Lip Man 1

Story in the Sun-Times today quoted Hawk as saying that 2016 may be his last year as a broadcaster even though he signed the contract extension. Hawk said he told Jerry that and also added that if the Sox have another year like in 2015, he's probably done. Mark

QUOTE (Saufley @ Jan 13, 2016 -> 10:46 AM) Oh yea, with all the talk about the new TV guy I forgot about how bad the radio side is! Have Farmer and DJ been resigned or is a decision on the radio guys still in the works? There are rumors going around that both will be back on the radio side but I've also heard (and I find this a little hard to believe) that it is only on a one year contract though. Mark

Think this will turn out to be a good hire. Growing up a Sox fan will help. He understands the franchise and how the fans feel about it. It was time for new blood to enter into the equation in my opinion. Mark

Orioles can have him. Mark

Speaking of Davis, I found this, this morning on CBS Sportsline. The story is trying to determine which teams may be in on him. This is part of a much larger story as his agent Scott Boras is supposedly saying Davis can play a corner outfield spot:: "A left fielder makes a lot of sense here. The White Sox have a revamped infield around superstar Jose Abreu and the makings of a good rotation around ace Chris Sale. Swinging Melky Cabrera into a platoon with Avisail Garcia puts both players in great position to succeed. Check out last season's numbers: Melky vs. RHP: .286/.331/.417 Garcia vs. LHP: .293/.353/.407 Sure, Upton and Cespedes make more sense, but we'll again go back to Boras selling Davis as a corner outfielder. If that's the case, he makes sense here. And that middle of the order ... 3. Abreu ® 4. Davis (L) 5. Todd Frazier ® ... is pretty scary." Mark

MLB is swimming in revenue. They are a money making machine right now. As Tom Verducci pointed out in S.I. MLB's revenue is up 102% from 15 years ago. Before he left 'Proud to be your Bud' Selig said MLB was now a nine Billion dollar a year industry. Any team crying "poor" is lying through their teeth. Mark

Hopefully this is simply Triple A fodder and nothing more. Sounds like another version of Jordan Danks to me. Also hope this isn't implying anything regarding future plans. Mark

Rosenthal tweeted his sources told him the Sox were not willing to go four years for Gordon. Maybe then will with someone else who is younger? Mark

QUOTE (mmmmmbeeer @ Jan 5, 2016 -> 02:42 PM) God I remember that game....awful. I'm one of the dummies who do think that that game started a slide and JM lost some of his team's confidence. I believe not long after is when JM started rookie Neal Cotts in his first MLB start, at Yankee Stadium against a stacked Yankee lineup while Mark Buerhle, whose turn in the rotation it was, watched from the bench. We lost, badly. And then Buehrle lost the next day against I think an awful Tigers team. Just one of the many "great" decisions by Manager Gandhi (aka Jerry Manuel). Three other notations about 2003 the Twins and the collapse by the Sox. Remember the night before that game Twins coach Ron Washington collapsed and had a serious illness situation. The Twins liked him a lot and all said that was part of their motivation. Take this with a grain of salt because it came from noted Sox hater Justin Morneu but he claimed that in the first game of the do-or die-series in Minnesota a Sox base runner told him, "congratulations on winning the division..." The Sox still had a reasonable chance at that point but again remember who said it. Finally in the series at home the week before Manager Gandhi decided to start Loaiza in the fourth an final game even through he had strep throat and was really sick. Wasn't the best decision unfortunately. Ultimately what cost the Sox in 2003 was the lack of a fifth starter, guys like Mike Porzia, Danny Wright, Neal Cotts and Josh Stewart went a combined 4-11. Kenny wouldn't or couldn't shore up that spot and it cost him and the team dearly. Mark

With the new year having begun I just wanted to remind everyone that over at Sox Net / Chicago Now / Chicago Tribune we are continuing to add new historical notes on the franchise and their history. Dan Shapiro is helping with this and I wanted to give him a shout out. Having been going back to my original notes on the historic dates in franchise history as well as the weird, wacky and wild events that have happened and am trying to provide even more background, quotes and stats for them. There isn't a mention for every day of the year, but close. January and particularly February are the slowest months for this endeavor but things really pick up in March. So I hope you'll take a look (often) and make Daniel and I happy! First historical note for the new year came out on January 4 regarding Ellis Burks. Please feel free to use this thread if you have any comments or memories on any of the events and notes or if you feel something should be added to a date and why. By the way here is the link to the historical page(s): http://www.chicagonow.com/soxnet/ Mark

