35thstreetswarm

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 2, 2016 -> 09:56 AM) For karma reasons, I'd love to see the woman beater come in and give up a walk off HR. So sick of people treating that POS like a god. This has actually been my dream since the day they made a deal with the devil and signed him.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 27, 2016 -> 07:17 AM) #shook

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 01:09 PM) I didn't realize Kluber pitched in all 9 post season games for Cleveland so far in order for them to get their 8 wins. /sarcasm In all seriousness, in non-Kluber post season games, the Tribe are 5-0 while giving up on average 2 runs per game. And this was against two very good offensive teams. I can't think of a defensible argument for why the Tribe could win 3 straight against Boston's lineup, which may be the best in baseball. Except one - they did it.

QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 05:24 PM) I am on pins and needles. Get this started. I want to see how the Tribe handles the cubs. Tonight is so big. Take game 1 and suddenly Arrieta's recent struggles loom large.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 04:52 PM) I had a roommate who was a Cubs fan at the time, and I found their collapse humorous. Got me to start watching the Sox again the following spring. Pretty well-timed all things considered. I'd prefer them flaming out in an even more hilarious fashion than last year's NLCS sweep or 2003, but I won't be upset or anything if they do end up winning. I guess I'm lucky that the Cubs fans I deal with on a daily basis aren't douchebags about the Sox being awful and are just excited that their team is winning more than anything. to a couple of the other people here, I don't think anyone is saying you're required to root for them or to not root against them, just explaining the reasons why some of us aren't. To be clear, the sentiments behind my comments were not addressed to anyone on this board in particular. But there are LOTS of people saying you're "required to root for or not root against the Cubs." I run into them constantly. There has been a blizzard of articles/social media postings suggesting you are a bad Chicagoan, or bad person, if you root against the Cubs. That's what I'm ranting about. And I do feel like lots of Sox fans are internalizing that and feeling guilty about rooting against the Cubs. It's natural -- don't be ashamed!

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 02:13 PM) I just don't get how any Sox fan could want the Cubs to win here. The long-term impact of the Cubs winning multiple championships could be catastrophic for our franchise, but apparently that's ok for some as long as one of their loved ones gets to end their "suffering". I just don't get that logic and I say that as someone who is married to a diehard Cubs fan. Sucks I have to root against her "well-being", but this is f***ing sports, not something important like her health. I don't like this participation trophy attitude our country has developed and watching good Sox fans on this site actively cheer on a direct & dangerous rival is really a sign of the times. I couldn't agree more. It's sports, for god's sakes. People need to pump the brakes with all this maudlin nonsense. No one is required to root for a rival team because it would make their fans happy, despite the weird narrative that's taken hold among bandwagon Cub fans. I just imagine my grandfather in heaven looking down on me and saying: "F the Cubs." (Which he undoubtedly is). There, now am I authorized to root against the intra-city rival Sox fans have rooted against for 100 years? Sheesh.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 04:04 PM) Yeah, and I guess it's not really "true" the Warriors are going to make wet, soggy, dirty diapers out of the nba this year. Afterall, it hasn't happened yet. Please. Bryant, Baez, Russell, Contreras, Rizzo, and Schwarber is as good as it gets - ever. They ain't goin' nowhere. Baseball is not the NBA, where true dynasties are commonplace. Look, the Cubs' core obviously looks great. But baseball is way too unpredictable to start writing teams in for multiple WS championships, or even trips, as many are doing with the Cubs.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) You don't have to like it. But it's true. It's to the point now that 88-90 wins would be considered an off year for them with their current core. It's not really "true." You predict it will prove true over the next several years. The fact remains, though, that true dynasties are pretty rare in modern baseball.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 23, 2016 -> 09:12 PM) This feels like the quietest day in Soxtalk history I can't wait for these two days to be over. It feels like many Sox fans have absorbed this Cub-driven zeitgeist, and convinced themselves the season is over. It is not.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 19, 2016 -> 09:11 AM) It's amazing how quickly the trib columnists start wetting their pants and fall back into their cynical sniping of the players/coaches decisions. Went from being so annoyed at the ridiculous tweets like "Lester could have chosen to join the Giants, instead he chose a chance at immortality" to now "Madden tried to get too cute, and now he needs to get smart" I, too, love the wild swings in media/fan narrative. If the Cubs lose this, I fully expect the wildest pendulum swing yet, from "there's really no way the Cubs don't win multiple World Series titles in the next few years" to "there is something fundamentally wrong with the Cubs lineup; it can't succeed in October." The team was insulated from this last year because it was a surprising, one-year-early scenario. But boy, this year...things would turn dark quickly.

If I were the Cubs I would be terrified of the Giants. I don't see the Mets beating the Cubs two postseasons in a row, but who knows? Either way, if the Cubs lose game 1 at home the pressure will be unbelievable.

