PDA

View Full Version : Colon, Alomar,Everett, Gordon


Hangar18
09-18-2003, 11:15 AM
Ok. our seasons Lost. and the future of the franchise hinges on the success (or lack of hopefully for the northside team, because any post-season success will have the Media here Pee-their-pants, Hog-Wild) of another team. However, I started thinking about some of the very good Atlanta Brave teams of the 1990's. When they fell short of winning it all, they didnt Gut the Team, they resigned players, and when needed, Got More Players. We came THISCLOSE to doing something special. Time ran out on us. However, the 4 players mentioned above, if ALL were brought back (not 2 of them, or just 1 of them, but ALL), for a FullSeason, THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK we for sure Can Win It ALL next season. Not to mention the Solid Bullpen help we got. This is a very good team, and with a solid Manager, I feel good....VERY GOOD about next season. How many times have we gone into a season (lets be honest) CONFIDENT about our roster not having any holes? If a hole were to develop, we can get someone at the trade deadline. its not like having 5 or 6 holes, and having that 1% chance that some team in your own division will just GIVE THEIR PLAYERS AWAY to you. THats living on the Edge. We have everything in place. Just a matter of keeping everyone, and filling a little hole weve had for a while, OUR MANAGER. Keep everyone, and a new manager, watch how special 2004 can be. that is, if the cubs dont beat us to the promised land first

KingXerxes
09-18-2003, 11:24 AM
The last sentence of your post.

Let's say the White Sox come back with the same team next year, and win the division by 15 games, and then sweep through the playoffs and win the World Series in four games against whomever. WHY IS THAT DIMINISHED BECAUSE THE CUBS DID WELL THE YEAR BEFORE?

As I've said in ump-teen thousand posts before, I cannot understand the obsession so many White Sox fans have over the northsiders. I will readily admit to being in the minority here - but come on - to say that any northside success will diminish White Sox achievements in subsequent years is one of the most self-defeating prophecies I've ever heard.

If the Cubs win the pennant would you be less inclined to go to a White Sox game? If the answer to that question is yes, then this franchise is doomed.

THE_HOOTER
09-18-2003, 11:25 AM
Colon, Everitt, and gordon will get big deals in the offseason.


For some stupid reason, we will sign Alomar and lose the rest.

There is no point in having alomar unless you sign everyone else.

Hangar18
09-18-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
The last sentence of your post.

WHY IS THAT DIMINISHED BECAUSE THE CUBS DID WELL THE YEAR BEFORE?

- but come on - to say that any northside success will diminish White Sox achievements in subsequent years is one of the most self-defeating prophecies I've ever heard.



King, its because of the CHICAGO MEDIA. just like the Media ran Baylor out of town (yes, the media started holding "baylor watches", and forced the cubs to make that move, just to quiet them down in my opinion) The Media will obsess and gloat with unbridled and unparalleled Giddiness, it will be impossible for the sox to get a fair shake. Sure, there will be the 20,000 of us that are hard-core about them, but the casual fan, the tourist, that EXTRA INTANGIBLE that mlb teams wish and hope for, the extra $$$$$, wont be there. thats what I said what I said. I wouldnt ever talk about that other team, were it not for the Media here and now nationally and abroad, constantly telling me what a beautiful place wrigley is, and how the people of Chicago (speak for yourselves please, media types) will see JOY like theyve never seen before should that other team do anything in the postseason

Iwritecode
09-18-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
If the Cubs win the pennant would you be less inclined to go to a White Sox game? If the answer to that question is yes, then this franchise is doomed.

That's not a question you need to ask around here. All the people on the board are die-hards and the ones that actually stick with the team no matter what. The problem with the Cubs winning the pennant or even *shudder* the WS before the Sox do is the fact that the Sox will become the forgotten team. You think the Flubbie love fest is bad now? How about last year when they sucked (again)?

It's the casual fans that don't have a preferance over which team they like. They just follow the crowd. If the Sox win the WS first, they crowd will start showing up more on the Southside. If the Cubs win it first, the Sox might as well pack up and move...

KingXerxes
09-18-2003, 01:38 PM
While I readily admit that the Cubs are - for the time being - the more popular of the two clubs, I disagree that any success on their part will spell the end of the White Sox.

