Thad Bosley

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 02:27 PM) And the thing is that not only has it been over a decade, but Sox park is far from the only place designed like this. Read up on the upper deck of Toronto for a start. Actually, Jerry Reinsdorf should have done that back in the late 80s. Toronto's upper deck is as bad as the new Comiskey Park's was. A 36 degree angle on that bad boy with a similarly misplaced entrance at the base of the deck. Again, terrible design by the architecture firm and even worse judgement rendered by Sox management for approving such an obviously flawed concept. The irony in all of this is all the empty suites year after year after year that they can't sell out, the very suites that inspired the bad design in the first place.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 02:26 PM) I don't think anyone buying a 29th row upper deck ticket would be expecting a great view, no matter what the venue. Except for maybe one. There is a reason they are called the cheap seats. The discussion wasn't about the view, it was about the construction of a 29 row deck at an absurd angle with the opening at the deck's base. That was an architectural disaster. Seriously, it is almost beyond belief that such a design could ever be drawn up by a architectural firm, much less get approved by Sox management. New Comiskey's upper deck was so elderly and obese person unfriendly, it wasn't even funny. And it was soundly and appropriately rejected by Sox fans, as evidenced by the lack of tickets sold to sit up there in the 90s and early 00s.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 12:51 PM) Yet you continue to whine about the 29th row in the upper deck that was removed a decade and a half ago, when the White Sox acknowledged a mistake. LMAO, you must be a fun guy to be around. Pay closer attention to the discussion. My references to the 29th row have been in the context of the original design of the park, not in its current state. And LMAO as well, a renowned contrarian making observations about the kind of company I provide. Oh, the irony!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 22, 2016 -> 06:59 AM) No. Arguing to argue is continuing to mention the 29th row in the upper deck which has been gone for a decade and a half. The entire upper deck argument is silly. Not many people sat in the upper deck of the old park either. Check the attendance. When I was a kid I was at a game vs. the Yankees where the RF upper deck was closed. Reggie Jackson hit a HR up there and I was able to convince an Andy Frain to let me go get it. Pick out the worst seats at every park and there isn't one you would gripe about. Another fun fact, the first several years this park was opened, it was cheaper to buy a lower deck bleacher seat than an upper deck ticket. So more arguing to argue. That goes back to the lack of winning over the years. Check the won/loss records.

Looking at the thought bubble over Jerry Reinsdorf's head, I see: Paul Konerko - Manager Mark Buehrle - Pitching Coach Jim Thome - Hitting Coach A.J. Pierzynski - Bench Coach Aaron Rowand - Third Base Coach Willie Harris - First Base Coach

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 21, 2016 -> 01:30 PM) There hasn't been 29 rows in the upper deck for 13 or 14 years, and the article you linked said the distance to the field was the same. The higher degree angle makes the higher seats closer. How many times did you have tickets for the 29th row in the upper deck and actually sat there? And while having the concourse higher than the base makes sense, it really doesn't change the view AT ALL from the high rows. It did take out some front row seats. Adam Jomes is calling out Orioles fans for their weak crowds. I guess a 31 degree slope wouldn't improve attendance either. Defending the disaster that is the construction of the 29 row, 35 degree angled upper deck of new Comiskey is the essence of arguing just for the sake of arguing.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 21, 2016 -> 09:14 AM) What is interesting is the article said the seats were just as far away from the field in both upper decks. The Sox park, and Camden Yards. Upper decks are pretty similar all around. Sox fans were spoiled with the old park's upper deck. That isn't happening again. People need to get over it. Of course they don't even sell out of the $15 lower deck tickets with a free t shirt when Sale pitches, so most of the whining about the upper deck is much ado about nothing. Not true at all. 29 rows at a 35 degree angle with the opening to the deck at it's base is much worse than a 27 row upper deck at a 31 degree angle with the opening somewhere in the middle. Period.