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 03:54 PM) When it comes to PEDs, I draw the line at the Mitchell Report. Before that, MLB practically wanted players to take PEDs. I don't condone them, but it was going to happen without a real testing program and putting a stigma on taking them. After the Mitchell Report, there should be Zero Tolerance...just short of a lifetime ban. The party should be over as much as possible. So for Bonds and Clemens, yeah, I'd hold my nose and vote for them. Guys like Sosa and McGwire, I can use my common sense and say they wouldn't have Hall-like numbers without PEDs. Obviously there are tougher calls since we don't know one way or the other (Piazza and Bagwell), but the Steroid Era existed, and they might as well put the best-of-the-best from that era in, and move on. What will be interesting is what happens with David Ortiz? Remember the New York Times named him (and Sammy Sosa) as having failed his 2003 drug test which did not 'count' at the time for punishment by MLB. Mark

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 30, 2015 -> 01:28 PM) Agreeing with Kyle and Bmags. The Hall is dumb. There are probably roiders in the HoF. People used drugs to enhance peformance when it was greenies. And you know what? Who's worse for the game - Barry Bonds or Ty Cobb? One used roids and went from a Hall of Famer to possibly the best ever and the other was a racist that beat up a crippled fan. In fairness to Cobb, it should be noted, that fan had a condition which caused him to spit uncontrollably. Cobb didn't know this and when the guy spit on him because of his condition Cobb reacted as he did. Mark

Which means if he has another good season in 2016 the Sox better be prepared to give him a MAJOR raise because he'll certainly opt out and force the Sox to renegotiate. Something to keep in mind regarding the payroll for 2017 even though Danks and LaRoche will be off the books. Mark

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseba...-source-recants Mark

ESPN has already released a report showing the claim by the individual is false. Completely fabricated apparently. Why anyone would do that is beyond me but you are dealing with people and people do bizarre things. Mark

QUOTE (WBWSF @ Dec 23, 2015 -> 11:30 AM) When the bad guys on the Northside start their own TV station in 2019/2020 this could help (not hurt) the White Sox. From what I know the Cubs are going to have all of their games on their TV station. There won't be any Cubs games on free TV. To the best of my knowledge both the Yankees and Mets don't have any of their games on free TV. I'm told the Cubs are going to go the same route. We'll have to wait and see if this actually happens because if it does it has to hurt the Cubs franchise. The White Sox would be smart to keep some of their games on free TV like they do now. They would be the only baseball team in Chicago on free TV which would be a good thing for the franchise. I would like to think that this could shift some of the balance in fan popularity back to the White Sox. That's interesting and a good point in my opinion. However it would be even nicer if the current CEO of the Tribune was fired and replaced by someone who actually brought back Chicago sports to the Superstation. THAT would increase the Sox nationally and potentially help with their recognition. I got a great laugh out of the fact that the Tribune doofus (who is a Mets fan by the way...) actually pulled the plug on Chicago sports the season the Cubs caught fire. Wonder how much money that cost the Tribune Company? LOL. Mark

Am in the process of editing the final game before the June labor impasse that shut down baseball for two months in 1981. Sox beat the Yankees 3-2. Excellently played game and Harry and Jimmy were at their best. Includes an interview with George Steinbrenner who praised what was going on with the Sox and numerous biting references by Harry and Jimmy about the quality of the equipment they were using from WGN. They also said a few times about how they thought the best equipment was at Wrigley Field because the Cubs played earlier that day and it was also shown on WGN. Just a classic game from a good time to be a Sox fan in Chicago. Mark

The Sox have done a very good job keeping players off the DL. Unfortunately that doesn't mean they haven't had seasons gutted and ruined when the injuries have happened. Think back to 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010 just to name four of them. The lack of talent over that time period in the farm system and the inability to replace guys when they have gotten hurt cost them dearly so while the numbers are excellent and should be noted, in my opinion, they are somewhat misleading when it comes to the season results. Mark