"I abhor this argument. I was called a s***ty Chicagoan and sore loser for not rooting for the Cubs last year. I couldn't believe the guys were serious when they were saying this stuff to me. I am South Side born and raised and while I don't pay the Cubs any extra attention than any big fan of of any other team but where I am from, we were raised like it was ar rivalry. We would never support them in the playoffs regardless of being from the city. I know everybody is all evolved now a days but I am competitive as can be as a person. I don't change allegiances like that on a whim. I'll never root for them and I'll never want good things for their fans." This x100. If there's one thing I am more tired of than the Cubs hype, it's this incredulous reaction I get from people when they learn I'm rooting against the Cubs. It's always some variation of "you're a bad Chicagoan" along with an underlying implication that you must be some sort of miserable and bitter person to, you know, root *against* a team. This is sports for god's sake. Rooting against teams is part of the fun. And this is Chicago sports. I'm 40, and I'm old enough to remember when it was more or less assumed that a Chicagoan "picked a team" and rooted against the other one. You know, "...the Go-Go White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs." That's the traditional way of approaching baseball in this city. This milquetoast "I root for everybody!" style is all well and good, but that is the departure from the norm, not the act of rooting against your city rival. (Yes, rival.) I expect nothing less from the Cubs fans when we're in the playoffs, and respect the ones who give as well as they get. Unfortunately most Cubs fans use their defense mechanism of making a big show about how little they care about the Sox, since their own self-perceived first-class status is all they've had since the Sox finally got their WS. I won't play that game. Go Mets/Giants/Nats/Dodgers.

I personally think we need an outfield upgrade to contend. But...I am actually surprised that Merkin's view (that this is a playoff team as constructed) seems to be so lonely out there. The conventional wisdom last offseason was that the Sox built a contending team, but then some down years from key players led to disappointment. Even if you went into 2016 with basically the same team, it would not be totally unreasonable to think that bouncebacks from those same players would make us contenders again. Adding Lawrie and Frazier to that erstwhile "contending" roster? It doesn't seem that far-fetched to suggest that would be enough to set the stage for a really good season. Again, I'm not satisfied -- and I get that a lot of last year's optimism was built on assumptions that Garcia was ready to break out, and that Samardzija would have a dominant season. But I don't think an optimistic view on 2016 is crazy.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 7, 2014 -> 11:27 AM) 2011-2013 look pretty good but they also included signings like Darvish on there. Yes, they do - the handful of former super-prospects that are tearing up the league right now (esp. Trout) make all the recent year lists pretty great.

