PDA

View Full Version : Sox Leadership and Their Broken Lights


Jpgr91
06-02-2010, 12:01 AM
About the middle of April I noticed 6 lamp post lights burnt out. The lamp posts are located at the top of the aisles that lead to the outfield concourse. I have been to the park about 7 times since I first observed these lights being burnt out. Tonight I went to the game, sat in my usual seat, and I observed the same burnt out lights that have been burnt out since the second homestand. I have spend a relatively limited amount of time in the park compared to most of those in Senior Leadership positions in the Sox organization. If Senior Leadership and Ownership can not mobilize their staff to fix a few broken lights, or they have not noticed a small detail as obvious as a few burnt out lights, what else are these same Senior Leaders missing?

If a few stupid broken lights were the only sign of a broken organization I would not be concerned. However, it is not the only sign. The Sox are a team that has a ongoing public feud between the Manager and the GM. This has manifested itself in the GM saying the Manager got the team he wanted against the GM's wishes. The Manager has very publicly sets his expectations of a team that plays defense, pitches well, and does the small things to win games. Can anyone honestly say this current team meets the expectations of what the manager set forth? Ownership still maintains a public stance of "subtracting operating expense from revenue to get payroll" as their business model. What other successful business claims to spend money only after they make it?

If the Sox Senior Leadership can not fix something as simple as a few broken light bulbs, how can anyone have confidence that they can fix the myriad of problems that face the Sox organization?

thomas35forever
06-02-2010, 12:04 AM
Broken light bulbs should be the least of our problems right now. I can't believe you're comparing those to the state of the team.

Jpgr91
06-02-2010, 12:13 AM
Broken light bulbs should be the least of our problems right now. I can't believe you're comparing those to the state of the team.

Running a successful business requires an intense attention detail. Running a successful business requires a commitment to protecting the image and delivering the best possible product to the consumer. If the Senior Leaders that make decisions about the roster are not committed to every detail of the operation, what makes you think they are going to make the right decisions about the roster? Again, it is not like the broken lights are the only example of a broken organization.

Tragg
06-02-2010, 12:15 AM
If a few stupid broken lights were the only sign of a broken organization I would not be concerned. However, it is not the only sign. The Sox are a team that has a ongoing public feud between the Manager and the GM.This has manifested itself in the GM saying the Manager got the team he wanted against the GM's wishes. The Manager has very publicly sets his expectations of a team that plays defense, pitches well, and does the small things to win games.
Two points. First, it's disingenous for Guillen to say with a straight face that the team "he wants" is a team that plays defense. He has consistently debased defense since, well, winning the WS in 2005 because of defense.

Second - isn't it disngenous for Williams to blame Ozzie for this? After all, Williams should know by now that the team Ozzie wants has very little chance of playing .500, much less contending. Further, given that knowledge, what in the world prompted him to try to do it again and put together another team replete with bad ozzie-ball hitters?

thomas35forever
06-02-2010, 12:17 AM
Running a successful business requires an intense attention detail. Running a successful business a requires a commitment to protecting the image and delivering the best possible product to the consumer. If the Senior Leaders that make decisions about the roster are not committed to every detail of the operation, what makes you think they are going to make the right decisions about the roster? Again, it is not like the broken lights are the only example of a broken organization.

Who specifically are you blaming here? Reinsdorf? To me, he'd be the only logical person to blame for this other than the director of stadium operations or whoever's in charge of that area of the ballpark.

Jpgr91
06-02-2010, 12:27 AM
Who specifically are you blaming here? Reinsdorf? To me, he'd be the only logical person to blame for this other than the director of stadium operations or whoever's in charge of that area of the ballpark.

I am blaming everyone in Senior Leadership that has spent more than 2 or 3 night games at the park. Really, how hard is it to get on your
Blackberry and send a once sentence email instructing someone to fix the damn lights? Either the issue is that they are missing a very obvious detail or that they don't view it as their "problem". Taking either of those positions on anything that affects your business will not lead to success.

Two points. First, it's disingenous for Guillen to say with a straight face that the team "he wants" is a team that plays defense. He has consistently debased defense since, well, winning the WS in 2005 because of defense.

Second - isn't it disngenous for Williams to blame Ozzie for this? After all, Williams should know by now that the team Ozzie wants has very little chance of playing .500, much less contending. Further, given that knowledge, what in the world prompted him to try to do it again and put together another team replete with bad ozzie-ball hitters?

So why does Ozzie say it? Is he a Liar? Does he not know what he is talking about? It is wrong of KW to blame Ozzie for this, because KW should have the final say over the roster. If KW does not have final say, what are we missing behind the scenes that is fueling some of the tension in the organization?

BadBobbyJenks
06-02-2010, 12:32 AM
About the middle of April I noticed 6 lamp post lights burnt out. The lamp posts are located at the top of the aisles that lead to the outfield concourse. I have been to the park about 7 times since I first observed these lights being burnt out. Tonight I went to the game, sat in my usual seat, and I observed the same burnt out lights that have been burnt out since the second homestand. I have spend a relatively limited amount of time in the park compared to most of those in Senior Leadership positions in the Sox organization. If Senior Leadership and Ownership can not mobilize their staff to fix a few broken lights, or they have not noticed a small detail as obvious as a few burnt out lights, what else are these same Senior Leaders missing?

If a few stupid broken lights were the only sign of a broken organization I would not be concerned. However, it is not the only sign. The Sox are a team that has a ongoing public feud between the Manager and the GM.This has manifested itself in the GM saying the Manager got the team he wanted against the GM's wishes. The Manager has very publicly sets his expectations of a team that plays defense, pitches well, and does the small things to win games. Can anyone honestly say this current team meets the expectations of what the manager set forth? Ownership still maintains a public stance of "subtracting operating expense from revenue to get payroll" as their business model. What other successful business claims to spend money only after they make it?

If the Sox Senior Leadership can not fix something as simple as a few broken light bulbs, how can anyone have confidence that they can fix the myriad of problems that face the Sox organization?

Good post. In Kenny we trust doesn't ring the same confidence it used to.

Frontman
06-02-2010, 12:36 AM
So, can we say that the Sox didn't have a winning outlook last season because I couldn't get grilled onions on my brat I purchased on the 500 level too?

We are so seriously reaching for things to throw at the Sox right now; but to say Kenny Williams doesn't care to win due to poor lighting at the stadium is a HUGE reach.

Noneck
06-02-2010, 12:45 AM
Ownership still maintains a public stance of "subtracting operating expense from revenue to get payroll" as their business model. What other successful business claims to spend money only after they make it?



I don't know what other business does that but I am sure if they could, they would . What business would want to make profit and never a loss, no matter what happens?

soxfan43
06-02-2010, 12:54 AM
They have a top 10 payroll, spending money isn't the problem, it's how it's spent that is. As far as the lightbulb thing goes, it's kinda pathetic that not one employee has seen these burned out lights and taken the initiative to get them replaced. I don't think it has anything to do with the on field product but it's still not a good sign on how things are being run.

Jpgr91
06-02-2010, 01:00 AM
So, can we say that the Sox didn't have a winning outlook last season because I couldn't get grilled onions on my brat I purchased on the 500 level too?

We are so seriously reaching for things to throw at the Sox right now; but to say Kenny Williams doesn't care to win due to poor lighting at the stadium is a HUGE reach.

The lights should be obvious to everyone in the stadium, the onions are not. I am sure that KW cares about the Sox winning, but does the organization have the top to bottom leadership to ensure that no detail is overlooked in every facet of the operation?

I don't know what other business does that but I am sure if they could, they would . What business would want to make profit and never a loss, no matter what happens?

I am sure it is the optimal outcome for every business, but I do not think that anyone thinks it is a sound practice to make it their public business model. By doing this the Sox make it seem that it is the responsibility of the consumer to ensure that the product on the field is properly funded. I think this mentality goes a long way in showing how disconnected the organization is from many of their fans.

WhiteSox5187
06-02-2010, 01:17 AM
Two points. First, it's disingenous for Guillen to say with a straight face that the team "he wants" is a team that plays defense. He has consistently debased defense since, well, winning the WS in 2005 because of defense.

Second - isn't it disngenous for Williams to blame Ozzie for this? After all, Williams should know by now that the team Ozzie wants has very little chance of playing .500, much less contending. Further, given that knowledge, what in the world prompted him to try to do it again and put together another team replete with bad ozzie-ball hitters?

Is it Ozzie who debases defense or is it Kenny Williams? Kenny is the guy who makes out the roster and Ozzie can only use those guys. I know, I know, you're going to point to Brian Anderson and the use of Mackowiak in CF which were head scratching.

You say that "the team Ozzie wants has very little chance of playing .500," well I think the kind of team Ozzie wants is located in Tampa and they are doing quite well at contending. Ozzie has been quoted as saying he wants the kind of team that Minnesota has and they aren't exactly struggling to keep above .500 are they? This "Ozzie wants to play NL style small ball" argument is just pure horse ****. He wants guys who can get bunts down and steal bases, yes. But he also wants guys who are capable of hitting a lot of homeruns, the thing is he wants those guys to be able to score from second on a single, go from first to third, etc. When you have a line up where your 3-4-5 guys are in capable of going more than one base at a time, it will wind up hurting a lot. From 2008 on the only way to bring in the likes of Paul Konerko, Jim Thome, or Jermaine Dye from second base was with nothing less than a double and that puts a lot more pressure on the guys hitting behind them.

The idea of having a team of good fielding players who can "do the little things" (ie play fundamental baseball) is not a bad idea at all and has been proven to win time and time again. The thing is, Kenny hasn't really gone out and gotten a team like that. This is as close as he's come and you really have to wonder who the hell told Kenny that Mark Teahen could play third base everyday. Ozzie says he wants a team that can field, and Kenny gives him the likes of Teahen at third, Quentin in right, the likes of DeWayne Wise and Brian Anderson (who while good at fielding, just can't hit a damn, there's a reason he hasn't seen significant playing time in the bigs anywhere else we've traded him) for CF (followed by Pods for christ's sake).

