CyAcosta41

QUOTE (hi8is @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 11:26 PM) I've never seen SO MUCH misinformation during a Sox deadline. Must be one difference with Hanh compared to KW QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 11:28 PM) Yeah this is nuts and I'm not liking it I'm the opposite -- I'm digging it; big-time digging it. Loved KW in so many ways, but my one major problem with him was (using, appropriately, football imagery) is that he fixated on his receivers and stared them down. Yeah, he'd go all sleuth on the press from time-to-time, but it generally came out that he was all-over getting one specific guy (a la "THE CQ" and not just a CQ type), and more subtle GMs took advantage in making him overpay. The dude rarely seemed to exercise his leverage. The mis-information, dis-information, and non-information should be a good thing. In theory, Hahn's personality and training (as a lawyer) should make him more difficult to read and figure out. The press is having difficulty figuring out what's happening and this makes me hopeful that rival GMs aren't all over him as well. He's doing what anyone who has some leverage wants and needs to do -- USE it, in this case by listening, waiting, and fostering a competitive bidding atmosphere where someone will step-up and pay top-dollar. Other than Crain (whose injury was a real unlucky blow to him and to the team), the Sox don't need to trade any of their chips right now. You want them? Then whoever pays our price will get 'em. There are many largely interchangeable types of talent within most of these systems. Don't fixate on particular players; fixate on maxing out the overall return (in the entire series of transactions). It remains to be seen what Rick is going to be able to accomplish, but I haven't seen anything yet which concerns me. To me, it seems he's playing his cards exactly the right way. Keep on keepin' on, Rick Hahn!

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Mar 28, 2013 -> 03:30 PM) What is a smoke and mirrors pitcher? A pitcher whose success is predicated on cunning, guile, deception, location -- or, the "pitcher" part of the pitcher versus thrower continuum. I've been an Axelrod booster since Day #1 with the Sox organ-I-zation. Changing speeds, changing eye levels, hitting spots, and generally making batters feel uncomfortable goes a long way towards pitching success. Talk to anyone who has played any advanced level of baseball (I played "club" at a a Division 1 school back in the stone-age; probably could have played at the D3 level), almost all hitters would rather hit against a guy with good velocity who had little clue about pitching (kind of human pitching machines) versus a highly competitive dude with inferior pure "stuff" who would do anything it takes to get you out. Axelrod has had some excellent starts against some tough hitting lineups in the past. Sure, when he's not on, he'll get rocked -- and big time -- but, overall, he can be an effective inning eating #4 or #5, and every once in a while will throw a gem. That's not to say that I'm not a Santiago fan either. Love him. Love his makeup and love his plus stuff. But, until he gets more consistent with his breaking pitches (including throwing strikes with his freaky scroogie), he's going to give up a lot of home runs. I think the Sox believe that 2013 Axe is a better fit for this rotation and US Comiskular than 2013 Hector.

Much more being made from this than intended. Yes, Rios was having a poor WBC before that one swing. Big deal -- too early for performance to count, WBC or not. Yes, that was only one swing. Yes, poor pitch (according to Rios a hanging change and not a hanging curve); and yes again, a big league hitter should crush such a pitch. All that said, being the hero in an important game (and it is an important game for some) can't help but help his psyche. And it's pretty clear that a confident Rios is a good Rios. So, yay ... along with a solid year with good mechanics behind him in 2012, this experience is another small positive in what we all hope is a solid 2013 performance for our projected #3 hitter. A good start from DeAza, Keppinger, and Rios -- as 1, 2, and 3 -- should ensure that the Adam Dunn #3 black hole never happens again!

Until proven otherwise, I'm of the opinion that Alex Rios's game winning HR in the WBC semi-final vs Japan is absolutely GREAT for the Sox (and Sox fans). There's never been any question that this guy has immense talent and incredible tools. And, at times, he lives up to those tools. Clearly, for whatever reason, he'll lose confidence (not helped because of some -- shall we say -- highly questionable mechanics in the past) and we'd see long stretches and even complete years of a total enigma. Last year -- lots of success with fundamentally sound and repeatable mechanics -- made me pretty confident that the Sox will trot out an All Star caliber performer this year in a confident Alex Rios. And hitting that HR yesterday (which looked like most of his "no doubters" last year) is a great way to start 2013. Doesn't matter that he was having a slow start to the spring. It's Spring Training. It takes time. And in a few days we get him back with this confidence-booster in his memory banks all season long. And the biggest reason this benefits the Sox? A confident Alex Rios is the consummate #3 slot hitter -- doubles, triples, homers, good contact skills, stolen bases (when needed), and hitting in front of the big RBI guys without clogging the bases. And having a REAL #3 hitter means we should hopefully NEVER AGAIN see the baseball abomination of Adam Dunn hitting third (a bizarre position for him against righties; absolutely indefensible against lefties). Now, let's get a WBC moment for ADA!

