Thad Bosley

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Apr 23, 2015 -> 10:40 PM) I f***ing hate Ventura. Alexei bunt/Beckham steal attempts in late innings are prolly not going to put you in "Manager of the Year" conversations.

In all of the years that Alexei has been here and in situations like this one, I honestly don't ever remember him getting a bunt down successfully. Maybe, just maybe, they ought to think about scrapping any such plans in the future.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Apr 23, 2015 -> 10:31 PM) Really like Gordon in this new role. It's the right fit. +1

Sort of reminds me of that game in April 2000 when the Sox were off to a sluggish start. There was a fight between the Sox and the Tigers (Keith Foulke involved), and it seemed to wake the Sox up and propel them onto a nice run, eventually leading to the division title. Here's to hoping of going onto a similar nice run with similar seasonal results!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 23, 2015 -> 01:40 PM) If he said that, it is a lie. Mr. Reinsdorf said the exact same thing to me way back in '96 or '97 (I can't remember which year) at a season tickets holders get-together in the Bullpen Sports Bar right after the end of the season. I asked him why they didn't point the stadium in the direction of downtown, and he, too, said it was because of the sun. That answer, of course, never made sense to me, given that the old park faced that direction for 80 years.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 23, 2015 -> 09:21 AM) I think the biggest problem with the White Sox upper deck, and the entrance you mentioned would have been better, but the complaining would have still occurred, is the fans were used to the upper deck at the old park, which was probably club level high at most. That started the snowball rolling, and it has never stopped, and I don't think ever will. The fact is many if not most upper deck seats pretty much suck in most parks in baseball. There are seats just as bad as the bad seats at USCF in each park. I have often wondered, had the park been built in the direction facing downtown, by which in almost every seat in the upper deck you'd get the most spectacular view of the city's beautiful skyline, if any of this negative stigma with the UD would have ever developed. Think of the view you get to see when walking down the ramp of gate 3 (I think it's gate 3) after a ballgame. It's pretty awesome given the park's location in relation to downtown. Maybe you'd still have some complaints about the steepness here and there, but I really think people would have been far more forgiving of the flaws in the deck's construct if they had that view of the city to gaze upon any time they sat up there.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 23, 2015 -> 08:12 AM) This has been a complaint about our park that I have never understood. I have never been to any other park where the upper deck was significantly better than the Cell's. The problem with our upper deck, at least initially when there were the extra nine rows at the top, was that the entrance was at the base of the deck, not somewhere in the middle. If you had seats towards the top of the deck, the combination of having to start at the bottom and walk all of those steps up at the rather steep incline of this particular deck was not ideal. It certainly wasn't good in any manner for anyone elderly or over weight. It just wasn't. So with that quickly came the oft-heard maligning of the upper deck, leading to a negative stigma that still has residual effect to this very day.

Jose Abreu at-bats are like a work of fine art!

You're going to win 54...you're going to lose 54...it's what you do with the other 54 that matters. This was one of THOSE 54, and we won it. Very promising, indeed!!

QUOTE (InTheDriversSeat @ Apr 12, 2015 -> 04:45 AM) Does anybody remember watching SportsVision? Surprised by the lack of responses to this question? You shouldn't be. "SportsVision" was one of the best kept secrets of the early '80s, and that's because hardly anybody watched it. They didn't watch it because they didn't have it. It was just way too expensive to sign up for, and therefore it never took off to become the money maker that the current ownership group "thought" it would be. They "thought" they'd have 50,000 households signed up after just the first year in 1982. Meanwhile, even after the success of the '83 season, they still only had a measly 17,000 households signed up. Needless to say, this get-rich quick scheme didn't work, and SportsVision would go the way of the do-do bird shortly thereafter. Of greater consequence to the franchise with this display of strategic genius to go the SportsVision route by the current ownership was that they also surrendered both Harry Caray AND the exposure in 28,000,000 households at the time on WGN solely to the Cubs (note: 28M households vs. 17K). (This after Caray helped deliver record TV ratings for the Sox in '81 when the Sox were still on WGN, btw.). But this decision to essentially hide the Sox in the obscurity of pay TV while the Cubs enjoyed unchallenged access to games free of charge dispensed the Sox to the bin of irrelevance during this crucial period. Caray actually mentioned at one time that if the Sox had been on WGN during that '83 season, they would have "owned the city". Maybe he was right, and maybe he was wrong. We'll never know. What we do know is the current ownership group thought it wise to go the SportsVision route at the time, but they couldn't have been more wrong as it turned out. They would suffer the lack of exposure on SportsVision and the missed opportunity of exposure on WGN (with Caray at the helm) for many years. Hindsight, of course, is 20/20, but boy oh boy. What a strategic blunder of immense proportion the whole SportsVision idea turned out to be.