Ozzie deserves a lot of blame for this year, but either Kenny badly misjudged who he was getting and what kind of players they were (which Kenny seems to have a tendency to do) OR he completely ceded his responsibility as GM to Ozzie.

My point to this long rant is this: Kenny deserves every bit as much blame for this year (and for last year and for 2007) as Ozzie does.

doublem23
06-02-2010, 01:52 AM
:threadrules:

This reminds me of that idiotic Business Management course I had to take in college.

IF YOU DON'T FIX THE LIGHTS, HOW WILL PEOPLE SEE THE PRODUCT!!!

:rolling:

kufram
06-02-2010, 04:03 AM
I imagine that it is possible that some lights are out at any given time and there is more than adequate lighting factored in to account for that. There could well be a scheduled changing of lamps and servicing at regular points on the calendar which is probably contracted out.

Just guessing because that is how I would do it... not send a little man up a ladder every time a lamp blows.

harwar
06-02-2010, 05:31 AM
the light that once shone so brightly has become a dim glow

white sox bill
06-02-2010, 06:40 AM
This is without doubt a cost cutting step. JR is saving on electricity plus the high cost of sending a maintenance guy up there.

If only we hadn't signed Mark Teahan....

Seriously though, if the OP noticed this how many others has? And thought the same thing? This whole thing is symbolic of 2010. Good night. Lights out.

jabrch
06-02-2010, 07:01 AM
In 2005, there was not a single lightbulb out all year. In 83, Tito Landrum turned out the lights. If JR wasn't so cheap and KW wasn't so stupid, this lighting problem, and and Peavy's, MB, Gavin, Q, AJ, Beckham's underperforming expectations wouldn't happen.

Cheap and Stupid....

wassagstdu
06-02-2010, 07:05 AM
Two points. First, it's disingenous for Guillen to say with a straight face that the team "he wants" is a team that plays defense. He has consistently debased defense since, well, winning the WS in 2005 because of defense.

Who dumped Uribe and put in place an infield of Teahen, Ramirez, and a 2nd year player learning his second new position in a year? Bad judgement all around, probably. But Ozzie's part is probably limited to his over-optimism on Alexei's development.

DumpJerry
06-02-2010, 07:14 AM
How do you know those lights are burnt out and are not turned off on purpose?

kufram
06-02-2010, 07:25 AM
Many people on WSI were screaming for Uribe's head before he was traded. I liked Uribe even with his lack of plate discipline. Good producer for a number nine and a brilliant infielder. Struck out on a lot of bad pitches was all you heard here though. I don't think Teahen is as bad as people want him to be here either... like a number of others he hasn't had a good start but the bat was coming around and he was never going to be as good as Uribe with the glove.

doublem23
06-02-2010, 07:44 AM
Many people on WSI were screaming for Uribe's head before he was traded. I liked Uribe even with his lack of plate discipline. Good producer for a number nine and a brilliant infielder. Struck out on a lot of bad pitches was all you heard here though. I don't think Teahen is as bad as people want him to be here either... like a number of others he hasn't had a good start but the bat was coming around and he was never going to be as good as Uribe with the glove.

Uribe wasn't traded. He was released.

It's easy to look at his stats in San Francisco and think he'd have become a consistent offensive weapon again here, too, but considering how poorly the Sox are coached, I doubt he'd ever have topped the .230/.280/.390 player he was for most of his time here. Another wasted talent notched on Greg Walker's belt.

hi im skot
06-02-2010, 08:04 AM
I blame Randy Williams.

kufram
06-02-2010, 08:39 AM
Uribe wasn't traded. He was released.

It's easy to look at his stats in San Francisco and think he'd have become a consistent offensive weapon again here, too, but considering how poorly the Sox are coached, I doubt he'd ever have topped the .230/.280/.390 player he was for most of his time here. Another wasted talent notched on Greg Walker's belt.


I can't see Uribe's time here as wasted. Unappreciated by some fans maybe, but hardly wasted. He was hot and cold with the bat but drove in some runs from the nine hole, and the best glove and arm you could want. My point was that there have been a number of players whose blood some posters at WSI were baying for when they weren't doing well that went on to play important and valuable parts. Uribe, Contreras, and Podsednik for example, all of whom I loved to watch when they did well and was sad when they didn't do well... but no one is good all of the time.

russ99
06-02-2010, 08:42 AM
Who dumped Uribe and put in place an infield of Teahen, Ramirez, and a 2nd year player learning his second new position in a year? Bad judgement all around, probably. But Ozzie's part is probably limited to his over-optimism on Alexei's development.

It sure seems that people like to think the player we had is always better than the one we have now.

I think Ramirez is a better SS now than Uribe was then. Sure, we wish the bat and plate discipline is as sound as his defense, but I think we forget the strikeout machine Uribe was.

Alexei is still prone to a mental mistake from time to time, but IMO he's in the top 5 in range.

SI1020
06-02-2010, 09:28 AM
It sure seems that people like to think the player we had is always better than the one we have now.

I think Ramirez is a better SS now than Uribe was then. Sure, we wish the bat and plate discipline is as sound as his defense, but I think we forget the strikeout machine Uribe was.

Alexei is still prone to a mental mistake from time to time, but IMO he's in the top 5 in range. Really?

slavko
06-02-2010, 09:37 AM
Really?

Not really, by any measure. Lights out. We're headed back to the Allyn ownership days of outfield seats draped in pigeon poop.

LITTLE NELL
06-02-2010, 09:44 AM
Who is responsible for maintaining the park, is it the Sox or the Illinois Sports Authority? Remember the Sox are tenants and don't own the place.

ewokpelts
06-02-2010, 10:12 AM
About the middle of April I noticed 6 lamp post lights burnt out. The lamp posts are located at the top of the aisles that lead to the outfield concourse. I have been to the park about 7 times since I first observed these lights being burnt out. Tonight I went to the game, sat in my usual seat, and I observed the same burnt out lights that have been burnt out since the second homestand. I have spend a relatively limited amount of time in the park compared to most of those in Senior Leadership positions in the Sox organization. If Senior Leadership and Ownership can not mobilize their staff to fix a few broken lights, or they have not noticed a small detail as obvious as a few burnt out lights, what else are these same Senior Leaders missing?

If a few stupid broken lights were the only sign of a broken organization I would not be concerned. However, it is not the only sign. The Sox are a team that has a ongoing public feud between the Manager and the GM.This has manifested itself in the GM saying the Manager got the team he wanted against the GM's wishes. The Manager has very publicly sets his expectations of a team that plays defense, pitches well, and does the small things to win games. Can anyone honestly say this current team meets the expectations of what the manager set forth? Ownership still maintains a public stance of "subtracting operating expense from revenue to get payroll" as their business model. What other successful business claims to spend money only after they make it?

If the Sox Senior Leadership can not fix something as simple as a few broken light bulbs, how can anyone have confidence that they can fix the myriad of problems that face the Sox organization? call 1-312-674-1000 and report the broken lights and bad manager/general manager

Rocky Soprano
06-02-2010, 10:19 AM
Fire Greg Walker, it's his fault.

CPditka
06-02-2010, 10:20 AM
I think this is very similar to going to a top-flight restaurant, and them having dirty bathrooms.

...you cant see what they are doing in the kitchen, but what you can see should bother you in the bathroom.

The parallel to the broken lights is there, maybe not an exact corraltion with winning, but definetly paying attention to detail. If we cant trust them to fix the things they can control, how can we expect them to fix the things we cant see behind the scenes?

bestkosher
06-02-2010, 10:56 AM
Maybe their holding out that more bulbs go out so we can not see the bad baseball on the field, thus less complaining.

kufram
06-02-2010, 11:30 AM
It sure seems that people like to think the player we had is always better than the one we have now.

I think Ramirez is a better SS now than Uribe was then. Sure, we wish the bat and plate discipline is as sound as his defense, but I think we forget the strikeout machine Uribe was.

Alexei is still prone to a mental mistake from time to time, but IMO he's in the top 5 in range.

I'm not sure TCM is better NOW but he's improving fast and I think TCM is more valuable all around. I wasn't complaining because Uribe isn't here anymore. I liked Uribe when he was here. I like TCM now that he is here. I want him to be better now but he will be better when he gets better and I think Omar is making an impression toward that end.

There are other players that I am glad are gone.

Some people need someone to blame. We live in a blame culture. I don't think the WS organization are trying to lose or incompetent because the team haven't been as good as hoped.... or because a few light bulbs have needed changing for a while. I just think it is bloody hard to put a good MLB team together. I listen to other team broadcasters sometimes and they find it hard to believe that this team is where it is right now with the personnel we have. I haven't heard them slag them off and call them names.

voodoochile
06-02-2010, 11:47 AM
I imagine that it is possible that some lights are out at any given time and there is more than adequate lighting factored in to account for that. There could well be a scheduled changing of lamps and servicing at regular points on the calendar which is probably contracted out.

Just guessing because that is how I would do it... not send a little man up a ladder every time a lamp blows.

It might even be that the Sox are intentionally reducing the amount of lights they use to conserve energy and save money. If an area already has sufficient lighting it makes sense both economically and environmentally to not turn on every single light in the area. It may seem trivial, but assume UCSF has 2000 light bulbs in use before talking about the field lights themselves. If you can reduce those 2000 to 1900 you will save a LOT of money over the course of a season.

wassagstdu
06-02-2010, 11:50 AM
It's like the broken window philosophy of urban renewal. If a broken window is not replaced it is a sign that says "nobody cares" and the neighborhood goes downhill faster.