Most of the reason that the White Sox have slipped in popularity (relative to the Cubs) is due to a terrible overall marketing approach for the last 20 years or so, not due to any success of the Cubs - which we have to admit has been very slight in the past 25 years. When the Tribune bought the Cubs from Wrigley (I think in the early 80's), I guarantee you that they took a comprehensive look at that club, and tried to position the marketing to take advantage of the the team's unique strengths (Wrigley Field, the scoreboard and - generally - the throwback feel of going to a game) - it worked like a charm. I find it ironic that a lot of White Sox fans are constantly going on and on criticizing the Cubs for the very things that fill that place year in and year out. The White Sox ownership didn't do that. They not only didn't take a look at what made the White Sox unique, they openly jettisoned everything about the past, in order to build a new entity - including the park, the broadcasting, the uniforms, the broadcasters - everything. Attendance popped at the outset of the new park, but eventually there were no remaining manifestations of the old traditions - and popularity waned. Almost like they were an expansion team. If the media is a pro-Cub media, it's only because it's tracking the sentiment du jour.

Like it or not, it has pretty much come at our own hands.

Iwritecode
09-18-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
While I readily admit that the Cubs are - for the time being - the more popular of the two clubs, I disagree that any success on their part will spell the end of the White Sox.

Most of the reason that the White Sox have slipped in popularity (relative to the Cubs) is due to a terrible overall marketing approach for the last 20 years or so, not due to any success of the Cubs - which we have to admit has been very slight in the past 25 years. When the Tribune bought the Cubs from Wrigley (I think in the early 80's), I guarantee you that they took a comprehensive look at that club, and tried to position the marketing to take advantage of the the team's unique strengths (Wrigley Field, the scoreboard and - generally - the throwback feel of going to a game) - it worked like a charm. I find it ironic that a lot of White Sox fans are constantly going on and on criticizing the Cubs for the very things that fill that place year in and year out. The White Sox ownership didn't do that. They not only didn't take a look at what made the White Sox unique, they openly jettisoned everything about the past, in order to build a new entity - including the park, the broadcasting, the uniforms, the broadcasters - everything. Attendance popped at the outset of the new park, but eventually there were no remaining manifestations of the old traditions - and popularity waned. Almost like they were an expansion team. If the media is a pro-Cub media, it's only because it's tracking the sentiment du jour.

Like it or not, it has pretty much come at our own hands.

While it's true the Sox marketing sucks, Sox fans still aren't Cubs fans. Sox fans show up to see a winning team. It's been proven for years. The best marketing this team could do is win and win consistently.

I'd watch this team in the Humpdome for 80 games a year if I knew that there was a pretty good shot that they would be in the WS every year....

voodoochile
09-18-2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
While I readily admit that the Cubs are - for the time being - the more popular of the two clubs, I disagree that any success on their part will spell the end of the White Sox.

Most of the reason that the White Sox have slipped in popularity (relative to the Cubs) is due to a terrible overall marketing approach for the last 20 years or so, not due to any success of the Cubs - which we have to admit has been very slight in the past 25 years. When the Tribune bought the Cubs from Wrigley (I think in the early 80's), I guarantee you that they took a comprehensive look at that club, and tried to position the marketing to take advantage of the the team's unique strengths (Wrigley Field, the scoreboard and - generally - the throwback feel of going to a game) - it worked like a charm. I find it ironic that a lot of White Sox fans are constantly going on and on criticizing the Cubs for the very things that fill that place year in and year out. The White Sox ownership didn't do that. They not only didn't take a look at what made the White Sox unique, they openly jettisoned everything about the past, in order to build a new entity - including the park, the broadcasting, the uniforms, the broadcasters - everything. Attendance popped at the outset of the new park, but eventually there were no remaining manifestations of the old traditions - and popularity waned. Almost like they were an expansion team. If the media is a pro-Cub media, it's only because it's tracking the sentiment du jour.

Like it or not, it has pretty much come at our own hands.

There it is... Add in the WFT, blaming the low payroll on the fans and JR being a hawk in the 1994 labor dispute and you have a recipe for how to decimate a fan base in less than 2 decades...