QUOTE (miracleon35th @ Sep 20, 2016 -> 05:45 PM) I don't like the steep angle but you can't compare upper decks that have obstructed views with Sox park. There are several things that can be done to make upper decks seats more attractive. I would like to see the last several rows eliminated and the angles cut down. The worst ones could be replaced by building upper deck grandstands in RF with updated features and amenities that are currently lacking in the "cheap seats." The first level of the park is one of the best in baseball, no question about that. in fact, it is so noce thst it often looks like far fewer people are in the park than there are in attaendance because people are down in the RF bullpen area , the XFinity areas, standing in the outfield concourse drinking and eating, or just walking around the park. You don't have to be tied down to your seat for the entire game. I don't think cub fans get that because they can't leave their seat and walk around that easily during a game and when they have to in order to go to the restroom, it is a major hassle. I like our park, even when the team is not that great and even when they lose, I always have a good time with friends. Well, the "last several rows eliminated" part has already happened, as Reinsdorf took out his chain saw and buzzed off eight of 'em back in '03. Now cutting that 35 degree angle down, well, that's an interesting request. How do you propose the team go about doing that?

QUOTE (flavum @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 03:06 PM) When they were 23-10, I was hoping for 9-10 against all three. I wasn't getting greedy. Obviously, things went south fast. The team's winning % since then is .419, which is only better than the winning percentages of four other teams in the Majors right now. I hope management looks long and hard at that before they decide to go on another one of their wild "retooling" goose chases this offseason. High time to change course and chart out a whole new direction for this ballclub.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 12:08 PM) four degrees. That'/ the difference between "cozy" angelos field and sox park. Bigwhoop. The tribune Hachet job also fails to mention the oriole's field is below street/sea level. An advantage the sox didn't have due to chicago infrastructure. But hey, what do I know? I don't read the cubune. And as for rants, the poster's "comments" included an insane belief that the sox will move a season ticket holder to the upper level without his consent. Don't be an apologist for the bad decisions made in the construction of new Comiskey. The angle of old Comiskey's upper deck was 27 degrees, Wrigley's is 30 degrees, Camden 31 degrees. Compare that to the 35 degree slant at the new Comiskey and combine it with a full 29 rows AND the opening at the base of that "jacked up" deck, and you have one HUGE disaster. No excuses. Reinsdorf really screwed that one up royally.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Sep 15, 2016 -> 02:57 PM) There are two levels of suites. Facts have a pesky way of making your rant look stupid. Also, the sox really can't "move you upstairs". They make more money from you buying lower level seats. Actually the posters comment, not "rant", wasn't stupid at all. According to this Tribune article from 1993, there was a "triple decker sandwich" unique to the new Comiskey Park that was not present in the construction of Camden Yards the following year. That's because the same architects responsible for designing both ballparks gave the Orioles owners and Reinsdorf & Co. the same option - intimacy vs. revenue generation. The former chose intimacy, and therefore the "architects tucked a single tier of 75 skyboxes" between the lower and upper deck at Camden. The latter wanted more skyboxes, thus necessitating the need for a second level of skyboxes which, combined with a tier for the press box, resulted in three tiers between the lower and upper decks at the new Comiskey. Result: this decision "jacked up the upper deck by more than 30 feet (which) forced HOK to tilt the upper deck at 35 degrees to bring the jacked-up seats closer to the action." So with the Orioles choosing intimacy over revenue generation, they built an upper deck closer to the field and at a far more relaxed and comfortable angle of 31 degrees. This choice, among many other smart decisions in designing Camden Yards, led that park to being regarded as the standard bearer for well designed new ballparks during the recent era of new ballpark construction. Meanwhile Reinsdorf, who never met a franchise-crippling decision he didn't like, made the decision to try and squeeze as many suites as he possibly could into his new ballpark, choosing revenue generation over any semblance of intimacy, and in the process ended up building the infamous 29 row upper deck and its crazy 35 degree angle, with the opening to this architectural disaster at the base of the deck to boot. That decision proved to be so bad that the team would end up sawing off nine rows in 2003 simply because they were hardly ever used. Those are the facts, Ewok. The only thing "stupid" I think you'll see are the critical decisions which were made around the design and construction of the new ballpark at 35th and Shields in the late '80s by the owners of the Sox. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-09...comiskey-park/3

Good baseball discussion going on thus far with Hawk & Stoney. Interesting, informative and enjoyable.