Here's my "theory:" Management leaves the lights burned out intentionally to send the message to the players who look up and see them every night, that things are tight and every penny counts so don't look for a raise or a fat contract.

Or how about this one. The unlit lamps are a tribute to great relief pitchers from Sox history, like retired numbers.

soltrain21
06-02-2010, 12:17 PM
I'm not sure TCM is better NOW but he's improving fast and I think TCM is more valuable all around. I wasn't complaining because Uribe isn't here anymore. I liked Uribe when he was here. I like TCM now that he is here. I want him to be better now but he will be better when he gets better and I think Omar is making an impression toward that end.

There are other players that I am glad are gone.

Some people need someone to blame. We live in a blame culture. I don't think the WS organization are trying to lose or incompetent because the team haven't been as good as hoped.... or because a few light bulbs have needed changing for a while. I just think it is bloody hard to put a good MLB team together. I listen to other team broadcasters sometimes and they find it hard to believe that this team is where it is right now with the personnel we have. I haven't heard them slag them off and call them names.

In what world is Ramirez improving fast? He is still a very dumb baseball player.

GoGoCrede
06-02-2010, 12:21 PM
I really don't get what this post is supposed to be about....:scratch:

soltrain21
06-02-2010, 12:24 PM
I really don't get what this post is supposed to be about....:scratch:

I get what he is saying. Some lights on the concourse are burnt out and have been since the second homestand. I don't agree with comparing it to the organization as a whole - but it DOES look extremely ****ty to have burnt out lights for that long in a place like this. It doesn't exactly create the right vibe the Sox are going for.

Sure, we can make jokes about it and stuff - but things like this at the park shouldn't go unfixed for so long.

voodoochile
06-02-2010, 12:50 PM
I get what he is saying. Some lights on the concourse are burnt out and have been since the second homestand. I don't agree with comparing it to the organization as a whole - but it DOES look extremely ****ty to have burnt out lights for that long in a place like this. It doesn't exactly create the right vibe the Sox are going for.

Sure, we can make jokes about it and stuff - but things like this at the park shouldn't go unfixed for so long.

Again, IF indeed this is a repair issue and not a planned outage to reduce costs and save energy.

For all any of us know there have been some good advances in lightbulb and lighting technology since 1989 and less fixtures are required to light a given area, but it makes sense to leave the fixtures in case another one breaks to reduce the cost of maintenance (including the cost of removal of the extraneous fixtures).

Heck, it might be as simple as a change in regulations requiring less lightbulbs in given areas or a redirecting of certain lights for better coverage.

Is the area in question uncomfortably dark to move around in? If not (and I assume that's not the case since the OP can clearly see the darkened fixtures), clearly the extra bulbs aren't necessary and thus (again) it could well be a planned thing to reduce costs and conserve energy which seems something management should be applauded for, not condemned.

Has anyone sent an email asking what the case is or are we simply rushing to judgment?

tacosalbarojas
06-02-2010, 12:51 PM
Three pages in, and so far unless I'm missing something I don't see one other person corroborating the original poster's report about the lighting. I haven't noticed the lights being out, but I will check this weekend. The best poster was the one who suggested a call in to the team reporting it. That's what should be done here.

kufram
06-02-2010, 12:52 PM
In what world is Ramirez improving fast? He is still a very dumb baseball player.


You haven't noticed his footwork has improved in preparation for the throw to first and, hence, PK is getting good throws instead of digging them all out of the dirt? A lot of complaints about that last year but no one notices it's vastly improved. Hmmm... Pretty important part of being a SS.

soltrain21
06-02-2010, 12:54 PM
You haven't noticed his footwork has improved in preparation for the throw to first and, hence, PK is getting good throws instead of digging them all out of the dirt? A lot of complaints about that last year but no one notices it's vastly improved. Hmmm... Pretty important part of being a SS.

It's still bad and he is still making bad throws and being lackadaisical out there - but okay.

white sox bill
06-02-2010, 01:17 PM
Again, IF indeed this is a repair issue and not a planned outage to reduce costs and save energy.

For all any of us know there have been some good advances in lightbulb and lighting technology since 1989 and less fixtures are required to light a given area, but it makes sense to leave the fixtures in case another one breaks to reduce the cost of maintenance (including the cost of removal of the extraneous fixtures).

Heck, it might be as simple as a change in regulations requiring less lightbulbs in given areas or a redirecting of certain lights for better coverage.

Is the area in question uncomfortably dark to move around in? If not (and I assume that's not the case since the OP can clearly see the darkened fixtures), clearly the extra bulbs aren't necessary and thus (again) it could well be a planned thing to reduce costs and conserve energy which seems something management should be applauded for, not condemned.

Has anyone sent an email asking what the case is or are we simply rushing to judgment?
I'm sure Hardware Hank doesn't stock the kind of bulbs needed and I assume they are quite pricey. IIRC an engineer friend of mine told me that the burnt out bulbs in my fixtures at my gym are still costing me as much as if they were new and lit.

I can't imagine that a MLB team would be so penny conscious that replacing a few bulbs will throw their budjet out of whack

TomBradley72
06-02-2010, 01:29 PM
I completely agree with the OP...this organization reeks of apathy.


Worn out peeling pinwheels from an All Star game hosted SEVEN years ago
Unpainted, grey metal railings randomly around the ballpark.
Rusting out soap dispensers in the restrooms (that consistently run out of paper towels during games)
Beyond boring marketing campaigns...two lame commericials filmed in spring training, "It's Black & White"...boring/stale promotion schedule.
I run a $30MM business....attention to detail is EVERYTHING...from my perspective...they were a hungry and creative organization in 2005-2006..but year by year since then...they''ve lost their edge...especially in the stadium operations and marketing (sorry Brooks) areas.

I have visited 22 major league ballparks....and especially among the new parks, the White Sox are dead last in attention to detail and customer service. It's not even close. The only one I would clearly rank us ahead of would be the Rogers Centre in Toronto.

voodoochile
06-02-2010, 01:30 PM
I'm sure Hardware Hank doesn't stock the kind of bulbs needed and I assume they are quite pricey. IIRC an engineer friend of mine told me that the burnt out bulbs in my fixtures at my gym are still costing me as much as if they were new and lit.

I can't imagine that a MLB team would be so penny conscious that replacing a few bulbs will throw their budjet out of whack

And again, if the lighting is superfluous who cares? Also, where do we draw the line? What if they can turn off 100 bulbs throughout the park? What if it's 200?

I don't get what you mean that the bulbs are still costing you money even though they are burned out. That seems odd, but again, in your case, it's a much smaller operation, so it wouldn't be practical to turn off the circuit breaker. Given the proximity of these particular bulbs, it might well be that they actually are and thus they are shut off at the source. Heck for all we know they've been replaced by other fixtures in that same area that are more energy and cost efficient and it was cheaper to leave the old fixtures in and simply install the new than to pull and replace.

There's lots of reasons that these fixtures could be dark without it being "management is building a crappy culture that foments a crappy attitude in it's employees."

Still, since no one but you is even willing to consider it as a possibility or reply to my posts, I guess I'll just let people get on with the latest round of management bashing and try to bow out.

TomBradley72
06-02-2010, 01:32 PM
Or how about this one. The unlit lamps are a tribute to great relief pitchers from Sox history, like retired numbers.

Like......Dennis Lamp?

:kneeslap::kneeslap::kneeslap:

CLUBHOUSE KID
06-02-2010, 01:36 PM
About the middle of April I noticed 6 lamp post lights burnt out. The lamp posts are located at the top of the aisles that lead to the outfield concourse. I have been to the park about 7 times since I first observed these lights being burnt out. Tonight I went to the game, sat in my usual seat, and I observed the same burnt out lights that have been burnt out since the second homestand. I have spend a relatively limited amount of time in the park compared to most of those in Senior Leadership positions in the Sox organization. If Senior Leadership and Ownership can not mobilize their staff to fix a few broken lights, or they have not noticed a small detail as obvious as a few burnt out lights, what else are these same Senior Leaders missing?

If a few stupid broken lights were the only sign of a broken organization I would not be concerned. However, it is not the only sign. The Sox are a team that has a ongoing public feud between the Manager and the GM. This has manifested itself in the GM saying the Manager got the team he wanted against the GM's wishes. The Manager has very publicly sets his expectations of a team that plays defense, pitches well, and does the small things to win games. Can anyone honestly say this current team meets the expectations of what the manager set forth? Ownership still maintains a public stance of "subtracting operating expense from revenue to get payroll" as their business model. What other successful business claims to spend money only after they make it?

If the Sox Senior Leadership can not fix something as simple as a few broken light bulbs, how can anyone have confidence that they can fix the myriad of problems that face the Sox organization?

I am not gonna lie, this post actually is very valid. I don't know if I wanna go into a lot of detail, but the clubhouse has a certain similar feeling. Not the players, but the attendants.

white sox bill
06-02-2010, 01:38 PM
Beyond boring marketing campaigns...two lame commericials filmed in spring training, "It's Black & White"...boring/stale promotion schedule.


.

Those two are pitifull.....esp. the one about WS tradition, the logo means more than the name on back....or something. Like we have a long standing tradition of winning titles. Yea right

white sox bill
06-02-2010, 01:40 PM
And again, if the lighting is superfluous who cares? Also, where do we draw the line? What if they can turn off 100 bulbs throughout the park? What if it's 200?

I don't get what you mean that the bulbs are still costing you money even though they are burned out. That seems odd, but again, in your case, it's a much smaller operation, so it wouldn't be practical to turn off the circuit breaker. Given the proximity of these particular bulbs, it might well be that they actually are and thus they are shut off at the source. Heck for all we know they've been replaced by other fixtures in that same area that are more energy and cost efficient and it was cheaper to leave the old fixtures in and simply install the new than to pull and replace.

