Lip Man 1

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jul 5, 2017 -> 01:51 PM) It's never going to be easy for the Sox to draw when you are competing against the Cubs and Wrigley Field. If/when the team gets more competitive I think the Sox could regularly draw in the upper 20's or even 30,000 per game. A rebuilding club just is not going to draw very well. I agree with this although it should be noted that in the 17 years between 51 and 67, the Sox outdrew the Cubs in 16 of those seasons...sometimes by a wide margin.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jul 5, 2017 -> 04:28 PM) Eh they're just not good. Does lately include the 2 recent walk offs ? They're playing the same way they have all year. Bad starting pitching and always playiing catch up is difficult. Yep...hard to do anything if your starters can't even consistently go five innings.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 5, 2017 -> 01:44 PM) The thing about 2005, the White Sox were never not in first place. First place from day one until the end of the season and 11-1 in the playoffs. About as dominating as can be. Yet in September, they didn't even draw 50k today for a 3 day series vs. KC. Even though they led wire to wire the memory of 2001-2002-2003 (and the choke in late September) and to a certain extent the fade in the second half of 2004 (due to injuries) were still fresh in fan's minds. "How are they going to blow it this time?" was always there.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 5, 2017 -> 01:26 PM) Do you think of the the 1960's White Sox when you think about successful teams? I mean sure they made their first WS appearance in 40 years and then followed it up a few 2 place finishes but nothing to really brag about... It was similair to 2005. One oddly lucky year in the middle of a lot of bad ones. Historically this comment is wrong. The Sox had 17 consecutive winning seasons including 1960-1967. That's the 4th longest streak in MLB history. From 51`-67 they won 90 or more games seven times and from 51-60 you only played 154 games. They went to the series in 59 and won 90+ in 63-64-65. That's a successful franchise. What absolutely hurt the Sox in the 1960's was the social unrest, the perception that Comiskey Park became a "dangerous place" because of where it was located and the ethnic groups around it including people of color. The Sox couldn't do a damn thing about that. Ergo the "moving" rumors which began in 1968 (co incidentally when the Sox were about to have the three worst consecutive seasons in franchise history...)

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 5, 2017 -> 12:49 PM) We just need to stop comparing ourselves to the Cubs who are the biggest attendance anomaly in baseball and compare ourselves to what "normal" teams do when they don't play well. Just look at the teams in our own division. The Royals had attendance around 1.3 to 1.5 million every year for years. Then they went to the WS and *only* drew 1.9 million. Then 2.7 million the next year when they won. Last year they missed the playoffs and their attendance went down. I'm sure it will go down even more if they miss the playoffs again this year. The Indians, even with a WS appearance last year haven't cracked 2 million since 2008. The Twins attendance has been steadily declining since they moved into their new stadium. They've been to the playoffs once since then. We need to quit acting like the White Sox attendance isn't completely normal for what this team is and has been for several years. Again terrific post. Very well done!

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jul 5, 2017 -> 12:29 PM) The problem is that 2005 pretty much came out of nowhere. The fans came out about as well as you can expect for a team that was predicted to finish 3rd or 4th in the division and hadn't shown a lot of promise in the years past. Then in 2006 we came out in droves ready to support the team as much as we could. But they fell short and then 2007 happened and we all figured it was back to the same ole, same old once again. Sure we got teased a little in 2008 but I don't think anyone really believed that team would do much. And we've gotten nothing since then. I'm positive the Sox would support a consistant winner/contender. We just haven't been given the chance yet. Absolutely agree with this comment 100%

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 4, 2017 -> 05:52 PM) Tatis has all the makings of a super prospect in two years if he continues with the development he's showing I was specifically referring to Johnson in my comment responding to a poster who brought his name up.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 5, 2017 -> 08:55 AM) Both will be gone by August 1st. Agree. Take whatever you can get for them. They aren't re-signing so anything is better than nothing.

Tough call. Track record hasn't been good. Is this a fluke? Since the Sox aren't going to be contending in my opinion for another two years if someone makes a reasonable offer you move him.

