southsider2k5

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 12:11 PM) I mean, everyone. But difference between rewarding campaign supporters and explicitly extorting them. That said, I have never really felt like they proved the case against blago. That no sums or anything were discussed, I do feel like the "I've got this thing and it's gold" is not enough. BUt, oh well, glad he went to jail. If not for this, would have been taken down with rezko likely. If the reward is implicit in the agreement, not really. I know Rod's big mistake was making a clear and public suggestion to make it obvious, versus the usual, wink-wink stuff that goes on here.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 12:04 PM) Told my friend that this revealed donors and fundraisers got ambassador appointments. "So...how it's always been done?" Said friend grew up conservative, is now a moderate left. It makes you wonder who did Blago piss off.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 12:04 PM) I'm sure he has, but also seems like either Anderson or Eaton are on every time. From SSS: Eaton September .400/.464/.640 That'll do pig, that'll do. Eye test confirmed.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 11:25 AM) You can attribute some of those RBIs to eaton's incredible september as well. I don't know what it looks like for sure, but it feels like he is cashing in with RISP at a much higher rate over the last month or two. It seems like he just isn't missing out in clutch situations right now.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 11:57 AM) They sure did, at least in 1989 they did. They traded the great Harold Baines at the trade deadline that season and brought in the very young and untested Sammy Sosa, Wilson Alvarez, and they not-so-young Scott Fletcher. Both Sosa and Alvarez would go onto contribute to the 94 win season in 1990, as would a young Ventura, Fernandez, and Frank Thomas. So you see, it's not a hypothetical. It can and has been done before. Now I'll give you it's not common for this to happen, but it can happen, which is the premise for my stance. Which again brings me back to my original point in this whole discussion, which is IF it happens (again), attendance will go up, as it did in 1990. 1990 was also the last season in Comiskey Park, which had a lot to do with attendance.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 11:54 AM) There's a team on the north side of town that just might be the the ticket for you. They're called "the Lovable Losers" Check it out!! Oh hey, there is an original one. You going to get a gay joke in there to cover all of the stereotypes?

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) Well, let's not get carried away and wander off into some unwarranted flattery land. I'm not stalking you. Think of it more like a gaper's delay. Whenever you put out one of your wild and denigrating opinions on the fan base, I can't help but just slow down and stare at the wreckage. Making up imaginary scenarios that you don't even really believe in to try to obscure actual history isn't really a great way to go about anything, unless you are running for President.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 10:42 AM) Nevermind - not included in their income: About Tweet Share on Facebook Census money income is defined as income received on a regular basis (exclusive of certain money receipts such as capital gains) before payments for personal income taxes, social security, union dues, medicare deductions, etc. Therefore, money income does not reflect the fact that some families receive part of their income in the form of noncash benefits, such as food stamps, health benefits, subsidized housing, and goods produced and consumed on the farm. In addition, money income does not reflect the fact that noncash benefits are also received by some nonfarm residents which may take the form of the use of business transportation and facilities, full or partial payments by business for retirement programs, medical and educational expenses, etc. So much for that theory. Thanks for finding that. It was the one thing that made some sense, oh well.

Rob Young ‏@RobertHYoung 19h19 hours ago Under Zaleski's watch, the @gfvoyagers pitchers led the Pioneer League in ERA, WHIP, K's, SHO's and the least BB's, H's, and HR's

