PDA

View Full Version : How Others See Us


Lip Man 1
02-09-2004, 01:13 PM
From Ron Rapoport's column in the Sun-Times:

"Bill Madden of the New York Daily News on the Cubs' offseason accomplishments: "If Corey Patterson comes all the way back, we see no reason why there shouldn't be a World Series in Wrigley for the first time since 1945.'' And the White Sox? "They lost their No. 1 starter and their season-end closers and replaced neither of them. Instead, they spent the whole winter trying to trade their best player. Good luck, Ozzie Guillen.''

Lip

StepsInSC
02-09-2004, 01:30 PM
Pretty much sums everything up nicely.

Hullett_Fan
02-09-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
From Ron Rapoport's column in the Sun-Times:

"Bill Madden of the New York Daily News on the Cubs' offseason accomplishments: "If Corey Patterson comes all the way back, we see no reason why there shouldn't be a World Series in Wrigley for the first time since 1945.'' And the White Sox? "They lost their No. 1 starter and their season-end closers and replaced neither of them. Instead, they spent the whole winter trying to trade their best player. Good luck, Ozzie Guillen.''

Lip


I think it's an accomplishment that people outside of Chicago even know this team still exists. Way to go Sox! :angry:

Baby Fisk
02-09-2004, 01:37 PM
So with everyone's expectations in the toilet, KW and JR will be able to come back and say the 2004 Sox exceeded expectations, right?

:KW
"No one gave this team any credit, but now this third place finish gives us a great foundation to rebuild."

:reinsy
"Wait til you see our prices for 2005!"

duke of dorwood
02-09-2004, 01:49 PM
White Sox 2004:

If you are going to be mediocre, might as well be a joke too"

CubKilla
02-09-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
Pretty much sums everything up nicely.

Except that part about the Cubs going to the World Series.

SEALgep
02-09-2004, 02:20 PM
I think that's bs. I think our team is competitive, not great, but it is competitive. And to tell you the truth, I could really give a rat's ass how other people see our team. When it comes down to it, it's how we perform on the field. I'll let that do the talking. If it so happens that our team performs poorly, that's one thing, but for some person who doesn't know the Sox to say we're basically worthless, that's crap. People can be disappointed all they want in the offseason, but until the players fall flat on their face, I'm not willing to give up on them.

CubKilla
02-09-2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
I think that's bs. I think our team is competitive, not great, but it is competitive.

In the Al Central.

Tekijawa
02-09-2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
In the Al Central.

I'd like to send that comment to the Judges, I don't know if it should be in Pink or Teal, but I know for a fact that it shouldn't be in Black...

SEALgep
02-09-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
In the Al Central.

Competitive is competitive. We can hang with the better teams. Once you are in the playoffs, anything can happen. If we got hot at the right time, why couldn't we advance?

npdempse
02-09-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Competitive is competitive. We can hang with the better teams. Once you are in the playoffs, anything can happen. If we got hot at the right time, why couldn't we advance?

And it's been made adequately clear that if the team is hanging in the race, midseason additions could be made so that we would be competitive down the stretch.

mantis1212
02-09-2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
From Ron Rapoport's column in the Sun-Times:

"Bill Madden of the New York Daily News on the Cubs' offseason accomplishments: "If Corey Patterson comes all the way back, we see no reason why there shouldn't be a World Series in Wrigley for the first time since 1945.'' And the White Sox? "They lost their No. 1 starter and their season-end closers and replaced neither of them. Instead, they spent the whole winter trying to trade their best player. Good luck, Ozzie Guillen.''

Lip

#1 starter? 2 closers? What is this guy smoking? We'll take 4 of 6 from the cubs AND yankees, just like last year

CubKilla
02-09-2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
Once you are in the playoffs, anything can happen.

True..... if you're a decent playoff team. The White Sox, right now, have entirely too many holes to hang with the A's, Mariner's, Red Sox, and the Yankees.

3 and out for whoever wins the AL Central unless significant deals are made.

CubKilla
02-09-2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
#1 starter? 2 closers? What is this guy smoking? We'll take 4 of 6 from the cubs AND yankees, just like last year

I hope you're right. Now pass out some of that Sox-Koolaid you're currently bogarting.

mantis1212
02-09-2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
I hope you're right. Now pass out some of that Sox-Koolaid you're currently bogarting.

