Thad Bosley

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 1, 2015 -> 10:20 PM) Why would the Cubs sell their 20% though? Unless there is a provision in the contract that they must keep some games on CSN. There are all kinds of reports out there that the Cubs will leave CSN after 2019. Some reports mention them potentially teaming up with FOX Sports to create their own regional network. There was even talk of them punting the WGN portion of their schedule over to the local FOX affiliate, WFLD-TV, in advance of that plan. That didn't happen, as the Cubs recently gave a big portion of the WGN schedule to Channel 7. But one way or another, it would appear as of today they will no longer be broadcasting on CSN after 2019. My assumption then, and I could be wrong, but no games = no 20% ownership, meaning if they walk away from CSN they'd probably sell their 20% back.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 1, 2015 -> 10:14 PM) Really tough to predict since still so far out. 2019 to now is like now to pre 2009-season. The media environment has completely changed since then, who knows what these contracts will look like in 5 more seasons. No one in 2009 predicted the kind of TV Money the Dodgers and others would start getting. True, but I still wonder what the long term thinking of the ball club might be on the matter. Going back to the Cubs for a moment, they've been pretty clear of their intentions post-2019. They've already kicked WGN to the curb, more or less, and there have been many reports about their goal of creating their own regional sports network, a la the Yankees, Dodgers, etc., once the CSN contract is up. A lot will change between now and five years from now that will impact what the Cubs are trying to achieve, but at least there's some sense of the direction in which they're going. And so that's my only question, just wondering what the Sox' long term TV intentions might be or could be, given what we know today.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jan 1, 2015 -> 07:36 AM) No. The sox own 20 pct. the bulls own the other 20. Jerry may control the partnership, but he does not have thatch equity in the enterprise. Big difference Very interesting discussion. So any guesses as to what happens after 2019, after the Cubs terminate their involvement with CSN and move to their own regional sports network? Do the Sox continue on with CSN, and do they benefit by potentially increasing their % ownership due to the Cubs departure?

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) I'm actually a bit scared. I'll take my chances!

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Dec 29, 2014 -> 10:36 PM) In 2029, when the lease ends, I will be shocked if they are not at the exact same corner. There really is no where to go. Unless the state wants to dish out 3 billion for land, stadium, and infrastructure costs. Unless the state wants to dish out another sweetheart lease deal whereby we, the taxpayers, continue to subsidize ownership due to a continuation of attendance problems at this lousy location. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think the Sox or the state will make that same mistake again. A new and more desirable location may not be obvious now, but when the time comes, this franchise will pull up stakes at 35th and Shields and move the show to a far more advantageous part of the city. Of that, I have no doubts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 24, 2014 -> 11:20 AM) Do you honestly think the White Sox have something like $50ish million dollars laying around? Because that is the kind of commitment we are talking about. Did you think at the time the Sox were chasing Tanaka that they had the kind of money lying around that was rumored to have been offered him?

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Dec 22, 2014 -> 12:36 PM) Most of the comments in this thread seem to be made under the influence of crack. Sox are going NOWHERE UNTIL 2029 and will likely build on the old comiskey site. It is the best spot when you factor in rail service, traffic patterns, and parking. The only "crack" going on here is you cracking me up by continuing to suggest the location at 35th and Shields is the "best spot" for this franchise. I don't know why you keep saying this. It. Is. Not. The decades of poor attendance records proves that beyond a doubt. Not to mention, but the current location wasn't even in the current ownership's top three choices back in the 80s when they were looking for a place to build the new park. As has been mentioned ad nauseum, the area lacks the surrounding nightlife options that so many other ballparks have, and there remains a carryover stigma from many years ago that the area around the ballpark isn't the safest. You combine those two considerable factors, and you can have the best rail service, the most amazing traffic patterns, and all the parking in the world, and it won't matter. As long as the destination itself remains as it is today - uninspiring with no attractions - no one is going to go there unless there is a bona fide winner on the field. That hardly defines the current location as the "best spot" for the Sox.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 18, 2014 -> 08:24 PM) Hoyt complete game from May, 1983. The sound gets better after a few minutes. Quick game. Kittle homers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV4fzRwPIdk Thanks! A great trip down memory lane, particularly getting, once again, to hear #53, Don Drsydale, calling the play-by-play, alongside his color analyst at the time, the One, the Only, Ken "Hawk" Harrelson. Double D and Hawk were a terrific broadcasting duo together, and would have been far more popular in Chicago had they not been the pair to replace Harry Caray and Jimmy Piersall. And, of course, had they not been buried on Sportsvision, the Reinsdorf/Einhorn brainchild that...well, a story for another day.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 18, 2014 -> 12:23 PM) Jerry's recommendation is for his sons and the current ownership group to sell the team upon his death. +1

