Dick Allen

The 66-96 2006 Cubs drew 200k more than the defending world champion White Sox which was a record for the White Sox. Anyone who really thinks the White Sox can overtake the Cubs either doesn't live in Chicago or is stoned beyond belief.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 22, 2015 -> 11:35 AM) Another scenario that hasn't been mentioned yet is that this whole negotiation with Gordon could purely be a ploy to bid up KC and make them pay more for him. I have no idea if that's truly the case or not, but it could be a possibility. Whether that is the intent or not, and I kind of doubt it, it will be the result if he goes back to KC, which I still doubt.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 22, 2015 -> 08:29 AM) I think its worse than they are saying, but it also gives them a chance to win without him which could be valuable. I've never known a knee surgery that was only 2 weeks out and then fully healed. Different sport, but Brandon Scherff an Iowa lineman last year, had his knee scoped and missed one practice.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 10:11 PM) Why do people keep asking when Garpax is getting fired as if they don't know who is Garpaxs boss? They aren't getting fired, people. The team still plays in front of a mostly full crowd, they have been in the playoffs every year for a long streak, Jerry don't give a f*** Actually their boss is JR's son . I know someone who knows him quite well. He obviously respects and admires his father but has different ideas about things. Whether he would fire Gar/Pax, I have no idea, but I do know a full house and making the playoffs doesn't trump falling short. The problem I have is it seems the only people who thought swapping out Thibs for the Mayor would or at least could lead to the promised land with basically the same roster, work in the Bulls front office. The hatchet job they did on Thibs when they let him go was unnecessary and disgusting, and they are looking like bigger fools than ever now. Jeff Van Gundy has material for years.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 04:30 PM) Yeah the homeland finale was weak but I really don't know if they could have done it any better. They had too much to wrap up for one episode leaving everything a bit short IMO.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 03:38 PM) I think that is probably true, but once again that is not what I'm saying. I am talking about a general increasing interest in the city's baseball, which is bound to increase interest and attendance on both sides of town, even if disproportionately on the North Side. Please forget about persuading people to switch allegiances. I understand that we are all accustomed to thinking about being a baseball fan, from our passionate perspective. Think about a young person who has no allegiance and no prior interest in baseball. Now, they are curious to experience what all of the excitement is about, in Chicago. If both teams are playing well, and in their respective races, some of these new fans could certainly be Sox fans. To that person, they might look at any number of seemingly irrelevant factors in choosing their team. Maybe their cousin roots for the Sox, or maybe they like the idea of being able to get tickets to the games, or maybe they just like the uniforms better. (Hey, could you blame them?) It's really very simple, and shouldn't touch off any big debate. Having the town get caught up in baseball fever should be a good thing. Management just has to be sure that, in that favorable environment, the team is good enough to be in the conversation. I just think that market is minimal. Sure a,few people pick up baseball every year, and a few drop it, and if both teams play well probably more pick it up than drop it. But I don't think it is enough that would make a noticeable attendance increase. Brooks can trot out the family of 5 from Dyer who,wanted to go to the Cubs game but tickets were not available or too expensive, so they thought going to a Sox game would be great, and they loved it, but is it going to make a 5,000 increase during the season? I doubt it. If the Sox win they will draw better. It won't be great, but better. They understand this better than anyone.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 11:13 AM) Omar: The proof I have is to look at the scores from 2000 through 2004. How often did you see the Sox score seven, nine runs in a game then get two or none the next few days? I also remember many of those games came (and still do) against garbage, mediocre, soft tossing pitchers who make the Sox hitters look like complete buffoons (Bruce Chen immediately comes to mind...) "Home Run or Nothing" attitude, philosophy leads to those swings in my opinion. I actually still remember focusing in on that after a particularly strong rant from Bill Melton on the post game show after the Sox were handled in Texas by a particularly bad pitcher, I think it was in 2003. Melton blistered Sox hitters for making no adjustments against a soft tossing guy instead simply trying to hit "eight run home runs..." Like you say home runs are needed, I agree but to me the Sox have yet to recapture the balance that helped lead them to a World Series title. More "adjustments" to that attitude are needed including for God's sake getting some guys who can actually catch a baseball and execute fundamentals (which falls directly on the manager and his staff in my mind, that's what spring training is for...) Mark The 2005 White Sox won 21 games in the regular season scoring 3 runs or less. The difference wasn't a balanced offense, thy still were one of the most homer dependent offenses in baseball.i It was a pitching staff,with a bullpen that didn't give up leads. They scored 124 runs less than the 2004 team, but gave up about 190 less.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 02:17 PM) Didn't really care for Homeland finale after a great season leading up to it Yes, it might have been the worst episode of the season. I was really disappointed.