There's lots of reasons that these fixtures could be dark without it being "management is building a crappy culture that foments a crappy attitude in it's employees."

Still, since no one but you is even willing to consider it as a possibility or reply to my posts, I guess I'll just let people get on with the latest round of management bashing and try to bow out.

Same here....BTW what I think was meant was that a burnt bulb still pulls juice regardless. Kinda like I hear that your cell phone recharger still draws electricity even though it not charging anything.

LITTLE NELL
06-02-2010, 01:41 PM
I completely agree with the OP...this organization reeks of apathy.


Worn out peeling pinwheels from an All Star game hosted SEVEN years ago
Unpainted, grey metal railings randomly around the ballpark.
Rusting out soap dispensers in the restrooms (that consistently run out of paper towels during games)
Beyond boring marketing campaigns...two lame commericials filmed in spring training, "It's Black & White"...boring/stale promotion schedule.
I run a $30MM business....attention to detail is EVERYTHING...from my perspective...they were a hungry and creative organization in 2005-2006..but year by year since then...they''ve lost their edge...especially in the stadium operations and marketing (sorry Brooks) areas.

I have visited 22 major league ballparks....and especially among the new parks, the White Sox are dead last in attention to detail and customer service. It's not even close. The only one I would clearly rank us ahead of would be the Rogers Centre in Toronto.

Whatever shortcomings Tropicana field has, when I was there Sunday the place was very clean and the customer service was excellent with the ticket seller and ticket taker saying enjoy the game as well as the lady that was handing out free programs. The parking lot attendant also gave us an ''enjoy the game''. That is nice touch with the free program and scorecard that they give out along with a nice poster of a Rays player. (Carlos Pena on Sunday). They do that for every game and its a nice program with player stories and pictures along with the schedule, ticket prices etc, etc.

CLUBHOUSE KID
06-02-2010, 01:45 PM
I completely agree with the OP...this organization reeks of apathy.


Worn out peeling pinwheels from an All Star game hosted SEVEN years ago
Unpainted, grey metal railings randomly around the ballpark.
Rusting out soap dispensers in the restrooms (that consistently run out of paper towels during games)
Beyond boring marketing campaigns...two lame commericials filmed in spring training, "It's Black & White"...boring/stale promotion schedule.
I run a $30MM business....attention to detail is EVERYTHING...from my perspective...they were a hungry and creative organization in 2005-2006..but year by year since then...they''ve lost their edge...especially in the stadium operations and marketing (sorry Brooks) areas.

I have visited 22 major league ballparks....and especially among the new parks, the White Sox are dead last in attention to detail and customer service. It's not even close. The only one I would clearly rank us ahead of would be the Rogers Centre in Toronto.

This is a great post. I just do not get how the WSox could have 2005 and leave it at that. From personal experience, the Front Office is really getting to be garbage now. I like a few, they are still great to me, but a lot of them...MOST of them, have change for the worse.

CLUBHOUSE KID
06-02-2010, 01:46 PM
Whatever shortcomings Tropicana field has, when I was there Sunday the place was very clean and the customer service was excellent with the ticket seller and ticket taker saying enjoy the game as well as the lady that was handing out free programs. The parking lot attendant also gave us an ''enjoy the game''. That is nice touch with the free program and scorecard that they give out along with a nice poster of a Rays player. (Carlos Pena on Sunday). They do that for every game and its a nice program with player stories and pictures along with the schedule, ticket prices etc, etc.

Wow thats nice.

Frontman
06-02-2010, 03:43 PM
And again, if the lighting is superfluous who cares? Also, where do we draw the line? What if they can turn off 100 bulbs throughout the park? What if it's 200?

I don't get what you mean that the bulbs are still costing you money even though they are burned out. That seems odd, but again, in your case, it's a much smaller operation, so it wouldn't be practical to turn off the circuit breaker. Given the proximity of these particular bulbs, it might well be that they actually are and thus they are shut off at the source. Heck for all we know they've been replaced by other fixtures in that same area that are more energy and cost efficient and it was cheaper to leave the old fixtures in and simply install the new than to pull and replace.

There's lots of reasons that these fixtures could be dark without it being "management is building a crappy culture that foments a crappy attitude in it's employees."

Still, since no one but you is even willing to consider it as a possibility or reply to my posts, I guess I'll just let people get on with the latest round of management bashing and try to bow out.

Rule #1 about White Sox bashing; never bring up alternative explanations.

People who are doing the bashing don't want to hear it.

It's a shame we're more worried about how a broken lightbulb is a symbol of apathy and callous disregard to the product on the field.

Next thing you know there will be complaints that they never replaced two seats in the outfield.....

slavko
06-02-2010, 04:14 PM
Same here....BTW what I think was meant was that a burnt bulb still pulls juice regardless. Kinda like I hear that your cell phone recharger still draws electricity even though it not charging anything.

A burned out incandescent bulb draws no electricity. Cell phone charger is a different case. There's a transformer in it that does draw power.

white sox bill
06-02-2010, 04:22 PM
A burned out incandescent bulb draws no electricity. Cell phone charger is a different case. There's a transformer in it that does draw power.
Same with 8ft fluorescent tubes? I converted to Octrons(sp?) 12 yrs ago. Thanks for clarifying.

doublem23
06-02-2010, 04:25 PM
Rule #1 about White Sox bashing; never bring up alternative explanations.

People who are doing the bashing don't want to hear it.

It's a shame we're more worried about how a broken lightbulb is a symbol of apathy and callous disregard to the product on the field.

Next thing you know there will be complaints that they never replaced two seats in the outfield.....

Seriously, there's plenty to be upset about with this team right now. Complaining because a few light bulbs are out? Seriously?

thomas35forever
06-02-2010, 04:32 PM
Seriously, there's plenty to be upset about with this team right now. Complaining because a few light bulbs are out? Seriously?
It's WSI. People will complain about anything and everything.

soltrain21
06-02-2010, 04:34 PM
Seriously, there's plenty to be upset about with this team right now. Complaining because a few light bulbs are out? Seriously?

You don't think everything else has been sufficiently covered about the team? It's one post and actually brought up an interesting debate about who is even in charge of that type of stuff.

Frontman
06-02-2010, 04:36 PM
Seriously, there's plenty to be upset about with this team right now. Complaining because a few light bulbs are out? Seriously?

Considering that two weeks ago the talk was Freddie needed to go as the #5 starter; and he's doing ok as the #5 starter?

Yeah; as a fanbase, we're going to sweat the details like a lightbulb.

And as far as free programs and scorecards at the Trop? Have them draw capacity for any stretch and I will bet that the free cards and programs will be a thing of the past rather quickly.....

jdm2662
06-02-2010, 04:37 PM
Seriously, there's plenty to be upset about with this team right now. Complaining because a few light bulbs are out? Seriously?

It's just what happens when the team loses. It seems like people are looking for ANYTHING to complain about. No one cared about this stuff when the team was winning. The Bears were no different last year, and it drove me to leave message boards completely.

I went to KC last July. The ballpark was awesome, the scoreboard was kick ass, the staff was friendly, the prices of tickets and food were less, etc. So, to put it lightly, it was a great experience. It put the Sox and Comiskey to shame, eventhough I enjoy going to Comiskey. And you know what, the Royals have sucked forever. I doubt many of you would be happy to go to the ball park if we had such service/staff as the Royals provided if the team continued to lose.

Dibbs
06-02-2010, 04:40 PM
I went to two free games a couple weeks ago vs the Angels. Bulbs, or whatever you call them, were burned out on the scoreboard. I couldn't believe this could happen not only once, but two games in a row! Anyway, I even said to my friend who brought me to these games that it symbolizes the state of this team. No way would these bulbs have been burned out twice in a row five years ago. I completely agree with this post.

doublem23
06-02-2010, 04:44 PM
You don't think everything else has been sufficiently covered about the team? It's one post and actually brought up an interesting debate about who is even in charge of that type of stuff.

I honestly don't think it's that interesting talking about light bulbs, but hey, to each their own. :cool:

soltrain21
06-02-2010, 04:47 PM
I honestly don't think it's that interesting talking about light bulbs, but hey, to each their own. :cool:

But people are obviously noticing things around the park - light bulbs not working and lights burned out on the scoreboard. Whether or not it's intentional is one thing, but the overall problem is that it reflects poorly on the state of the park - and now people are complaining about the service at the park.

I'd say things like that need to be addressed and fixed as an organization.

white sox bill
06-02-2010, 04:51 PM
Seriously, there's plenty to be upset about with this team right now. Complaining because a few light bulbs are out? Seriously?
Doubs thats a comment not a complaint :lol:

voodoochile
06-02-2010, 04:55 PM
But people are obviously noticing things around the park - light bulbs not working and lights burned out on the scoreboard. Whether or not it's intentional is one thing, but the overall problem is that it reflects poorly on the state of the park - and now people are complaining about the service at the park.

I'd say things like that need to be addressed and fixed as an organization.

Having worked for a corporate restaurant chain I can say without hesitation that lightbulbs are one of those things that are a never ending battle. I used to walk around the restaurant once a week and check for burned out bulbs, and would generally find 3 or so almost every time. After close, I'd haul out the ladder and change them, but I wonder how difficult it is to actually change them on the scoreboard for instance. I agree that I doubt the scoreboard bulbs were intentionally turned off, though I still think it's a possibility for regular fixtures in the park to save money and conserve energy.

However as some have said, there is probably a contractor who comes out weekly or whatever and services these things so if two bulbs are out on the scoreboard for two days in a row, they were probably just between visits or someone failed to notice for a day or two.

