Balta1701 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 03:11 PM) The thing that I don't think a lot of people understand is that the Cubs could conceivably be REALLY good for 5-7 years and not even make it to the World Series. Pat Gillick was the GM for 4 incredibly good teams and only 2 of those teams won World Series, getting 3 titles in all. Now, I think that will do a lot to get their popularity back to where it was, but the opportunity to "take back" Chicago is not out of the realm of possibility, especially if so much is tied to the Cubs winning the World Series. The thing I don't think a lot of people understand is that the Cubs could conceivably be really bad for a lot more than just the next 1-2 years. As it stands right now, their entire future depends on having a large fraction of high-risk prospects actually turn out. That format could change of course if they do what they should do and trade some of these guys to fill in their pitching staff, but so far they haven't tried to do that, and Castro and Rizzo at the very least did not take steps forward this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 01:00 PM) Ozzie blows greg. The sooner you accept it the better. Here greg, have a snickers. If Ozzie blows Greg that explains the crazy kind of love Greg has for him then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorStSox Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 I would guess that if there were a true census of "real" fans in the Chicagoland area, the Cubs would have a slight lead. The Cubs dominate downstate. The difference is the park and the neighborhood. Bridgeport just isn't a great destination for partying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 11, 2013 Author Share Posted October 11, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 01:16 PM) The thing I don't think a lot of people understand is that the Cubs could conceivably be really bad for a lot more than just the next 1-2 years. As it stands right now, their entire future depends on having a large fraction of high-risk prospects actually turn out. That format could change of course if they do what they should do and trade some of these guys to fill in their pitching staff, but so far they haven't tried to do that, and Castro and Rizzo at the very least did not take steps forward this year. And their "ace" pitcher. The three players on the major league roster that they needed the most progress from, they didn't get it... That's where a team like the Rays are so amazing....they can take regressions from Price, Hellickson, Luke Scott, Jennings and Joyce, and still make it to the playoffs. Unfortunately, they can't quite afford to cover the depth chart across the board, so they'll always have their limitiations like the early 00's A's and Twins teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsox Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 12:25 PM) The foundation is already getting some cracks on the northside. This years attendance was as low as it has been since the 90's. If the rebuild staggers, they could see some real changes up there. Media will never allow it. "Lovable Losers" theme song. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsox Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 08:01 PM) And their "ace" pitcher. The three players on the major league roster that they needed the most progress from, they didn't get it... That's where a team like the Rays are so amazing....they can take regressions from Price, Hellickson, Luke Scott, Jennings and Joyce, and still make it to the playoffs. Unfortunately, they can't quite afford to cover the depth chart across the board, so they'll always have their limitiations like the early 00's A's and Twins teams. Speaking of the Rays, there is a lot of talk in Florida about Rays trading Price. Even Price was quoted that he expects to be traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingandalongonetoleft Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 04:37 AM) His comments are 100% correct despite what some Sox fans tend to think. Basic fact of life. Realistically, I think that the only way this changes would be if something in Tom Ricketts' life suddenly and profoundly turns him into a self-destructive wild man, and he moved the Cubs to Rosemont or anywhere else that isn't Wrigley Field. Even then, I think the 3 siblings he shares ownership of the team with would put a stop to that right quick. Or if he hired Ozzie Guillen to manage the Cubs. Edited October 11, 2013 by Swingandalongonetoleft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Middle Buffalo Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 06:16 AM) I think if the Sox actually won 10 in a row like he said, and the Cubs continued being the Cubs, he would be wrong, but I do think it would take something really extreme. Not just winning once or twice. But there definitely was a change in Cubs' fans attitudes once the Sox did win. There is no denying that. 10 in a row would surely change some minds, but the real problem that the Sox have to contend with is that the media is about 80% Cubs fans. If that doesn't change, it really won't matter. The media basically act as and advertising wing of the Cubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 The "media" thing is, IMO, way