I wonder the validity of the tweet. No one else has it but this guy. I do agree, if the offers are similar if it is between KC and the Sox, he has no reason to leave, but if KC is offering Adam LaRoche money, I find it hard to believe several teams wouldn't blow that away.

Depends on prices, but I like Austin Jackson. He couldn't hit with Seattle, but is still only 28 or 29. He would be an upgrade.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 09:53 AM) but the ownership is different. i was nailed on this board and rightfully so on the ownership part. 2 different companies and 2 different income for 2 different items. i wish i can remember who nailed me, but they right The Bulls and White Sox have different ownership. Many of the same players but different. They each own a percentage of CSN.

QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 09:33 AM) no it doesn't ..... the owners of that is a little different. it like saying more fans comes out that mean more money for the sox to invest b/c of more money the vendors make. The White Sox own part of the network. When teams are good and ratings high, the cost to advertise increases, which increases revenue, and profit.of which the White Sox snag a percentage. I read an article about it in Crain's last year. When the teams are interesting, not only do the ratings rise for the airing of their games, but all their programming gets a bump. And the more money the vendors make, the more money the White Sox make. They make more per beer sold than any vendor,

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 08:29 AM) I agree that Cubs fans are not suddenly going to go to Sox games, because they can't get a ticket to Wrigley. That was not my point. I'm focusing upon casual baseball fans, and potential fans, who have not yet caught baseball fever. You are absolutely correct in your assertion, it is just not relevant to mine. Not everyone is passionate about the game and a favorite team, as are we. My point being, if they do, it will be to join the Cubs bandwagon, or the White Sox, if they are winners. Not just the sport. The Cubs bandwagon and Wrigley Field is full of people that have no idea what a balk is. There are now thousands of Blackhawks "fans" that couldn't name 5 players on the team. With the renovation at Wrigley, which will actually make it nice, the White Sox have very little chance competing with that particular bandwagon. Even if they win the WS 3 times the next 5 or 6 years and the Cubs fall short, the pendulum might slow, but it won't swing the other way. Except it and move on. The Cubs do their thing, the White Sox do theirs. Capturing the entire city isn't necessary. Even in 2005', when they never where not in first place, they drew a total of 50k for a 3 game series in September vs, KC with a team that at the time was 34 games over .500 and had a 9 1/2 game lead. They had 17 home games in September 2005, and only drew 30k six times. To think they can overtake the Cubs by winning, is a nice theory, but most likely factually incorrect. Like someone said in another thread, it is a Cubs town. It doesn't mean the White Sox can't be successful, but they aren't going to be as popular.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 08:24 AM) I have a feeling almost anyone who owns an index based mutual fund has General Electric as one of its components...certainly my Vanguard funds do. Guess who partially owns NBC Universal? I would have to check on Vivendi. Nice try though. Who is this "we" that supposedly will own 50%.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 08:12 AM) How did the Giants winning three titles affect the A's plight? The Yankees helping or hurting the Mets, well that's hard to separate from Madoff/Wilpon. The Angels are clearly a team that expanded their fanbase in competition with the Dodgers, but there are very few owners who will spend money and exhaust resources like Arte Moreno. They really set out to compete directly at a time when the Dodgers were in chaos with the McCourts. Then Balt and Wash to a lesser extent. The White Sox absolutely need some oxygen and column inches...85% of the media attention has been focused in their direction. Without a colorful manager or the original Boy Wonder GM, it makes the challenge even more daunting, and Hahn's more likely to inspire a fiscal accounting seminar than excite the fanbase. Plus JR's health has him backing off a bit. There's the theory the Cubs selling out games and devouring sponsorship opportunities will float the White Sox boat too as those left out are forced to go with the Sox or be shut out. We shall see...will those unallocated media rights dollars flow to the Southside in 2019, and how likely is CSN to double our deal unless someone else is bidding against them? At that time, we will probably own 50% of the station, with the Blackhawks and NBC/Universal the other 25% each. Actually, I really doubt you ever own any percentage of CSN.

