iamshack

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 12:23 AM) There is something about players with the initials 'BA' that gets this board riled up. Damn you and your hypnotic signature. Who is that girl?

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jul 9, 2009 -> 12:21 AM) Imagine a booth with Bob Uecker and Hawk. AND Jimmy Piersall!

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 10:46 PM) That's as of right now, because the Sox have a pretty damn good bullpen. As of this moment, I'd rank Jenks, Thornton, Dotel, and Linebrink above him. I'd say he falls into the 6th inning short reliever role and a guy who can fill in for Linebrink and Dotel when they are tired; a guy like Carrasco is a 6th inning long reliever role, where he can go 2 innings or more if need be and you really don't want to count on him for much else unless you are forced into it. The Sox bullpen right now is very versatile and has very capable arms. It's similar to the 2007 philosophy of finding guys who can throw the ball hard, but now the Sox have guys who can locate and have decent to good breaking stuff too, and the results have been much improved. I could also very easily see Pena working into a setup role a couple years down the road too. It isn't exactly what I would have looked for if I were to trade Brandon Allen, but I'm sitting in a computer chair. Ken Williams and company felt that this was a great value for Allen, and I'm not going to disagree with them because there is some merits behind the trade. As much as I hate to repeat it, I think the guy has earned our trust. They have time and time again scouted their own system incredibly well (much like the Braves), and brought quality pieces back. As Wite stated, all of us are sitting in computer chairs. There is not one among us who has seen Pena as much as our front office has. Nor is their one among us who has seen Allen as much, with JPN probably being the closest. From the very limited knowledge most of us have, we've just got to take their word for it for the time being. Do NOT take this as saying we cannot all express our opinions. But it is with the utmost certainty that I can say they are not as learned as our front office's.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 09:16 AM) brendol, your opinion is your opinion...and there's nothing wrong with that, you don't need to like him. Vin Scully is awesome, but in a different way. He frames the game with words, which isn't easy. Harry Caray, love him or hate him, was the dude sitting next to you in the bleachers getting wicked hammered with you. Bob Costas is an encyclopedia of baseball knowledge. Hawk Harrelson is the guy I wished I knew, who played the game, and had story after story, some of them, how shall I say, embellished...but still a great story teller. And Stone is the guy I wished I had as a coach in Little League. They all have their good things and bad things. And I've said this before, but if you want to hear bad announcers...check out the Rangers and Astros. It's like watching golf. *snore* Great post CoC. That's a really good way to look at it. They all have their strengths and weakness, and everyone has different opinions on what they like. I happen to love Hawk and Stone together. Try listening to the Twins or Tigers broadcasters, or Frank White is it, doing the Royals color comments? Brutal.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 09:05 PM) Considering what this thread is based on, to say the Sox have had the attitude you have described is wrong. Its never been win at all costs, in fact, I think White Sox fans have taken budgets into account more than any other fanbase I know the past several years when discussing trades and possible signings. On this board no one ever suggests the White Sox raise payroll $50 million. People have some crazy ideas but usually they make the money pretty even in trades and the like. I can tell you as a season ticketholder, the White Sox for the most part this season, have been a pretty boring team to watch. For the first time since John Kruk, I'm really not all that excited attending games this year until I made the trip to Milwaukee. The Sox have played in bad weather. They were playing brutally at home. The weather was crap. Its never been win at all costs, you know that. Dick, I'm just not sure which Franchise you've been watching the last 10 years or so. This is a GM, who under his regime, the Organization has been as active in the trade market as any in the league. He has tried to bring in virtually every impact player made available on the trade market over the past decade. Sure, some deals were not able to be made, some deals were made but the player refused to come here, and some players he has brought in. Whether it be David Wells, Freddy Garcia, Jim Thome, Carlos Delgado, Miguel Cabrera, Jake Peavy, Ken Griffey Jr., Randy Johnson, Javier Vazquez, Jose Contreras, he has tried to put this team in position to win time and time and time again. The GM and the Owner have stretched the payroll to its limits year in and year out. What more do you want? Outside of going into the red $50 million every year, I'm not sure what would make you happy...