I'm mildly optimistic about this year. Contrary to some around here, I didn't see last year as an "everything went right" year. Konerko was a shell of himself second-half, not because of age or regression, but because of an accumulation of injuries (the now repaired wrist in particular). Beckham can and should do better; so can Alexei; so can Dunn (perhaps reaching career averages in avg and OBP). The Keppinger/Gillaspie tandem at 3B should easily far exceed last year's overall pathetic third base numbers. I personally chuckle when everyone goes on and on about how much offense we lost with AJ. I loved AJ as an overall player, mostly for his intangibles. But the dude had been blasted forever for NOT being "all that" as an offensive catcher, goes out and has a career year in his mid 30's (and I applaud him for that and actually don't really wonder about it), and suddenly we default into saying that we've given up his numbers (as if his 2012 numbers were anything near a certainty in 2013???). If we had signed AJ I would have worried about a drop in catcher's offensive output from last year. Good chance for me -- overall; ALL offensive numbers taken into account -- the overall 2013 offensive numbers put up between AJ and Flowers won't be anything of any significance (some pros/cons to the one, other pros/cons to the other). And the pitching is talented with Sale/Peavy, plus deep elsewhere (I don't think they'll throw John Danks out there forever if he's getting blasted). For me: 50% likely -- 85-88 wins 20% likely -- 89-92 wins (will need good health and some luck in the form of other divisional foes underperforming) 20% likely -- 81-84 wins (if we have more injuries than we're expecting) 10% likely -- under 80 wins (if the injury bug hits hard -- and it could, given some of the questions we're dealing with)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 30, 2013 -> 03:48 PM) larry southsidesox ‏@SouthSidelarry Regarding Brackman, he attended Archbishop Moeller in OH. Among others, White Sox VP Buddy Bell's HS (and his sons). As did HOF'er Barry Larkin, future HOF'er Ken Griffey Jr., and Bears receiver and ESPN-Chicago radio host Tom Waddle (who played baseball in high school as well) -- Larkin and Waddle were senior leaders of the team when young pup KGJ entered the scene as a freshman. I know Waddle a bit personally and heard him tell the following story: Waddle evidently held (and I believe still holds) the stolen base record at Moeller High. During Griff's later days as a pro, Waddle visited the field at Wrigley and trashed-talked jokingly in Griff's presence about holding this record. Apparently, Griff looked at Waddle with disdain and said, "Pretty tough to steal bases when you're too busy trotting around them." Zing. Score. Gotta love ribbing between teammates. And by all accounts, KGJ is a great guy. As for Brackman ... why the heck not see if Coop (and the Sox minor league instructors) can get something out of this reclamation project. An arm like that, with a ball delivered from a 6'10" frame, is an extreme rarity. You don't want signings like this to be the focal point of your development program, but I'm all for 3-4 of these signings each and every year (particularly with pitchers). Many newly humbled big-time former prospects will go out and do everything once given a new chance. They might never get past the "issues" that made them fail the first time around, but, you might truly have something if you can harness all of that potential.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Jan 4, 2013 -> 10:04 AM) Hahn and KW are probably polar opposites when it comes to patience. KW could never wait to get his chips in the pot. We're used to having more offseason activity by now. Hahn is more conservative and can hold out in attempt to get what he wants. Hahn's best skill as assistant GM has been in contract negotiations, so that should translate well when he makes his first trade. Bingo! I've always been a huge KW fan. Long suffering Sox fan that I've been (remember a Sox-Yankee game as a 5 year old in 1963), I loved that in KW we had a GM who aggressively went balls-out, pedal-to-the-metal, and clearly wanted "it" as badly as the most devout fan. Where he got himself into a bit of trouble is that he seemed to have become a relative easy "read" for other GMs. Like a bad QB, he stared down his intended target, or telegraphed his punches (pick your sports metaphor), and the other GMs took advantage of him by often extracting sometimes incredible overpays. Loved the passion, sometimes hated the execution. Enter Hahn. I wanted KW to have more of a poker face, to have some cunning and guile, to exercise patience. Transparency and all those leaks leading to deals (with overpayments) didn't get us very far in most cases. It's far too early (not to mention unfair) to jump to any sort of conclusion about Rick Hahn. Let's see what the man does. Let him have a track record. Let's watch with greater perspective so we can fairly label his style. In my opinion, criticizing the man for not having a "pulse" is absurd. KW didn't have a pulse, he bled publicly. The time was right for a change, but it's far too early to tell what we have in Rick Hahn.