Just for fun, and to add some context to the "prospects are prospects" point, here are the top 5 Baseball America prospects from 2006. 1. Delmon Young 2. Justin Upton 3. Brandon Wood 4. Jeremy Hermida 5. Stephen Drew http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prosp...2006/26660.html This comes with all the necessary caveats: that's a cherry-picked year (some other years' top 5s look much better), prospects can be valuable as trade assets for years before it becomes clear they are busts, etc. But it's still fascinating to me to look back to see how many of the blue-chippiest prospects turn out to be worthless. Only time will tell what the Cubs really have.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 25, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) I actually have never heard the term "dumb as a fox" before. Sneaky like a fox, yes. Wily as a Coyote, yes. Dumb as a box of rocks, yes. But never dumb as a fox. Mostly because a fox is not percieved as a dumb animal I believe "crazy like a fox" is the common phrase that is being butchered here.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 24, 2012 -> 03:34 PM) Perhaps you have lesser expectations of these guys than me. Of the last 16 games, we've swept the Twins. That is the only series we've played well in, and it was against one of the worst teams in all of baseball. Yipee! You're approaching this like Clark W. Griswold in Vegas Vacation at the blackjack table. 'We didn't LOSE!!!!' That's nonsense. We've lost series' to KC twice when we desperately needed wins. We had everything to play for and they had the role of playing spoiler. We split with Detroit but have now been helped out by mother nature twice. Once in order to avoid facing Verlander (and instead being able to face Fister) and again to force Detroit to play a DH with Minnesota. We s*** the field in Anaheim and got swept. So in the last 16 games, we've won one of five series, and split one, helped tremendously by weather. We've been swept once by a team that should be tighter than us. We've won 7 games despite compiling a 5 game winning streak in those 16 games. In the other 11, we managed to win two. So yes, it is THAT disappointing to me. Yes, we are still in first, but by ONE game. That lead could vanish any day. We could and should very easily have a 4 or 5 game cushion, and reach the playoffs after a 162 game, 6-month grind in which I've sat in front of the tv and invested 500 hours of my life, but we're 2 games from going home. I am definitely on the positive side of the spectrum as far as White Sox outlooks go, but make no mistake about it, this team is incredibly dangerous peril of crapping an incredible opportunity away, and that has been frustrating to me in a way I cannot form sentences to describe. The only positive is that today, we still remain in first place. I think your first sentence hits the nail on the head, at least for me. I do have lower expectations, as I do not feel this team is so good as to give me the right to demand not only that they be in FIRST place in late September, but to flyspeck the circumstances by which they got there. It would be prettier if they had obtained a division lead by beating all the bad teams they played and losing only hard-fought, well-played games to quality opponents. But these guys are not painting a masterpiece, they're a flawed and injured team trying to gut out a division victory in a season the whole baseball world predicted would be a catastrophe. If we're talking "shoulds," they "should" be in second place, quite honestly. But they are in first. Let's play well the next ten games and keep it that way.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 11:22 AM) I'm not entirely sure what your argument is, here. My argument: 1) 220 lb wrestlers beat 115 lb wrestlers 100% of the time. 2) No advantage in a seven game series is big enough in any major sport to guarantee that team will win. 3) therefore, the analogy sucks. Also, the Yankees give themselves a big advantage, but they also make excellent personnel decisions that have little to do with that financial advantage. I don't really understand how someone couldn't concede that that last point had SOMETHING to do with their success. Is your "argument" your attempt to take a joke about Yankee fans and "refute" it point by point like a formal logic problem? Yes, 162-game seasons, followed by successive seven-game series between professional baseball teams, are unlike a large child wrestling a small child in many ways. Nailed it! But back to the main point - the Yankees in recent years (like the last 10 or so) have had some MASSIVE financial advantages. Staggering, really. Especially back in the mid-2000s their payroll often doubled that of even teams near the top of the list, and absolutely dwarfed the bottom half. While that top-level gap has narrowed in the last few years, I'm still amazed they only got one WS out of all that spending. Personally, I would not have much fun watching a team like that, even though they are often in contention, because deep down I'd know they really should win given the way they throw their financial weight around. Now the Yankees of earlier eras? (Including those late '90s teams that didn't have that massive a financial advantage)? A totally different story, and the reason why the Yankees will probably always be on top in terms of overall organizational cachet.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 05:38 PM) Yeah, yeah, yeah. How about you define what makes the best organization? You seem pretty bright and perceptive. Have at it. Am waiting with bated breath for your delineation, parameters or demarcation...since I'm sure there is universal agreement on every aspect of baseball operations here, and it's very much a consensus-oriented crowd at SoxTalk. Just trying to spark a little baseball discussion on a Friday afternoon, it's not the Inquisition. But please tell me who you think has the best organization and why. Okies? Oh, come on, I'm just messing with you. OK - for the era of my fandom (roughly the last 25 years) I'd have to go with Braves and Cardinals in terms of sustained organizational excellence not propelled by outsized financial advantages. Twins and A's still have to be in there for results achieved vs. resources expended, despite recent down years. The Yankees have it in terms of overall organizational cachet, of course, but I can't credit them much in recent years. Given the magnitude of their financial advantage I'm actually surprised they haven't won many more titles. I have to think rooting for the Yankees would be a joyless exercise - sort of like enrolling your 6'2 220 lb. 10th grader in a 7th grade wrestling league full of 115 pounders, then watching matches the from the stands knowing everyone else is rooting against him/you. When he loses it's a shock and disappointment. When he wins it's like "wow. great. congratulations. dick."

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 10:53 AM) Brewers and Giants barely missed the cut for differing reasons...eliminated Phillies, Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs and Red Sox just to make it interesting and create a tier or grouping that was perhaps the most similar to the White Sox in terms of revenue/resources/market. No definition of "best" here.....winningest, best farm system, best fanbase, most economically efficient, best young players under 25, etc. Great poll. Here's another one - "Biggest thing in Chicago" Water White Sox People Families Aon Center Fire Eliminated Willis Tower, Merchandise Mart, McCormick Place, and the City of Chicago to make it interesting. No definition of "biggest".....most mass, coolest, thing you like the most, furthest away, loudest, spiciest, etc.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 08:56 AM) Well, he's got the skin tone to be in Canada. Also looks like he just finished inhaling with Slick Willie didn't. Is that Siamese Dream-era Billy Corgan?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 08:14 AM) Everyone considers that except one person. Yes, when you put that imaginary "fact" into the equation, it changes everything, as imaginary facts often do. I think the discussion thus far has been based on facts that are actually known to be true, though.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) We tinkered with the rotation to save Chris Sale's arm. How is this hard to understand? It was a short term loss, long term gain decision. It's not "hard to understand." Which is probably why I wrote the words "I understand the need for extra rest" in my post. But you can choose when you use a spot starter, and I would have preferred that they not choose this particular series.

We would have won, and likely swept, the series if we had left our rotation alone. Instead we decided to audition a failed mop-up guy, effectively conceding the first game and giving the hapless Cubs hope and momentum. I understand the need for extra rest, but not during this series, which is so important to the fans. And especially when you're trying to find ways to get fans to the park. And yes, fans do care about beating the Cubs, even if it's in vogue for "serious" fans on both sides of town to try to outdo each other in professing how little they care about the series.