Dick Allen

QUOTE (captain54 @ Oct 1, 2016 -> 03:55 PM) C'mon guy, now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing I recall having a difficult time getting a ticket to a postseason game in 2005.. Also, check the Sox attendance numbers for 2006.. or did those numbers that year not quite meet your approval/criteria for fan loyalty in response to a winner. The Cub fan base is entirely different than the Sox fan base..the great majority of those "loyal" Cub fans show up for the party at Addison and Clark, not the game… every Sox fan that I've known in my lifetime has learned this as they exited the womb... Yeah, check the attendance numbers from 2006. The 66-96 Cubs drew almost 200k more than the White Sox. It is 2 different realities. The Sox will not draw what the Cubs draw. For one thing, there are probably triple the amount of people living within 2 miles of Wrigley Field.

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 05:57 PM) The cubz bandwagon started filling up when Harry Carey moved from the White Sox to the Cubs in 1981. That was huge. It exposed much of the country to Harry and the Cubs via Super station WGN. How cute those Cubbies were to toothless bumpkins in Iowa and throughout the WGN viewing area, and how comfortable grandparents were with folksy Harry, starting his broadcasts, "Hello everybaddy.." Yea, Cubz picked up a lot of fans, especially in remote cities and towns lacking a MLB franchise. There is not question though that Sox ownership were foolish with that nonsense paid Sportsvision. And that came on the heels of substandard WSNS UHF TV broadcasts of Sox games. Dumb and dumber. The thing that turned the dynamic of Cubs/Sox fandom around in a substantial way was how cubs fans were viewed after their behavior at and following the infamous 2003 Bartman game. Then on the heels of that debacle, the surprise World Series Championship that was waiting for our City in 2005. Shock (2003) and Awe (2005). It would be hilarious if the Cubs choked in the playoffs and something like that happened again. The bandwagon filled up in 1984' Harry's 3rd season, and their attendance didn't top the Sox until 1985 after Sportvision was sold.. Besides the Sox exclusively on WGN wasn't going to happen. There would have been too many scheduling conflicts and WGN was owned by the same people who owned the Cubs. It is cute to say the Sox got rid of Harry but they did offer him a deal, and reports say more money than WGN. Not exactly a firing. And Harry has been dead over 18 years. Many of the people in the stands probably never remember him calling a game.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 04:32 PM) That was due to John Allyn and Veeck not being able to figure out (with the exception of 72' and 77') how to put a good product on the field, not Harry. Like the Tribune Company did with the Cubs.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 02:17 PM) So you guys are saying Milo Hamilton (or Dwayne Staats, whatever) would've become a national sensation just like Harry did for the Cubs? Sure. They did 3 or 4 innings every game anyways.