QUOTE (Carter224 @ Dec 11, 2012 -> 06:34 PM) If it's not good enough, it's not depth QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 12, 2012 -> 08:10 AM) If it's good enough, it's depth Only on a message board! I agree with witesoxfan. If it's good enough, that is, if it exceeds certain threshold quality (which in this case should mean better than most other teams have at that level of "depth"), then I believe it's fair to call it "depth." It 's quite a feat to pull it off, but some of us might want far greater quality at these lower depth levels. As in, really good depth. No question that this is something worthy to aspire to. We call such an animal "a fricking great team." Or, maybe the Sage who is Yogi Berra was once again eerily correct when he talked about having "deep depth."

No risk here, and adds a potentially nice option to the utility infielder competition. Sanchez has been around for a few years and has put up respectable offensive numbers for a utility infielder. MUCH more importantly, he's long been considered a very good fielder at SS (his primary position), but also at 2B and 3B. I think somewhere along the line, many miss that the most important part of the utility infielder role should be good (or better than good) defense, plus versatility at the SS, 2B, and 3B positions (bonus points awarded if the utility player can also fill-in, if needed, at 1B, the OF, or even at C). Strong defense first is especially important for a team trying to maximize its potential via a strong overall pitching staff. Sanchez's major league offensive stats aren't embarrassing at all, unlike some of the utility players we've trotted out there in recent years. While I liked a guy like Lillibridge because of his hustle and elf/hobbit vibe, he's exactly what we don't need as a utility player. Other than for his magical, lightning-in-a-bottle 2011 power explosion, his major league offensive performance has been putrid. But, again, given the defense first priority of the role, the Stealth Elf was a poor major league defensive infielder, with his only "defensive cred" coming in the OF (for some incredible plays that he made taking advantage of his athletic gifts, but overall he wasn't a trained/skilled OF'er and we're talking about utility INFIELDER anyway). I like adding a guy like this to the mix. He's arguably better than any utility infield candidate we currently have in the system (I certainly don't want to mess with Carlos Sanchez's growth by using him as a major league utility infielder). If Angel Sanchez emerges as the best candidate for 2013 utility infielder -- great; if someone else does, then he's offered back to the Angels and we either lose him or gain additional organizational depth. No risk whatsoever.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 11:15 AM) I had no idea how much his groundballs had increased over the years. Great article, wasn't it? He's a totally different pitcher. Maybe it's just me, but it's difficult to read that article and not root for the guy, and not want him as one of your own (especially when he originally was). And, neither here nor there, but his wife Amanda is a complete babe. But not Central Casting Bimbo Baseball Wife, she's a real looker who's also smart, witty, and (seemingly) pretty grounded.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 5, 2012 -> 08:07 AM) The White Sox have pitching in their system already. Brandon McCarty is everything the Sox don't buy into in pitching. He is an extreme injury risk, only throwing over 110 innings ONCE since leaving Chicago, which was only 170 IP. His road ERA is 0.90 runs higher away from home. McCarthy would be leaving the extreme pitchers park of Oakland for the extreme hitters park of Chicago, which would probably make that differential even higher, especially when you factor in his extreme flyball nature. There is no way you can assume his performance will be near Floyd, because odds are he will pitch around half the innings of Gavin. You are probably getting half a season of Bmac and half of a season of Axelrod. I get the trading Floyd for a 3B part, I don't get the McCarthy to the Sox part. While I am one of Brandon's biggest fans for a long time now, I don't see him as a fit here. I think McCarthy is an intriguing possible acquisition. IF the Sox could get him at a price commensurate with his many risk factors, then I'd be in favor of it. Who really knows how he feels about the organization these days, anyway. It seems that he's had a bit of a chip-on-his-shoulder about the Sox since departing for Danks, but I'm guessing much of that was actually having a problem with Guillen (who would have thunk THAT? problems with Ozzie Guillen???). He supposedly has a strong professional and personal relationship with a certain Rick Hahn ... who just happens to be our current GM. Hmmm? southsider2k5, agree with much of what you say about Brandon, but not what I highlighted above -- the present incarnation of Brandon McCarthy is NOT an extreme flyball pitcher and, in fact, is now somewhat of a control-freak, groundball pitcher. Pitchers can and do change. Especially when they learn a new pitch, grip, approach, or, most importantly, realize they must change or perish. Gone are the days when McCarthy was essentially an over-the-top pitching machine, with a middling fastball (at best). He had a pretty widely publicized epiphany and completely revamped his approach. Yes ... one always has to take into account ballpark factors when looking at guys from Oakland, San Diego, and certain other parks. But, in projecting McCarthy going forward, I think the last couple of years -- especially control, GB%, and HR % -- show a completely different pitcher than we saw Round I here in Chicago, or during his stint in Texas. For any who didn't see it before, I think the linked article is very interesting (not to mention, particularly insightful for ESPN): http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7602264/...s-espn-magazine Brandon IS a risk for many reasons, health and durability being paramount. But, I'm not at all concerned about his "fit" at the Cell. If anything, he's keenly aware that he must stick with his new approach to avoid the problems he had on his first go-around. If the price is right, I'd do it (knowing that we have some reasonable depth if he gets hurt). And then trade Gavin plus something else for a legit third-sacker!