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Dec 15, 2014 -> 11:57 AM) the next sox stadium will be on the site of the last sox stadium. Wrong. The next ownership group will put their indelible mark on this franchise and once and for all, move the team out of that location which, for several decades now, has proven beyond a doubt to be less than desirable - and that's putting it mildly.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 14, 2014 -> 10:46 PM) Haha open your heart man, you'll feel better. That man IS White Sox Baseball. Calling White Sox games gives that man no greater pleasure, and since he gave so much to us throughout his better decades, let's just support our godfather and return the kindness in his later years. Plus he's wayyyy better when we are good! +++++ 1

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 14, 2014 -> 09:58 PM) Hopefully one of those moves is to fire Hawk and replace him with a competent announcer. That would really make the 2015 team watchable. - 1

So this is pretty much a done deal - we're getting Shark for Semien + one of our better prospects (prolly Danish). Great news, as that gives the Sox a very formidable 1-2-3 in the starting rotation. And hopefully an extension forthcoming for Shark, which would give the Sox quite a pitching advantage over the next several seasons. Where my mind has now gone and is reeling are these "surprise" moves that Bucket hinted are also likely coming, perhaps even this week. What could those possibly be!!

What a big media day it'll be in Chicago if the Sox trade for Shark and the Cubs sign Lester, essentially on the same day.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 11:18 PM) How does compare to otger teams in the league? How many games have other teams won? How many teams have a world series win or as many playoff victories? This ownership group has outperformed many and definitely out performed any other in Chicago. Fair questions, and I'll see to compile the exact records for you. But as a teaser of sorts, let me say that the small market Minnesota Twins have twice as many World Series appearances and World Series championships as our Sox since the Sox' current ownership group took over 34 years ago, and the small market Kansas City Royals also have twice as many WS appearances during that time period, and just as many WS trophies as the Sox. Small market Oakland has been to the WS three times in this same time since '81, with one WS championship to show for it. We are, however, tied with the Marlins and Diamondbacks, the two 90s expansion teams, with WS appearances and championships, so we have that going for us. The Tigers and Rangers, although without any WS trophies, have made it to the Series more often than the Sox have over the last 34 years. I could go on, but I think you get the point: we have NOT outperformed "many", not even by a long shot.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 07:51 PM) That list was probably relevant in 2004. But 2005 happened. 3 million people showed up in 2006. All of those thoughts about the Sox fan base being so small, and non-existent were mythbusted. If those same fans, who showed up in 2005/6, went back to not going to games, and are claiming any amount of reasons related stuff that happened in the 80's, they are not really fans. They are just miserable people looking for excuses. 2005 proved that the White Sox have a huge bandwagon component to their fan base. All the last eight years has done is reinforce it. Pre-2005 I didn't buy it at all, but now, the facts are there. All the last eight years has done is reinforce what we saw in the first 26 years of this ownership group: making it to the playoffs just once every eight years or so and coming away from those rare appearances with practically nothing to show for it is going to result in dwindling attendance. It's that simple, and should be expected. It's not because Sox fans are "miserable people" (not a nice thing to say, btw). There should be no expectation of unconditional love here, that the 2.9 million plus who walked through the turnstiles in '06 should have done so in 2011 and 2013, or else be dismissed as "bandwagon". They are consumers, and unfortunately when Sox product isn't up to snuff, they choose not to consume as much of it. Only one year in the 34 this ownership group has been running things worthy of mention. Just one! Only four playoff appearances in the other 33 years, with just four wins across all four of those appearances. THAT record is what is MISERABLE, not the fans.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 07:23 PM) BS 2005 happened. 3 million people showed up in 2006. Did 1.3 million of them go back to being mad about 1980? Please. If Sox fans are really still pissed about Harry Carey, the New Comiskey Park, White Flag, or any of that other BS, they really are the worst fans in baseball. You didn't highlight the important part of my last quote. I said the laundry list I referred to "CONTRIBUTED to the alienation of the fan base". I don't think I could be any clearer that the primary reason for the fan base malaise is the lack of winning. But if you want to discount the cumulative effect of years and years of the poor management decisions made by this ownership group, you go right ahead. But I will steadfastly maintain the reason this large market team's attendance and tv ratings are in the toilet as we speak is a combination of all of these things, primary of which is the lack of winning.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 06:56 PM) All we need is a White Flag mention now. It's not on par with the Harry Caray/Sportsvision/flawed Comiskey Park design debacles, but it's part of a long laundry list of things that have happened over the past 34 years which have contributed to the alienation of the fans.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 06:51 PM) Spin it like you want to. If fans don't go to games, they don't get to complain about the payroll. I'm not spinning anything, just looking at reality. The results of recent years, the results of the collective 34 years of this ownership group, do not translate to having a big and fervent season ticket base. It's that simple. Look at the spike in attendance after we won in '05. There was a waiting list for season tickets, for crying out loud. Had the team been able to maintain that momentum and go on any kind of a run for a few years after that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But they didn't, mediocrity (at best) returned, and the interest of the fans dwindled correspondingly. Now you, you can choose to spin the problem by blaming the fans. I think that blame is misplaced. I blame it on the provider of the product and their consistent inability to field a team that the fans can get excited about.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 06:42 PM) Then please explain to me why the Cubs draw well. They've had an even worse situation and yet they've never had any problem drawing fans. That's an easy one. "Their" stewardship, while no great shakes, did manage to brilliantly maximize the talents of Harry Caray back in the '80s, along with providing them maximum exposure on free TV, which cultivated an entire generation of fans drawn to Caray and that little ballpark that he sold to the fans on a daily basis. So powerful was his draw and the way he sold the Wrigley experience that the effects remain to this very day. Our ownership group? After year one, they both got rid of Caray and took the Sox off free tv, and in my opinion, this organization has never really fully recovered from that. They've had their chances to recover either through fielding a winning team consistently, which they haven't, or by building a stadium with an experience that fans wouldn't want to miss. They blew that chance, big time, with the design of the new Comiskey Park. And while the renovations have been quite nice, in and of themselves they haven't been able to wake up the base. But it's this lack of winning that is the root cause of most of the attendance issues.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 06:34 PM) We also have a pitiful fan base, so it fits. A fan base that merely reflects the results of an ownership group who, in 34 years of their stewardship now, have all of one World Series appearance to brag about, with just four other rather non-memorable trips to the postseason. Four wins in those four trips, btw. Is it surprising to you then that we have neither a bigger fan base nor an energized one with the one we've got?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 06:00 PM) Merkin is a pretty annoying fan so I get it. I also do not think he is correct at the payroll number. I think they have more room than that, probably at least 10 million more. One would think the payroll would be higher than $90M, if Kenny was serious about us looking at whatever this new roster turns out to be and us walking away "dreaming again" about postseason play. $90M is far less than the average MLB payroll has been for a few years, so I don't know how that number and "dreaming again" square up.