In the end this game came down to Shields being Shields.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 4, 2017 -> 10:57 AM) However, it is significant money. The Cubs on average draw about 18k more than the White Sox. Almost 1.5 million over the course of a season. Even if you conservatively put that at $50 a head, it's an additional $75 million, which, if you think the Sox are broken, and from your posts I think that would be a safe assumption, it definitely would help fix it. Considering the discrepancy in ticket prices, the Cubs probably will pull in close to $100 million more than the White Sox this year through ticket sales. It's is still important, not only for now, but the future. Once people stop going to games and find alternative things to do with their time and other ways to spend their entertainment funds, it can take a long time to get them back. The White Sox are wise to keep their prices low for now. It will be interesting to see how much success they will need to pull the plug on things like family Sunday. I think the Sox have been broken for a decade but they are taking proactive steps to try to solve matters. Given the limitations both self imposed and outside of their control this was the wisest course of action they could take. My point though is in reply to the original poster that the Sox will not go bankrupt tomorrow if they "only" draw 1.5 million. Because of the massive and different revenue streams for MLB they are fine financially. Now throw in what is arguably the best stadium deal in all of MLB and the last thing any fan has to worry about is their financial solvency. When (if) they start winning again attendance will be fine. History shows with this franchise you have to win for fans to come out. It takes time but eventually they do. Now if you want to KEEP fans coming out you have to win consistently, which the Sox with rare exceptions (1951-1967, 1981-1983, 2000-2006) have not done.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 4, 2017 -> 12:02 PM) This is appalling. The White Sox have acquired some really awful baseball players and yet everybody keeps their jobs. Somebody thought Shields could pitch and the Sox had to take over a lot of money on his contract. Very bizarre. He had given up 10 runs the start before the Sox got him and was called out by SD for his ineptitude. And we throw a good prospect in the Erik Johnson for Shields deal. Weird. I believe Eric Johnson got hurt and has shown very little. Haven't followed him so I could be wrong but if I am not, it's not like the Sox gave up some top of the line prospect.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 3, 2017 -> 11:24 AM) To say it doesn't matter much is not paying attention. It isn't the end all it once was, but just taking ticket revenue, the difference between the Cubs and Sox is a pretty good chunk of change. The White Sox now have some of the cheapest tickets in the league. I've posted it is still important but no longer makes or breaks a franchise. I believe that to be correct. I never stated it doesn't matter.

September 1 if then. Still decent chance not until 2018.

QUOTE (The Mighty Mite @ Jul 2, 2017 -> 05:34 PM) Actually we are competing with the American League and we need to be as good as the Yankees, Red Sox and for now the Astros. The White Sox are a big market team and need to step up and bring in big market players. Maybe when new ownership comes to pass but not before. And again, attendance no longer makes or breaks a franchise...this isn't the 1950's anymore. There are multiple revenue streams bringing in millions upon millions of dollars to teams and a lot of those streams are shared equally among all teams.

Congrats to Avi. The Sox had to have someone and he certainly deserved it based on his first half performance hitting-wise. (Fielding is another matter though...) We'll see what happens with him moving forward.

Lead now down to 7 1/2 games and they are only 14 over right now as I recall. Still a very solid lead but with a half season to go certainly not insurmountable.

QUOTE (WBWSF @ Jul 2, 2017 -> 07:31 AM) I was at the game yesterday. It looked like they had more than the announced crowd of 22,000. With the nice shirt giveaway I thought they would have a bigger crowd. The Yankees series didn't draw that well and this Texas series has averaged 20,000. Last year the White Sox drew 1.7 million. I wouldn't be surprised to see the attendance below 1.5 million this year. a shameful number for a franchise in a big market. Attendance is no longer the "be all-end all" for a franchise. Trust me, the Sox are in excellent financial shape regardless of if they draw 1.5 million or 1.7 million or 1.9 million. MLB teams are making money hand over foot from all the other income driven lines of operation both nationally and internationally. Plus you have the clause in the stadium deal which in a bizarre sort of way actually rewards the Sox (poor choice of words I know) for NOT having a big attendance because then they don't have to pay as much for stadium upkeep / rent as I recall. I'm sure the Sox would rather draw well since that means more income from parking / concessions and the like but if they don't, financially they are fine. Given they are on their way to their 8th losing season in 11 years, what did you honestly expect?

After today the Sox will be officially halfway through the season.

I had really hoped that Holland could show enough to be traded for a decent future prospect at the deadline but alas he's pretty bad. Just can't see anyone desperate enough to give anything decent in return for him. Regarding Anderson...19 errors now (look out Alan bannister who at least could hit) and hitting .240's. It may not be a bad idea to send him down for a few weeks to take the load off his mind and let him work on the basics. The contract he signed seems to have really put pressure of him. Sox maybe should have waited a year or two.

Sox can't count on him, time to move on to other options if available. Stress fractures and stress reactions don't go away that easily... they keep returning, ask Bill Walton for one. Feel bad for the kid but as Kenny would say "it is what it is..."

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jun 30, 2017 -> 08:15 AM) You said the same thing about Kahnle a couple months ago.... Putnam may be done. Petricka is not done. A half season of good baseball does not a career make. Like with Avi we'll see about Kahnle (who's ERA is now up in the three's. Still good...but not what it was) And I seriously doubt even the rebuilding White Sox are going to waste money on a pitcher who can't pitch (Petricka) because the guy CAN'T STAY HEALTHY. But as always we'll see.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jun 29, 2017 -> 02:28 PM) Lost season for both, but when healthy they have been good I disagree they've been very good even when healthy (which has been about as rare as seeing a two dollar bill again) but that's just my opinion. Doesn't matter now...you can stick a fork in both of them because they are done.

Maybe Todd Ricketts was right in his comment today in the Tribune. He said the Cubs would play Washington this year in the playoffs and "they'll crumble..." (direct quote)

Petricka back to the DL with a right elbow strain (a/k/a inflamed ERA). Petricka like Putnam should be done and gone with the White Sox. Unreliable, can't stay healthy, mediocre pitchers and a waste of future payroll. Time to move on...past time actually....and you can make that claim for about a half dozen other stiffs in the organization.