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 07:26 PM) Because Kenny's the GM, not the head of PR. It's not just job to kiss the rear ends of illogical, overly-emotional fans. Earlier in this thread, I clearly stated that I don't agree with the Sox's ticket pricing. But I understand the reasoning behind it. That ticket pricing is one consequence of the Sox spending $96+ million for years and not garnering the fan support to pay for it. And this goes way beyond the stupid Dodgers series. Ticket sales have been down this year AND have been right at the MLB average since 2007. The reality is that the Sox can't continue to spend wildly on high-priced vets with average-to-mediocre ticket sales. Articulating this is not taking a shot at the fan base, it's just stating reality. Sheesh, you'd think that this was a message board from 1999. Let's not pretend that we're back in the Ron Schueler era, where the Sox were NEVER buyers at the trade deadline and spending on marquee players in general was a big no-no. The people who are getting their nuts in a twist over this are irrationally biting the hand that has gone out of its way to feed them generously over the past 3 1/2 years. Guess what, people? If the fans don't go through the turnstile, either the spending has to stop or the ticket/concessions prices go up. The revenue to support $96+ million in payroll for years on end has to come from somewhere. A great series of posts, WC. Our fans have truly not appreciated the attitude of "win at all costs" that Kenny and JR have brought to the table the last several years. Certainly there have been some decisions that have not worked out, including the disaster that has been CF since 2006, but I find it particularly infuriating when this fanbase claims the organization is cheap or is hiding profits, or is blaming them for the lack of options this coming trade deadline. KW and JR have shown a willingness to explore all options, even those that are not based on revenue projections (Jake Peavy), in order to make this team a contender year in and year out. For the fanbase to take insult to these comments is just another example of the defensive, angry and whiny attitude it has had over the course of the last 15 years. It's a real shame.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 03:51 PM) Jim Thome has only started/played 11 full games since June 12th. Isn't that skewed a bit by Interleague play though?

QUOTE (WinningUgly85 @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 03:31 PM) I think we should move either of the two. By trading Alexei Ramirez we free up SS for Beckham and give either Dayan a shot or Fields a starting job @ 3rd. Dye could be shopped around in a deal for Roy Halladay. Umm.....the timing could not be worse to trade one of these two.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) Whatever happened to revenue sharing? Maybe the problem is that Jerry Reinsdorf is trying to buy some hockey team in Arizona? Revenue sharing is the entire reason they are able to support a payroll as high as it has been for the past several years. They get approximately $60 million a year from revenue sharing, and that, along with other revenues, is what allows them to support a $100 million payroll or more. It certainly doesn't come from our stellar attendance, that's for damn sure.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 06:26 AM) The product until recently hasn't warranted more support. Its the catch 22 that seems to apply to the White Sox every year. The bottom line is the White Sox know and have known exactly how many tickets they have sold. They can also project pretty well what kind of walk-up to expect. How is it that they had plenty of money to assume the $63 million Jake Peavy was owed 2 months ago, but now have don't have the money to pick up anything but spare parts? Its either a smokescreen, some sort of gamesmanship or delusional. Dick, at the time of the trade, Kenny even said they really had no idea how they were going to pay for the salary. He said they were pretty much winging it. That he didn't know how it was going to work, just that they would make it work. Basically, it proves that they'll go make an acquisition if they absolutely love the player, regardless if the money is budgeted somewhere or not.

QUOTE (brendol @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 02:12 AM) The fact that most other people besides white sox fans dislike him says something about him. He is a complete homer. I'd rather have a knowledgeable broadcaster who isn't such a complete homer. Growing up listening to Hawk, you become a homer too. I guess I think it would be better for the white sox fan youth to listen to somebody that knows what they are talking about most of the time rather than a senile homer. Well isn't that what Stoney is for?

QUOTE (brendol @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 02:04 AM) Most people besides white sox fans dont like hawk at all. Vin Scully alone tops what we have. Well who is it that Hawk is supposed to be catering to?

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 01:58 AM) I'm not sure anyone is calling him a wise baseball-man. Anyone who has listened to Hawk long enough knows this about him. He's not baseball ignorant, but I'd never want him running my team in any shape or form. That said, he is a great announcer for the fans. As somebody has already pointed out, it is like watching the Sox with a buddy. Announcers that go for objectivity, I find them boring - their emotions also tend to sound forced, where as Hawk seems quite genuine. The combo the White Sox have in the booth right now is a real treat for me, and I think it'd be hard for any organization to top it. Not to de-rail the thread or anything, but that signature or whatever it is is quite hypnotic....I think I sat here and watched it over and over for like 5 minutes before I was able to snap myself out of it...

QUOTE (Jimbo's Drinker @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 01:36 AM) Hell No At least give us a little explanation of why not?

