Lip Man 1

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Oct 28, 2016 -> 12:20 AM) Well the two teams have two different budgets, the Cubs have a budget on par with the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox and Cardinals. The Sox have a mid tier budget. The Cardinals though despite having a new regional mega TV deal and one of the best fan bases in baseball don't have a major or extremely high budget. I've never understood that myself but that's how they operate. Mark

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 10:03 PM) Get rid of Lawrie and play Saladino. acquire a GOOD catcher and GOOD reliever: in blockbuster trade; make it happen Mr. Hahn and we are a contender. Give up minor league talent for a good catcher and good reliever. 1. Saladino has a herniated disc in his lower back. Right now its an open question if he'll be able to play next season. 2. "Good" catchers are scarcer then hen's teeth, the price to get one may be overwhelming if any are even available. Mark

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 04:24 PM) I would say Avi has a much higher than a small chance at being non-tendered. I would say 80%. I sincerely hope you are right. Mark

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 06:36 PM) Big Game Shields just might surprise us in 2017 He may...he might only lose 15 games instead of 18 or so! Mark

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 12:40 PM) 180 IP of 4.80 ERA is all the Sox can ask for from Shields. If they can give him that, he's worth his deal. I guess pitching is scarcer then even I thought if these numbers make him "worth" anything. Mark

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 11:05 AM) All I want is for the love of god to pick a side. Either blow the WHOLE thing up or crack open the piggy bank. No more scrap heap lottery tickets. But saying all that, I don't really trust this organization to do either path correctly so it's going to take a miracle for this team to not be a garbage fire until there is a new owner. Agreed. Mark

Would be nice to see the Sox win something in the post season. Mark

History shows that from 1951 through 1967 the Sox outdrew the Cubs in 16 of the 17 seasons. Chicago was absolutely not a "Cubs town" during that time period. As someone who spent months researching and interview folks (including players) from that time period for my long two part historical piece called "Sox and the Media" I can tell you the Sox also got the lion's share of media coverage during that time period as well. The reasons were pretty simple, the Sox had winning seasons, they were usually contending for a pennant and they had nationally known and recognized star players. The Cubs had Ernie Banks, the "College of Coaches" and losing seasons. It's really not that hard to understand. Mark

October 26, 2005 - On this night the Sox became World Series champions for the first time since 1917 in Houston. Freddy Garcia and three relief pitchers shut out the Astros on five hits 1-0 sweeping the best of seven series four games to none. The Sox shut out Houston for the final 15 innings in series play. Outfielder Jermaine Dye drove in the game’s only run and was named the M.V.P. of the series. The South Side of Chicago exploded in an orgy of delight as fans celebrated all over the area. We've got the audio AND video of the final out capping a season to remember. Announcer: Joe Buck. Courtesy: Fox Sports. http://www.chicagonow.com/soxnet/2016/10/t...ox-win-sox-win/ Mark

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 09:32 AM) The only guy that comes to mind as paying for his own stadium is Jerry Jones, and even that was only 2/3 of it. Arlington paid for the other 1/3. Am I missing someone? I mean it is cute and all to build this myth of a benevolent prince owner who is going to rescue us from our castle stadium and whisk us away to live happily ever after build us a new palace on the lake, but then real life calls. That doesn't actually happen anywhere. Billionaires get to be billionaires by being business savvy and having other people pay for things like a new stadium. The Giants baseball stadium was built and paid for by then owner Peter McGowen if I'm not mistaken and the Dophins football stadium was built by Joe Robbie with his money. Again this is from memory. Those are the only two that I can recall as being built and paid for by ownership. Mark

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 05:53 AM) http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Cubs-...twork-Soon.html Assume that deal in the last paragraph expires in 2019? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0124-story.html Good article looking at pros and cons of own network http://cubbiescrib.com/2016/01/25/chicago-...isk-and-reward/ Caul: I believe the actual Comcast deal runs through the 2019 season but the Cubs will announce specific details before that. Crain Kenney has already publicly said that is there plan, to form their own TV Network. Mark

QUOTE (Coach @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 06:39 AM) And who cares about many years ago. I am talking about the last 25 years. Wrigleyville was a dump many years ago but that does not count anymore. My point is that no matter how the Sox do compared to the Cubs, they Cubs will always fill their seats because of the stuff outside and around the stadium. Sox can't compete with that. Wasn't it around five or six years ago the TV showed all the empty bleacher seats at Wrigley because fans were upset and staying away? And to the main point, it could have happened 100 years ago...doesn't matter...the statement that Chicago has always been a Cubs town is historical wrong. Mark