Bartolo was our #3 last year, and I think Gordon's work can be picked up by Shingo and Marte, maybe even Koch. Alomar hit like .253 for us? Big deal (did anyone notice D'Angelo hit .290 after he left??)
My point is that we did not lose nearly as much as we think...

Palehose13
02-09-2004, 02:57 PM
I'm curious as to how others saw the Marlins before the 2003 season, the Angels before 2002, and the Diamondbacks before 2001. My point? Pre-season predictions don't mean squat.

sas1974
02-09-2004, 03:15 PM
First of all, WHO CARES what Bill Madden of the New York Daily News thinks about our team. Let him worry about Yankees chances of staying close to the Bo Sox or the Mets trying to finish less than 34 games out of first place. Don't we have enough fools here in our local media to worry about without being concerned with the opinion of some goof from NY.

maurice
02-09-2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
Bartolo was our #3 last year, and I think Gordon's work can be picked up by Shingo and Marte, maybe even Koch.

This sentence raises a number of questions:
- Who was our #2 last year?
- Who's gonna pick up Colon's 242 innings while posting Colon's sub-4 ERA? Schoenweis?
- What reason do we have to believe that Loaiza will be able to repeat his ace-like sub-3 ERA over 200+ innings, given his career (4.58) and second-half (3.84) ERAs?
- What reason do we have to believe that Koch or Shingo will pitch as good as Gordon did in 2003?
- If Marte picks up Gordon's work (3.16 ERA over 74 innings), who picks up Marte's work (1.58 ERA over 80 innings)?

Hullett_Fan
02-09-2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by maurice
This sentence raises a number of questions:



Thought I'd give a shot at answering these questions: :D:

- Who's gonna pick up Colon's 242 innings while posting Colon's sub-4 ERA? No one. Schoenweis? Not likely, we'll be counting on Robert Person to fill the void. :(:


- What reason do we have to believe that Loaiza will be able to repeat his ace-like sub-3 ERA over 200+ innings, given his career (4.58) and second-half (3.84) ERAs? No reason to believe he'll do as well, better or worse. It's a crapshoot, kind of like living life as a Sox fan

- What reason do we have to believe that Koch or Shingo will pitch as good as Gordon did in 2003? We have more a reason to believe they'll be worse. Hopefully we're in for a surprise.

- If Marte picks up Gordon's work (3.16 ERA over 74 innings), who picks up Marte's work (1.58 ERA over 80 innings)?
Dan Wright??!?! LOL

npdempse
02-09-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by maurice
This sentence raises a number of questions:
- Who's gonna pick up Colon's 242 innings while posting Colon's sub-4 ERA? Schoenweis?
- If Marte picks up Gordon's work (3.16 ERA over 74 innings), who picks up Marte's work (1.58 ERA over 80 innings)?

WELL...
Obviously none of our starters are going to work the number of innings that Colon did, but it seems reasonable to expect that we won't be dealing with anybody as frightening as Rick White in middle relief, or that kid who came up early in the season and lasted about three games. Heck, even Sully looked pretty bad. Between Politte, Person, and Shingo, and Marte, and question mark Koch, we should have a bullpen capable of eating up a bunch of those innings without getting shelled.

mantis1212
02-09-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by maurice
This sentence raises a number of questions:
- Who was our #2 last year?
- Who's gonna pick up Colon's 242 innings while posting Colon's sub-4 ERA? Schoenweis?
- What reason do we have to believe that Loaiza will be able to repeat his ace-like sub-3 ERA over 200+ innings, given his career (4.58) and second-half (3.84) ERAs?
- What reason do we have to believe that Koch or Shingo will pitch as good as Gordon did in 2003?
- If Marte picks up Gordon's work (3.16 ERA over 74 innings), who picks up Marte's work (1.58 ERA over 80 innings)?