QUOTE (wilmot825 @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 01:21 AM) First time I heard it was the extra inning game against the Dodgers when Scotty got the winning hit. I have grown up with Hawk Harrelson doing Sox games and know no other who can do them for me. For all the flack he takes from people about his skills, he is a fan first and we hear that in the way he calls games. If its a "Hell Yes" on a big home run, a "That's bush" on a hit batter, or just the tone of disgust for the teams play: this is why Hawk does it for me. The fan first really makes me want to want more because I usually want to know "What Hawk thinks about that?" He has given us key catch phrases that wil last forever. I met Hawk last year and he is just the greatest guy to sit down and have a conversation with, he talked with me like we were best friends. Just to give an example he told me about his flight from South Bend and his home in Florida, again just a very personal and friendsly man. When that day comes when Ken "Hawk" Harrelson leaves the booth and/or leaves us forever, I think that the White Sox and baseball community will be deeply sadden. Let's enjoy him now while he is still here. Great post. You're absolutely right.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 10:02 PM) Amen.... and where were all these mutha phuckers when Jackson was on trial for freakin' on boys? He dies and suddenly the records start selling again and people are talking about how he changed the world. GMAFB. Honestly, I am torn on this. I think Michael Jackson is one of the most unique situations we will ever witness. The guy was so incredibly talented in the 70's and 80's. So amazingly popular and transcending. As much as people want to hate Al Sharpton, he is correct - Michael Jackson brought people of all races and backgrounds together through his music. The way only music, or sports, or other amazing events can. I was also a bit moved by the eulogy Brooke Shields gave. She and Michael Jackson both were so exploited as children, it seemed the relationship the two had together was really something pure and innocent, which was very much uncommon and a rarity in their lives. I try to remember Michael Jackson as he was in the early eighties, when I worshipped him for his talents and coolness. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Despite the freakshow he became, there is no ignoring what he did for the world through his music. I think that was incredibly evident today, despite the fact that for most, only the good times were remembered.

QUOTE (maki @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 12:44 AM) there is pretty much NO reason to believe the Angels' fanbase is any more or less knowledgeable about the game than the average sox fan. what would be the reasoning behind this? baseball as a sport is not scrutinized by the masses and there's not much out there saying the fans of the Angels are any different. No? Have you read message boards before? Let's face it, the midwest, and the White Sox fanbase in particular, is a very "blue-collar" fanbase. It's a fanbase that, relative to others, does not spend as much of its time in front of a computer, due in large part to the occupations it holds. That is not necessarily to say it does not get paid well, but it does not spend as much time reading about farm systems, learning the newest offensive and defensive metrics, etc. It gets most of its knowledge from sports radio as well as the team's beat writers. Unfortunately, the White Sox beat writers, and the characters on Chicago sports radio, have grown to cater to its fanbase. They do not seek to inform them on the newest information available, or the players in the Organization's farm system, as apparently they believe what attention they do get should be spent on the big league club and the statistics that most casual baseball fans generally understand. But as we all know, the game has changed. Baseball is more a game of data and economics than ever before. Those economics have made farm systems more important than they have been in recent history. Until the average fan understands these concepts, he/she will not understand the direction the Organization is going in or the reasons for their decisions. There is no reason why our beat writers and our sports radio commentators cannot step things up a notch and educate our fan base. There is no reason why our fanbase cannot gain a better understanding of what the Organization is attempting to accomplish on a year-to-year basis and thus gain a better perspective on whether to support them by going out to the games or not.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 12:20 AM) I think the White Sox would do well to study the Angels' example of how to compete and be perceived as almost "even" with the Dodgers in a city/region that probably had a similar split (60/40) of Dodgers to Angels fans. Moreno has reasonable prices, lots of new/innovative ideas because of his advertising and marketing background, reasonable parking prices...bringing in marquee names like Guerrero and Hunter and Texeira, etc. We will never compete on the same level as the Big 4 (Yankees/Cubs/Red Sox/Mets), but why can't we be close to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim? Or look at the A's as an example of the "second team" in a market being left in the dust and practically begging for relocation. Of any franchise I hope we could become it terms of consistency, attendance, tradition...it would probably be the Cardinals, who are the singular obsession in St. Louis, and they also have had two of the games' biggest superstars in McGwire in the 90's and Pujols now. The Angels are an outstanding franchise. No disputing that. However, the level of knowledge the average Angel fan has about that franchise is far above and beyond that of the average Sox fan. I truly believe a huge step in the process of raising revenues for the ballclub is to educate the fanbase. I think they would then be more willing to support the franchise because they would understand just how special this current ownership group and GM are. We are truly blessed, people. This group makes EVERY EFFORT to win year in and year out, with a very limited fanbase. Imagine what it could do with more support...