Anything's possible but to start it would require new ownership with an attitude of actually deciding to 'take on' the Cubs. The current ownership from as far back as when they got control of the team has publicly said time and time again that is not part of their operating philosophy. A lot would have to change (including the Sox actually getting to the playoffs more often then five times in 35 years) for things to begin to turn. The Sox dominated the city from a fan, media and (I assume in this case) advertising standpoint during the "Golden Age" from 1951-1967 but that was a long time ago and I don't think that will return at least in my lifetime. And when the Cubs start their own TV station possibly as soon as 2019, that won't help matters. Mark

Folk: The Sox are looking for a real play by play man not a former player trying to do that. Big difference between play by play and color. Of the names mentioned in one of the most recent posts, Black Jack has fallen out of favor with the organization due to his blog criticisms of how they handled Gordon Beckham's development, Frank has been doing a lot of work for Fox and I don't know if he could fit the Sox in his schedule. Tom is almost as old as Hawk and had recent hip surgery. Huff I can't speak with any knowledge of. Mark

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 02:38 PM) I think that is probably true, but once again that is not what I'm saying. I am talking about a general increasing interest in the city's baseball, which is bound to increase interest and attendance on both sides of town, even if disproportionately on the North Side. Please forget about persuading people to switch allegiances. I understand that we are all accustomed to thinking about being a baseball fan, from our passionate perspective. Think about a young person who has no allegiance and no prior interest in baseball. Now, they are curious to experience what all of the excitement is about, in Chicago. If both teams are playing well, and in their respective races, some of these new fans could certainly be Sox fans. To that person, they might look at any number of seemingly irrelevant factors in choosing their team. Maybe their cousin roots for the Sox, or maybe they like the idea of being able to get tickets to the games, or maybe they just like the uniforms better. (Hey, could you blame them?) It's really very simple, and shouldn't touch off any big debate. Having the town get caught up in baseball fever should be a good thing. Management just has to be sure that, in that favorable environment, the team is good enough to be in the conversation. Lillian: We'll see but I don't think what you propose is going to happen. Simply because again, my opinion, there aren't that many of the people you describe around in Chicago, i.e. "young people, no prior interest." And based on the demographics if there are young people like that more than likely they'll be attracted to the "yuppie / up scale / party atmosphere" around Wrigleyville and probably wouldn't be caught dead on the South Side. But we'll see what happens because barring a run of serious major injuries the Cubs are going to be favored at least to win their division and more than likely will. Pittsburgh may be the only team that can challenge them in the near future. Mark

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 03:12 PM) I did just look at the scores from 2000 to 2004. What I found was that for the most part the offense wasn't the problem. In 2000 they led the league in runs, in 2002 and 2004 they were third in the AL in runs scored. The offense wasn't the problem. Yeah there were several instances of scoring a lot of runs and then seeing a drop-off the next day, but guess what? The same thing happens with every team. The 2005 White Sox included. Go look at the scores from 2005, in the second half of the season the offense went on several prolonged slumps where they did exactly what you're claiming the 2000-2004 offenses did wrong. And again, the 2005 White Sox were the 4th-most HR-dependent offense in baseball that year and one of the most HR-dependent offenses the White Sox have ever had, so your favorite example is actually disproving your point. The pitching was the reason we won the championship. If the '05 team had the same pitching as the '04 team you wouldn't be giving any praise to the '05 White Sox offense, and instead you'd probably be lumping them in with the '00-'04 "softball" offenses that you seem to hate so much. Anything you say Omar. Wishing you and all the other sabermetrical mathematical savants all the best for the holiday season. Mark

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 12:49 PM) I'm afraid that some of you have misunderstood the point that I was trying to make. I am not suggesting that Cub fans would convert to Sox fans. Nor am I suggesting that Cub fans might buy a ticket to watch a game at the Cell, because they can't get a ticket to Wrigley. And, I am certainly not asserting that Chicago would become a Sox Town. I understand the rivalry and the animosity that both sides harbor against the other This is about the casual sports fan, and those not yet even interested in baseball. A general atmosphere of excitement over baseball could very well spill over to the South Side. As I said; it will necessitate good play on the field. Of course, the Sox have to win in order for this to happen. However, if they do play exciting and winning baseball, it seems likely to me that there will be more fan interest and support in an environment of excitement over baseball, which the Cubs might help create, than there would be otherwise. Remember, there are lots of people, especially young people, who may not have ever been involved in, or even exposed to the excitement of a pennant race, and the joy of being a baseball fan. All I'm saying is that, other things being equal, a general atmosphere of excitement and enthusiasm over baseball is more conducive to fan support. If the Cubs contribute to that atmosphere, that seems like a good thing to me. This was an attempt to cheer up some of us, who seem down about the emergence of the Cubs as an even more dominant presence in the Chicago sports market. Lillian: I have found in my experience that there are very few "casual" baseball fans in Chicago. The vast majority are either Cub fans or Sox fans, period. No in between and very few (although I actually do know a handful) root for both. If my assumption (based on a lot of years is true) than your premise doesn't really apply. Mark