overblown. The Trib have a real stake, so there is concern there, and they clearly publish more Cubs material. But their Sox material is still better than any of the other papers. Any real "bias" I've seen is in the national media, and that isn't bias as much as laziness. Also, there is zero chance the Cubs leave Wrigleyville. Zero. Even if the City had given them nothing (which is basically what happened), the Rosemont option was never seriously a consideration. Cubs ownership could not possibly be that vapid. You want to see this become a Sox town? The Rosemont Cubs could do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 QUOTE (oldsox @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 09:13 PM) Media will never allow it. "Lovable Losers" theme song. The media can sign whatever they want. The empty seats will tell another story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 05:53 PM) If Ozzie blows Greg that explains the crazy kind of love Greg has for him then... Yikes, the power of punctuation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigHurtIsBack Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 His comments are 100% correct despite what some Sox fans tend to think. Yeah, a couple of those comments are pretty egotistical regarding himself but as far as the Cubs go he's correct, sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Think about this for a second is it really true that consistently winning could switch Chicago to a Sox town? The Cubs haven't won s*** in over 100 years. Their fan base doesn't care about winning. They have done what I wish every baseball franchise could pull off, making it seem fun to go to a MLB baseball game no matter the outcome. As Sox fans we take pride often times in not supporting a terrible team. Cub fans, it could be argued, are better "baseball" fans because 2 million of them come out to watch baseball, not just watch their team when it is winning. The Sox should have made a better dent by having the newer modern ball park, but failed because of the too steep upper deck and ball-mall anti-marketing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 12:24 AM) Think about this for a second is it really true that consistently winning could switch Chicago to a Sox town? The Cubs haven't won s*** in over 100 years. Their fan base doesn't care about winning. They have done what I wish every baseball franchise could pull off, making it seem fun to go to a MLB baseball game no matter the outcome. As Sox fans we take pride often times in not supporting a terrible team. Cub fans, it could be argued, are better "baseball" fans because 2 million of them come out to watch baseball, not just watch their team when it is winning. The Sox should have made a better dent by having the newer modern ball park, but failed because of the too steep upper deck and ball-mall anti-marketing. The Sox blew it in two ways, like you said. One, being the ballpark. You are right. It was a feeble attempt at a brand new park. It's OK now, still nothing special. No. 2, of course, is blowing it after 2005. There's no way we could blow the momentum we had as a franchise, right? Well the Sox completely blew it and less than 10 years later we have perhaps the worst franchise in baseball except for Houston and Miami. They should have ridden the WS title to many divisional titles and thus actually would be known as the "winning" team in the Windy City. Blown opportunity. Arguably, considering all the teams in baseball and all the teams that do it right, we may never get that opportunity to rule the city again.It's going to be very hard to build this thing back up. Edited October 17, 2013 by greg775 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 They don't really come to watch baseball though. They come to get drunk, go hang out in wrigleyville and watch baseball. So I don't think they are better fans in any way. They just have a more attractive non-baseball experience overall when attending a game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 11:13 PM) They don't really come to watch baseball though. They come to get drunk, go hang out in wrigleyville and watch baseball. So I don't think they are better fans in any way. They just have a more attractive non-baseball experience overall when attending a game. What if I said better customers instead of fans? I was using the term fans to describe the folks that buy tickets and go to the game. They ring the cash registers. I can see how that doesn't accurately describe all fans. There are plenty of fans who never attend a home game. They come to get drunk, go hang out in wrigleyville and watch baseball What is different with Sox fans? I've seen drunks at Sox games. We both watch baseball. The neighborhood? I will concede that more people would leave a Sox' game and party in Wriglyville than leave a Cubs' game and party around the Cell. Now that my daughter lives in the Lakeview neighborhood I have spent some time in Wriglyville on non Cub game nights and it was busy with people partying. I wonder if we confuse people who were at the game with non fans who are just there for a party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 And #1 reason it is a Cubs town is TV. All the way back to the late 1960s when the Sox were on 32 and 44 UHF channels that had terrible