Are the scoreboard bulbs still out or have they been fixed? Like it or not it's still requires people to notice and do the jobs in question. Maybe the facilities guy in charge of the ballpark isn't doing a great job. There are bad managers in all walks of life and maybe no one's brought these details to management attention, so if you see something that bothers you, send an email. I'm sure they would love to hear from concerned fans who feel the ballpark reflects poorly on the team and ownership and want the park to improve.

However, even if everything mentioned in this thread is legitimately poor attention to detail that doesn't mean that JR et al don't care, they may just have people below them that need to be whipped into shape or fired. So speak up and say something. Griping about it here does no good at all...

Jpgr91
06-02-2010, 05:56 PM
However, even if everything mentioned in this thread is legitimately poor attention to detail that doesn't mean that JR et al don't care, they may just have people below them that need to be whipped into shape or fired. So speak up and say something. Griping about it here does no good at all...

I am sure JR and the rest of the Senior Leadership "care", but they have consistently proven that they are unable to manage effectively across all functionalities of their organization. Look at the bribery scandal in Latin America, the constant failures in the draft, public feuds between the public faces of the team, the consistent poor state of the minor league system, and the questionable product at the MLB level. All of these failures across functional areas of the organization point directly to a failure in leadership rather than failings in the individual operational disciplines.

WhiteSox5187
06-02-2010, 06:22 PM
I am sure JR and the rest of the Senior Leadership "care", but they have consistently proven that they are unable to manage effectively across all functionalities of their organization. Look at the bribery scandal in Latin America, the constant failures in the draft, public feuds between the public faces of the team, the consistent poor state of the minor league system, and the questionable product at the MLB level. All of these failures across functional areas of the organization point directly to a failure in leadership rather than failings in the individual operational disciplines.

So the broken lights are really just symbolic for the overall problems of the organization as a whole?

Jpgr91
06-02-2010, 06:53 PM
So the broken lights are really just symbolic for the overall problems of the organization as a whole?

Yes, it speaks to the culture of the organization as well as the mindset of those people that lead the organization. If those in charge of the Sox can not get a few lights fixed, or worse yet they did not notice them or feel it their responsibility to control their product, the organization probably has problems much larger than a few broken lights. In the Sox case, their organizational failings are evident across the board, not just by a few silly burnt out lights.

voodoochile
06-02-2010, 06:54 PM
I am sure JR and the rest of the Senior Leadership "care", but they have consistently proven that they are unable to manage effectively across all functionalities of their organization. Look at the bribery scandal in Latin America, the constant failures in the draft, public feuds between the public faces of the team, the consistent poor state of the minor league system, and the questionable product at the MLB level. All of these failures across functional areas of the organization point directly to a failure in leadership rather than failings in the individual operational disciplines.

:rolleyes:

voodoochile
06-02-2010, 06:55 PM
Yes, it speaks to the culture of the organization as well as the mindset of those people that lead the organization. If those in charge of the Sox can not get a few lights fixed, or worse yet they did not notice them or feel it their responsibility to control their product, the organization probably has problems much larger than a few broken lights. In the Sox case, their organizational failings are evident across the board, not just by a few silly burnt out lights.


:rolling:

Jpgr91
06-02-2010, 07:02 PM
:rolling:

:rolleyes:

Very insightful.

voodoochile
06-02-2010, 07:03 PM
Very insightful.

Thanks, I thought it expressed my views perfectly...:smile:

Brian26
06-02-2010, 07:08 PM
About the middle of April I noticed 6 lamp post lights burnt out. The lamp posts are located at the top of the aisles that lead to the outfield concourse. I have been to the park about 7 times since I first observed these lights being burnt out. Tonight I went to the game, sat in my usual seat, and I observed the same burnt out lights that have been burnt out since the second homestand. I have spend a relatively limited amount of time in the park compared to most of those in Senior Leadership positions in the Sox organization. If Senior Leadership and Ownership can not mobilize their staff to fix a few broken lights, or they have not noticed a small detail as obvious as a few burnt out lights, what else are these same Senior Leaders missing?

If a few stupid broken lights were the only sign of a broken organization I would not be concerned. However, it is not the only sign. The Sox are a team that has a ongoing public feud between the Manager and the GM.This has manifested itself in the GM saying the Manager got the team he wanted against the GM's wishes. The Manager has very publicly sets his expectations of a team that plays defense, pitches well, and does the small things to win games. Can anyone honestly say this current team meets the expectations of what the manager set forth? Ownership still maintains a public stance of "subtracting operating expense from revenue to get payroll" as their business model. What other successful business claims to spend money only after they make it?

If the Sox Senior Leadership can not fix something as simple as a few broken light bulbs, how can anyone have confidence that they can fix the myriad of problems that face the Sox organization?

I think this is an outstanding metaphorical post that a lot of people are over-thinking.

Brian26
06-02-2010, 07:10 PM
So the broken lights are really just symbolic for the overall problems of the organization as a whole?

This is how I initially understood the post. Perhaps I'm giving JPGR the benefit of the doubt.

voodoochile
06-02-2010, 07:16 PM
I think this is an outstanding metaphorical post that a lot of people are over-thinking.

This is how I initially understood the post. Perhaps I'm giving JPGR the benefit of the doubt.

I think it comes down to how you view management. If you legitimately believe that upper management just doesn't give a **** about anything, you'll have no problem believing that a few burned out (or intentionally shut off) lightbulbs are a symptom of a horrible corporate culture.

I believe it's a completely subjective issue and since we still don't have proof that the bulbs are burned out and not intentionally shut down to save on costs and energy, I find the premise flawed at best, but I'm not one of those people who thinks KW, JR, etc just don't care so I admit my viewpoint is subjectively colored also...

PhillipsBubba
06-02-2010, 09:08 PM
So the broken lights are really just symbolic for the overall problems of the organization as a whole?

The lights are a metaphor...dark days ahead for this once proud franchise:(:

Warriorjan
06-02-2010, 10:24 PM
I was at last night's game, it was my first since Opening Day (health reasons had kept me away). I noticed the burned-out lights on the scoreboard by the pitchers' names and numbers. I also noticed the continual bad work by the jumbotron crew (last night the Sox welcomed the council general of Croatia - which I believe should be the consul general, unless the entire government of Croatia was present). I played the Sox trivia game in the club section - one question asked which Sox player was the first to get 150 RBI's in a single GAME ( I read it twice to be sure that's what it said). The scoreboard people play the beginning of the Go-Go- Sox song at the stupidest times. The lack of attention to detail does speak volumes, and it shows in the product on the field. And I've been attending games for more than 40 years, and I find things like that irritating - because we should do better in all areas.
Sox personnel were up in the Club section, however, hovering around the new Smoque stand - as long as we have our brisket and pulled pork in order, that's all that matters, LOL.

pudge
06-02-2010, 10:36 PM
I went to KC last July. The ballpark was awesome, the scoreboard was kick ass, the staff was friendly, the prices of tickets and food were less, etc. So, to put it lightly, it was a great experience. It put the Sox and Comiskey to shame, eventhough I enjoy going to Comiskey. And you know what, the Royals have sucked forever. I doubt many of you would be happy to go to the ball park if we had such service/staff as the Royals provided if the team continued to lose.

Okay, there must be something about losing, because I remember making posts years ago, it was either '04, '05 or '06, about going back to US Cellular for the first time in maybe 5-6 years and being completely underwhelmed, after having spent so much time at the newer west-coast parks, the experience of US Cellular was truly lacking (granted, this was before the new roof was put on). And I got KILLED on this very forum for daring to suggest stepping outside of Chicago every now and then might give you some perspective on what a mediocre experience US Cellular provides. It will always be my baseball home, so I love it for that reason, but IMO it has been lacking for years and years. Now people are saying KC and Tampa are better?!? Wow, what losing will do...

CLUBHOUSE KID
06-02-2010, 11:04 PM
For those of you who saw the game on TV, the guy in the security chair behind the plate juuust to the right on the tunnel is the guy who runs the park on the game day.

Noneck
06-02-2010, 11:15 PM
The lights are a metaphor...dark days ahead for this once proud franchise:(:

Or, Its time to turn out the lights, the party is over.

ewokpelts
06-03-2010, 07:29 AM
Considering that two weeks ago the talk was Freddie needed to go as the #5 starter; and he's doing ok as the #5 starter?

Yeah; as a fanbase, we're going to sweat the details like a lightbulb.

And as far as free programs and scorecards at the Trop? Have them draw capacity for any stretch and I will bet that the free cards and programs will be a thing of the past rather quickly.....
brewers draw 3 million fans a year. they give out free programs

jdm2662
06-03-2010, 08:57 AM
Okay, there must be something about losing, because I remember making posts years ago, it was either '04, '05 or '06, about going back to US Cellular for the first time in maybe 5-6 years and being completely underwhelmed, after having spent so much time at the newer west-coast parks, the experience of US Cellular was truly lacking (granted, this was before the new roof was put on). And I got KILLED on this very forum for daring to suggest stepping outside of Chicago every now and then might give you some perspective on what a mediocre experience US Cellular provides. It will always be my baseball home, so I love it for that reason, but IMO it has been lacking for years and years. Now people are saying KC and Tampa are better?!? Wow, what losing will do...

The thing is, I don't have a problem going to Comiskey, at all. I enjoy going down there. However, I'm currently trying to finish grad school, work in Northrbook, and paying two mortgages. I don't have any desire to see this team play with the little free time and money I have. But, that was my point. Would anyone be happy going to the ball park if we were in KC's situation? The answer is, I think not. People are only pointing things out because the team blows right now. Very few people would care if the team was ten games in first place.

asindc
06-03-2010, 09:07 AM
The thing is, I don't have a problem going to Comiskey, at all. I enjoy going down there. However, I'm currently trying to finish grad school, work in Northrbook, and paying two mortgages. I don't have any desire to see this team play with the little free time and money I have. But, that was my point. Would anyone be happy going to the ball park if we were in KC's situation? The answer is, I think not. People are only pointing things out because the team blows right now. Very few people would care if the team was ten games in first place.

