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 02:26 PM) The numbers they report are the number of tickets sold not turnstile count. The Cubs had a couple years there were towards the end of the season they had some pretty sparse crowds. I remember seeing that you could get tickets on Stubhub for less than a dollar at times. The Sox have had their fair share of people dressing up as green and blue seats over the years.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 02:12 PM) I'm old enough to actually remember the 70s. It was not a Cubs town. It was evenly split then or close to it. The numbers say differently. The White Sox outdrew the Cubs twice during the 70's. Once during the southside hitmen, the other in 74.