ottawa_sox

It's sad that greed is destroying the foundation of this sport. When kids get together to play sandlot baseball or touch football or ball hockey, teams are selected in a manner such that either side may win. This is done because it makes such fundamental sense. Too bad that the player's and owner's avarice have caused them to lose sight of what any well adjusted child can see.

I'm with Rex on this one. If we can pry Jackson or Miller away from LA, then I hope he gets traded before the season starts. The only reason to hang onto him at this moment is if we legitmately think we can win this year. Doesn't seem to be in the stars at the moment.

Could just be posturing. Anyone who seriously wants Maggs may get the feeling that they will have to come around to the SOX needs and wants to make it happen. If nobody takes the bait - nothing lost.

And at the same time, hope that the big spenders don't have 3 or 4 position players having career years!

Reminds me of Carlton Fisk’s assessment of CHISOX corporate wishes. Try to come in second place. Coming in second hopefully brings a pennant chase with a corresponding attendance spike. Not winning helps to keep payroll down. On the subject of spending a fraction of what the big boys spend, Einhorn says ‘It helps to have more. But I don't know that just having it guarantees you're going to win. I think that's what people need to understand.’ I don’t think we have a problem understanding that there are no guarantees. But we all understand our chances would increase. I don’t think the current ownership understands the fan’s frustration that comes with not winning for close to 100 years. These guys talk like the White Sox existence started with their arrival. It’s been 43 years since the BlackHawks won. That one BlackHawk success story, from a fan’s point of view, destroys however many second place finishes the White Sox can claim.

True the White Sox have consistently outperformed the Cubs. Unfortunately that is not saying much. To really hook fans, you need a memorable season. The best the Sox have come up with are the sparse instances mentioned - '72, '77, '83, '94 (which ended up being more of a black mark than anything - and we know why), '00. Thanks in part to Cub incompetence, many young fans were turned onto the SOX during these years. At least that is the sense I get reading the younger posters on this board (and remembering how I thought as a youngster). Since nobody in this lifetime can remember what the effect of winning would be, one can only conjecture. But I would not be surprised if it did not have a huge effect for several years at least.

Thanks, Rex. I saw a lot of Walker's teams play in Toronto. I thought at the time that he had the smoothest swing on the SOX. Esthetics aside, I always thought Walker's swing looked long. Not that this should have anything to do with his ability to teach a short swing. Just an observation. Will Gregg Ritchie be in Charlotte this year?

The underlying theme of this thread is that fans are branded for life when exposed to an exciting, competitive team during formative, influential years. How many 10 year olds in Chicago this summer will be branded SOX fans, as opposed to CUB fans. You were a kid once, weren't you Jerry? For the record, I found the '77 SOX thrilling because they won games by hitting, which was the anti-formula for past SOX success. I turned onto the SOX in '60 after preventing the Yankees from winning in '59. In the early 60s, it was Horlen, Peters and John winning suits from the manager for recording 20 groundball outs, helped by the high infield grass. It was effective, but there was something about the improbability of Gamble and Soderholm et all continually smashing baseballs in '77.

Rex: Given Joe's recognized raw skills, I am interested in your excellent opinion on what it will take for Joe to 'arrive'. And I am talking strictly about his hitting. If it is a matter of shortening the swing, how does one go about that? If ever you would like to see the 'lightbulb go off' for someone, this is the guy. I get the feeling that once (if) he starts 'getting it', he will make major strides. Of course, I would not be surprised if this never happens. So along with describing what it might take, I would also value your opinion on the chances of this happening. I realize I am asking for clarity that no crystal ball affords. Thanks.

If it's baseball on ESPN, I am looking for about a 17 page report!

Spinal Tap: Big Bottom, big bottom Talkin 'bout big buns My girl's gottem

Sometimes stuff does inappopriately come out of locker rooms, or practices, or meetings. But Guillen was on the job for minutes and hadn't had the time for locker rooms, practices or meetings. He clearly stated that Frank would have to play the way of the manager and that the same rules would apply for everyone else. Poor Frank - might as well sulk!

Depending on a lack of Sun spot activity, it comes in quite clear at night here in Ottawa. Ususally you have to wait until 9:00 PM EST.

If I was forced into betting, I would put money down on the 'perceived reality' of Frank as being wrong too. I do not think he is as bad as he is painted. I do think, however, that he is greatly responsible for the his own perceived image. Should be an interesting year between these 2 strong willed individuals. I have no doubt Oz will do everything he can to instill a winning attitude in the Sox. Hopefully Oz will show that he knows what he is doing and Frank will climb on board.

I have to admit being more than a little fuzzy on Crash Davis's one liners. But if they tow the company line, then 'yes'. When my manager asks me to jump, I ask 'how high', once in the air. And I do not question Frank's honesty. Just his diminished 'one for all and all for one' attitude.

To me it is telling that the MEDIA finds Frank and no-one else for these controversies. The reason is not just that Frank is a great ballplayer. He paints himself into a corner. It is his own doing. He can't seem to find it within himself to respond in a positive fashion. And the MEDIA knows it. Certainly the MEDIA, in the name of stirring up a story, tends to bait Frank. If he ever responded in an 'anti-Frank' way (concocting a positive spin), Sox fans would be shocked to say the least. As to Frank's agenda - from day one of his arrival, he has been obsessed with his own stats and place in history. Most people would have the common sense to keep such feelings to themselves. Not Frank. Hence the perception that the agenda is Frank first, then the team. I don't even really believe Frank is so selfish. But his own actions over the year's have fostered this belief. And it is not just the stats. I too hated to hear him 'swinging for the fences' last year. And Ozzie did not bring up Frank's name. The MEDIA did. They created the fire with the question. I see no reason why the manager could not answer straight from the hip. He expects everyone on board, including the player brought up by the MEDIA. The MEDIA would never bring up Magglio's name in such a fashion. Frank should look in the mirror for the answer.

I tend to agree with the southsideirish. Every year we 'wince' at Frank's reactions to someone or something. Every year it is like 'who dissed Frank this time'. He brings these confrontations on himself. All Oz expressed is that he needs the whole team on the same page. Why should he not express concerns about a non-aligned attitude when Frank's own agenda always seems to take precedence. Imagine if Frank took the opportunity created by Ozzie's statements to express a team attitude and came back at Oz with a 'don't worry about me - I'll be there' response. Everyone would come up smelling like roses. Lot's of players would see the value in such an attitude. Not Frank.