KingXerxes
09-18-2003, 02:30 PM
voodoochile - Agreed.

Iwritecode - The fact that the White Sox can ONLY draw fans if they have a shot at winning everything is a total indictment of their marketing - not Chicago's media.

"Sox fans are not Cub fans." - I can't stand this generalization.

If the Tribune tore down Wrigley Field, and built a state of the art yet bland stadium in it's place, with electronic gadgets, bathrooms, vending areas, skyboxes, put players in new uniforms which look nothing like the preceding ones, took the team off of WGN and put it on pay per view, while all the while running little sideshows during a game - I guarantee you that Cub fans would stop showing up in record numbers, and you would soon see that Cub fans are almost exactly like White Sox fans.

Iwritecode
09-18-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Iwritecode - The fact that the White Sox can ONLY draw fans if they have a shot at winning everything is a total indictment of their marketing - not Chicago's media.

I'd rather have 20,000 fans per game and a shot at the post season than 40,000 fans and 100 losses. It just shows that Sox fans are not sheep and go only when it's the trendy thing to do.


Originally posted by KingXerxes
"Sox fans are not Cub fans." - I can't stand this generalization.

If the Tribune tore down Wrigley Field, and built a state of the art yet bland stadium in it's place, with electronic gadgets, bathrooms, vending areas, skyboxes, put players in new uniforms which look nothing like the preceding ones, took the team off of WGN and put it on pay per view, while all the while running little sideshows during a game - I guarantee you that Cub fans would stop showing up in record numbers, and you would soon see that Cub fans are almost exactly like White Sox fans.

Do you think the Sox would start drawing in record numbers if they switched to playing in Wrigley field? You've got to give our fans a little more credit than that.

The catch with all this is what you define as a "fan". The 20,000 or so that show up at Wrigley to drink beer and be seen shouldn't count as "fans", even though that's what they call themselves. I don't seen any Sox fans that are like that. Thus the statement, Sox fans are not Cub fans.

Iwritecode
09-18-2003, 02:54 PM
One more thought on this. Cleveland is a perfect example. They sold out their stadium every day for 5 years straight. Why? They won the division every single year. What happened when the team started sucking? The fans quit showing up.

They didn't need any gimmicky marketing or national TV & newspaper talking about how great they were. They went out and won. Period.

Maybe the Sox brass needs to quit looking at what they are doing across town and look at what the Indians did in the late 90's.

Win.

voodoochile
09-18-2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I'd rather have 20,000 fans per game and a shot at the post season than 40,000 fans and 100 losses. It just shows that Sox fans are not sheep and go only when it's the trendy thing to do.




Do you think the Sox would start drawing in record numbers if they switched to playing in Wrigley field? You've got to give our fans a little more credit than that.

The catch with all this is what you define as a "fan". The 20,000 or so that show up at Wrigley to drink beer and be seen shouldn't count as "fans", even though that's what they call themselves. I don't seen any Sox fans that are like that. Thus the statement, Sox fans are not Cub fans.

A good chunk of the people who go to Wrigley every year aren't flubbie fans. They are people looking for a good time or a bit of nostalgia. Those are the two things the flubbies market very well. If the Sox played in Wrigley, it would have been torn down years ago, but if not, then they might be able to market "fun at the ballpark at beautiful Wrigley" and pick up some of those tourist dollars.

You want 20K knowledgeable fans instead of 40K sheep. I agree to an extent, but those extra 20K fans/game are an additional $30M/year in revenue (minimum - the actual number is probably closer to $50M). That money could be put toward building that yearly winner you so desperately want to see...

KingXerxes
09-18-2003, 03:14 PM
voodoochile - BINGO! Pull an extra million through the gates, and you can afford success.

Iwritecode - Would the White Sox draw 40,000 a game if they played in Wrigley Field? No.

Would the White Sox draw 40,000 a game if the had started playing in Wrigley Field 90 years ago and continued doing so to this day and kept a continuity of tradition alive for all those years? Yes.

Iwritecode
09-18-2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You want 20K knowledgeable fans instead of 40K sheep. I agree to an extent, but those extra 20K fans/game are an additional $30M/year in revenue (minimum - the actual number is probably closer to $50M). That money could be put toward building that yearly winner you so desperately want to see...