QUOTE (ptatc @ Oct 6, 2012 -> 08:43 PM) With the money invested in the players these days the other members of the decision carry alot of the weight. It's not like this was a sprained ankle, strained hamstring or something to "gut through." This was a significant surgery. We're looking at the same facts and seeing it differently. That's all. Yes. This would have been a significant surgery. I run with a great many orthopaedic guys, including those who work closely with the current and former Sox guys. And it was also a significant INJURY. As I said, in HINDSIGHT (because we couldn't tell whether the chips/bodies would move around in such a way that would free Paul up, or, whether he'd be the miracle man and be able to do the most difficult thing in all of sports -- with one hand tied behind his back), we would have been better off with EVEN a Johnson/Jackson platoon pairing. Clearly, a better idea would have been an acceptable and experienced power bat. I had no problem with trying to see if Paul could play this way. I have a big problem with trying it this was for nearly 2-1/2 months, when even a dedicated fan (and of course all advanced scouts) could see that Paul was no longer Paul, he was essentially Gordon Beckham (but being asked to do Paul's job in the #4 hole). Yep. The Sox have a lot of money tied-up with Konerko. They also have a lot of money tied-uo with an aging roster as a whole (with a limited window to win). And they have a fiduciary duty (of sorts) to put the best product out there for the paying customer. We'll continue to disagree because at some point, sooner or later, they should have stopped Paul from trotting out there with the same old problem, but somehow expecting a different result. Sounds like that folksy definition of "insanity." Really respect your many medical field contributions here, but I think whether to play this guy, and for how long, as you yourself admit, is much broader than a medical decision.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 09:20 AM) It has absolutely nothing to do with this. It has everything to do with helping his team as much as possible. If he wasn't there who was going to take his place? It was a calculated risk that 4 months of an injured PK was going to be better than at least 2 months, if not more, of a lesser player. PK is not a person to put himself before the team. If he and Ventura thought the team would be better without him playing the way he was then it would have happened. First off PTATC ... I always enjoy your contributions, especially those involving medical and physical therapy related issues (I have MANY friends and relatives in the orthopaedic surgery world, so I know that the words of those with experience are valuable and carry a lot of weight). However, we'll have to disagree on this one. Maybe better than saying "stupidity and selfishness," I should have said "stupidity and out of control ego." I agree -- Captain Paul is not at all a selfish player. But he IS a player. And ego helps a star player transcend ho-hum, league average players, and play at the star level. Clearly, Paul thought that even one-handed, he had the talent, smarts, and resolve to help the team. But you know what? While you love that attitude, hitting a baseball is fricking difficult. And Paul's post All-Star game stats (NOT his second half ... but post All Star where I believe he hit in the .230's for the remainder of the year, plus the occasional HR or two ... basically, he hit like Gordon Beckham), plus his completely different Mr. Slappy Approach (which told ME ... and I'm sure scouts too .. that he had no confidence that he could continue to mash in his familiar style), was ego overtaking smarts. A mashing threat out of a first baseman or DH (because since Dunn was there for first base, then ANY available strong bat could have replaced Konerko) could have been tried. You're right -- Konerko, and therefore likely Ventura and/or KW, thought a damaged Konerko was BETTER than the other options -- but I guess I disagree. Obviously with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better to perhaps platoon Dan Johnson and Connor Jackson (probably our system's best and most advanced bats) instead of getting what we wound up getting from post All-Star break Paul Konerko. Or, asked KW to trade away some of our surplus of decent relief arms (your Omogrossos, Marinezes, Heaths, and so on, of the world) for mashers you might like better than Johnson and Jackson. But, all I'm saying now is that some of us are not just saying this in hindsight. We saw it happening. Because Paul is such a known commodity (with certain tendencies), it wasn't difficult to see what was happening. I'm in no way saying that I'm smarter or more baseball savvy than Konerko, Ventura, or Williams, but I also don't have any difficulty using my eyeballs and logic over ego, where I think one or all of these gentlemen prioritized ego over logic. It was worth a try to see if he could still perform one-handed. But that try meant 2-3 weeks, NOT 2-3 months. To me, that was one of the major "bad decisions" of this always interesting 2012 season.

