Dick Allen

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 26, 2015 -> 01:28 PM) How many times does it have to be said that it is because of Fangio? And come on now, the Cowboys would have sniffed around. No doubt McDonald would be 31 when the season started. What was the best case scenario for him? That he has a decent year and the Bears go 8-8? I understand there are bad guys on every team, including the Bears. But I agree, this signing, although it costs the Bears no money, still makes the new regime look utterly incompetent.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 26, 2015 -> 01:15 PM) They didn't get burned at all. As others have said, it was low risk, decently high reward. The fact that George had to come out and make statements to justify the signing is the real problem here. Who the hell cares? It's a business. It's a sport. They're not role models and they shouldn't be role models. If they are for you, adjust your life and/or parenting. The Ray Rice video changed everything for wife beaters. I just saw a neighbor of mine taken away in handcuffs after choking his girlfriend a couple of weeks ago.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 26, 2015 -> 01:14 PM) Hard to say that, the 49ers just went into total self destruct mode. Had they still been in Win Now mode with Harbaugh and Fangio in charge then McDonald may still be there Are the Bears in win now mode? That's the thing I don't understand. Read Biggs article. It's pretty good, at least from my point of view.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 26, 2015 -> 01:11 PM) Why? What does the Bears offering this guy a second chance and then cutting him when he gets arrested again have anything to do with a player in the future? Because they got burned. If you really think George McCaskey will approve a similar case in the future, I totally disagree, and good for him. I think teams can still win wife beater-free.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 26, 2015 -> 01:06 PM) No, it's kind of someone's job to protect yourself from something like this, not predict it. The NFL is littered with bad guys, in every locker room, you cannot insulate yourself from all of them. They gave this guy a nice non guaranteed chance and he blew it immediately. It's egg on the face for sure, but there isn't any long term ramifications here. Predicting it is also a part of it. There is a reason the 49ers cut him. If they didn't think he would be any more trouble, he probably still is with them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 26, 2015 -> 01:06 PM) Is financial risk the only one here? Is there a PR risk issue? They also have a potential fine of $150k from the NFL front office for now having signed 2 people with law-enforcement issues, that fine could increase if anyone else gets into trouble. I agree the PR is a huge part of this. And everyone seems to be ignoring that yes there are bad guys in every locker room, and some day, when the Bears actually have a shot of winning something, one of these guys will be available to help them, and the answer from George McCaskey will be undoubtedly be no.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 26, 2015 -> 12:58 PM) Well it's a GM's job to make sure he is looking out for the best of the organization, but the fact is they signed him to a non-guaranteed contract and let him go as soon as he got in trouble again. While I agree that the initial character statements by the organization were stupid, this was absolutely a solid football move (low risk, high reward). Low financial risk. They all look like fools right now.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 26, 2015 -> 12:28 PM) Jesus, that's a hot take. Think about it. If and when the Bears are good enough, and one of these jokers who could help them wants and needs a second chance, there is no way. I wrote that before I read the Biggs article and I agree totally with him. This signing was stupid. It was a big PR risk, there is one writer that is calling for the Bears to be fined and give up draft picks for signing him, but Biggs said the team isn't ready to win, McDonald while a good player, isn't Pro Bowl quality, and he is getting a little long in the tooth. Doesn't seem like the time or the guy to take your shot with.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 26, 2015 -> 12:48 PM) The decrease in years where we are losing is 191,000 and the decrease in years where we're above .500 is 116,000 if I drop the blackout game out. 73% of the dropoff in attendance since the 2006 peak has happened in the 5 losing seasons, 27% has happened in the 3 winning seasons. You can spin it however you want to spin it, but winning games, being in first place, doesn't really help all that much. Getting to the WS where people will buy packages for WS tickets does. It's too bad it takes a WS for White Sox fans to enjoy baseball. Think about it, Thad Bosley said the White Sox have had only 1 exciting season the last 35. So 90+ win seasons aren't fun, winning divisions aren't fun. It's only the WS trophy that is fun. If that is how one thinks, it is time to move on. The Braves won 1 WS and made the playoffs 15 years in a row. 1 exciting season out of 15.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 26, 2015 -> 12:36 PM) That is incorrect. The total attendance including game 163 is 2544704, the total attendance number used in that calculation is 2500648. Game 163 was not counted in that total. If you count that, the dropoff is smaller that year and the impact of the losing seasons is more stark. Perhaps before you assume someone's math is incorrect you should double check the count yourself. 40,354 was the attendance for the Blackout Game. So, somewhere your math, is a bit off. And according to Baseball Reference, the Sox attendance was 2,500,648 with an average of 30,496 which would be 82 dates. One more than usual. Maybe you need to take your own advise.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 26, 2015 -> 12:28 PM) Decrease in year-over-year ticket sales during the season: 2014 117592 2013 197542 2012 35162 2011 193261 2010 89785 2009 216485 2008 183747 2007 273019 Sorting: Team below .500: 2007 273019 2009 216485 2011 193261 2014 117592 2013 197542 Team above .500: 2008 183747 2010 89785 2012 35162 Average ticket sale decrease over the last 8 seasons: Team below .500: 199,580 Team above .500: 102,898 When the team has been above .500 the ticket sale boost from the world series has eroded at 1/2 the rate that it has in the losing seasons. 2008 also had an extra date. The fans for some reason came to that one. So in essence, the 2008 total is overstated by about 40k.