True, which is probably why it'll never happen. That's why I added that second post. I'd rather have the stadium full every year because the team is winning, not because it's "the place to be". I know it's possible too because that's how every other team in baseball works.

The Cubs are the exception, not the rule, on how to market a team. The Sox fans are unfairly compared to them.

Iwritecode
09-18-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
voodoochile - BINGO! Pull an extra million through the gates, and you can afford success.

Iwritecode - Would the White Sox draw 40,000 a game if they played in Wrigley Field? No.

Would the White Sox draw 40,000 a game if the had started playing in Wrigley Field 90 years ago and continued doing so to this day and kept a continuity of tradition alive for all those years? Yes.

I believe the Red Sox and Yankees have done the same thing. The difference is, the fans show up because the team wins.

The Cubs are the only team in the world that can draw 2.5 million fans while coming in dead last.

KingXerxes
09-18-2003, 03:35 PM
Iwritecode - Do you drink beer at White Sox games? If the answer to that is yes, then couldn't a Cub fan (at Comiskey because his company had an outing) look at you and surmise, "Wow this guy just came here to drink beer!"?

Look - the comparison of White Sox fans to Cub fans has been going on for years and years. In the 60's and 70's White Sox fans used to pride themselves over the fact that more beer was sold in a weekend at Comiskey than at the Cubs last 13 game homestand. Wrigley Field was just a bunch of little kids sccreaming "We wanna hit....." and on and on and on. That was then. Now Wrigley is known as the world's largest beer garden - a full 180 degree turn from it's original label. I'm all for having fun at the expense of Cub fan's reputations - but there is a humorous and credible degree of it. I actually have a couple of friends who contend that nobody - not one person - in attendance at a Cub game is aware of what's going on on the field. Not one. When they start up, I just want to walk away (and usually do). I tell them that if their hypothesis is correct, then the standing ovation at the end of a game, or due to a homer or a big hit can only be due to a convergence of 40,000 people all standing and cheering spontaneously for no reason whatsoever - and none of those reasons even connected to one another. It's embarassing.

voodoochile
09-18-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
True, which is probably why it'll never happen. That's why I added that second post. I'd rather have the stadium full every year because the team is winning, not because it's "the place to be". I know it's possible too because that's how every other team in baseball works.

The Cubs are the exception, not the rule, on how to market a team. The Sox fans are unfairly compared to them.

Well there are few cities that have two baseball teams to begin with and none of them have two inside the actual city boundaries and as close as the Sox and Flubbies are, so it is tough to compare the situation here in Chicago with elsewhere. However, every professional team in some way markets themself as "fun at the ballpark/stadium" and goes for the purely entertainment dollar. The flubbies are MUCH better at it than the Sox.

I do agree the Flubbies enjoy an unfair PR advantage over the Sox due to being owned by the Tribune. I don't think all of that bias is due to the "natural number of flubbie fans" being greater than the "natural number of Sox fans". Stil, the problems the Sox themselves have created are so huge that any advantage the flubbies enjoy is dwarfed by the complete ineptitude of the Sox marketing people and the decisions that have been made under JR's ownership.

Now though you may well be correct. The only way to rebuild the lost fanbase is to win consistently. It's just too bad that it has come to this point. The Sox at one time were equals in this city and JR stomped on the fan's dreams and wishes and then cried poor. It has to be considered one of the all time worst ownership regimes in the history of sports.

bobj4400
09-18-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Do you think the Sox would start drawing in record numbers if they switched to playing in Wrigley field? You've got to give our fans a little more credit than that.



If the Sox played at Wrigley, they would draw 35-40 thousand a game. The key to the Wrigley attendance is the fact that the ballpark is in the middle of a neighborhood full of 20 and 30 somethings with nothing better to do with their money than go to the games and be seen. The college like atmosphere surrounding the stadium helps immensely as well. When I graduated from college and moved home to Chicago, every single friend of mine from out of state that moved here, moved to Lakeview/Wrigleyville/Lincoln Park/Bucktown and adopted the Cubs as their new favorite team. It drives me nuts and makes me want to puke, but it is the truth. This is not a generalization. I live in the area and see how this works every day.