QUOTE (Cali @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 02:37 PM) So basically, what I said all season. He continued to play hurt instead of getting it taken care of early and possibly coming back to actually help the team in Septemeber he chose to "play through it" and shug his shoulders every time he swung the bat. No offense, man, but me and many others who watch often and closely have been saying the same thing for months. I personally had various comments about this on this board and others for months, including a few weeks ago putting the over-under at something like 5-7 days after the end of the season when it would be disclosed that Konerko was undergoing wrist surgery. Like every player in baseball, he's had his share of slumps, but this was completely different. Slump or no slump, Konerko could always turn around ANYBODY'S fastball. Always. Post All Star break, he was consistently getting beat by major league average fastballs. Once the word got out (and it always does), down the stretch virtually every pitcher in baseball was challenging him with heat (knowing the only way he could turn one around was if he cheated big-time, but, more often than not, he was just looking to slap one the other way anyway). He became a totally different hitter. I've always been a major Konerko fan, but there's a point where tough-guy and macho turns into stupidity and selfishness. Soon, we had no "fear factor" going in the middle of the lineup -- between three outcome Dunn and the slap-hitting ghost that formerly was Paul Konerko, it's little wonder that we posed little threat to good teams, hot teams, or plain old teams who for whatever reason get up especially for the Sox. For that charade to go on for as long as it did was a total slap in the face to knowledgeable fans who understand the game. And for Konerko to come right out and say with 2-3 games left in the year, (paraphrasing) "yeah, the wrist is damaged ... but I don't think it affected my performance," is another slap in the face. Sure it affected your performance. Every advance scout in baseball could see it. And while I'm on a roll, I generally really liked what Ventura did this year as a first year manager (especially the emphasis on fundamentals and focusing on one game at a time), but ALLOWING a clearly damaged PK to play everyday ... in the #4 hole ... is on him as well. He runs the team. Whether Konerko wants to be Mr. Man or not and play hurt/damaged, Ventura needed to be a strong enough manager/leader to tell him to get his butt off the field.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 10:01 AM) He was much more ambiguous at the end of the conversation. Honestly I don't know what to make of it. I am going to wait for the podcast and listen to the whole thing again. Stone is a smart guy. A very smart guy. To me (not totally relevant, but a career attorney), he sounded like a smart guy, who has been coached and counseled by his attorney, to preserve all of his options under the governing contracts by saying all of the right things (and, perhaps more importantly, by avoiding saying all of the wrong things). Despite what he says, I'm with many of you who "hear" an absolute awful relationship between Hawk and the man he used to call "The Stone Poney" (and exactly who do you think asked Hawk to stop saying that, hmm?). I'd guess no way does he really want to work with Hawk again, but he's keeping his leverage in this calm before the coming storm of what to do about next year. I'm hoping that he either elects to walk (we know JR and crew rarely if ever will pay for no-play), or that the governing contractual arrangement allows for the deck to be reshuffled (I'd actually like a return to the Farmer-Stone and Hawk-DJ pairings) with or without Stone's approval. But one thing is for certain, a 2013 Hawk-Stone TV pairing would be miserable. For everyone. And since Hawk isn't going anywhere (I'm conflicted about that one), then it's got to be Stone who is out of the TV booth.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Oct 4, 2012 -> 06:55 AM) I really didn't care too much if he set the strikeout record. Not that big of a deal, but just as a side note Dunn did not set the lowest batting average last year. He didn't have the required PAs. You are correct -- Dunn did not set the lowest batting average record last year. They sat him and didn't let him hit. By the end of 2011, things had gotten so bad for Dunn that he was defeated before he saw the first pitch of the at-bat. To his credit, in various places he's admitted (or alluded to) as much. I think what the OP was getting at was that this is now two consecutive years that Dunn would have likely set a "worst ever" record if it hadn't have been for kinder and gentler souls sitting him down. I'm not an Adam Dunn hater. He is what he is. Personally, if I were putting together a team, I would want other ways to achieve roster balance than by having a three outcome lumbering slugger on my team. And he sure as heck would never, ever (NEVER) see the #3 hole. The problem that I have with Dunn is that 120 to maybe 160 K's can work for an otherwise productive slugger. The history of baseball is filled with such players. But 180, 200, 222? That's truly obscene and there are absolutely times that it's deflating for the team, the fans, and yes, even the player (and, again, Dunn is candid enough that he has admitted this too). I'm still not sure why Dunn doesn't do what pure sluggers have done for generations -- that is, be who he is until he gets two strikes, but then simply try and make good, solid contact once he does have two strikes. By all accounts and appearances, he's a good overall athlete who would still hit a reasonable amount of HRs and 2Bs even with a more controlled two-strike swing. His batting average would go up, the strikeouts would come down, and arguably (arguably!), his RBIs would go up too (I'd guess more times he'd get a valuable 2-strike hit than the elusive 2-strike HR) and even his already good BB total would increase too (pitchers would pitch him more carefully with two strikes than they do now). I'm certain this approach (done for ages with sluggers) has been considered by Dunn. No doubt he did do this earlier in his career. For whatever reason, either he or the Sox, or both, have considered it and rejected it. In my opinion, bad, bad choice (and get him out of the #3 hole!!!!).

