kitekrazy Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 5 hours ago, daggins said: We're not in competition with the Cubs, we're in competition with the Twins and Cleveland. As ever, Chicago is not a Cubs or Sox city, it's a Bears city. Usually an NFL team rules a city. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggins Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 hour ago, kitekrazy said: Usually an NFL team rules a city. I dunno if I would say that's true of LA (Lakers town) or NY (Yankees). Those are kind of exceptions but they're also the only places with two baseball teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, NWINFan said: You're probably right about this, but it doesn't have to be like this. A team with an ownership and FO that has real ambition can start changing things. It's a huge undertaking, but the first step is to get over feeling like step children. If the rebuild only produces some short term winning, then it hasn't succeeded. It's time to truly alter the direction of the franchise as a whole. I don't know if this ownership has the capability or will to do that. There's your tipping point. The test was 05. We won it all and if ever the Sox were going to pull even in popularity or take over it was then. I would think we had the most momentum we'd ever have, but the team did not maintain. It celebrated one full offseason and the entire next season and from then on, it's been all downhill. My guess is if somehow this tank/rebuild turns into utter dominance of baseball, yes we'd pull even or pass the Cubs. But frankly despite the acquisition of Hall of Fame type talent in Moncada and Eloy and perhaps one of our best hitting shortstops ever in Tim, we are far away from .500 even. Our pitching staff remains suspect at best. If Cease, Gio, Kopech, Lopez dominate, it's a different story. As of now we have very inconsistent starters and an awful bullpen. In conclusion, we blew a chance in 05 to take the city by storm (Blackhawks times 10) and now we are totally inconsequential, maybe 3/5s through a rebuild in terms of roster. Edited September 26, 2019 by greg775 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCCWS Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 hour ago, kitekrazy said: Usually an NFL team rules a city. Success can affect that. I live in New England and Florida. Football by far rules in NE but Hockey( amazing as that may sound) rules in Tampa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mqr Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 hour ago, SCCWS said: Success can affect that. I live in New England and Florida. Football by far rules in NE but Hockey( amazing as that may sound) rules in Tampa. For now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted September 28, 2019 Share Posted September 28, 2019 On 9/26/2019 at 1:16 PM, SCCWS said: Success can affect that. I live in New England and Florida. Football by far rules in NE but Hockey( amazing as that may sound) rules in Tampa. My dad use to take a small vacation in FLA after Christmas. Back when the Dolphins had Marino my dad could walk up to the stadium and get playoff tickets. FLA is an odd state when it comes to pro sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted September 28, 2019 Share Posted September 28, 2019 On 9/26/2019 at 12:38 PM, daggins said: I dunno if I would say that's true of LA (Lakers town) or NY (Yankees). Those are kind of exceptions but they're also the only places with two baseball teams. Any state that has one NFL team usually rules. Texas and CA are different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
35thstreetswarm Posted September 28, 2019 Author Share Posted September 28, 2019 26 minutes ago, kitekrazy said: Any state that has one NFL team usually rules. Texas and CA are different. ...you also have to take out the South for that rule to work. NFL doesn't rule Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, or Louisiana for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananarchy Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 (edited) On 9/27/2019 at 7:34 PM, kitekrazy said: Any state that has one NFL team usually rules. Texas and CA are different. Texas still has two teams which rule their respective market. The Cowboys rule much of the country (and of course overshadow the Stars, Rangers, and Mavs). The Texans by far rule Houston as well (Rockets and Astros fall short). Sort of back on topic, but we're a bit premature to say we're going to pass the Cubs on the field. As far as off the field, the Cubs will always have a bigger fanbase, but they're so damn fickle and uninterested in baseball as a whole that the White Sox fanbase is just so much more concentrated and interesting when the team is good. Edited September 29, 2019 by Eloy Jiménez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradMc Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) On 9/26/2019 at 1:13 AM, NWINFan said: You're probably right about this, but it doesn't have to be like this. A team with an ownership and FO that has real ambition can start changing things. It's a huge undertaking, but the first step is to get over feeling like step children. If the rebuild only produces some short term winning, then it hasn't succeeded. It's time to truly alter the direction of the franchise as a whole. I don't know if this ownership has the capability or will to do that. There's your tipping point. Absolutely. Reinsdorf could draw 3 