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Apr 4, 2015 -> 11:10 PM) Stop living in the past. The current Sox organization is brilliant. The core of the team is locked up in team friendly contracts going forward. Rick Hahn isn't just smart, he's brilliant. It was Kenny Williams who continually sold his soul trying to "win now". Lol - for your information, "current Sox organization" = past Sox organization. Jerry + Kenny + Rick = Jerry + Kenny + Rick Don't get me wrong - it would appear this triumvirate, after many years of trying, have been making better decisions in the past year and a half or so then they have in a long while. However, I wouldn't assign "brilliance" to anything just yet. I prefer to be "results oriented" when it comes to Jerry Reinsdorf-run baseball organizations, based on three and a half decades worth of unimpressive results, including those of the most recent decade. For me, I will only declare "brilliance" once I see this team finally in some state of sustainable success. That means win, and win often. Make it to the postseason in consecutive seasons for the first time in our lifetimes. Win and invigorate a dormant fan base which will then translate into more fannies in the seats. That's what I mean when I say "results oriented". Once they accomplish that, I'll join the "current Sox organization is brilliant" bandwagon faster than Grant took Richmond!!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 08:04 AM) Decidedly average, is the answer. But I can't really complain. Honestly, maybe I'm drinking the Kool-Aid, but I think the White Sox just make smarter business decisions than most teams. Chris Sale and Jose Abreu have two of the best contracts in baseball. http://deadspin.com/2015-payrolls-and-sala...dium=socialflow Team 2015 Payroll 1. Los Angeles Dodgers $272,789,040 2. New York Yankees $219,282,196 3. Boston Red Sox $187,407,202 4. Detroit Tigers $173,813,750 5. San Francisco Giants $172,672,111 6. Washington Nationals $164,920,505 7. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim $150,933,083 8. Texas Rangers $142,140,873 9. Philadelphia Phillies $135,827,500 10. Toronto Blue Jays $122,506,600 11. St. Louis Cardinals $120,869,458 12. Seattle Mariners $119,798,060 13. Chicago Cubs $119,006,885 14. Cincinnati Reds $117,197,072 15. Chicago White Sox $115,238,678 16. Kansas City Royals $113,618,650 17. Baltimore Orioles $110,146,097 18. Minnesota Twins $108,945,000 19. Milwaukee Brewers $105,002,536 20. Colorado Rockies $102,006,130 21. New York Mets $101,409,244 22. San Diego Padres $100,675,896 23. Atlanta Braves $97,578,565 24. Arizona Diamondbacks $91,518,833 25. Pittsburgh Pirates $88,278,500 26. Cleveland Indians $86,091,175 27. Oakland A's $86,086,667 28. Tampa Bay Rays $76,061,707 29. Houston Astros $70,910,100 30. Miami Marlins $68,479,000 "I think the White Sox just make smarter business decisions than most teams." Really? And how do you arrive at this conclusion? Based on the club's overall success? The Sox have one playoff appearance in the last DECADE since the WS in '05, and that appearance lasted all of one minute. And the 24 years prior to '05, this current Sox ownership saw their team reach the postseason a measly three times, combining for just three wins in those appearances. Real "smarter business decisions" contributing to that unheralded record, I must say. And as of today, this supposed record of "smarter business decisions" has this big market team almost dead last in the Majors in attendance and TV ratings as we speak. Not to mention, but a team payroll going into this season almost identical to that of the Kansas City Royals AND Minnesota Twins, and less than that of the Reds, Blue Jays, Mariners, AND former Montreal Expos, the Nationals. But god are we "smart", we managed to get Sale and Abreu to sign for under market. Whoopie...for the investors!! Not so much for we, the fans.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2015 -> 01:48 PM) I know I am outdated, but they could go back to all organ music, and I would be OK with that. I wouldn't say you are outdated at all. There's nothing wrong with associating organ music with the classic baseball experience. For years, part of the enjoyment of a day out at Comiskey Park/U.S. Cellular included being entertained by the one and only Nancy Faust. I would take her creative stylings on the keyboard over any canned song any day of the week.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 31, 2015 -> 09:10 AM) When the owner says "jim thome will be a manager one day", that's when you know he's ventura's replacement. If that's the case, why is Thome wasting time in this nebulous "special assistant" position he's in and instead learning the finer points of the craft by managing one of the team's minor league teams? Must the only criteria for a White Sox manager be simply "Former Sox player/Reinsdorf favorite/no prior managerial experience"?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2015 -> 12:00 PM) Christopher Kamka ‏@ckamka 46m46 minutes ago This day in #WhiteSox history 1981: AL owners approve sale of team to group headed by Jerry Reinsdorf & Eddie Einhorn And 34 years later, how has this "group" done? Only five playoff appearances - 5, out of 34 years! - and of those, only one meaningful. The other four? Quite forgettable, unfortunately - only four wins across those four appearances. (And people wonder why the Sox have attendance issues!) And yet, Dan Hayes of Comcast Sportsnet Chicago has the absolute nerve last week to pen a full page article trumpeting the so-called "aggressiveness" and "competitiveness" of Mr. Reinsdorf throughout these past 34 years. Oh really? There is no doubt there were many years when that assertion could be called into question. I mean, GMAFB, already. The record speaks for itself, sadly. Sorry, but very much looking forward to the next "AL owners approve sale of team" message.