QUOTE (Nokona @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 09:00 PM) If the Cubs sign Arrieta to a long term deal they'll have something ridiculous like 70+ million tied into him, a late 30s Lester and Heyward. Their payroll will become a serious issue. I don't think it will matter in the least. Wait till you see the money they get when they start their own Cubs-TV Network in 2019. Mark

October 25, 2005 - Game #3 of the World Series set the record for the longest game by time duration in history. The 14 inning game went 5:41 minutes in Houston and ended when another Sox role player, Geoff Blum belted a home run giving the club the lead at 6-5. It would end 7-5 with Game #2 starter Mark Buehrle picking up the save. We've got the audio AND video of Blum's blast. Announcer: Joe Buck. Courtesy: Fox Sports. http://www.chicagonow.com/soxnet/2016/10/t...ngs-in-houston/ Mark

Love it. Need more of it to the national media. Mark

QUOTE (Saufley @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 11:43 AM) In 2005 I was in Orlando during our 2005 World Series games. Just wondering what the media coverage was like and how it compares to what is on the airwaves and TV now? The coverage of the Sox during the 2005 playoff run was sustained and professional. It was not like the Cubs are getting now though with "over the top" hype, goofiness and unprofessionalism (i.e. reporters wearing Cub jerseys etc.) And I for one was happy about that. Now I grant you, certain organizations and individuals were not happy the Sox had gone as far as they did but never the less they did cover them. Mark

QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 09:42 AM) That scene of Ferris Bueuller was actually scheduled to be filmed at Comiskey, as John Hughes is a Sox fan. But they ran into time constraints or something, and it got moved to Wrigley. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferris_Buelle...f#Wrigley_Field I had heard that as well. The Sox had games to play or something while the Cubs were out of town. Mark

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 08:34 AM) Whether it's true or not, for people not old enough to remember, it certainly seems like the sox were ALWAYS also-rans. Ferris Bueller didn't go to Comiskey Park. Frank Sinatra didn't mention the sox, he had to be told not to forget about them. A large part of that is because the Sox decided not to take on the Cubs directly by their own words, made some major marketing and PR decisions that went south, used bad judgment in others (leaving WGN, SportsVision etc,) and as others have stated couldn't consistently win since the 17 year stretch from 1951-1967. The Cubs to their credit realized their team generally was awful but thanks to the brilliant marketing from John McDonough (who grew up a Sox fan by the way) that didn't matter. Throw in the power of the Tribune Company which owned them for like 30 years AND Superstation WGN (whom the Sox were off of for a period of time) and the results are there for all to see. Mark

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 08:01 AM) This is just nonsense. Up until the '90s when the Cubs started taking over it was a pretty even split. From 1901 to 1989 the Cubs won the attendance battle 46 times, the Sox won it 43 times. Total Cubs draw: 82,475,823 for an average of 926,694 per season. Total Sox draw: 75,212,098 for an average of 845,079 per season. A difference of roughly a whopping 1000 people per game. The Sox dominated them until the '20s. The '20s were pretty split. The Cubs took over through the '30s and '40s. Then the Sox dominated them through the '50s and '60s. Cubs got em in the '70s and the '80s were pretty much split. The Cubs have lost 100+ games three times in their history. The Sox outdrew them in two of those seasons. The notion that the city has been and always will be a Cubs town is just blatantly false. If the Sox start winning consistently the fans will come out. VERY well stated. Mark

QUOTE (dpd9189 @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 10:37 PM) ESPN is a joke. Their explanation makes no sense at all either. Total BS, they got caught with a major screw up and tried to alibi their way out of it. It's not the first time. From my historical article called "Sox and the Media:" "The best way to sum up the relationship between the White Sox and ESPN came in 2006. ESPN was doing a daily poll on which teams were the most popular in cities with pro franchises. The results were broadcast nightly on SportsCenter along with discussion about it. When it came to Chicago, four choices were listed by them. The Bears, Blackhawks (who were terrible at that time), Bulls and…Cubs. That’s right, less than one year removed from winning their first World Series since 1917, ESPN deemed the Sox not worthy enough of even getting on their Chicago ballot. Scott Reifert, the Vice President of Communications for the White Sox said it best when he intoned that “ESPN is still probably mad that the White Sox eliminated their Red Sox in 2005…” Regarding their explanation that Cub fans wouldn't root for the Sox, I found that interesting. Yet Sox fans are supposed to root for the Cubs because "you're from Chicago..." LOL. Mark