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 11:20 AM) Imagine an alternate history where JR does not fire Harry Caray. 1982,1983,1984 the White Sox outdrew the Cubs while Harry was promoting them on the superstation and for a time, the Sox were on Sportsvision. It's a great theory, but the Sox had Harry, and didn't exactly fill the place.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 10:46 AM) If you can't see how many times this year Ventura left in a starter until they started getting shelled and then still didn't move fast enough, then I can't help you. If you can't understand that I wrote those two shouldn't be there AT ALL, thus leaving more time for everyone else, then I can't help you on that either. You may disagree with me, but there are plenty of facts that you are ignoring. You are ignoring the bullpen blowing up. Those guys are just pitching garbage time. If you can't understand that, I can't help you.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 10:36 AM) Albers and Turner should just be released, or sit on the bench so the younger guys can go. I personally don't believe in Beck or Minaya as real options, and I wouldn't have added them to the team to begin with, but that's of course subjective. But for those first two guys, they provide nothing. And to be clear I;m not just talking September here. Ynoa barely pitched for weeks before then too, and that really isn't how you develop a pitcher. Then there's the fact that he's leaving starters in too long (with regularly problematic results), which also eats into bullpen opportunities. It's not the entire pen or the entire bench of course - it's a few in each case where I find his decision-making nonsensical. Your frustration is creating things you are stating as fact that haven't happened. The starters have been quite good lately. Turner and Albers are pitching less than any other pitcher.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 10:11 AM) Enter the "JR and Einhorn blunders" you mentioned earlier. They took the Sox off of superstation WGN and hid them away on the ill-fated SportsVision, while simultaneously allowing Harry Caray to go to the Cubs to become the rockstar he would become promoting them on WGN, and POOF! The Cubs were the clear-cut #1 team in Chicago by the mid '80s, and have been ever since. You do realize when they did this, the Sox outdrew the Cubs. What happened was 1984.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 09:47 AM) You can parse it if you want to. I am simply pointing out Ventura's tendency to play out the string with players we already know are lousy, as opposed to ones who may or may not be lousy, and I find that baseball-stupid. You may disagree with my opinions and evaluations on players, but I was more using Coats and Ynoa as examples of a pattern. Ynoa is pitching a lot more than Albers. Albers has pitched 3 innings this month and pitched 9 innings in August. What other relievers is Ventura being baseball stupid with?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 09:22 AM) I actually have similar frustrations around other players. It bothers me that Leury and Avisail (and Matt Albers and a couple others from the pen) keep getting playing time. They shouldn't be in any plans because they are just not good players, and have proven it. It bothers me that Jason Coats, Michael Ynoa and others are not getting playing time, because they MIGHT be part of 2017 and haven't gotten enough playing time to get a good look at them in the majors. It drives me up a wall that Ventura doesn't seem to understand yet another aspect of managing a team - when you're out of it in September, you want to get a good look at any players that might be part of the future. Not hold fast to players who have already established who they are and are not. It's just another example of poor management. Also, useful backup? Leury has been historically bad offensively for a player that has gotten that much playing time. They continual desire to go back to him is nonsensical. I mean, in Avisail's case, at least he's only kinda bad offensively (and terrible defensively). Yes, he's been bad, but if he hits a little bit, and he did hit a little bit in the minors, he can play 7 positions and run. It's an ideal back up. For some reason you like Coats who will be 27 on opening day, and cherry picked his last 29 PA. Look at Leury's last 35 PA. Ynoa is pitching a bit. Albers has basically been ignored the last month. Avi is playing it out as they are hoping his new swing brings some results. He is crap, but he is better than Coats. Besides, you aren't going to get much useful evaluation out of these last games. I am sure Avi will be non tendered. If Leury is out of options, he'll have to show he's good enough in the spring. I don't understand the hate. It's been a couple of years you have been bashing him. You have given worse a lot more time than that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 08:08 AM) Nothing says contending team like starting a CF who isn't a particularly good CF and who's career OPS in 152 games is .466. Did Leury try to steal your wife or something? You have been on his jock forever. Calling for his release years ago. He isn't a star, but he could be a useful back up. Considering all the minor league crap you go to bat for, I just wonder if you have something personal against this guy.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 07:09 AM) Maddon helped the Cubs win 6 extra games or so. Savvy trades for Rizzo, Arieta, Hendricks, Russell and a closer nabbed in Rule V were worth a lot more wins. And not a "proven veteran" among them, Kenny Williams. Lester, Lackey, Zobrist, Heyward, Chapman, Fowler, Coughlan. Yeah, no hero worshipping.

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 07:14 PM) <!--quoteo(post=3429649:date=Sep 29, 2016 -> 01:00 PM:name=Black_Jack29)-->QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 01:00 PM) <!--quotec-->Uh, yeah, that's it. Ticket revenue doesn't matter when running a sports franchise. $35 million dollars is chump change. You've obviously never run a business before. If you knew anything about business, you'd know that net worth includes non-cash assets, such as his financial stakes in the Sox and Bulls. The idea that Reinsdorf is an old miser when his franchise is near the bottom 20% of the league in attendance, but in the top half in payroll is silly. The idea that he should dump his own personal savings into the team's payroll is equally silly. It actually benefits Reinsdorf to have lower attendance. "The Sox also must pay a fee on each ticket sold in excess of 1.93 million in paid attendance. Since 2008, the Sox have paid that fee only in 2010, when games drew 2.2 million fans. However, the Sox were allowed to apply a credit based on the taxes the team paid that year, reducing the ticket fee payment from $455,974 to $95,531. "The White Sox didn't have that much of an incentive to really pack the place," Sanderson said." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-sox-...0521-story.html so 270,000 tickets at about $25 each isn't worth selling because of a $95,000 tax hit?

Sale is pitching Sunday. Saladino out the remainder of,the season with a back problem.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 04:59 PM) I agree, all across the board......100% There are two ways to look at it... 1) Does the current ownership fall victim to living in a town where they got a terrible luck of the draw? that despite bringing a WS to the city, they still play second fiddle? or 2) Did the current ownership completely drop the ball by not being able to capitalize on being the only MLB team in this town win a title in 100 yrs? The 79-83 2005 Cubs outdrew the world champs by 750,000 The 66-96 2006 Cubs outdrew the defending world champs by about 100,000.

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 02:29 PM) Also choked down the stretch and have been terrible ever since. Not really. Paulie got hurt. Youk got hurt. Sale ran out of gas. 12 rookie pitchers. It just wasn't to be.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 01:53 PM) At the end of the day, the White Sox are a product and Nightengale just blamed the f***ing customers. This is akin to blaming patrons for not coming to a restaurant when the food isn't good. It's just a product to consume, and if the people around this organization don't appreciate what isn't exactly a cheap proposition for entertainment, and aren't willing to provide a product worth consuming, then they can go f*** themselves. Dick, if the manager isn't to be blamed for having a lack of talent then I see absolutely zero reason to tender an offer to Robin. I still ask you - what has he DONE to warrant your support? The team plays hard. The players seem to like playing for him. I don't think it's a must he return, I just don't think it's this huge deal, no chance to win thing if he's here. They did win 85 games in 2012 with him at the helm.