QUOTE (captain54 @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 08:59 PM) Lip, I always appreciate your passion with White Sox history. You can tell its in your blood, as it is mine. Great article, insightful and well though out. This isn't necessarily a knock on JR, and who knows, maybe he would do it all differently if he could. That being said, I think that The rejection of the Bess design was a serious miscalculation. In hindsight, the Armour Square park built north of Old Comiskey would have completed rejuvenated the entire area from the Ryan to Wallace, and from 31 St all the way to Pershing, making it a potential tourist/entertainment/urban living area, rivaling Lakeview/Wrigleyville In 1987-1988, JR had no more interest in building a park that was advantageous to the development of the south loop/Chinatown/Bridgeport area than the man on the moon. Hell, his choice was to to book the city altogether and hi-tail it to the burbs. As was pointed out very clearly in the article, he then jumped on the chance to build a suburban style isolated park at 35th and Shields I lived in the South Loop in the late 80's, and at that time it was CLEARLY evident that the south loop/Bridgeport area was ripe for development in terms of entertainment/urban living. Bess clearly foresaw this, indicated by his fan friendly/neighborhood integrated park, albeit (and here's the kicker) with a smaller capacity for both suites and seating Jerry Reinsdorf was pretty clear on the objectives of the building of the new stadium: revenue generation leading to maximum profits for the White Sox. Period. Hence, the entire cost of the building of the stadium shifted to the backs of the taxpayers, and a sweetheart lease deal that entitles the team to all of the revenue streams generated by the park but very little in associated expenses. Lip service at the time was provided suggesting an economic boost to the surrounding neighborhood, but it was just that - empty words. There was no concrete plan established to make that happen, and as we all know, it never did materialize. No, the new Comiskey Park was designed to be a one stop shopping destination for any and all discretionary spending by White Sox fans coming to watch a White Sox game. Why give a local bar owner $5 for a beer when you can give it to Jerry Reinsdorf instead, right?

Very interesting. Wonder what, if any, remedies will exist for the Sox (or any other team similarly adversely impacted)?

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 04:22 PM) 1. Disagree. Baines was a very good player but Fisk was still the best player on that team. 2. You didn't comment on this one? 1. The initial question asked was about the immediate impact of any new young players acquired after having been traded for the Sox' best player. I referenced 1989, when at the time Baines was traded, he was the best player on the Sox, bar none. Even better than the great Carlton Fisk, if for no other reason than Fisk missed a third of 1989 for whatever reason. If you want to make a case that Fisk was the better all around player over the course of their respective careers, you might have a point to make. But in 1989, when Baines was actually a top the league in batting average at the time of his trade, he was the better of the two. Feel free to continue to disagree, but that's my final say on that one. 2. I don't remember what "this one" was, and I don't feel like flipping back several pages to find out what it was. If it's more of the Wieters/Fowler/Volquez/Moreland sailing into the rescue next season business, forget about it. That dog won't hunt.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) Please give a list of those banned in this practice Well, what about that Marty guy? Whatever happened to him? Where'd he go? Here one minute all over the place, then POOF - gone! Completely out of sight! You got him chained up somewhere down in the Soxtalk dungeon? If so, release the prisoner, immediately!!

QUOTE (Hatchetman @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 02:28 PM) Didn't they retire Baines' number the same damn year or something? He was Mr. White Sox. Yes, shortly after Baines was traded in '89 they retired his number, which was a bit strange at the time because not only was he still an active player, but at that point in his career he hadn't done nearly enough to warrant having his number retired. Then of course they unretired the number when he came back in '96, and then re-retired it after he finally hung 'em up in '01. The bouncing ball of retired numbers, you might say!