From a White Sox perspective, the one thing that is good about the Cubs being insanely popular again, is the profit at CSN goes higher, which theoretically gives the White Sox more money to play with.

Except for 2011-2014, there has been Cubs "fever" since 1984. If there is spillover to the White Sox, it is minimal. I think if your kid wants to go to a Cubs game, but you get them Sox tickets, the look on their face would be the same as if the wanted an IPad, and you bought them a $75 piece of crap tablet. The Cubs bandwagon keeps growing. Yes, the White Sox are going to be flying well under the radar in Chicago in 2016. That is not necessarily bad. Just win and everything will take care of itself. Make the Score talk about you. If they don't have to, they won't.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 05:31 PM) And the good will created by Jordan and Pippen almost twenty years ago now is helping to sell how many White Sox 2016 Holiday Season Ticket packs? Probably exactly the same number and it "helped" being sold back when it happened.

QUOTE (Thad Bosley @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 03:59 PM) Lol - please don't conflate the accomplishments, or lack thereof, of the two organizations. As you well know, only one of those championships belongs to the Reinsdorf baseball team - in 35 years of trying. So with that very poor track record, it is a legitimate comment to make on a fan message board for the baseball team that it would be interesting to see the team under a new owner with a different organizational philosophy for running things. Could the results be worse? Sure, see Chicago Cubs - Tribune Company, 1982-2008. But chances are they couldn't be much worse than what's occurred under Reinsdorf. The lack of achievement under his leadership has left quite a bit to be desired, to say the least. I see you are back to copyi and pasting your JR narrative again.They could be a lot worse, and the post I responded to included the Bulls.

Tackling has been like the last couple of seasons.

Is the argument that there really is no Coors effect? If it is, that is beyond silly. It isn't just that balls carry farther, there is a lot more room for balls to drop.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 02:17 PM) And you're assuming that you know which is also disingenuous isn't it? LOL. Again NO ONE knows with 100% clarity which is why you have so many Sox fans, a ton of them wondering who exactly is pulling the trigger on things. And despite what you think the media isn't totally stupid, there are a lot of sharp people in that profession. That fact that they are wondering as well speaks volumes. Based on the track record of both of JR's franchises, it's clear historically and statistically his method of front office alignments isn't working. I hope I'm still around when the Sox and Bulls are under new ownership just to see if a different organizational philosophy breeds more success. Mark Yeah only 7 championships

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 11:39 AM) When talking about the 2005 White Sox one has to understand they had something that no other Sox team in the last 15 years had offensively...balance. They could best you with a three run bomb, with a bloop into short right or a bunt down the third base line. The Sox if I remember correctly were in the top four or five in the league in the following categories: Home Runs Sacrifice Fly's Sacrifice Bunts Stolen Bases Infield Hits They didn't have to wait for the three run home run to win a game, they had other ways to do it. It wasn't a "home run or nothing..." offense. Regarding Hawk's comments about the outfield defense, he is so biased towards the organization and the players that when he says that stuff, he truly believes it. It takes a lot to change his mind. But remember his famous (infamous) quote from just a few months later, "our defense SUCKS!" Mark Re the 2005 White Sox offense. It is all fine and dandy what you said, the fact is they scored the exact same percentage of their overall runs via the home run as the supposed softball team line up of 2004. Since switching parks, if his team doesn't hit homers, they are screwed.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 09:29 AM) The Sox were also 2nd to last in OBP and 3rd to last in Doubles. Sox had 3 fewer HRs than the Royals...and 40 fewer doubles. Frazier hit 43 doubles and 35 homers, so it appears despite hero worshipping and acquiring him, he could help solve the problem.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 20, 2015 -> 09:29 AM) Dude, you are beyond delusional. The 2005 White Sox had solid power or better at almost all positions and hit 200 HRs. I'm not sure how comparing those teams or players are relevant at all. I also don't get how Justin Upton can't be considered pretty consistent.