QUOTE (scs787 @ May 26, 2015 -> 12:22 PM) I haven't really seen any of the beat reports talk about how terrible he is. Its all "Bears gambled and lost" which is what happened. They gave him a non gaurenteef contract and told him to stay out ta trouble or he's gone. He didn't, and he is. Brad Biggs termed it an unnecessary risk.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 26, 2015 -> 12:13 PM) The most annoying thing about this to me is how beat reporters, not really having access to much beyond the accusations, build tons of stories about his redemption. How soon after he was signed did we get 15-20 "McDonald says he's a good guy and people don't know the whole story" articles? How many stories with Fangio praising him? I hate these stories. If you wonder why people are harder on teams signing these guys, it's because right after signing the disgusting sports PR machine goes into overdrive where we are forced to believe that their football play makes them better people, and their teammates love them so they can't be bad. And sports as redemption. The kind of treatment that the victims do not enjoy. Now the same beat writers are talking about how terrible Mcdonald is. I still don't know why George characterized his first Domestic Violence arrest as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Wasn't this his fiancé? Where was he supposed to be, with the girl he allegedly sexually assaulted? I understand second chances, but beating women is one where he can get a second chance with a real job, not pro football player making millions.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ May 26, 2015 -> 09:42 AM) There's a huge difference between winning a lot of games and being in first place for "most of the season" and being in first place on the last day of the season. The latter typically draws more fans in. Especially if it's done frequently in a short time period. You can nitpick on a specific number of consecutive post-season experiences all you want. I was just throwing out an example. There are lots of different ways to define success. It can be 2 years in a row. It can be 3 years in a row. It can be 3 times in 5 years. 5 times in 10 years. Something a lot of other teams in the league have done many, many times. If the Sox could manage any one of those scenarios I would bet that attendance would go up at least in the short term. But they never have. Actually, I just checked. The Sox are the only AL team that has never hit any of those scenarios. The Nationals, Marlins and Rockies are the only other teams that haven't either. Agreed. There's not really a huge difference if we are talking attendance. If they have to win the division for people to attend, you won't know that until it is too late. The won the division in 2008 and drew less than they did for a team that had to win several games iin September to only lose 92.