In my opinion Buerhle, maybe tied with Colon last year, they were both basically .500 pitchers with a 4 ERA. I don't see any reason Loaiza can't repeat last year, his new pitch seemed to take full credit, and he will still have it. I don't see why Marte can't be a better closer than Gordon was, and Shingo (maybe Koch) being satifactory set-up men
Picking up Colon's innings is the biggest concern I think...

sas1974
02-09-2004, 04:17 PM
I think people forget just how much we underacheived in the first half last season. We all know there are more question marks on this team than anyone would like, but we aren't doomed. Guys just need to step it up to TRY to make up for what we lost. Buerhle can't lose 10 in a row, Koch can't throw 90mph, Paulie can't hit below .200 and Garland is going to consistently make it past the 6th inning. Too many "ifs" I know, but it's all we've got.

StepsInSC
02-09-2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Except that part about the Cubs going to the World Series.

I'm not sure that won't happen. They're a good team, and like he said if Patterson comes back healthy they're an even better team. And then if they land Maddux...ugh.

ChiSox65
02-09-2004, 04:34 PM
It all starts at the top. Until we get an owner who REALLY wants to win (Stienbrenner, Colangelo, Cuban, illitch) we are all screwed. This guy has done nothing but pissed off every Sox fan since day 1. Bye ......Old Comiskey Park and Andy the Clown
see ya.......Harry Caray and Sammy Sosa
welcome......... Mt. Comiskey and vertigo
A strike instead of a World Series?......Genius
let's have a have a Minnesota payroll in
the 3rd largest city in the U.S.

Until then fiesty..........hot chicks and beer!

Hot chicks and beer.........YESSSSSS!!!

:gulp:

Baby Fisk
02-09-2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
I'm not sure that won't happen. They're a good team, and like he said if Patterson comes back healthy they're an even better team. And then if they land Maddux...ugh.
The goat won't let it happen. :cool:

CubKilla
02-09-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
I'm curious as to how others saw the Marlins before the 2003 season, the Angels before 2002, and the Diamondbacks before 2001. My point? Pre-season predictions don't mean squat.

And, once again, comparing the as-of-right-now '04 White Sox to any of the above stated teams is a reach..... a far reach..... at best. The closest squad to the '04 White Sox out of those 3 is '02 Anaheim and, IMHO, there really is no comparison when you compare either of those teams when you get into the BP and SP.

CubKilla
02-09-2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
I'm not sure that won't happen. They're a good team, and like he said if Patterson comes back healthy they're an even better team. And then if they land Maddux...ugh.

The Cubs were an average team struggling to stay above .500 when Patterson was healthy last season. Only after the acquisitions of Lofton, Ramirez, and Simon and a complete meltdown by St. Louis and Houston were the Cubs able to squeak into the NL Playoffs.

I won't even talk about the incredibly soft schedule the Cubs had down the stretch. Hopefully the same type of schedule down the stretch benefits the White Sox this season and they can hover around .500 or slightly better when playing the A's, Mariners, Yankees, and Red Sox.

Beating Detroit, Tampa, and a few other '03 bottom feeders would help immensely also.

sas1974
02-09-2004, 05:25 PM
People need to get over what a great team the Cubs were/are. They won a bad division by 1 game. And as it was just mentioned, the combination of the the Cub's cupcake season ending schedule and Houston's tough one is what made all the difference. Houston didn't get any worse this off season.

maurice
02-09-2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
I don't see any reason Loaiza can't repeat last year, his new pitch seemed to take full credit, and he will still have it.

He had the cutter in the second half of 2003 and still posted a 3.84 ERA. I'm not saying that he'll go back to being worthless. I'm just saying that (IMHO) his ERA is more likely to be between 3.5 and 4.5 than it is to be under 3. That's still fine for an AL starter but hardly ace-like.

Picking up Colon's innings is the biggest concern I think...

Agreed. More specifically, you have to replace Colon's 242 innings plus Gordon's 74 innings (and pray that Loaiza and Marte keep pitching like All Stars). Some combination of Sox pitchers is going to throw those 316 innings in 2004, and it's extremely unlikely that they will do so with a combined ERA under 4. IMHO, to make up that substantial difference, the Sox will need to have either: (1) two or more position players not named Thomas, Ordonez, or Lee positively rake; or (2) two or more big surprise performances from some no-name pitchers. That'd be just super, but I don't think it's reasonable to count on it at this point.

mantis1212
02-09-2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by maurice




Agreed. More specifically, you have to replace Colon's 242 innings plus Gordon's 74 innings (and pray that Loaiza and Marte keep pitching like All Stars). Some combination of Sox pitchers is going to throw those 316 innings in 2004, and it's extremely unlikely that they will do so with a combined ERA under 4. IMHO, to make up that substantial difference, the Sox will need to have either: (1) two or more position players not named Thomas, Ordonez, or Lee positively rake; or (2) two or more big surprise performances from some no-name pitchers. That'd be just super, but I don't think it's reasonable to count on it at this point.

