Lip Man 1

Have lost eight of the last 10.

Shows what he knows eh? 😉

Another wasted pretty good pitching effort because of a dead and putrid offense. Must be frustrating for some of the pitchers. 19 times now the Sox have lost a game where they held an opponent to three runs or less.

White Sox right fielder Mike Tauchman was scratched from Wednesday’s lineup with a sore right shoulder. Manager Will Venable said he doesn’t know when the injury occurred, but noted that Tauchman’s injury had been bothering him the past couple of days. Tauchman is day to day and will continue to be evaluated. “He’s able to swing, just wasn’t to the point where we could put him in a game,” Venable said. “So we’ll see where he’s at, continue to get rehab treatment throughout the day and see where it’s at.” Losing Tauchman is a blow for a Sox team that entered Wednesday with the third-most runs scored in the second half (130). Tauchman is batting .277/.371/.441 and has been a steadying presence at the top of the Sox’ lineup.

Those left field fans had their own club.

https://www.mlb.com/news/pohlad-family-to-remain-principal-owner-of-twins

Does it matter? Seriously, they'll go to where the McCaskey family can try to extort the most money or the best deal.

Hendriks gave up multiple home runs in the 9th inning before Anderson won it.

It was a wonderful summer, much like 1990 that seemed to just fly by.

I didn't know Schultz hasn't pitched in about six weeks because of a bad knee.

3rd place with 90 wins. It was such a "love affair" because they were garbage in 1976, hadn't had a winning season since 1972 and literally came out of nowhere to provide a fun, exciting summer instead of another drag through the muck of a 95 loss season. 192 home runs didn't hurt either.

I guess it depends on your point of view. And I'm not sure about your numbers. The Sox won pennants in 1901, 1906, 1917 and 1919. Won the World Series in 1906 and 1917. 1900 wasn't recognized by baseball as an official Major League yet considered a minor league at the time. Not saying it wasn't a good era just that they also had down/losing years in 1902, 1903, 1910, 1914 and 1918. Consistency wins out for me in the discussion which is why I go with 1951-1967. Plus the way they outdrew the Cubs in 16 of the 17 seasons and got the lions share of media coverage in Chicago and national recognition.

Shocked Vargas is back so soon given what the Sun-Times wrote.

I remember Joe Buck saying "This is the best team in the American League."

Those are very nice uniforms but I must disagree, the Sox most successful era was the Golden Age 1951-1967 when they had 17 consecutive winning seasons, seven of those where they won 90+ games.

Correct the second level was a JR decision, he wanted the most luxury boxes as possible and ironically I don't think all the boxes have ever been sold out, maybe in 2006 but that's the only possible year I could think of. And according to the HOK architectural firm JR was offered the Camden Yards design before the Orioles seized upon it and he said no.

No real surprise though given the lack of overall talent on the big league roster.

So says ESPN's President: https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/jimmy-pitaro-mlb-rights-deal-update.html

A representative weighs in: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/08/12/opinion-chicago-bears-leave-arlington-heights-property-tax/ "Every lawmaker in Springfield should look at this proposal and ask themselves how they will explain it back home."

Another pretty well pitched game but nothing on offense. 18 times now they've lost even though they held the winning club to three runs or less.

MLB and ESPN are back negotiating on a new baseball contract according to stories last week.

Wasn't it pouring rain during most of the day in St. Louis?

Hit: The stories directly quoted a number of state/area politicians saying they would not approve money given the circumstances to go to a new Bears stadium. The Tribune's Brad Briggs had a long column this morning recapping the Bears game Saturday and he had a part in it on the quickly called Friday press conference by McCaskey which he called a (direct quote) "lobbying effort." Among the things he wrote were this: Unanswered is what the Bears would potentially seek in the way of public aid for infrastructure improvements around the site to roads, sewers and more in order to pull off the move. Also unknown is how a potential move by the team would impact $525 million in remaining public debt from the 2003 renovation of Soldier Field.

I am looking at the big picture eventually the majority cost is going to filter down to the tax payers in some way shape or form. Let's not forgot they are still trying to pay off the Soldier Field renovations. We'll see what happens but given the state of the nation right now and the way things are going the politicians are going to have to make a very strong case somehow to convince an angry public to support giving benefits and millions of dollars to the McCaskey family and Reinsdorf both of whom already were given benefits totaling millions is sweetheart deals and leases. And from what has been published in the Sun-Times and the Tribune the majority of the politicians who have gone on the record, have said they are against giving them anything (not being willing to risk their own political future.) The Bears and Sox may either have to face reality and figure out a way to pay for everything or shut up, keep making their money, putting out garbage teams and remain in their current locations. Time will tell.

Yay they won.