QUOTE (LDF @ May 26, 2015 -> 09:40 AM) you have excellent points and makes a good argument. re the gut, i see coaching per adv metric kind of coaching. i don't see the lineup based on the hot bat. use the hot bat and yes the gut instinct to fill out your top 4 or 5 hitters in the lineup. be aggressive in the coaching aspect. Maddon is not the end of all things in coaching. but, and this is coming from a huge RV supporter, maybe RV is not the kind of manager that can get the team going. isn't that one of the reasons why teams fires their managers, esp early on in the season?? I just think there is a huge distortion in how people view the manager and coaches effects on players. These are major leaguers, they are supposed to know how to play by the time they arrive. They aren't a bunch of 7 year olds needing constant instruction. They fire managers, but if you really look at it, the team doesn't significantly improve, or will eventually start playing like they were supposed to, so it looks like the right decision because many think it would never happen under the old manager. The Dodgers were supposedly ready to fire Mattingly a couple of years ago, but didn't and they got tremendously hot. If they would have fired him and the same thing happened, he would have been the fool. You have to expect White Sox hitters to eventually start hitting normally, and they will win more games. It hasn't been their style to make a coach or manager a sacrificial lamb, but maybe this year they do. If the players then start playing to their averages, the move looks good, although it probably happens without the change.

QUOTE (LDF @ May 26, 2015 -> 08:51 AM) it has appears to me, i who know crap about the adv metric, that people use that as a bible to manage. maybe in the fans point of view. what ever happen to the old coach with your gut instinct, make the lineup based on who is hitting? making up the lineup based on the hot bat. the old cliche is a coach should be able to find ways to make the team perform. that is why you see teams moving a coach. The problem with using your "gut" is when it doesn't work out, you are deemed a fool. When it works out it is forgotten quickly. Everyone can blame the manager all they want, the problem is, firing him doesn't solve the issues. Joe Maddon had a team that was supposed to be good last year. They weren't .500. This year, he's gone and somehow they are in first place, albeit barely in a bad division. Trotting out a big name to make out your line up card with a crappy team is putting lipstick on a pig. The exact same things will probably happen, but the manager won't be blamed. Ozzie was never blamed for poor White Sox offense when he managed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2015 -> 09:13 AM) I'd really love to know what is going on this year with first inning pitching. We have some damned good pitchers who are just awful this year to start games, and I don't remember this being an issue in years past. I wouldn't think it would be warm up routine, because why would that have changed? Would the bullpen mound have changed? Grasping at straws here. I have always been fascinated with the warm up routine ever since the night of Peavy's injury. We noted that night, he threw no more than 10 total pitches warming up. Something was wrong. This year, the one difference I see is with Samardzija. He is done warming up a lot sooner than the rest, and sits in the dugout a good 10 minutes, if not longer, than the other pitchers before he hits the mound. Of course, Sale had one of those on Saturday with the Paulie ceremony, but he was pretty good in the first inning.

QUOTE (3GamesToLove @ May 26, 2015 -> 08:23 AM) Is this actually statistically relevant data, though? So they're bad in the first inning. Does that tell us anything about the team or what they can do better? It does suggest maybe a change in routine, at least for the pitchers, should be in order. I would expect 1st inning ERA, and 1st inning offensive production to be affected by the fact teams' supposed best hitters are hitting. The spread is just too wide for the pitchers, and the hitter, the top of the line up needs to produce more runs, and getting out to a lead might actually help win more games.

QUOTE (harkness @ May 25, 2015 -> 07:55 PM) Robin really said all the right things on the plane last night. He must have also saw some things on film to get this offense started.. Bunch of guys walking with their heads down to the bench. Just a complete failure. Shut out by a guy with a 6.91 era. Yeah they would probably have 15 or 20 hits if they had a different manager.