I could not care less about attendance. It's an ownership issue, not a fan issue. Ownership made certain choices over the years and (exacerbated by the economy) this is where they led. I spoke my mind about attendance in a recent Game Thread. Rather than reinventing the wheel, I'm copying and pasting. I'll stand by all of that. And for the remainder of the season, it's just going to be worse. I'll never use the word "choke" for a team who clearly cares (and who never had a larger than 3 game lead against a vastly more talented rival), but going 1-7 down the stretch, playing so tight that hitters can't hit league average fastballs from league average pitchers and our pitchers can't find the strike zone and can't bear down and EVER (down the stretch) throw a gem, has created a funereal, downer, of a home stretch. Who wants to watch that in person. PREVIOUSLY (from the 9/24 Game Thread): However, I personally cringe when you and anyone else brings up this attendance issue! It's not baseball; it's not fandom; it's an economics and ownership issue. Do you own the team? I don't. So many people, particularly Cubs fans, grasp on to the Sox attendance woes as if it measures anything particularly significant. The historical circumstances that led to Comiskey Park built had long since changed by 1990. Had all other things been equal, there was no way that Sox ownership would have rebuilt a park at that same location. However, all other things weren't equal. Sox ownership (which included dozens of the top real estate and business minds in the Chicago community) fought hard for the sweetheart deal of the century. They won the lottery with all sorts of public concessions, allowing them to easily make solid profits year after year while their equity investment in the team skyrocketed. But ownership can't have it both ways. I've got plenty of South Sider family and friends, but the current location is far from ideal for many fans, for business ticket holders, and for tourists. The Cubs have such a huge advantage over the Sox in each of these three things. It's why comparing their attendance to the Sox attendance is so ridiculous. I wish I could somehow get a breakdown, but I'd bet the number of actual dedicated Sox fans buying tickets for games at the Cell is close to if not more than the number of actual dedicated Cubs fans buying tickets for games at the Urinal (err ... the Shrine). The difference is business ticket holders and tourists. And that's not all -- the Sox could easily draw more, lots more, if they wanted. Others with greater knowledge have discussed it far more eloquently than I could, but the Sox ticket prices, dynamic pricing, parking prices, and so forth, follow their self-professed goals of maximizing revenue (without regard to the pure number of fannies in the seat) instead of maximizing attendance. Stripping all of that down to the basics -- ownership really doesn't care for regular 30,000+ turn-outs as long as they're maximizing profits at some lower attendance figure. If they don't care, why should I? Why should you? Sure, the players might like more people in the stands, but if they have a problem, take it up with ownership, not with the fans. Ownership created this mess.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 24, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) Yeah, I'm tired of this media guilt trip garbage. I'm the f***ing customer, and the Sox are not some charity. If I choose to consume the product, I'll consume it how I choose. I watch 120-130 Sox games on TV every year, and as a direct result of me and those like me, the Sox get bajillions of dollars from their TV deal. Everyone in that organization is making a ton of money directly from us, and then they have the audacity to threaten us with a crappy product if we don't buy it twice? Bingo, man! Once upon a time I loved going to 25-30 games a year in person. But it's gotten so expensive (factoring in parking and food ... and like it or not, for many of us that is part of the overall equation). And call me a throwback, but I hate the limited-attention span BS that baseball is taking from the NBA fan experience. To each their own, but I like concentrating on the intricacies of the game during each inning (without being told when to cheer, or being subjected to loud guitar rock -- and I LOVE loud guitar rock (in its place)) and I don't want/need the endless and mindless between inning gimmicks. I understand some people like all that stuff. Fine, they can pay what it takes to get game + THAT. I'm just fine with the best seat in the house (MINE) and watching every inning of every game with time-shifting, pausing, better beer, no bathroom lines, and the ability to fast-forward through Juan Uribe's at-bats (no current equivalent, although Paul (One Hand) Konerko is coming real close).