I'd put Marte in the closer role with his 1.6 ERA and he could save 45 games for us. As for Gordon missing- I don't think 3.60 over 74 innings is too much to expect from Shingo, a top Japanese closer whom AL hitters have never seen before...
If Konerko for Perez straight up went through I'd feel much better...

Foulke You
02-09-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by maurice
He had the cutter in the second half of 2003 and still posted a 3.84 ERA. I'm not saying that he'll go back to being worthless. I'm just saying that (IMHO) his ERA is more likely to be between 3.5 and 4.5 than it is to be under 3. That's still fine for an AL starter but hardly ace-like.



Agreed. More specifically, you have to replace Colon's 242 innings plus Gordon's 74 innings (and pray that Loaiza and Marte keep pitching like All Stars). Some combination of Sox pitchers is going to throw those 316 innings in 2004, and it's extremely unlikely that they will do so with a combined ERA under 4. IMHO, to make up that substantial difference, the Sox will need to have either: (1) two or more position players not named Thomas, Ordonez, or Lee positively rake; or (2) two or more big surprise performances from some no-name pitchers. That'd be just super, but I don't think it's reasonable to count on it at this point.

One thing you also have to take into account is how absolutely poorly we hit in the first half of last season. You had guys hitting extremely out of character. Konerko's collapse, Magglio's DP fest, Crede's first half sophomore slump, D'angelo's moronic baserunning blunders, Aaron Rowand not yet recovered from a bike accident hitting .150 in April, etc. etc. If half of the above mentioned offensive items go right next year, it can certainly overcome some of the lost pitching by Bartolo Colon and Tom Gordon assuming the guys who replace them put up respectable numbers. I'm trying to remain positive for a change as we head into Spring Training and take a large healthy sip of the ChiSox kool-aid. :gulp:

ChiWhiteSox1337
02-09-2004, 07:56 PM
Maybe it's just because of how good Gordon was down the stretch of the season, but didn't he also blow quite a few leads when the whole team was slumping in the first half of the season? One of the games that I remember clearly was against the Diamondbacks

Lip Man 1
02-09-2004, 08:46 PM
Seal says: "Once you are in the playoffs, anything can happen. If we got hot at the right time, why couldn't we advance?"

Just like we got 'lucky' in 83, 93 and 00 right?

It amazes me that some Sox fans are content to rely on 'luck' in the hopes of winning something as opposed to trying to increase those odds by getting as much talent as humanly possible. Talent not luck usually wins a seven game series.

Lip

thepaulbowski
02-09-2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Hullett_Fan
- If Marte picks up Gordon's work (3.16 ERA over 74 innings), who picks up Marte's work (1.58 ERA over 80 innings)?
Dan Wright??!?! LOL

At the risk of sounding like Hawk here, I think Wright is this years wild card. He could end up in the rotation or in the bullpen. He looked pretty solid at the end of the year in the bullpen (like after the Neal Cotts meltdown in Yankee Stadium). If he can keep stay healthy and keep his head screwed on straight, he could be the long reliever or the 5th starter.

Now let the persecution begin. :D:

SoxxoS
02-09-2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
At the risk of sounding like Hawk here, I think Wright is this years wild card. He could end up in the rotation or in the bullpen. He looked pretty solid at the end of the year in the bullpen (like after the Neal Cotts meltdown in Yankee Stadium). If he can keep stay healthy and keep his head screwed on straight, he could be the long reliever or the 5th starter.

Now let the persecution begin. :D:

If Dan Wright is in the rotation more than 3 starts in a row, we are not winning this division. He is pitiful. He is not a starter. He is a long reliever at best. The guy is a mental midget who really doesn't have the "stuff" he was supposed to have when he came into this league.
Stick him in the bullpen and leave him there.

doublem23
02-09-2004, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
I'm curious as to how others saw the Marlins before the 2003 season, the Angels before 2002, and the Diamondbacks before 2001. My point? Pre-season predictions don't mean squat.