The above post says it all.

CLUBHOUSE KID
06-03-2010, 10:55 AM
The thing is, I don't have a problem going to Comiskey, at all. I enjoy going down there. However, I'm currently trying to finish grad school, work in Northrbook, and paying two mortgages. I don't have any desire to see this team play with the little free time and money I have. But, that was my point. Would anyone be happy going to the ball park if we were in KC's situation? The answer is, I think not. People are only pointing things out because the team blows right now. Very few people would care if the team was ten games in first place.

To some extent yes. However, there are issue (That I have had) with the front office and my feelings about them would not be different of how the team was playing.

tacosalbarojas
06-03-2010, 12:17 PM
Okay, there must be something about losing, because I remember making posts years ago, it was either '04, '05 or '06, about going back to US Cellular for the first time in maybe 5-6 years and being completely underwhelmed, after having spent so much time at the newer west-coast parks, the experience of US Cellular was truly lacking (granted, this was before the new roof was put on). And I got KILLED on this very forum for daring to suggest stepping outside of Chicago every now and then might give you some perspective on what a mediocre experience US Cellular provides. It will always be my baseball home, so I love it for that reason, but IMO it has been lacking for years and years. Now people are saying KC and Tampa are better?!? Wow, what losing will do...
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. If our record were reversed, this thread doesn't exist. Moutains out of molehills in my opinion. I've been to about a dozen games this year, and burned out bulbs haven't been on my radar. Too busy having fun at the old ballpark.

soltrain21
06-03-2010, 12:45 PM
To some extent yes. However, there are issue (That I have had) with the front office and my feelings about them would not be different of how the team was playing.

Do you still work there? Because, if you do, you might want to cool down on talking **** about your employer.

downstairs
06-03-2010, 04:42 PM
I'm sure they fix ALL broken lights on a schedule. A lot of businesses do this (retail, for one).

Of course, I'd expect that schedule to at least be monthly.

Frontman
06-03-2010, 05:46 PM
I'm sure they fix ALL broken lights on a schedule. A lot of businesses do this (retail, for one).

Of course, I'd expect that schedule to at least be monthly.

Again; the schedule could also of been nerfed by bad weather. Who knows if they were set to replace them and we had rain and thunderstorms.

And I have to agree; this sort of thread would not exist if our team was in 1st or 2nd in the division and contending.

Warriorjan
06-03-2010, 06:04 PM
The thread might not exist, but I've been noticing the little problems for quite some time. It makes me wonder who in the world they are hiring over there. I've just not been vocal, except with the people I sit with, and if not for the fact that someone started this thread, I wouldn't have posted anything. But that doesn't mean that the stadium people should get a pass.

Frontman
06-03-2010, 06:21 PM
The thread might not exist, but I've been noticing the little problems for quite some time. It makes me wonder who in the world they are hiring over there. I've just not been vocal, except with the people I sit with, and if not for the fact that someone started this thread, I wouldn't have posted anything. But that doesn't mean that the stadium people should get a pass.

So what reply did you get when you called the Sox about it?

Brian26
06-03-2010, 07:25 PM
This is a great post. I just do not get how the WSox could have 2005 and leave it at that. From personal experience, the Front Office is really getting to be garbage now. I like a few, they are still great to me, but a lot of them...MOST of them, have change for the worse.

It's a bit silly to state there is a correlation between the success of the team on the field in 2005 and how "front office employees" supposedly treat you, personally, poorly now.

Daver
06-03-2010, 07:34 PM
We can drive it home, with one headlight.

Warriorjan
06-03-2010, 10:44 PM
There were times I left those comments at the customer service window, but never got any response, not even a form acknowledgement. Now I don't bother.

Jpgr91
06-04-2010, 12:19 AM
Of course this thread would not exist if the team is winning. What is the point of being a fan if you are going to complain when the team is winning? Bottom line though, the Sox haven't actually done too much winning in their history.

voodoochile
06-04-2010, 01:34 AM
Of course this thread would not exist if the team is winning. What is the point of being a fan if you are going to complain when the team is winning? Bottom line though, the Sox haven't actually done too much winning in their history.

They've done more of it under this management team by any standard than at anytime in their history and not by a small margin.

For the entirety of their history, the Sox are 203 games over .500 and under JR's team they are 150 games over.

In addition, the team has made the playoffs a grand total of 9 times and won the WS 3 times. 5 of those 9 were under JR and 1 of the WS titles was.

It's Dankerific
06-04-2010, 01:50 AM
They've done more of it under this management team by any standard than at anytime in their history and not by a small margin.

For the entirety of their history, the Sox are 203 games over .500 and under JR's team they are 150 games over.

In addition, the team has made the playoffs a grand total of 9 times and won the WS 3 times. 5 of those 9 were under JR and 1 of the WS titles was.

Cant really count the playoffs because of the wildcard edition.

Good point about # of wins, though and of course the WS.

voodoochile
06-04-2010, 01:52 AM
Cant really count the playoffs because of the wildcard edition.

Good point about # of wins, though and of course the WS.

Just to be picky, the Sox have never made the playoffs as the wildcard...

It's Dankerific
06-04-2010, 01:53 AM
Just to be picky, the Sox have never made the playoffs as the wildcard...

Ok, 3 divisions then!

voodoochile
06-04-2010, 02:01 AM
Ok, 3 divisions then!

True and the odds are slightly better of winning a division now than a pennant in the old 1 division format.

Jpgr91
06-04-2010, 10:47 AM
They've done more of it under this management team by any standard than at anytime in their history and not by a small margin.

For the entirety of their history, the Sox are 203 games over .500 and under JR's team they are 150 games over.

In addition, the team has made the playoffs a grand total of 9 times and won the WS 3 times. 5 of those 9 were under JR and 1 of the WS titles was.

I would prefer to define success as World Series and Pennants. Good regular seasons that lead to playoff births are nice, but I think using them as a barometer to measure success is setting expectations a little low. I realize that division alignment has changed, but look at how our current division has done since JR has owned the Sox:

Tigers - 1 World Series, 2 Pennants
KC - 1 World Series, 1 Pennant
Minnesota- 2 World Series, 2 Pennants
Cleveland, 0 World Series, 2 Pennants

Given the resources at the Sox disposal, there is no way that the Sox should be on the KC / CLE level.

SI1020
06-04-2010, 11:09 AM
1903 and 1905-1960 16 teams and 2 make the "playoffs". The AL expanded to 10 teams in 1961, the NL in 1962, still only 2 make the "playoffs." From 1969 to 1993 4 out of between 24 and 28 teams make it. From 1995 on 8 teams are in the now very watered down NFL style playoffs that almost everyone seems to love. Baseball on Thanksgiving Day weekend, I can't wait for it. Making the playoffs is certainly not what it used to be.

Frontman
06-04-2010, 02:37 PM
I would prefer to define success as World Series and Pennants. Good regular seasons that lead to playoff births are nice, but I think using them as a barometer to measure success is setting expectations a little low. I realize that division alignment has changed, but look at how our current division has done since JR has owned the Sox:

Tigers - 1 World Series, 2 Pennants
KC - 1 World Series, 1 Pennant
Minnesota- 2 World Series, 2 Pennants
Cleveland, 0 World Series, 2 Pennants

Given the resources at the Sox disposal, there is no way that the Sox should be on the KC / CLE level.


Hey, I didn't know Dan Bernstein posted here on WSI!

Seriously, if its the "championship or bust" mentality; the majority of baseball teams are failures and their ownership doesn't care based on your argument.

Also; your picking "Well, that's a good stat; but I prefer this one" is just a biased way of supporting your argument. No more, no less.

doublem23
06-04-2010, 03:49 PM
I would prefer to define success as World Series and Pennants. Good regular seasons that lead to playoff births are nice, but I think using them as a barometer to measure success is setting expectations a little low. I realize that division alignment has changed, but look at how our current division has done since JR has owned the Sox:

Tigers - 1 World Series, 2 Pennants
KC - 1 World Series, 1 Pennant
Minnesota- 2 World Series, 2 Pennants
Cleveland, 0 World Series, 2 Pennants

Given the resources at the Sox disposal, there is no way that the Sox should be on the KC / CLE level.


The Royals last postseason appearance was in 1985, well before the giant disparities in resources really became a major theme in baseball.

Anyways, what is not to love about postseason appearances? Even with the Wild Card, roughly 1/4 of the American League gets to go to the play-offs every year. Those are special years. I'm guessing you don't like them as much because they don't support your argument.

kufram
06-04-2010, 03:59 PM
The Royals last postseason appearance was in 1985, well before the giant disparities in resources really became a major theme in baseball.

Anyways, what is not to love about postseason appearances? Even with the Wild Card, roughly 1/4 of the American League gets to go to the play-offs every year. Those are special years. I'm guessing you don't like them as much because they don't support your argument.

I agree. I think mlb got the post season just right, unlike other sports. A division championship over a best of 5 is a measure of success. A league championship is serious success, and a World Series championship is the ultimate success. It takes place a little too late in the year in my opinion but nothing is perfect.

SephClone89
06-04-2010, 04:04 PM
For what it's worth, I looked for these broken lights from the upper deck last night and was able to spot them. I was enraged.

Jpgr91
06-04-2010, 04:14 PM
Hey, I didn't know Dan Bernstein posted here on WSI!

Seriously, if its the "championship or bust" mentality; the majority of baseball teams are failures and their ownership doesn't care based on your argument.

Also; your picking "Well, that's a good stat; but I prefer this one" is just a biased way of supporting your argument. No more, no less.