reception everywhere. All the other factors are well behind losing the TV generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 11:13 PM) They don't really come to watch baseball though. They come to get drunk, go hang out in wrigleyville and watch baseball. So I don't think they are better fans in any way. They just have a more attractive non-baseball experience overall when attending a game. Like Sox Park is any different with everyone tailgating and drinking? They just get in their cars and leave after instead of roaming the neighborhood If you watch the two crowds Sox fans are in no way louder or more into the game. At a Sox/Tigers game late last year, the fans couldn't even be bothered to stand up and cheer at big moments with the division at stake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwritecode Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 07:24 PM) Think about this for a second is it really true that consistently winning could switch Chicago to a Sox town? The Cubs haven't won s*** in over 100 years. Their fan base doesn't care about winning. They have done what I wish every baseball franchise could pull off, making it seem fun to go to a MLB baseball game no matter the outcome. As Sox fans we take pride often times in not supporting a terrible team. Cub fans, it could be argued, are better "baseball" fans because 2 million of them come out to watch baseball, not just watch their team when it is winning. The Sox should have made a better dent by having the newer modern ball park, but failed because of the too steep upper deck and ball-mall anti-marketing. Absolutely. Make the playoffs 4 out of 5 years or 5 out of 6 years and see what happens. Hell, just make them 2 years in a row even. I think it would make a huge difference. It's just too bad we've never been able to test this theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwritecode Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 04:40 AM) And #1 reason it is a Cubs town is TV. All the way back to the late 1960s when the Sox were on 32 and 44 UHF channels that had terrible reception everywhere. All the other factors are well behind losing the TV generation. It's true the Cubs gained and the Sox lost an entire generation of fans due to bad decisions over TV stations but with today's technology of being able to see any team anywhere in the country I think that gap is narrowing. I thought I had read that the Sox had better TV numbers than the Cubs this past year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 09:54 AM) Absolutely. Make the playoffs 4 out of 5 years or 5 out of 6 years and see what happens. Hell, just make them 2 years in a row even. I think it would make a huge difference. It's just too bad we've never been able to test this theory. But if Cub fans really care about winning why do they fill the park when they are losing? About the last thing I would accuse the Cubs "customers" of being is caring about winning. I think the Sox numbers would increase, but my guess is it would be new fans that are attracted to the winning, not an exodus of Cub customers deciding to move the party to the southside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 06:51 AM) At a Sox/Tigers game late last year, the fans couldn't even be bothered to stand up and cheer at big moments with the division at stake To be fair, by that point it was pretty obvious the White Sox were collapsing. I stopped watching completely right around the end of August because I could see what was about to happen and didn't want to watch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 01:08 PM) To be fair, by that point it was pretty obvious the White Sox were collapsing. I stopped watching completely right around the end of August because I could see what was about to happen and didn't want to watch it. BS. You probably did the same thing in 2005, since they were collapsing then as well. I love the argument Sox fans make, they "knew the team would collapse" that is why they didn't support them all year. Like Sox fans are far more intelligent than other fanbases. Explain to me why, if these fans are so smart and know what is going to happen ahead of time, more Sox fans watched them in person in 2007 than in 2012? Edited October 17, 2013 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 02:09 PM) BS. You probably did the same thing in 2005, since they were collapsing then as well. Nope, watched every moment. Gave up on the 2012 White Sox right around then (you might remember I took a complete posting Hiatus for a couple months right there as well, in no small part because I knew otherwise being at this website during that period would make it worse"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 01:10 PM) Nope, watched every moment. Gave up on the 2012 White Sox right around then (you might remember I took a complete posting Hiatus for a couple months right there as well, in no small part because I knew otherwise being at this website during that period would make it worse"). Didn't the Sox blow a lead of about 15 or 16 games at one point in 2005? How could people not realize they were collapsing like they could in 2012? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.webp.29cc6c9fee0f01ceeb4f722593e5e3ba.webp)
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.