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 24, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) Good points, sir. I took a potshot at our fans which I regret. Didn't mean to direct all that pent-up anger about the attendance boogeyman at you personally, man. Just so tired of it. As if it means anything relevant to any of us. The talking heads on the sports shows (and with rare exceptions, I have no respect for any of those people ... whose business is clearly sensationalism and muckracking, not sports as I know it), the pro-Cubs newspaper guys, and then the national guys who simply pick-up on the former two groups, can't get enough of the attendance thing. Who cares? Enough. It measures nothing of importance except for demographics, geographics, tourism, but hardly the subjective strength of a team's fandom. Prior to the extreme double-whammy this year of yet another horrible year with the economy being combined with the Sox ballpark experience being overall one of the most expensive in the nation (which Sox ownership CHOOSE to do as part of their business plan), the dedicated Sox faithful always came out to support their team once the team had earned it. Whether right or wrong, that's what Sox fans have always done -- if you build a winner, we will come. That contrasts of course with the Cubs gate which comes out (for the most part), no matter what -- but tourists and business don't need a winner (a well-located shrine and beer garden does the trick) and the dedicated Cubs fan flock have proven to be rather sheep-like and somewhat taken by their loveable loser mystique. Ironically (because I'm being so wordy about this), I turn to a different station or stop reading whenever the attendance issue is raised. Who. Cares!

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 24, 2012 -> 11:36 AM) . . . To add to the gloom, do you think the Sox will have more than 18,000 fans for any of the games in this important series? Greg ... While I disagree with you on many BASEBALL issues (in particular you wanting to give Ozzie a life-time pass for 2005; me and so many others giving him part of the credit, which leads to some additional benefit of the doubt and a little more rope ... but, he lost that benefit of the doubt and ran out of rope with his increasingly aberrant behavior between 2007-2011), ultimately, I could care less about disagreements. We're all Sox fans; there is room for differences of opinion; and healthy debate is great. However, I personally cringe when you and anyone else brings up this attendance issue! It's not baseball; it's not fandom; it's an economics and ownership issue. Do you own the team? I don't. So many people, particularly Cubs fans, grasp on to the Sox attendance woes as if it measures anything particularly significant. The historical circumstances that led to Comiskey Park built had long since changed by 1990. Had all other things been equal, there was no way that Sox ownership would have rebuilt a park at that same location. However, all other things weren't equal. Sox ownership (which included dozens of the top real estate and business minds in the Chicago community) fought hard for the sweetheart deal of the century. They won the lottery with all sorts of public concessions, allowing them to easily make solid profits year after year while their equity investment in the team skyrocketed. But ownership can't have it both ways. I've got plenty of South Sider family and friends, but the current location is far from ideal for many fans, for business ticket holders, and for tourists. The Cubs have such a huge advantage over the Sox in each of these three things. It's why comparing their attendance to the Sox attendance is so ridiculous. I wish I could somehow get a breakdown, but I'd bet the number of actual dedicated Sox fans buying tickets for games at the Cell is close to if not more than the number of actual dedicated Cubs fans buying tickets for games at the Urinal (err ... the Shrine). The difference is business ticket holders and tourists. And that's not all -- the Sox could easily draw more, lots more, if they wanted. Others with greater knowledge have discussed it far more eloquently than I could, but the Sox ticket prices, dynamic pricing, parking prices, and so forth, follow their self-professed goals of maximizing revenue (without regard to the pure number of fannies in the seat) instead of maximizing attendance. Stripping all of that down to the basics -- ownership really doesn't care for regular 30,000+ turn-outs as long as they're maximizing profits at some lower attendance figure. If they don't care, why should I? Why should you? Sure, the players might like more people in the stands, but if they have a problem, take it up with ownership, not with the fans. Ownership created this mess.