QUOTE (shipps @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 12:49 PM) DA knows exactly what you are saying. He probably agrees with it but he is obsessed with playing the devils advocate for some reason. No. I do understand the frustration, I am frustrated myself, but just because something isn't done when you have no idea what was offered, doesn't mean they are happy with where they are at. For all we know, what was available at the deadline would have only made for more mediocrity. The same guys will still be available, and there will be changes. Who knows, all this griping about Robin may be about nothing. Perhaps he doesn't want to return. Maybe he is sick of it. Maybe his family gets a lot of crap. There are reasons I suppose he could decide he doesn't want to do this anymore. What is weird is Robin said he would wait until after the season. Hahn is supposedly having a press conference on Monday to discuss things like changes. There supposedly have been zero negotiations. It's starting to look like Robin is walking away.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 12:45 PM) I know they traded Duke. It was such an inconsequential move that I didn't feel it was worth mentioning. Chris Sale was not the only player who might have been traded. I said this like 200 posts ago, it's about messaging. Rick Hahn said the team was mired in mediocrity, and the next week he sent the message that he was just fine with that. Whatever they're doing with this Robin story, if they bring him back, they're sending that message again. Fearlessly. I know you say they are gonna clean house on the roster, but I'll judge next offseason when it's over. This is a bad start. No he didn't. There is no way the roster won't be significantly changed.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 12:35 PM) I'll note, I asked specifically if you thought they would give Robin Ventura a 3 year deal, I asked if you were ok with the pitching coach staying on for 3 years, and whether or not keeping a manager on 1 year deals was consistent with a longer term view as described in that quote. You answered none of those questions. I don't really care about the manager and coaches contracts. I am surprised they aren't necessarily making a change. I thought they would, but if they did, and all it involved was switching McEwing or Renteria into the managerial role, I don't see how that is much different than what it is today. The most important thing is the roster. If Joe Maddon had to play JB Shuck every day and had to bring Matt Albers into the game after Arrieta went 5 innings, his petting zoo and karaoke spring training would be hammered backwards and forwards.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 12:31 PM) A week later, they did nothing at the trade deadline. Whatever the reasons, they did nothing. If you want another case where the message coming out of the front office was inconsistent with its actions - and it seems that's all we've gotten lately - there you go. I don't believe anything they say anymore, from KW on down they have completely devalued their words. They traded Duke. Neither of the 2 top prospects people said Boston had to give the Sox for Sale were available and it went from, if they don't give them to you, then they don't get Sale, to trade Sale now, we must get rid of Sale. Teams get better all the time when they trade their ace.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 12:23 PM) And I'll start believing it when they do something along those lines. Let's look for evidence that they're actually willing to do that, to look longer-term. Bringing back a manager on a 1 year deal when the fanbase has turned against him would be the exact opposite of a "longer-term view", wouldn't you agree? A "longer-term view" would mean you'd want a coaching staff in place that you could expect would be there in 3-4 years even if things continue to go wrong. Are they going to give Ventura a 3+ year deal again? Are you ok with keeping the same pitching coach for the next 3-4 years? Yeah, they should do what the fanbase says. LMAO. No one here had a blueprint to a championship last winter. The fanbase got what they wanted in 1986 when Hawk launched LaRussa. Then years later they caulfielded and couldn't believe anyone could be such a dumbass and fire him. If somehow, and I really don't know how, they can stack their roster, Robin will become a lot smarter.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 12:17 PM) Fair point although there are some important differences. One is that the Sox had winning seasons in two of the three previous seasons before 2003 (they had a .500 season in the other one),and made the playoffs in 2000... two they had what was regarded as one of the top minor league systems in all of baseball. Three was that they already had on the big league roster young players who were showing they were capable of being very good at the major league level. I don't know if you can make the same claims about the franchise today as they get ready to head into 2017. Anything can happen but if it does it appears to me to be more the result of catching lightning in a bottle than any real plan. Mark You put too much stock in 82-80 vs. 79-83. If you were expecting to contend, they are equal failures. Those teams in 2003 and 2004 had a lot more talent than the current team that is trotted out there. Offensively, there is no comparison.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 12:02 PM) And top to bottom, the organization is ok with that. As long as they can come in at the end of year evaluations and say they did their best, they shouldn't be evaluated on wins and losses. The manager, the coaching staff, the front office, all agree. No they are not. But cherry pick stories and embellish to try to fit your narrative. Explain this quote if everything is A-OK "We're mired in mediocrity," Hahn said. "That's not the goal. That's not acceptable. … The goal was to put ourselves in a situation to win a championship, and (being) stuck at .500 or around .500 doesn't do that. "We may well have to adjust and take a longer-term view and take a different approach going forward."

QUOTE (BigHurt3515 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 09:28 PM) It is usually in the winter, they moved it for some reason They switched with Homeland. I guess there was some delay with Homeland.