QUOTE (jeffro2525 @ May 25, 2015 -> 07:51 PM) Gonna be another 2:20ish minute game. That is one good thing about it.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 25, 2015 -> 07:44 PM) In the end, the team has to win. Even without Quentin. Besides 2005 and the Blackout Game (which everyone acknowledges would have been a loss in Minnesota if not for Hahn's kid lucking out on the coin flip), there's just not enough. Would White Sox fans have honestly been EXCITED heading into those two off-seasons? Not the way the previous seasons ended. Everyone felt 2012 was a fluke, and 2013 and 2014 proved that it was more of an anomaly than a return to even "mediocrity." So the winning that particular season doesn't matter you have to wait until the next season, but that doesn't matter either. Got it. The Sox attendance was lower in 2008 than in 2007 when for most of the season, they either had or were really close to the worst record in baseball. Winning didn't matter. Now,as the poster posted, the onky wasy fir a season to be successful or exciting is a team that wins a WS. So you don't even know if a season is exciting until it is over.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 25, 2015 -> 07:45 PM) That sounds like s broken record with every starter this year For a guy who was supposed to be released an hour ago, he has been great.

Noesi hasn't been bad since the first, and that wasn't all on him.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 25, 2015 -> 06:36 PM) Once again, nobody has countered all of the teams listed over and over again in this thread that have been brought up. All we hear are comparisons to the Red Sox, Tigers, Cubs, Cardinals, etc., and how their fanbases are more "loyal" or not bandwagon when the majority act/behave just like we do in terms of supporting winning teams and/or superior ballparks or gameday experiences. The only example that might be relevant to us is the Milwaukee Brewers, who once again have their market all alone and a much nicer facility for their fans. I've also provided a link to a website that showed that "local/Illinois/regional" fans were almost exactly the same for the Cubs and White Sox as recently as 2010. (In other words, the only reason for the bigger attendance a full 4 years after the World Series was tourism/Wrigleyville/out of state/regional states fan groups who were drawn in by the historic nature of the park, day baseball, the 100+ year losing streak, etc.) 2008 is very simple to explain. Attendance is a function of the previous season, to a large degree. The same reason attendance was better in 2006 than 2005 is the reason you saw a falloff in 2008...largely due to fact that the 2nd half collapse in 2006 lopped off some fans, and the 2007 disaster wiped out yet another 25% of the season ticket base. If you want to say that 2008 and 2012 were disappointments, show the proof that the walk-up numbers were lower in those years than 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, etc. Call or e-mail Brooks Boyer. 2012's "disappointing" attendance was likewise directly related to the disastrous 2011 "all in" season...because surely another 15-20% of the group remaining from the excitement of 2008 and 2010 and the World Series was wiped out. If you want to say Chicago White Sox fans didn't support those 2008 and 2012 teams with excitement/enthusiasm/passion, then the better numbers to look at aren't the offseason ticket packages that make up 80% of attendance but the walk-up/week of game attendance numbers for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. I'm sure you will see a significant increase in walk-up in 2008, 2010 and 2012. Likewise, I'm so tired of White Sox fans being criticized as if they're the singularity event of that phenomenon when it permeates nearly every non-winning franchise in baseball in a similar fashion. We could go to Oakland, TB, Minnesota, Cincy, Minnesota, Colorado, NY Mets, Atlanta, Seattle Mariners, Houston Astros (remember, they had the worst televisoin ratings in history in recent years with an "exciting/rebuilding" team), Baltimore, Toronto, Pittsburgh and Cleveland websites and read the exact same comments, if not worse. By most of the the definitions here, the Minnesota Twins fans SUCK and are bandwagon fans. But they won 6 of 9 division championships!!! They got a brand new outdoor stadium, too....so why is attendance there way down this season over 2011, 12, 13 and 14? Because they've been losing (terribly) for four consecutive years, and their season ticket packages eroded coming into 2015. Walk-up alone won't offset that. Then explain 2009 and 2013

QUOTE (scs787 @ May 25, 2015 -> 05:11 PM) I'm gonna assume he was a good teammate and solid in the locker room (Reason they traded B was mainly due to locker room issues). If he learned from his mistakes it would have been a good signing, he didn't. Bears didn't give him gaurenteed money for that reason. It was a chance worth taking IMO. If the Bears were a player or so from being a Super Bowl contender, I might agree, but this embarassment will have ramifications for years to come. I think guys with sketchy backgrounds are goimg to have a hard time getting approved by George. Plus domestic violence, and sexual assault ia a little more serious than other things you give guys second chances.