Span! Carroll! Perkins! TWINKS!!! Time for Peavy and his boysz to get their butts in gear at home and win this darned thing. It's not as if the Tigers are anything special. Someone has to win.

Jamey Carroll! My new favorite player! So hope the Kitties lose this one. What an epic battle to the wire between the Sox and the Tigers ... showdown between two middleweights of mediocrity. The Sox get swept by an admittedly red-hot Angels team, but they looked tired, listless, and almost non-competitive. And the Tigers? To possibly lose 2 of 3 at home against this lowly Twins team? To possibly lose both games of the double-header ... at home ... to the cellar dwelling Twinkies? Man oh man ... does anybody actually want to emerge out of the AL Central?? PS for Caulfield ... I need to sign-on more often even when just browsing, if only to see your avatar. WHO is that? Wow.

Denard Span leads off the 10th with a single against Valverde and the Kitties. It's truly Bizarro World for me when I root for Denard Span (although ... given the choice between Span and Valverde, I'm always going Span).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 22, 2012 -> 02:25 PM) All I know is every day is a struggle for me...I can hardly watch the games...in fact, I've been going out and following along on my phone just to avoid having to watch them many nights. This is one hell of a nervewracking final month... I can't manage to do quite that (avoiding watching altogether ... although I have done that in very small doses, for example, turning off the TV during certain Reed save opportunities and checking the score in 15-20 minutes), but all I can say is ... THANK GOD FOR DVR. For my money, the industrial and computer revolutions were designed for one thing only ... pave the way for DVR for the sports fan. Now, while I still need to watch, I can fulfill my other obligations, DVR the damned game (avoiding hearing anything about the game the best I can), and watching when I'm free. Or, more subtly, absolutely save myself from 2-1/2 to 3 hours of agony watching certain games, and getting it over with in 20-30 minutes. At this time of year, I know what Sale, Peavy, Quintanta, Thornton, Reed and all of Peavy's boys bring to the table in terms of the way they work hitters and their stuff. I know the patterns and I don't need to see the full AB. Same for the hitters. The Santana debacle last night was a great example of how the DVR can save hours of misery. Watched live and saw Santana give up the leadoff HR to DeAza, but then see the Sox fail to overcome on Santana's early control issues, let him get past that with no damage at all (rather easily too), and watched what any experienced baseball watcher then knew was inevitable -- a good pitcher who had found his rhythm just totally outclass a very mediocre offensive lineup. Once Peavy gave up the lead with his standard-issue multi-run inning, I shifted over to DVR, mid-level fast-forward mode, and watched each pitch (but super-quick) to see if the script that we sometimes know all to well would change. It didn't. I know I'm going to watch. Can't help myself. But might as well watch the dud games in 20, 30, 45 minutes rather than 2-1/2 hours or more! These next two games are a major test for our guys. The Angels are a far superior offensive team, with most of their big-guns currently very hot (too early to tell long-term on Mike Trout, but the dude COULD be a true once-in-a-generation player). Unfortunately, our guns are more limited to start with and we're anything but hot. Hoping of course, but not very optimistic that we're going to have many positives the next two games.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 18, 2012 -> 02:09 PM) No joke. I don't know that I can recall a player not only changing his stats, but also changing his reputation so much in a year. I've been a Sox fanatic since I was 5 or 6 -- so we're talking '64 or so -- and I know I've never witnessed such a talented player changing his m.o. (or at least what APPEARS to be his m.o. -- and that might be a lot of it) in all that time. Not talking stats, talking about his entire approach to the game. It's as if, the 2012 Alex is the "good twin" for the former "evil twin." I mean, Alex seemed like the poster child for the uber-talented, all-tools player NOT going all-out and just collecting his paycheck, and now, 180 degrees later, he's the 2012 poster child for giving his flat-out all on everything: hitting, base running, fielding, and throwing.