Ultimately the success of a professional sports team is measured by their success at the end of the season. You can choose to measure success based solely on team record and playoff appearances or you can choose judge success based on if your team has won a championship or at least come close. Is there another way to look at it that I am missing?
I choose to look at success based on how competitive the team has been. Sure playoff appearances and a winning record are nice accomplishments, but I do not find any that much enjoyment as a fan in watching the team I cheer for get knocked out in the first couple rounds of the playoffs. Choosing to view success based on championships is no more than biased than basing your opinion on regular season record and playoff appearances.

The Royals last postseason appearance was in 1985, well before the giant disparities in resources really became a major theme in baseball.

Anyways, what is not to love about postseason appearances? Even with the Wild Card, roughly 1/4 of the American League gets to go to the play-offs every year. Those are special years. I'm guessing you don't like them as much because they don't support your argument.

The Cubs have more post season appearances than the White Sox (Cubs 16 - Sox 9). Do you feel that the Cubs are a more successful organization than the Sox?

Frontman
06-04-2010, 05:46 PM
Ultimately the success of a professional sports team is measured by their success at the end of the season. You can choose to measure success based solely on team record and playoff appearances or you can choose judge success based on if your team has won a championship or at least come close. Is there another way to look at it that I am missing?
I choose to look at success based on how competitive the team has been. Sure playoff appearances and a winning record are nice accomplishments, but I do not find any that much enjoyment as a fan in watching the team I cheer for get knocked out in the first couple rounds of the playoffs. Choosing to view success based on championships is no more than biased than basing your opinion on regular season record and playoff appearances.

The Cubs have more post season appearances than the White Sox (Cubs 16 - Sox 9). Do you feel that the Cubs are a more successful organization than the Sox ?

A team with a winning record is competitive. JR has had an over .500 record as an owner.

Making the playoffs is the first goal to winning the ultimate goal; the world title. If you don't make the playoffs, you don't get a chance to win the title.

And yes, the Cubs are a successful organization. They remain competitive in their division; and they've made playoff appearances. They also make a lot of money for their owner. Your point of bringing up the Cubs, other than to try and draw the ire of people who don't agree with your bashing of "Senior Leaders" of the White Sox organization? (ironically in a thread about lighting at a ballpark, you have to bring up the Cubs.....)

Dan H
06-04-2010, 05:47 PM
Sometimes little things mean a lot and I think the White Sox as an organization miss those things at times.

I am a big Reinsdorf critic but even I recognize his successes. The quick winning of the Western Division in 1983 was important. And the team had some solid success from 1990-94. The World Series speaks for itself.

Yet I have never thought he understood the White Sox fan. The strike was and the White Flag Trade were disasters. The late '90's was a terrible time to be a Sox fan.

He has had some great success and great failure. What happens in the next few years will shape his legacy even more. The team is a mess. Does he fix it or does it begin to look like the Cub teams of the '50's?

jabrch
06-04-2010, 06:19 PM
Sometimes little things mean a lot and I think the White Sox as an organization miss those things at times.

I am a big Reinsdorf critic but even I recognize his successes. The quick winning of the Western Division in 1983 was important. And the team had some solid success from 1990-94. The World Series speaks for itself.

Yet I have never thought he understood the White Sox fan. The strike was and the White Flag Trade were disasters. The late '90's was a terrible time to be a Sox fan.

He has had some great success and great failure. What happens in the next few years will shape his legacy even more. The team is a mess. Does he fix it or does it begin to look like the Cub teams of the '50's?

Sometimes little things mean very little. A lightbulb is sometimes just a lightbulb....and not some global indictment that has any relationships to other issues/problems/challenges.

TheVulture
06-04-2010, 09:34 PM
For what it's worth, I looked for these broken lights from the upper deck last night and was able to spot them. I was enraged.

Maybe they'll have them fixed for the next time I attend a game!

Jpgr91
06-04-2010, 09:46 PM
A team with a winning record is competitive. JR has had an over .500 record as an owner.

Making the playoffs is the first goal to winning the ultimate goal; the world title. If you don't make the playoffs, you don't get a chance to win the title.

And yes, the Cubs are a successful organization. They remain competitive in their division; and they've made playoff appearances. They also make a lot of money for their owner. Your point of bringing up the Cubs, other than to try and draw the ire of people who don't agree with your bashing of "Senior Leaders" of the White Sox organization? (ironically in a thread about lighting at a ballpark, you have to bring up the Cubs.....)

Look at the final standings from the last three seasons. There have been 43 teams with winning seasons, 1 team has had a .500 season, and 46 teams have had losing seasons. Saying a team is competitive simply because they have won more games than they lost is setting the bar pretty low. The point about the Cubs was made to point out one example of a team that has made the playoffs a lot but has not won much of anything after that.

I am not bashing the Senior Leadership of the Sox, I am simply saying that when you look at the entirety of the organization there are a lot of problems that seem to point to a failure in leadership. The lighting example was just one small example that parallels a lot of larger problems stemming from a lack of attention to detail and the inability to manage the organization across all of the organizations functionalities. I think you would be very hard pressed to find a business leader in any organization that would dispute that attention to detail and protecting the perception of their product is one of their top goals as a Owner, President, or Director.

mcsoxfan
06-04-2010, 10:57 PM
Is it Ozzie who debases defense or is it Kenny Williams? Kenny is the guy who makes out the roster and Ozzie can only use those guys. I know, I know, you're going to point to Brian Anderson and the use of Mackowiak in CF which were head scratching.

You say that "the team Ozzie wants has very little chance of playing .500," well I think the kind of team Ozzie wants is located in Tampa and they are doing quite well at contending. Ozzie has been quoted as saying he wants the kind of team that Minnesota has and they aren't exactly struggling to keep above .500 are they? This "Ozzie wants to play NL style small ball" argument is just pure horse ****. He wants guys who can get bunts down and steal bases, yes. But he also wants guys who are capable of hitting a lot of homeruns, the thing is he wants those guys to be able to score from second on a single, go from first to third, etc. When you have a line up where your 3-4-5 guys are in capable of going more than one base at a time, it will wind up hurting a lot. From 2008 on the only way to bring in the likes of Paul Konerko, Jim Thome, or Jermaine Dye from second base was with nothing less than a double and that puts a lot more pressure on the guys hitting behind them.

The idea of having a team of good fielding players who can "do the little things" (ie play fundamental baseball) is not a bad idea at all and has been proven to win time and time again. The thing is, Kenny hasn't really gone out and gotten a team like that. This is as close as he's come and you really have to wonder who the hell told Kenny that Mark Teahen could play third base everyday. Ozzie says he wants a team that can field, and Kenny gives him the likes of Teahen at third, Quentin in right, the likes of DeWayne Wise and Brian Anderson (who while good at fielding, just can't hit a damn, there's a reason he hasn't seen significant playing time in the bigs anywhere else we've traded him) for CF (followed by Pods for christ's sake).

Ozzie deserves a lot of blame for this year, but either Kenny badly misjudged who he was getting and what kind of players they were (which Kenny seems to have a tendency to do) OR he completely ceded his responsibility as GM to Ozzie.

My point to this long rant is this: Kenny deserves every bit as much blame for this year (and for last year and for 2007) as Ozzie does.

The organization equated a team that does the "little things" with players who have marginal talent. They needed a multi-dimensional offense that includes players who hit for average, can hit to the opposite field, bunt, take pitches and those who hit for power to drive them in. You're not going to get that from the Mark Teahan's of the world. The notion of the Sox playing like they did in the 50's and 60's is ludicrous. The game has changed drastically and the ball park Reinsdorf built woefully lacked vision and purpose. It was obsolete on delivery. One-dimensional offenses may have gotten the job done in 2005 but what have they achieved since then? The only way to become a consistently winning organization in that ballpark is to do the one thing that Reinsdorf is not going to do. And that is spend the money to get the players who have the ability to perform in those many facets. And please stop telling me they don't have the money. As was mentioned, it is not the fans responsibility to put a winning product on the field. There are many things that Reinsdorf and his cohorts can do to make money other than torment us year after year with this foolishness. I want the Sox to be on par with the elite teams.

WhiteSox5187
06-04-2010, 11:52 PM
The organization equated a team that does the "little things" with players who have marginal talent. They needed a multi-dimensional offense that includes players who hit for average, can hit to the opposite field, bunt, take pitches and those who hit for power to drive them in. You're not going to get that from the Mark Teahan's of the world. The notion of the Sox playing like they did in the 50's and 60's is ludicrous. The game has changed drastically and the ball park Reinsdorf built woefully lacked vision and purpose. It was obsolete on delivery. One-dimensional offenses may have gotten the job done in 2005 but what have they achieved since then? The only way to become a consistently winning organization in that ballpark is to do the one thing that Reinsdorf is not going to do. And that is spend the money to get the players who have the ability to perform in those many facets. And please stop telling me they don't have the money. As was mentioned, it is not the fans responsibility to put a winning product on the field. There are many things that Reinsdorf and his cohorts can do to make money other than torment us year after year with this foolishness. I want the Sox to be on par with the elite teams.

That offense was anything but one dimensional, on a good day they could slug the bejesus out of you, when they were struggling for offense they could manufacture runs. They were fourth in homeruns, third in stolen bases; that was a pretty balanced offense.

mcsoxfan
06-05-2010, 01:37 AM
That offense was anything but one dimensional, on a good day they could slug the bejesus out of you, when they were struggling for offense they could manufacture runs. They were fourth in homeruns, third in stolen bases; that was a pretty balanced offense.
So what excuses do have for me since 2005? As long as Sox fans keep making excuses for management you're going to get stuck with exactly what you have since they won the world series - nothing but now 5 year old memories. And whatever you may choose to call that offense, they still won more games with homeruns than with singles, doubles or triples.

ilsox7
06-05-2010, 01:45 AM
So what excuses do have for me since 2005? As long as Sox fans keep making excuses for management you're going to get stuck with exactly what you have since they won the world series - nothing but now 5 year old memories. And whatever you may choose to call that offense, they still won more games with homeruns than with singles, doubles or triples.