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 01:04 PM) You are using an All-Star game selection to prove that your point is a fact? Well no, it's a supporting statement to the fact the guy was actually leading the league in hitting at the All Star break. That and Fisk actually only played in 103 games that year, which I forgot to mention.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 12:07 PM) 1. DH Harold Baines was not the best player on the 1989 roster. That would be HOF catcher Carlton Fisk. 2. What you are talking about isn't just trading Chris Sale. If you are trading Chris Sale, you are also trading 3 or 4 of Todd Frazier, Melky Cabrera, David Robertson, Adam Eaton, Jose Quintana, and Jose Abreu. To equate that to 1989, they would be also trading Carlton Fisk, Bobby Thigpen, and Ozzie Guillen in addition to Harold Baines. Unless I am wrong and you are only in favor of moving Chris Sale and no other veterans this offseason? DH Harold Baines was leading the AL in hitting at the All-Star break shortly before he was traded to the Rangers that season, and was the Sox' only All Star representative that year. So up until he was traded, he was, in fact, the Sox' best player in 1989.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 11:29 AM) And I'm saying it's a silly hypothetical because they are not going to improve (in terms of number of wins) year over year by trading 3 or 4 of their best players for prospects, Sale included. Did they trade their best player before the 1990 and 2000 seasons? They sure did, at least in 1989 they did. They traded the great Harold Baines at the trade deadline that season and brought in the very young and untested Sammy Sosa, Wilson Alvarez, and they not-so-young Scott Fletcher. Both Sosa and Alvarez would go onto contribute to the 94 win season in 1990, as would a young Ventura, Fernandez, and Frank Thomas. So you see, it's not a hypothetical. It can and has been done before. Now I'll give you it's not common for this to happen, but it can happen, which is the premise for my stance. Which again brings me back to my original point in this whole discussion, which is IF it happens (again), attendance will go up, as it did in 1990.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 11:10 AM) That's the whole problem with your argument, your "if" statement. I will guarantee the Sox have a worse record next year if they trade Sale and start the rebuilding process this offseason. And if you don't think people come out to watch Chris Sale, then why were so many people upset and disappointed when Sale was a late scratch as a result of his suspension for ripping up the throwback jerseys? They should have been just as satisfied to watch Matt Albers start right? I think the Sox even won that game. No argument from me, my friend. Again, all I'm saying is simply that attendance will not go down with Sale gone if the Sox were to find a way to have a winning season next year. Nobody expected them to have winning seasons with such young rosters like they had in 1990 and 2000, and yet that's exactly what they went onto have. I have not suggested at all that it is probable it will happen again next year. My only statement is that if it did, then attendance will go up, just as it did in '90 and '00.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 11:06 AM) Making up imaginary scenarios that you don't even really believe in to try to obscure actual history isn't really a great way to go about anything, unless you are running for President. You are the only one making things up as you go along in this discussion.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 09:36 AM) He doesn't actually believe it, he's just arguing to argue because he likes stalking me. Well, let's not get carried away and wander off into some unwarranted flattery land. I'm not stalking you. Think of it more like a gaper's delay. Whenever you put out one of your wild and denigrating opinions on the fan base, I can't help but just slow down and stare at the wreckage.

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 09:09 AM) At the Chicago Baseball Museum site there is a terrific story on the history of U.S. Cellular Field including quotes from the architect who unveiled the design for the original Armour Field back in the late 1980's. Thoroughly researched, it sheds some light on the political maneuverings, how and why the Sox placed the park where they did and what could happen in the future. Here is the link if anyone is interested: http://www.chicagobaseballmuseum.org/files...ss-20160913.pdf Mark Terrific article, Lip, and thank you again for yet another great contribution to this site. I very much appreciate and enjoy things like this article and the video/audio links you send. Great stuff! Quick question for you on this article that I'm wondering if you know about. The reference to the 35 degree angle of the infamous upper deck - do you have any insight as to how that compares to the upper decks in the other ballparks built subsequent to the new Comiskey? I've always wondered if the more critical problem with the design of the upper deck was the fact they built the opening at the base, versus in the middle of the deck as you see in many other stadiums. But obviously the 35 degrees was quite steep, but just wondering if that's also the case in other places.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Sep 14, 2016 -> 08:36 AM) Haha ok and how are the White Sox going to be better next year by trading Sale and rebuilding? Your hypothetical situation is 100x more improbable than mine in which they can compete next season with the right signings this offseason. Lol - will you please pay attention and read what I am saying? I never said the Sox WOULD be better NEXT YEAR by trading Sale. Let me repeat this so it'll sink in this time: I never said the Sox WOULD be better NEXT YEAR by trading Sale. What I did say was in response to a rather strange assertion that attendance would go down next year, no matter what, if Sale is traded. All I said was that would not be the case IF the Sox managed to turn things around next year and have a winning season. And that, of course, is true, because as I've also said, the game is bigger than any one player. So if our winning-starved fan base were to all of a sudden have a winning season drop in on its doorstep next year, the last thing that will happen is for attendance to go down, Sale or no Sale.