Good stuff! Really enjoyed both interviews. Makes it very easy to get excited about our young talent and the long term prospects for the ball club.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 19, 2015 -> 09:55 AM) Sox won a world series, and not much changed. And that was with cub teams that were horrible in 05-06 Lol - "not much changed"? Your what hurts? A whole lot changed! We had a waiting list for season tickets in 2006 and set a franchise record for attendance that season by drawing just short of three million fans. Turns out our oft-maligned fan base found exciting post season play interesting. Who knew! But since then the team has returned to the typical achievement level experienced during the other 33 years of the current ownership's regime. That's the part that needs to change, and here's to hoping that happens this season, and continues on for the foreseeable future!

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 6, 2015 -> 11:29 AM) You are endorsing a policy where Reinsdorf and the board spend $150 million a year on payroll. Regardless of the feasibility of that idea (according to these numbers, which are approximations, only 5 teams spent $150 million in payroll last year and the White Sox and Cubs COMBINED did not spend $150 million), what would you have spent that money on? It seems absurd that you are indicting Reinsdorf on not spending money and then not offering an alternative plan as to what would be done with that money. Are you implying that he should spend money just to spend money? Or are you using revisionist history and saying "they should have won more"? If you are going to say that they didn't win more in the last 10-15 years because Reinsdorf didn't spend money, then I will wholeheartedly and unabashedly disagree with you, because a sufficient amount of money was spent. If anything, that falls on the players on the field, the managers and coaches on the bench, and the people in the front office. I do agree that they can spend more if the acquisition makes sense. At this juncture, how would you justify another expenditure like that? Bring in a guy like Scherzer, even though historical data shows us that pitchers who are worthwhile for 7 years are exceedingly rare? Bring in a guy like Shields who is already 33 and has shown some of the telltale signs of slowing down? Really, neither of those make sense and it takes an injury to either one of them to cripple the Sox and limit their flexibility in finding replacements. Frankly, the only sorts of moves that make sense are moves to shore up the depth of the club in the event that an injury strikes, and I think Hahn has shown just in the past years that he's constantly trying to do that. Considering they are also trying to allocate some money to sign Samardzija long-term while also accounting for raises to Abreu, Eaton, Sale, and Quintana, I think it makes sense to look at the current team through a long-term lens rather than a "spend everything, damn the margins, and try and win it this year!" This is a team that probably has a 40% chance of a playoff birth but they should be competitive and should win a lot more than they did last season. After the previous two meager seasons, I'd ultimately be happy with an 85 win team, even if there would be immediate disappointment if/when they were eliminated from playoff contention. This is not an overnight process. Hopefully in 3 years, given what Hahn and the front office are doing to ensure long-term viability of the club while also doing their best to make the current club competitive, the Sox will be spending $150 million a year. There's no guarantee that this works. Thus, spending some and going out on a limb to try and put together a competitive team will either further justify spending or will allow them to trade a lot of these pieces off. If they signed Scherzer/Shields at this point, and it was inherently obvious within a year and a half that the team wasn't going to be competitive, you are likely stuck with that contract because the surplus value from either contract is not enough to justify another team trading for them. The current philosophy makes sense. Very thoughtful response, and thank you for that. I do appreciate it. A few reactions to your reply: A.) Am I endorsing a policy where the current ownership group allocates $150 million to payroll? Yes, I certainly am. And that is solely because the reigning division champs - the team that has won the division four years in a row now - have a payroll in that vicinity, will continue to do so, and are still widely expected to repeat as division champs. To your point that there is no guarantee having such a high payroll works, you are absolutely correct about that, but it sure as heck greatly increases the team's chances of winning. B.) Re: Max Scherzer. Case in point - if the Sox brought him in right now, even at the amount he's commanding, he would bring that team payroll up in the vicinity of $150 million, more or less. More importantly, though, is the impact he would have in this very interesting 3-5 year window the Sox are heading into as someone who I really think could put the team over the top and make them a true powerhouse. Forget about years 6 & 7 in that contract and how he might fall off at that time. That drop off would be well worth it if he could be the major catalyst who, if healthy, would be a primary contributor in taking the team to levels we have not seen in our lifetimes during this window. Despite the great moves Hahn has already made this winter, the complexion of our roster looks entirely different, and the teams chances are far more enhanced, with Scherzer on this team vs. not. So under the rule "Sometimes you have to spend money to make money", for the life of me I don't understand how the Sox