QUOTE (bear_brian @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 12:38 PM) There is no way, IMO, that the Dodgers are going to trade Pederson or Seager without getting some salary relief in the form of one of the high-priced veteran outfielders, probably Ethier. So, if there is a "package", it would possibly be Etheir and Pederson or Seager. We don't need two of the Dodgers' outfielders, or else we'd essentially be trading for their logjam in the outfield.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:42 PM) Melky, Rasmus and Saunders. I'm also adding Brock Holt to the list (See my post in Red Sox OF's thread for more in depth on him) I don't think it'll be any of those guys, quite frankly. Mr. Kenny Williams is on record right now stating that when our roster is finally completed, Sox fans will be able to "dream again" about returning to the postseason. With the two, maybe three, remaining big holes to fill in LF, RH starter, and maybe 3B, I don't think adding any of those four outfielders really moves the needle to get us dreaming about anything. Whoever they get for that corner outfield spot is going to be a bigger name than any of those four guys you mentioned. I mean, think of it: you add one of those four guys to play left, then you sign one of the second tier RH starter free agents. Would that get you dreaming about anything, other than maybe a triumphant return to having a .500 ball club? It just doesn't add up. I don't know how they're going to pull it off, but I think they have a splashy move coming our way, maybe even two, that will genuinely have us all excited about our chances both in 2015 and beyond. But again, I don't think it involves the likes of Rasmus, Saunders, or certainly Holt. Maybe, just maybe, Cabrera, but even he, I don't think it's going to be him, either.

QUOTE (Lillian @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) Would someone please provide a list of the good Left Handed starters in our Division? Without compiling such a list, my impression is that most of the good southpaws are on the Sox. Therefore, I still think we could use one more middle of the order type left handed bat. Ethier is still my favorite candidate, as he absolutely rakes vs RHP. I'd love to see him sit on days that a southpaw is starting for the other team, and have him available to pinch hit against a tough RH reliever, in the late innings. At any rate, if someone can provide that information, I'd be grateful. While you're at it, if you can list how many good LH relief pitchers there are, that would be interesting as well. Off hand, I would guess that the number of both LH starters and relievers, is very small. Do you really want Ethier now, after we just added a left handed hitter who rakes against RH pitching but who can't hit lefties?