Man, this post has been long overdue.

doublem23
02-09-2004, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

It amazes me that some Sox fans are content to rely on 'luck' in the hopes of winning something as opposed to trying to increase those odds by getting as much talent as humanly possible. Talent not luck usually wins a seven game series.

Bull**** bull**** bull**** bull****

The Marlins would have been eliminated in Game 6 had they not had the biggest stroke of luck I've ever seen.

Hangar18
02-10-2004, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by mantis1212
Bartolo was our #3 last year, and I think Gordon's work can be picked up by Shingo and Marte, maybe even Koch. Alomar hit like .253 for us? Big deal (did anyone notice D'Angelo hit .290 after he left??)
My point is that we did not lose nearly as much as we think...

Good Point........but I wish we wouldve Filled these holes
alot BETTER instead of sitting on our hands.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by npdempse
And it's been made adequately clear that if the team is hanging in the race, midseason additions could be made so that we would be competitive down the stretch.

That's under the assumption that we'll need it, not that we're uncompetitive now and if we get lucky to keep it close we'll add. We plan on being competitive as is.

SEALgep
02-10-2004, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Seal says: "Once you are in the playoffs, anything can happen. If we got hot at the right time, why couldn't we advance?"

Just like we got 'lucky' in 83, 93 and 00 right?

It amazes me that some Sox fans are content to rely on 'luck' in the hopes of winning something as opposed to trying to increase those odds by getting as much talent as humanly possible. Talent not luck usually wins a seven game series.

Lip

When did I say luck. I said if you get hot at the right time. The Marlins were hot. And as far as talent, we have some good talent. If we advanced, it wouldn't be luck.

Realist
02-10-2004, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
Maybe it's just because of how good Gordon was down the stretch of the season, but didn't he also blow quite a few leads when the whole team was slumping in the first half of the season? One of the games that I remember clearly was against the Diamondbacks

Oh gawd was he ever terrible. I remember being at a game last spring when I had had just about enough of "Flush" Gordon. I ran into a friend of mine that works for the Sox out on the right field concourse and I warned her that she'd better alert security because if I saw Gordon entering the game, I was gonna run on the field and tackle him before he even reached the infield grass. :D:

To his credit, Gordon really turned his season around and changed my opinion of him.

Hope springs eternal. Let's just hope some of these mopes and mediocres that we've been dealt for the upcoming 2004 season can step up their game, surpise us all, and make it a fun run at a pennant. If not, I still have tons of fun going to the game and bitching when we suck. :cool:

Realist
02-10-2004, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
At the risk of sounding like Hawk here, I think Wright is this years wild card. He could end up in the rotation or in the bullpen. He looked pretty solid at the end of the year in the bullpen (like after the Neal Cotts meltdown in Yankee Stadium). If he can keep stay healthy and keep his head screwed on straight, he could be the long reliever or the 5th starter.

Now let the persecution begin. :D:

I absolutely love Wright as a long reliever.
I absolutely hate Wright as a starter.

He's probably yet another in a long list of White Sox head cases. Give him too much time to think about a game, and he falls to pieces. Toss him in with no pressure he's damn near unhittable.

CLR01
02-10-2004, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by ChiSox65
It all starts at the top. Until we get an owner who REALLY wants to win (....illitch)



Yeah...that guys has done great things with the Tigers. I can't wait until the Sox spend their seasons fighting for 4th place. You forgot to include James Dolan.

GOC
02-10-2004, 12:09 PM
I see the Sox kinda like a high wire act right now . We have enough talent to hang up there but it's going to take all of it working at all times to keep us up there . We could definately hang around to the end but only if a lot of things go right and we have no major slips .
For teams like the Red Sox , Yankees , Astros ,....cubs...., on the other hand , it's more like walkin a bridge - unless it gets pretty gusty up there , there gonna be around at the end .

- just to clarify - I'm not at all sold on the cubs being nearly as good as the Astros . I wouldn't be surprised if they won the wild card though .