don't strike at this moment and try to sign this guy and finish off this offseason with a bang. I know the Sox historically have not given out those kind of contracts, but that's part of my beef. How have these operating philosophies worked out for us in the past? I'm calling into question many aspects of the Sox' approach to matters only because they have simply not yielded desirable results. We hardly ever win!! So if it's changing course and taking on a little more risk than we have in the past, then so be it. Let's do it! Let us win the division four years in a row for a change and at least get into the stinkin' playoffs and then take our chances then. But the team in the division currently doing all the winning is spending substantially more than us, so all I'm saying is we need to start doing the same, and for me, a good starting point would be signing Mr. Scherzer. C.) "If they signed Scherzer/Shields at this point, and it was inherently obvious within a year and a half that the team wasn't going to be competitive, you are likely stuck with that contract..." And what if they signed either of them and within a year and a half the team became a league powerhouse and went to the World Series one, two, three times, a la the San Francisco Giants, for example. What if! Again, it's a question of taking on a little risk, but the payoff could well be worth it. The team typically doesn't take on that type of risk, and how has that worked out for us.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 11:47 PM) Just like to point out that Detroit does not have another team across town to compete for the attention of the fan base while the Sox do. MMKAY... And just who have we been competing with the last 100+ years? Ah, yes - the Cubs, the biggest losers in the history of the sport. Sorry, but not really the best excuse, nor one we should hide behind.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 11:25 PM) No. The Sox might have a third of it. Might. And the bottom line is if Sox fans were turning the turnstyles like Detroit fans are, we'd have their payroll. Just out of curiosity, how do you know that?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 11:25 PM) No. The Sox might have a third of it. Might. And the bottom line is if Sox fans were turning the turnstyles like Detroit fans are, we'd have their payroll. Yessssss, and why is that? Because the organization has failed to wrestle more of that market share by earning it through winning. It's been there for the taking, given the Cubs's perennial losing ways. The Tigers were drawing as much as the Sox are today less than ten years ago, right around the time when we were winning it all. How did they manage to turn it around such that they can now float a payroll 50% greater than that of the Sox? Answer - sustained winning, supported by bigger spending than the Sox.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 02:10 PM) The Tigers also drew 1.3 (or around 80% higher attendance) million more through the turnstyles last year, and have the entire Detroit metro market to themselves. The Tigers have the #11th largest metro area all to themselves, while the Sox have almost half of the 3rd largest metro area all to themselves, so numbers wise, it's almost a wash. So there's that. Detroit has also been drawing more recently because they've been winning more recently, due in no small part because they've been spending more recently. Spending more than us, winning more than us, and therefore, drawing more than us. What to make of that! If you choose not to be insulted by hearing or reading stories of Jerry Reinsdorf's asserted benevolence because he approved that last additional "expenditure" for Cabrera's contract, which pushed the team payroll just over the $100 million mark, you go right ahead. That's just barely getting the team to the MLB team average for payroll, and therefore I refuse to fall prey to the team's propaganda and talking points that they're somehow going out on a limb on all of this recent spending. Meanwhile, the reigning division champs continue to spend almost 50% more than the Sox. I find that disparity unacceptable, that's all I'm saying.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 02:11 PM) They have a single owner in a single market. The Sox have a board of directors to which JR is responsible and they have the lesser share of a market with 2 teams. Illitch can do whatever he wants with the team. It's his. JR does not have this luxury. JR has said repeatedly that he will not spend the Sox into the red. His ownership groups for the Bulls and Sox are different. He cannot steal money from his Bulls group and give it to the Sox group. While he owns more of the a great deal more of the Bulls than the Sox, they are still different groups. Sounds, then, like the Sox are operating at quite a competitive disadvantage, which really shouldn't be the case for a team playing in a large market.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 01:16 PM) If a $150 million payroll were realistic, the White Sox would have a $150 million payroll. I think they could probably get away with a $110 million payroll this year, but that leaves very little wiggle room and I don't see the need to spend money just to spend money. I also want nothing to do with either Scherzer or Shields 3 years from now, let alone 5 or 7. If the Detroit Tigers who play in a much smaller market can feature a $163 million payroll, then there is no way I can accept the fact that a $150 million payroll is not "realistic" for the "Chicago" White Sox. No way!

QUOTE (Charlie Haeger's Knuckles @ Jan 3, 2015 -> 03:18 PM) I am all for Ozzie's number being retired, as that typically singals the player/coach never being active for the team again. Harold Baines sez "Hi!".