million a season but remember his rent goes up with attendance. He got his cost-contained WS championship in 2005. I was really hoping he'd sell high then. We need a cultural change. We should be like the St. Louis Cardinals - perennial contenders. Unfortunately the White Sox have not been blessed historically with stellar ownership. The Yankees legacy could have easily been the White Sox but Charles Comiskey was too damn cheap. Legend has it, he actually had first dibs on Babe Freakin Ruth but wouldn't pay him the 15k he wanted. The Sox won the WS in 1917. Should have won it in 1919. They were poised to go an historic run but money got in the way. The more things change...... Edited September 30, 2019 by GradMc 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWINFan Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 2 hours ago, GradMc said: Absolutely. Reinsdorf could draw 3 million a season but remember his rent goes up with attendance. He got his cost-contained WS championship in 2005. I was really hoping he'd sell high then. We need a cultural change. We should be like the St. Louis Cardinals - perennial contenders. Unfortunately the White Sox have not been blessed historically with stellar ownership. The Yankees legacy could have easily been the White Sox but Charles Comiskey was too damn cheap. Legend has it, he actually had first dibs on Babe Freakin Ruth but wouldn't pay him the 15k he wanted. The Sox won the WS in 1917. Should have won it in 1919. They were poised to go an historic run but money got in the way. The more things change...... Historically, you are right. Fans underestimate what the Black Sox scandal did to this franchise. 100 years later it still hasn't recovered. It would be great if the 2020's are the exact opposite of the 1920s. Then you can say the rebuild truly worked. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black_Jack29 Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 On 9/26/2019 at 1:05 PM, greg775 said: In conclusion, we blew a chance in 05 to take the city by storm (Blackhawks times 10) and now we are totally inconsequential, maybe 3/5s through a rebuild in terms of roster. Even if the Sox had won 3 WS titles in the 2000s, the Cubs still would've been the more popular team in Chicago at this point. Hardcore Cubs fans wouldn't have switched allegiances because of it. The casual fans that would've become Sox fans would've gotten distracted by the Blackhawks in the early 2010s and then probably would've jumped on the Cubs bandwagon a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black_Jack29 Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 8 hours ago, NWINFan said: Historically, you are right. Fans underestimate what the Black Sox scandal did to this franchise. 100 years later it still hasn't recovered. It would be great if the 2020's are the exact opposite of the 1920s. Then you can say the rebuild truly worked. The Sox are in their current position relative to the Cubs because of Reinsdorf/Einhorn's failure to keep the Sox on WGN in the early 1980s. When Reinsdorf/Einhorn put the Sox on a proprietary (pay) cable channel, people stopped watching. Meanwhile, the Cubs were on national TV via WGN. They got all the popularity because they got all the air time. Nobody alive today cares about the Black Sox scandal. 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcq Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 11 hours ago, GradMc said: Absolutely. Reinsdorf could draw 3 million a season but remember his rent goes up with attendance. He got his cost-contained WS championship in 2005. I was really hoping he'd sell high then. We need a cultural change. We should be like the St. Louis Cardinals - perennial contenders. Unfortunately the White Sox have not been blessed historically with stellar ownership. The Yankees legacy could have easily been the White Sox but Charles Comiskey was too damn cheap. Legend has it, he actually had first dibs on Babe Freakin Ruth but wouldn't pay him the 15k he wanted. The Sox won the WS in 1917. Should have won it in 1919. They were poised to go an historic run but money got in the way. The more things change...... Not that I disagree but a tired old saw. Where do you see the smart money being spent this off-season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
35thstreetswarm Posted October 6, 2020 Author Share Posted October 6, 2020 Ahem...I guess you could make an argument for the Cubs/Sox series at Wrigley this year as the "tipping point" for the two teams, but I'm sticking with roughly September 25, 2019. I haven't seen my Cub fan friends have any fun since last Fall, frankly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NO!!MARY!!! Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 On 9/30/2019 at 5:55 AM, GradMc said: Absolutely. Reinsdorf could draw 3 million a season but remember his rent goes up with attendance. He got his cost-contained WS championship in 2005. I was really hoping he'd sell high then. We need a cultural change. We should be like the St. Louis Cardinals - perennial contenders. Unfortunately the White Sox have not been blessed historically with stellar ownership. The Yankees legacy could have easily been the White Sox but Charles Comiskey was too damn cheap. Legend has it, he actually had first dibs on Babe Freakin Ruth but wouldn't pay him the 15k he wanted. The Sox won the WS in 1917. Should have won it in 1919. They were poised to go an historic run but money got in the way. The more things change...... Please cry me a river with this stuff. Yeesh. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thad Bosley Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 On 9/30/2019 at 9:32 AM, NWINFan said: Historically, you are right. Fans underestimate what the Black Sox scandal did to this franchise. 100 years later it still hasn't recovered. It would be great if the 2020's are the exact opposite of the 1920s. Then you can say the rebuild truly worked. Reinsdorf’s legacy, whatever is left of it after 40 full years now of mostly failure, depends on it. He needs this decade to be one of multiple success to mask his plethora of failure both on and off the field during each of his four decades as owner. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 (edited) On 9/27/2019 at 2:24 AM, kitekrazy said: Usually an NFL team rules a city. Not St. Louis even with the Rams...Boston has always been more identified with Red Sox and Celtics, although one could argue it’s even now with the Pats as well. LA is definitely not a professional football town. Atlanta, the Braves and Falcons might have a slight edge on the baseball side. Detroit has been Tiger town the past 15 years. Of course, the Red Wings as well. Toronto, the Blue Jays have owned city until recent Raptors’ success. Edited October 6, 2020 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 11 hours ago, NO!!MARY!!! said: Please cry me a river with this stuff. Yeesh. The interesting part is that the Charles Comiskey being cheap stuff has largely been disproven, but people buy it because it was in the movie. https://sabr.org/research/article/how-cheap-was-charles-comiskey-salaries-and-the-black-sox/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonofaRoache Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 (edited) Here is a reality. The two divisions we played this year went 2 and 12 in the playoffs. We went 13 and 22 against. 500. We may be a little further away than we hoped. We have to attack our needs and ramp up the roster once more. Edited October 7, 2020 by SonofaRoache 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinky Stanky Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 On 9/26/2019 at 12:18 AM, kitekrazy said: I'd trade for the Cubs owner any day. This list of "stupid" goes to Reinsdorf hands down. It's great to relish in the Cub's misery but in reality it's picking a speck when we have a log in our own eye. Outside of both teams having a world series this century the choke factor is huge on both sides. The Sox will always be the step child in Chicago. Being an old guy, I grew up when the shoe was on the other foot. Always is a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 On 9/30/2019 at 5:15 PM, Black_Jack29 said: The Sox are in their current position relative to the Cubs because of Reinsdorf/Einhorn's failure to keep the Sox on WGN in the early 1980s. When Reinsdorf/Einhorn put the Sox on a proprietary (pay) cable channel, people stopped watching. Meanwhile, the Cubs were on national TV via WGN. They got all the popularity because they got all the air time. Nobody alive today cares about the Black Sox scandal. That plus the Sox letting harry Carey go to the North Side and the foolishness of the Veeck's who believed that the only way to draw fans was to make a circus out of things. The attendance at games is not necessarily an indicator of the percentage of fans in Chicago and the suburbs. There is no doubt the White Sox have made some major leaps in fan interest since 2005 and especially in the last two years. Moving forward the impact of covid-19 may well impact fan attendance at professional sports venues for several years. Now that people understand that droplets and aerosol can carry any number of infectious bacteria and viruses, it may be several years before people cram into bars and stadiums in the same numbers as they did previously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 I grew up as a Cub fan towards the end of the 60's. I could watch the last inning of the game after school. My dad was a Yankees fan and we started watching Sox baseball at night. That's when my allegiance changed. I still love those red pinstripe unis. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokona Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 A lot of the sociological aspects of the city are in the Cubs favor. More upper-middle class transplants have taken over the city's population (seems like everyone is from Michigan now) and they all want the perceived "Chicago experience" of Wrigley Field. In the 50s the Sox owned the town. In the 80s it was more 50/50. Things change over time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWINFan Posted October 12, 2020 Share Posted October 12, 2020 20 hours ago, Nokona said: A lot of the sociological aspects of the city are in the Cubs favor. More upper-middle class transplants have taken over the city's population (seems like everyone is from Michigan now) and they all want the perceived "Chicago experience" of Wrigley Field. In the 50s the Sox owned the town. In the 80s it was more 50/50. Things change over time. Things can really change now if the Sox complete this rebuild the right way. I just don't have a lot of faith in the Cubs ownership at the moment. The Cubs aren't as lovable as they used to be. We will see just how serious the Sox are about turning this franchise around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.