QUOTE (dpd9189 @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 10:53 PM) Also it probably doesn't help that the Cubs are in the WS as everyone knows that JR and KW hate the Cubs so it's hard to see them say "yeah we'll rebuild while the Cubs are a powerhouse". Story today in the newspapers quoting JR directly as saying he hopes the Cubs win it, that it will be good for Chicago. He also said Sox fans probably consider him a "traitor" (direct quote) but that's the way he feels. Mark

QUOTE (Carpe Diem @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 07:27 PM) This is some of the biggest fuzz I have ever read/heard. Professional sports teams are PUBLIC TRUSTS. If they want us to give a s*** about them, they owe us not only competence, but trust that winning championships is the only goal. Without fan support they have nothing. For FAR too long the White Sox fan-base has adopted this mindset that JR isn't the problem. He is more loyal to his employees than he is his fan-base and that is disgraceful. If nothing else the fact that the city and state built them a stadium without the franchise having to spend any money PLUS one of the best lease deals in MLB suggests to me there is some obligation on the franchise's part towards the fan base. It would be different if like in Miami or San Francisco stadiums were built for football and baseball completely by that teams ownership. Mark

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 03:56 PM) This is going to send thread in a crazy direction. but my response is the fact that I knew Peter Gammons was a red sox fan didn't ruin my enjoyment of him when he was good. Marc Stein is a mavs fan, still enjoy him. Is giving a fist pump annoying in a media room? yeah I'm sure people want to do their jobs. but I don't find it commendable or interesting or professional to act like someone covering sports doesn't have a team they root for. Peter Gammons is a consummate professional who never let his love of the Red Sox come to the forefront as opposed to say Chris Berman (OH! NO!!!). Is it commendable say the way David Kaplan acts about the Cubs? Nobody is saying you can't root for whomever, what I AM saying is you don't let that show on the air, in the press box and so forth UNLESS you are actually being paid by said team. In that case (and I experience this basically every day) the team / school that is paying you has a right to expect certain things and you try to balance the fact that they are paying you with the fact that you have a professional obligation to your audience. One of the best local example I can think of was when Josh Mora worked for Comcast Sports Chicago. He is a big Cubs fan but you NEVER saw that come through on the air. In fact he told me that Cub fans would tell him he really was a Sox fan! Here an example of the way it should be done. The day after the Sox won the series Mora was hosting Chicago Tribune now on Comcast. Ed Sherman and Les Grobstein were among the guests. Les started to go off on the fact that the Cubs were still bad, had ownership that didn't care and so forth. Mora let him go for a moment then said (paraphrasing) that's all well and good but it's also for another time. The White Sox are World Series champs and this is their time. It was done courteously, professionally and with decorum. I've got that tape in my library so I remember it distinctly. And speaking of Les who is a friend of mine and about as big of a Cub fan as there is, in 40+ years working in Chicago to the best of my knowledge he has NEVER treated the Sox any differently not made any snide remarks about them during his shows. That's the way you root for a team but not let it impact your professionalism or how you cover things. You can not make that claim about a large number of Chicago media types. Just my opinion. Mark

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 03:02 PM) The results we received from some players weren't something that could have been expected. Dunn was an absolute bust his first year here. Real bad is not even the right label to put on his season. But, he did turn it around power wise which is why we got him. Plus folks calling Reinsdorf names and a failure etc better understand that the man OWNS the Sox. Heck, we could be perennial cellar dwellers and he would still be the owner. There is no benefit to be calling for his replacement. If he sells that is his call to make not a bunch of rabid posters on this site. I don't like where we have finished anymore than the next guy but I do admire Jerry's loyalty to his people Loyalty without accountability be it to a sports team, an individual, a religion, a government is a dangerous thing in my opinion. Mark

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 12:37 PM) I'm not sure I would trust a sports reporter that claims they don't root for a team. How on earth did you get into sports then? Nothing wrong with rooting for a team...but being open about it? When you are working?? There was a time when the Chicago newspaper baseball beat reporters would switch teams at the All-Star break EXACTLY to prevent the individuals from getting to close to a player or players and not be truthful in their work. Plus newspapers used to hire people who rooted for teams but not the teams they were covering. Reporters were hired for example from Cleveland or the Bay Area to cover Chicago teams. They grew up rooting for the Indians or the Giants...not the Sox or Cubs. To say "that's the way it is" doesn't make it "right" in my opinion. I want to vomit and am embarrassed when I see reporters parading around in the gear of the team they are covering or openly rooting for them on the job as the example Gonzo told me about. Here some respect for yourself and your position. And the fact that fans seem to "condone" such behavior is mind-blowing to me. Just my opinion. Mark