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 8, 2009 -> 12:05 AM) Why does it cost more for a beer at USCF than at Wrigley Field? They can belong on the list, but except for 2005, the White Sox haven't won a playoff series since when, 1919? Its not like they have this tradition of winning they are trying to sell. They have had some nice seasons, and a few not so nice ones. I really can't say they are a top 5 organization in baseball. They know what they are up against attendance-wise. Everyone knew they would have to win to get a decent walk up. They haven't won until recently. This is my 20th season with season tickets. This has been the first year I called them cheap. I What have the Mets won? The Cubs? It's not just about winning, it's about the market you're in.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 11:53 PM) it's a mix, I don't think the economy is 100% the reason. I think they will draw well if they continue to play better, Q comes back healthy and throw in the Bos and NYY series. However, for me the economy has cost me money in and health insurance. I got a nasty infection and had to pay out of pocket for the doctors visit and some meds, that cost me a Sox game... also have 2 friends who are bros and in the same union, they are working 20-30 hours a week when they were working 40+ last year, my brother-in-laws company cut down hours and may close a branch of their company (luckily not his), my dad is a computer consultant and the company he consults for (located on the south side and big number of Sox fans) had consultants take 1 week of unpaid vacation and cut their hourly rate and employees had to take 2 weeks of unpaid vacation... I can go on and on about personal experiences I know of people being hit by the economy on their day to day pay, not just 401ks or investements. It's a mix of reasons, but the economy is certainly one of them And I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is when every single fan says the economy the economy the economy. All KW said was that their numbers have been down this year and it could preclude them from making a big acquisition. Why is that so offensive to people? It's the truth. Honestly, this organization goes beyond the call of duty to put a competitive team on the field. Much more so than it's fan base supports it economically. To seem offended by these comments is just another example of our fanbase being an angry, defensive, and stubborn group. That is all I am saying.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 11:51 PM) The truth is the fans haven't come because the product was crap. JR said the 2008 was boring. Its like a restaurant winning some prestigious award, but saying their food wasn't really so good. To fix it, they are going to use cheaper ingredients and raise the prices on the menu. That should fix things. The White Sox raised ticket prices and lowered payroll. What other team did that? They had the season ticketholder playoff money held hostage. I think that is something that is very important. If they sell off and aren't in a position to collect non refundable playoff money from season ticketholders, the poster suggesting a huge drop in renewals, probably will be right if the Sox try raise prices again. Considering JR's edict is to not lose money, so you would have to assume they didn't lose any last year, wouldn't the White Sox actions suggest they were anticipating a drop? Just remember, the only teams more expensive for a family to see are the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs. Even the Red Sox had trouble selling out playoff games last year. Gammons wrote they had tickets available day of game, and they weren't give backs. The White Sox gave the Dodger series a very high pricing tier. They priced a lot of people out. The numbers speak for themselves. That's not on the fans, that's on whoever tried to get an extra 15-20 a seat. Ok, so tell me, why do the White Sox not belong on that list of teams? Are the White Sox not from a major market like the NY teams, or the Red Sox? Are they not in fact in the same city as the Cubs are? I don't understand why the White Sox should not be amongst that group? As for the fact that they lowered their payroll and increased prices, this team is the last team that should be considered cheap. They have consistently been amongst the highest in payrolls despite the middle in attendance. How can you argue that they should do more?

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 11:40 PM) That's a large part of it, but a poor product on the field, lousy weather, and the team not hitting or playing well at all at home aren't helping either. I would LOVE to know why you think attendance is down. I'm not disputing the poor performance and the bad weather. What my argument is is that Sox fans are using the economy for an excuse when it isn't the reason fans are going to less games. It's just one that seems more justifiable.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 11:38 PM) Because our fanbase is much smaller and less economically blessed than the one to the north, as we've all known for a long time now. See, I agree it is smaller and less-affluent, but not as much as to reflect the difference in monetary support that exists. I truly think Sox fans are stubborn bastards.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 11:37 PM) Well this I actually do agree with 100 percent, but I don't think it's an explanation for the attendance drop. No? So you are going to argue that the 4k drop in attendance is entirely due to the economy and higher parking and concessions?

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jul 7, 2009 -> 11:28 PM) The Cubs draw year in and year out because they play at a bar, and they are now even more popular since they have been a contender the last few years. The Sox aren't drawing less fans per game this year because of the business men in the lower deck not showing up, they are drawing less because the college kids and blue collar families and people like that who sit in the upper deck aren't coming out as much because they're broke and can't afford 23 dollar parking and more expensive tickets to watch a .500 team play ball. So if the Cubs fans can pay to go to their bar, why can't the White Sox fans pay to go to their team's games?