QUOTE (Lillian @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 06:46 AM) Many of us die hard Sox fans dread the upcoming fervor, we're convinced will be sweeping across the city, over the Cubs' quest for their first World Championship in over a Century. We're skeptical that the front office will take the necessary steps to complete revamping the pathetic offense, which wasted so many terrific starts by Sale and Quintana. So, some of us have already resigned ourselves to the inevitability of a 2016 Season, in which the North Side will capture all of the attention of the city, and maybe even the baseball world. We might be a little premature in sinking into this gloomy defeatist mood. Chicago is a great baseball town, and baseball fever is contagious. When the buzz starts to capture everyone's attention, lots of casual fans, and even formerly uninterested by standers, will begin to feel the first symptoms of baseball fever. Picking up the paper every morning and reading about all of the excitement, listening to friends, family and co workers bantering back and forth about players, plays and stats, could all create an irresistible attraction to the sport we all love. Who knows better than we, how much fun and how addicting it can be to be a baseball fanatic? Wrigley can only accommodate 42,000 fans. Where will the rest of the baseball fever struck fans go, for their baseball fix? Everyone in town knows a Sox fan, or two and with a little encouragement from them, the newbie just might be encouraged to buy a ticket and see just what all of the excitement is about. The Sox need only have a decent, competitive product on the field. And if baseball fever is contagious, so is winning. Who knows, with a few more fans in the seats and some of the new personalities in the Sox clubhouse, these guys might just catch fire. If they could get off to a good start, the town could explode with enthusiasm for the game. Imagine the so longed for talk of a crosstown World Series. It wouldn't take much to set off this contagion. We all have our own opinions about whom the front office should acquire, but let's just hope that Sox ownership has a little imagination and can see the opportunity that they would be missing if they don't at least try to make the team a legitimate contender. I'm not suggesting that we Sox fans should celebrate the emergence of the Cubs, but we shouldn't regard it as a negative for our fortunes. The Sox will decide their own destiny and the growing enthusiasm for their crosstown rivals may actually be a positive. Lillian: One thing I've found in being a Sox historian and following the team for 55 years is this. Chicago baseball fans are probably the most provincial and most hateful (and I really mean that term) towards the other team in town. Far more than any of the other two team markets. It has transpired over the course of 100 years. This was the first major mistake of the Reinsdorf - Einhorn operation and they should have known better given how long they lived in Chicago before getting the club. From the very beginning their attitude was "we are Chicago's American League team..." They said this publicly and often. I have in my library for example the post game show on WGN from April 81 after the Sox crushed the O's 18-5. Harry Caray asked Einhorn about the excitement around the Sox and how the Cubs bad start would help them and EE immediately started in with the same nonsense, "we don't care what the Cubs do, we compete against ourselves..." and so forth. That refusal to acknowledge the fact that both teams are in direct competition for the entertainment dollar, for media coverage, for sponsorship deals is a big reason the Sox are where they are in their own home market. They have had solid, reasonable chances to take back a good percentage of those areas and urinated them away every single time. The fact is Cubs fans are not going to come out and root, root, root for the Sox at U.S. Cellular Field when they are on the road or can't get tickets and the opposite is also true. I'd say 90% or higher of Chicago baseball fans are for one team at the expense of the other. The term "casual baseball fans in Chicago" in my mind really doesn't apply. So the Cubs selling out won't force those folks in any great numbers into heading south for a baseball fix because their aren't a lot of them in the first place. Just my opinion. Mark

If the Sox truly are "All In.." let's hope like hell it turns out better than the last two times they took this approach (2011 and 2015). I mean they couldn't fall flat on their faces a third straight time could they? Mark