Lip Man 1

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

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 11:39 AM) The sky is falling stuff is getting old. This organization has been around for over a hundred years. Its future is not at risk. The Sox have tried to improve the team and compete every year. True it has not been real pretty the last four or so, but it's not from lack of effort in my opinion. Depending on how you measure success there are 28 other clubs that can be considered failures if the prize is the World Series. I am interested in the moves we make this off season and will not buy into gloom and doom I don't think anyone is faulting the "effort". The people in charge care but this is also a results business and that is shown by the won / loss record. To say that hasn't been good for basically the last 10 years would be an understatement. Mark

QUOTE (Carpe Diem @ Oct 23, 2016 -> 11:39 PM) I don't fault management for giving it a run with this core, but after 2+ years I've seen enough to know this team is 4-5 impact players away from even contending for the division. I'm going to sound repetitive, but this issue I'm about to bring up CANNOT BE STRESSED ENOUGH. The franchise's future is at stake. The White Sox have a once in a generation opportunity to create one of the best farm systems EVER ASSEMBLED if they blow this thing up leaving only Carlos Rodon and Tim Anderson in its wake. I'm talking potentially having anywhere from 16-20 of the top 100 prospects in all of baseball if you factor in Fulmer Collins, Burdi, Hansen. That is unprecedented a team can make over their entire farm system/trajectory of their franchise in one house cleaning session. If the White Sox trick themselves into thinking Chris Sale will somehow magically learn to control his emotions and not get hit hard bu the AL central I'm going to REVOLT in a way that will resemble Braveheart. Obama or Mark Cuban for owner signs will be EVERYWHERE. Stay tuned. Just playing "Devil's Advocate" here but do you trust the same people who put the franchise in this position in the first place to get them out of it? Mark

QUOTE (Tony @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 09:07 AM) What type of acquisition was Paul Konerko to the White Sox? He came to the Sox originally in a trade for Mike Cameron. He resigned as a free agent with them after the 2005 season and then towards the end of his career. Technically he was both a trade acquisition and a free agent signing. Mark

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 10:47 AM) The Will To Win...forgot about that marketing debacle. Pretty soon Harrelson will be gone, too. Regarding Hawk, I don't think so. He is like Harry was, you would have to physically remove him kicking and screaming from the booth. Hawk has always stated his wish is to die in the booth and as long as JR owns the team, he's got a job. Mark

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 10:34 AM) Good post. You and the Sox have been "Robin-ized." Ozzie kept itr fun and entertaining always as he knew the Sox were second fiddle in town. Winning a title had us on Cloud Nine. But the Robin years have been just what the front office wanted: calmness, focus on the field, but our performance has been .500ish and very blah. The post Ozzie era has been crickets, just like everybody demaneded it be. Overall Sox have done a pretty darn good job of fielding a competitive team the past many years it's just that in the Robin era we've had a few too many holes to even finish above .500. We're always going to be second fiddle to the Cubs and when they are winning? Ouch.. It's too bad Ozzie had to get X rated and political to where nobody would ever touch him again. But he had the right idea. He had everybody buzzing. Overall the Sox have done a great job of putting a competitive team on the field. It's just been the Robin era where we've had zero chance of making the playoffs. Sad. I disagree in the fact that the Sox have put competitive teams on the field during Robin's tenure. 2012 was a fluke a reaction to Ozzie not being around and everyone saw how it ended. From that point on, the Sox teams were basically "a wish and a prayer" or "hoping to catch lighting in a bottle." Just look at last season...Rollins, Latos, Jackson ? That says it all about the overall talent level. They have had some very good players but little to no depth and more holes then a block of swiss cheese. Just my opinion. Mark