I didn't see the poster making an excuse. Rather, he was pointing out that you were wrong in classifying the 2005 offense as one dimensional.

WSox597
06-05-2010, 08:01 AM
Who dumped Uribe and put in place an infield of Teahen, Ramirez, and a 2nd year player learning his second new position in a year? Bad judgement all around, probably. But Ozzie's part is probably limited to his over-optimism on Alexei's development.

That's a good point about Beckham. Where is he going to play next year, shortstop? How about leaving the kid to play where he's comfortable instead of moving him all around the diamond.

And Alexei has to be one of the dumbest ballplayers I've seen in some time. His at-bats are all adventures. Maybe he could be moved for some prospects while he's still young?

The other night against TX the pitcher throws six or seven balls in a row. What does "TCM" do? Swings at the first pitch and misses on his way to yet another strikeout. He is regressing, rather than progressing.

His nickname TCM still works, although the M doesn't stand for missile. LOL

jabrch
06-05-2010, 09:48 AM
So what excuses do have for me since 2005? As long as Sox fans keep making excuses for management you're going to get stuck with exactly what you have since they won the world series - nothing but now 5 year old memories. And whatever you may choose to call that offense, they still won more games with homeruns than with singles, doubles or triples.

Ah yes - blamin the players for not delivering equates to making excuses for management...well the other side of your coin is that as long as Sox fans allow players to not perform and blame coaches and managers... See how that works?

PhillipsBubba
06-05-2010, 11:12 AM
The Sox are three games over .500 since they won in 2005. What more needs to be said?

Jpgr91
06-05-2010, 11:27 AM
The Sox are three games over .500 since they won in 2005. What more needs to be said?

Since 2005 they have had 2 losing seasons and have only won 1 playoff game.

TomBradley72
06-05-2010, 12:40 PM
Since 2005 they have had 2 losing seasons and have only won 1 playoff game.

2007-2010- 9th in the American League in wins (behind Minn & Det, virtual tie with Cleveland, ahead of KC)
+
Mediocre minor league system
+
Mediocre stadium operations/marketing
=
Mediocre Organization & Management Team

Out in the "real world" if any business/department had a 3.5 year run like the White Sox have had, a complete overhaul would be in order.

TomBradley72
06-05-2010, 12:51 PM
2007-2010- 9th in the American League in wins (behind Minn & Det, virtual tie with Cleveland, ahead of KC)
+
Mediocre minor league system
+
Mediocre stadium operations/marketing
=
Mediocre Organization & Management Team

Out in the "real world" if any business/department had a 3.5 year run like the White Sox have had, a complete overhaul would be in order.

For a little added perspective...the last 4 seasons Veeck owned the White Sox (1977-1980), they were 10th in the league in wins. The 4 years of the Larry Himes era (1987-1990) they were 10th as well.

Those two periods the franchise was being run on a shoe string or in complete "rebuild from within" mode. With a publically financed ballpark, good attendance and a lot of money on payroll JR/KW/OG haven't delivered much more than two of the rougher periods in our history.

WhiteSox5187
06-05-2010, 12:53 PM
So what excuses do have for me since 2005? As long as Sox fans keep making excuses for management you're going to get stuck with exactly what you have since they won the world series - nothing but now 5 year old memories. And whatever you may choose to call that offense, they still won more games with homeruns than with singles, doubles or triples.

My point was that the 2005 offense wasn't one dimensional. They may have one more games with the homerun (I'm not going to look back and check every box score) but the fact that they had the ability to score guys from second on a single, go from first to third, move guys over, steal bases, and "do the little things" enabled them to win 99 games rather than say 90. They hit a lot of home runs but they could beat you without the home run. That is something that the Sox haven't been able to do since then.

Jpgr91
06-05-2010, 01:02 PM
2007-2010- 9th in the American League in wins (behind Minn & Det, virtual tie with Cleveland, ahead of KC)
+
Mediocre minor league system
+
Mediocre stadium operations/marketing
=
Mediocre Organization & Management Team

Out in the "real world" if any business/department had a 3.5 year run like the White Sox have had, a complete overhaul would be in order.

Very good point.

Craig Grebeck
06-05-2010, 01:07 PM
My point was that the 2005 offense wasn't one dimensional. They may have one more games with the homerun (I'm not going to look back and check every box score) but the fact that they had the ability to score guys from second on a single, go from first to third, move guys over, steal bases, and "do the little things" enabled them to win 99 games rather than say 90. They hit a lot of home runs but they could beat you without the home run. That is something that the Sox haven't been able to do since then.
They won 99 instead of 90 for two reasons:

1. One of the best bullpens ever.
2. Luck.

The 2006 White Sox with 2005 pitching and luck wins 105.

TomBradley72
06-05-2010, 01:38 PM
They won 99 instead of 90 for two reasons:

1. One of the best bullpens ever.
2. Luck.

The 2006 White Sox with 2005 pitching and luck wins 105.

One of the reasons that achieved 99 wins was an ungodly good start in April/May....in that time period...starting pitching/defense/smallball was a huge part of their success.

The "luck" comment is bull****. They were in 1st place wire to wire, then went 11-1 in the post season.

Shoeless
06-05-2010, 02:19 PM
One of the reasons that achieved 99 wins was an ungodly good start in April/May....in that time period...starting pitching/defense/smallball was a huge part of their success.

The "luck" comment is bull****. They were in 1st place wire to wire, then went 11-1 in the post season.

Maybe luck wasn't the right word, but there were a number of cases where the Sox were at least very fortunate. I don't discredit that team, however the 2006 team should have been better, but they just weren't that fortunate.

Tragg
06-05-2010, 02:28 PM
They won 99 instead of 90 for two reasons:

1. One of the best bullpens ever.
2. Luck.

The 2006 White Sox with 2005 pitching and luck wins 105.
3. They played great defense, something Guillen chose to dismantle in 2006.

Luck, schmuck, the Sox were the best team that year and no one, especially the Indians, was particularly close.

WhiteSox5187
06-05-2010, 03:14 PM
3. They played great defense, something Guillen chose to dismantle in 2006.

Luck, schmuck, the Sox were the best team that year and no one, especially the Indians, was particularly close.

Jesus Christ, what the **** does that mean? Guillen chose to dismantle. The only guy who left after 2005 was Aaron Rowand and his defense was replaced by Anderson.

WhiteSox5187
06-05-2010, 03:20 PM
They won 99 instead of 90 for two reasons:

1. One of the best bullpens ever.
2. Luck.

The 2006 White Sox with 2005 pitching and luck wins 105.

Luck did play a role obviously, but that team could beat you 1-0 and they could score that run on a homerun. Or Pods could single, steal second, Iguchi could hit a groundball over to second moving Pods to third and then Paulie could fly out and drive in Pods. That sort of fundamental baseball is something the Sox haven't had since the second half in 2006 (largely because Pods got hurt and lost his effectiveness). But the Sox have really gotten away from that fundamental baseball and that has hurt them. They also lost the ability to get guys in from second on a single. Really the only guy who couldn't do that in '05 was Paulie. In 2006 most of those guys still could (even Thome) but Thome and Dye got old in a hurry. I know you hate this idea, but the Sox not only need guys who can hit for power (and get on base consistently) but they need to have guys who can go first to third and score from second on a single. Last year with Paulie, Thome, Dye and Quentin (off of his heel injury) we just had too many slow guys out there with low averages.

Paulwny
06-05-2010, 05:08 PM
In 05' the Sox won quite a few 1 run games. When you win a large number of 1 run games, luck is a factor.
The 59' Sox also won quite a few 1 run games, the following year their luck had run out.

Craig Grebeck
06-05-2010, 06:25 PM
Luck did play a role obviously, but that team could beat you 1-0 and they could score that run on a homerun. Or Pods could single, steal second, Iguchi could hit a groundball over to second moving Pods to third and then Paulie could fly out and drive in Pods. That sort of fundamental baseball is something the Sox haven't had since the second half in 2006 (largely because Pods got hurt and lost his effectiveness). But the Sox have really gotten away from that fundamental baseball and that has hurt them. They also lost the ability to get guys in from second on a single. Really the only guy who couldn't do that in '05 was Paulie. In 2006 most of those guys still could (even Thome) but Thome and Dye got old in a hurry. I know you hate this idea, but the Sox not only need guys who can hit for power (and get on base consistently) but they need to have guys who can go first to third and score from second on a single. Last year with Paulie, Thome, Dye and Quentin (off of his heel injury) we just had too many slow guys out there with low averages.
It was the pitching. Again, tell me the 2006 offense wouldn't have been a better team than the WS winners with 2005 pitching.

Brian26
06-05-2010, 07:21 PM
Jesus Christ, what the **** does that mean? Guillen chose to dismantle. The only guy who left after 2005 was Aaron Rowand and his defense was replaced by Anderson.

The only exception to this statement is that Alex Cintron seemed to get a bit too much playing time spelling Uribe and Iguchi.

SI1020
06-05-2010, 08:24 PM
In 05' the Sox won quite a few 1 run games. When you win a large number of 1 run games, luck is a factor.
The 59' Sox also won quite a few 1 run games, the following year their luck had run out. The following year they hit the cover off the ball but the pitching faltered. Sound familiar?

voodoochile
06-05-2010, 08:32 PM
The following year they hit the cover off the ball but the pitching faltered. Sound familiar?

Yeah, but some of those issues were related to the wear and tear of the long 2005 season, IMO.

Tragg
06-05-2010, 09:11 PM
Jesus Christ, what the **** does that mean? Guillen chose to dismantle. The only guy who left after 2005 was Aaron Rowand and his defense was replaced by Anderson.
No it was replaced by Mack.