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 10:14 AM) These are all valid reasons to think this is an outlier (again, the way census measures is peculiar, but measured against it's own previous reports would show we are picking up something) The "don't buy it us workers less skilled than ever" is not accurate, as they would certainly be MORE skilled as there are more of everything, than ever before. But even if there were less skilled workers, that may be a reason for wages to increase as there is scarcity. I don't buy that part for a second. It sounds like another old people who hate millennials fairy tale.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 10:10 AM) The numbers are inflation-adjusted. But as for paralleling with GDP growth, that had grown for years with no wage growth. The rubber band was stretching, now it snapped back. Not really a surprise, some of those measures don't run in parallel exactly, even though they are tied. Money came in part from something we've seen reported for a bunch of years - corporations hoarding cash are now starting to make investments, finally. Yet it hasn't translated to PPI, CPI, inflation, or wage growth, like you would think it should. The one thought I actually had was I wonder if this is tied to subsidy growth from health care where the money is being created on one end through tax refunds, but is disappearing into another end to pay for the subsidizes, and never actually getting into the economy where it would show up in some of these other indicators.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 08:07 AM) So, you don't buy a massive year-long data set conducted and reviewed by mathematicians, but you buy your personal view that people in a certain age range seem less skilled? Also, and important, skill level and pay are not necessarily linked. In fact the US economy, for good or bad, continues to drop away from hard skills in engineering and manufacturing, into softer service-side skills, which are much harder to quantify. The issue is that it doesn't line up at all with wage growth, GDP growth, inflation, savings rate or any of the other traditional measures. So where did the money come from, and where did it go to? This is just another in a series of numbers that don't really make sense in a package.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 08:55 AM) A) your whole argument with SS2K is based on the notion that trading Sale will result in more wins next season which will lead to an increase in attendence so yes you did actually say it without saying it. If you don't think the Sox will win more games next season by trading Sale then why are you even arguing? B) of course you left out Fowler and I stand by my opinion that these 4 acquisitions plus an improved bullpen absolutely put the Sox in a position to compete next season. Already stated this before but the Sox are 7-20 when Ranaudo/Shields/Danks start. Give me an average starter in place of these dopes and that results in a 13-14 record in those games (not asking for much). Consequently, the team is 6 wins better with just that one move: 76-68 or 3 GB of the wild card. Again, that's just addressing 1 spot on the 25 man roster while leaving the rest untouched. He doesn't actually believe it, he's just arguing to argue because he likes stalking me.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 08:28 AM) Lawrie's numbers aren't even that noticeably better- and Saladino has yet to have a full season starting and improved a lot in his second semi-season. I'd like to see Leury get work in September. He could really be the super sub ( OF and IF) if he could hit a little, which he finally did this season in AAA. Pitching is thinner out in Sep so numbers are inflated (just as they are for Sox starters who can suddenly hit) but it will give the team an idea. The last two days the White Sox got fat against Trever Bauer and Carlos Carrasco.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 08:05 AM) This is precisely my point. Thank you, Voice of Reason! Sox fans will not go to fewer games if Sale gets traded, and if the Sox actually find a way to turn it around and start winning next season and are in the race, they'll actually go to more games. It really is that simple, folks. Except recent history shows the exact opposite, but you are completely ignoring that.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 06:58 AM) Ventura started 0 or 1 for 41 or whatever. Don't recall anyone getting that discouraged about Robin because of his pedigree. Moncada started off quite slowly in the Sally League last year as well. Btw, why would he have that low an OPS (500's) playing in Boston's line-up? A better comp would be Buxton (than Carlos), but Moncada's going to be a much better hitter without the defensive prowess. Would a team of James Shields, Billy Butler, a shaky bullpen, Narvaez, Leury or Sanchez on the roster and Coats/Avi sharing AB's do better attendance-wise if you still kept Sale, Q and Rodon? There was. A lot of people thought he was rushed because he skipped AAA, and he had the big oh fer.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 10:42 PM) Well it is no longer an major important factor but it does have an impact especially given parking and concessions. Mark Attendance is the #1 determining factor for advertising, Parking, and concessions.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 08:32 PM) You seem like the typical Sox fan out there, so I expect the base, like you, won't alter their approach to attendance next year no matter what happens with Sale. I am nothing like the typical Sox fan. I don't require years of winning to go to games.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 08:17 PM) Not fewer? But what if Sale is traded? You said attendance will absolutely go down if he's not in a Sox uni next year, yet it's not going to change your behavior at all. A bit of a disconnect here, to say the least. I think we can conclude if you, a White Sox fan, won't go to fewer games than you did in this past brutal season if Sale is traded, neither will other Sox fans I thought this was pretty obvious, but I am not the entire White Sox fan base. Those numbers are out there, and tell a pretty clear story.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 07:53 PM) You bring up good points. Still, if the players they acquire in the offseason rebuild do click with the current young Sox like Rodon, Anderson and Fulmer, resulting in a winning season like the ones in 1990 and 2000, attendance will go up. After these past four seasons of brutal ball played by the Sox, the base is very hungry for something to be excited about, and will respond accordingly if the Sox turn it around next year and start winning. They didn't in 2008, even with the World Series and another 90 win season in the books. They didn't in 2012 either.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 08:00 PM) SS2K5, do you think you'll go to more games or fewer games next year if the Sox trade Sale but all of a sudden start playing winning baseball? The same.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 05:48 PM) Can we stop this assumption that all Cubans are lying about their age? Not as much "we" as "greg" making that assumption.

QUOTE (Pants Rowland @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 05:01 PM) The flaw I see here is the idea that the Sox would get seasoned major league talent in return. That is probably the only way they could play well enough to turn fans heads in April/May 2017, resulting in significant attendance growth over the ensuing months. A trade of Sale may include 1-2 MLB ready players talent-wise, but they will likely have growing pains at best, and several of the new players will also turn out to be busts. That may entice hardcore fans to tune in more, but not enough to make up for the loss of Sale or the disappointment of 2016. MLB attendance is typically driven by prior year performance, and the Sox will not be the exception to that rule. Totally this. If we saw results, I see it being a tiny minuscule chance that we see the results early in 2017. Most likely the full return would be somewhere between 2018 and 2020.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Sep 13, 2016 -> 04:21 PM) Winning baseball >>>>>>> Presence of any one ballplayer, even Chris Sale Remember, there is no correlation with good attendance while Sale has been on the team. Attendance has been lousy in each season he's been here. Winning baseball, on the other hand, does have a track record with good attendance for the team. This is pretty straight forward. There will be a fall off in attendance after a Sale trade. Even if by some miracle, the Sox return pays some sort of instant dividends, recent history dictates that Sox fans probably wouldn't jump on to the bandwagon with any sort of speed. Maybe if they won in '17 and kept winning in 18, attendance would go up then, but then again, probably not. Even in a season like 2008, where they won a division, attendance fell off over the previous year. Even in a season like 2012, where they were in first place until the last two weeks, attendance fell. Add in the factor that a good portion of the bandwagon section of the fanbase will be angry because they traded their best player.

Daryl Van Schouwen ‏@CST_soxvan 21m21 minutes ago White Sox were 8th team in AL history Mon. to score a run in all 8 innings of a game (Elias) ...no AL team has ever scored in all 9 innings.