BMAGS: A thoughtful discourse which brought up some very good points. I've only a few things to add: 1. And it pains me to say this since it is my profession, is that the media which is supposed to be "neutral" is far, far from it with Cub fans literally in the media, open about it. Mark Gonzales told me about covering a Sox/Cubs game and when a close call went against the Cubs, certain members of the media stood up in the press box and b****ed about it. Simply a Cardinal Sin in broadcasting or journalism. This is just one example. 2. The fact that the White Sox simply don't seem to have any coherent plan, everything is RE-acting instead of being PRO-active from a baseball and a marketing sense. Brooks is a friend and I know he works very hard at his job but really has anything come close to the "Win or Die Trying" or the "Us vs. Them" ad campaigns? 3. This town actually was a Sox-town (despite what JR has publicly stated) back in the 50's and 60's until Durocher came to town. Seriously, the Cubs had Ernie Banks...and that's it. The Sox got the lion's share of media attention because they usually were fighting for a pennant every season. At the very least they had a winning season 17 years in a row. (Think about that one for a minute). They also had the stars, nationally known guys who could play...Aparicio, Fox, Pirece, Wynn, Minoso, Peters, Horlen etc. 4. Maybe the most important to me is that the Sox HAVE NEVER EVEN TRIED to take on the Cubs directly. Almost from the moment the new owners took over it was "we're Chicago's American League team..." (direct quote) Ownership never understood (which was bizarre since both guys lived full time in Chicago since the late 50's), that Sox fans WILL NOT ROOT for the Cubs and visa versa. It's that simple. The Sox are directly competing with the Cubs in the same market...but they refused to acknowledge that or deal with it. And the Sox had their chances. As "recently" as 1983 the Cubs were closing the upper deck because nobody cared. That's just one opportunity. The Sox urinated everyone of those chances away. Again you see the result of that folly today. In short this is an ossified, inbred (as in only members of the "family" get hired), stuck in the mud organization. Making a lot of money and satisfied with the status quo. I'm lucky. I have a library full of audio / video / print material that I can turn to in bad times, like right now. Others aren't so lucky. Mark

As I've often said they are between a rock and a hard place with no clear answer or direct path until or unless (in my opinion) new ownership arrives or the existing ownership purges the front office on the baseball side and brings in successful people from completely outside "the family..." Your points are good ones but again, do you trust this front office who put the franchise in this position in the first place to dig them out of it? And by front office I also include the people in charge of minor league talent / development and major league scouting. Mark

October 23, 2005 - Game #2 of the World Series ended in an unexpected and dramatic fashion as outfielder Scott Podsednik blasted a walk off home run. The shot, off Houston’s Brad Lidge, ended the game in a 7-6 White Sox win at U.S. Cellular Field. Earlier, with the Sox losing 4-2, Paul Konerko drilled the first pitch he saw for a grand slam turning the game and perhaps the series around. We've got the audio AND video of both of these incredible moments. Announcers are Joe Buck and Tim McCarver. Courtesy: Fox Sports. http://www.chicagonow.com/soxnet/2016/10/t...s-walks-it-off/ Mark

Given the circumstances some good news is needed so here you go! October 22, 2005 - 46 years after their last World Series, the White Sox finally got back to another one. Game #1 against Houston was played with the Sox winning 5-3 at U.S. Cellular Field. Jermaine Dye and Joe Crede hit home runs. Jose Contreras pitched seven innings and the bullpen tandem of Neal Cotts and Bobby Jenks saved the game. We've got the audio AND video of the final out. Announcer: Joe Buck. Courtesy: Fox Sports. http://www.chicagonow.com/soxnet/2016/10/t...e-world-series/ Mark

I never thought I'd live to see the day when the Cubs were in the World Series. Seriously I thought I'd be long gone. Now I know how Cub fans felt in 2005, it's the "nuclear scenario." Even if the Cubs lose the series, to a certain extent they've already won...they've buried the Sox deeper into irrelevancy. It is what it is...nothing left to say but Go Indians! Mark

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Oct 21, 2016 -> 08:48 PM) Owners usually don't build stadiums. They fleece governments for that which are then put on the tax payers. True and perhaps I worded that wrong. I meant that by the time a new ballpark is even up for discussion the Sox will have new ownership. Mark