Iwritecode
02-10-2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Bull**** bull**** bull**** bull****

The Marlins would have been eliminated in Game 6 had they not had the biggest stroke of luck I've ever seen.

True, but you can't always count on the opposing shortstop to make a huge error late in the game. Had Gonzalez turned that DP, the Cubs would have been facing the Yankees in the WS...

It wasn't luck that Beckett dominated the Cubs in game 5.

It wasn't luck that allowed the Marlins to put up 8 runs in the 8th inning AFTER the error in game 6.

It wasn't luck that they beat Wood and Prior in back-to-back games. Something that hadn't happened since 2001.

I'm sure luck has a little to do with every single game but having good talent sure decreases how much a team has to rely on it and allows a team to better take advantage when good luck happens to them...

Greg1983
02-10-2004, 04:46 PM
Iwritecode...I'm having difficulty with my quote/copy function, but man, that was an excellent post.

However spectacular the Cubs' demise was, I honestly believe the Marlins were the better team last year. They had a better regular-season record, they had a great mix of youth and experience, they had a great manager, and they won. Luck is always a part of the mix, but you can't do all the things you listed in your email without seriously capable players.

Besides, it's been 87 years, for Chrissakes. This is not a lucky franchise. Forget luck...I for one am waiting for the day I can credibly say, "This Sox team is the best in their division, and one of the best in the league" before emotionally investing myself again. JR and KW can't control luck, but they can control other things.

I really think, especially after reading Rich King's comments on here on WSI, that the Reinsdorf plan is to wait until he's assembled a bargain-basement team that shows signs of winning a weak division, then go get some big guns in midseason acquisitions. Why load up in April and spend all that money early when you know Minnesota and Detroit and KC will be operating on shoe-strings as well?

Sounds logical at first. In fact, I can't think of any obvious reason it can't work, except that it never has. At least not for the Sox. I'll also be interested to see if KW is able to swing any more deals like the Alomar/Everett deals next summer...getting solid talent for almost zero salary commitments. I have a feeling most GM's noticed what happened last year and won't be as obliging from now on. I'm afraid 2003 was a one-time opportunity.

Iwritecode
02-11-2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Greg1983
Forget luck...I for one am waiting for the day I can credibly say, "This Sox team is the best in their division, and one of the best in the league" before emotionally investing myself again. JR and KW can't control luck, but they can control other things.


You bring up a very good point. When was the last time we could look at the Sox and know that they not only had a good chance at winning the division but would be a force in the playoffs? I'm talking at the beginning of the year too, not after a couple of mid-season trades. I'd have to say it was 1994. That was really the last time anyone stood up and took notice of this team. Since then they've either surprised everyone and came out of nowhere or been one or two players short.

Anyone remember the attendance in 93 & 94? It was over 2.5 million in 93 and would have been the same in 94 had they played a full season.

If they want more people to come to the games, they need to put a WS contending team on the field in April. Not a team that might win a weak division and hope to add a few players later.

It's so simple yet they still don't get it... :(:

mantis1212
02-11-2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
You bring up a very good point. When was the last time we could look at the Sox and know that they not only had a good chance at winning the division but would be a force in the playoffs? I'm talking at the beginning of the year too, not after a couple of mid-season trades. I'd have to say it was 1994. That was really the last time anyone stood up and took notice of this team. Since then they've either surprised everyone and came out of nowhere or been one or two players short.

Anyone remember the attendance in 93 & 94? It was over 2.5 million in 93 and would have been the same in 94 had they played a full season.

If they want more people to come to the games, they need to put a WS contending team on the field in April. Not a team that might win a weak division and hope to add a few players later.

It's so simple yet they still don't get it... :(:

You may think I 'm crazy but I thought last year the Sox had a shot to do some damage in the playoffs. If we had won the division:
- we wouldn't have had to play in the Metrodome at all
- we seemed to have owned the yankees in the regular season, in fact we were smoking them in Yankee stadium until the Cotts-for-Buerhle fiasco
- We were also playing Boston really tough as well, I believe we were close to .500 against them...
This is was made last sept/oct so painful, along with the cubs winning...

sas1974
02-11-2004, 03:39 PM
I am almost embarrassed to admit that I also thought the Sox had a chance to do some damage last year.