PDA

View Full Version : Tribune Editorial


Lip Man 1
05-17-2005, 10:24 PM
Tonight on the Tribune web site:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050517soxrowcorner,1,6179205.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

I happen to agree with it.

Lip

cheeses_h_rice
05-17-2005, 10:29 PM
Gee, more Sox negativity being published in the Flubune, how novel.

Lip Man 1
05-17-2005, 10:32 PM
Cheeses:

How is this negative? This is the gospel truth...

"So it isn't the Sox who need some love, it's their fans. Their loyalty knows no bounds, although it has left many of them bitter, rooting for their team but not trusting the team's owners. It has been a tough century for them."

History shows this as fact...not fantasy. You don't have to believe me...talk to George Bova, Dan Helpingstein, Bob Vanderberg or Rich Lindberg. All Sox fans, all Sox author's, all Sox historians... they'll tell you the same thing.

Lip

cheeses_h_rice
05-17-2005, 10:38 PM
OK, so they praise Sox fans by slamming the owners. Where I come from, that's considered something akin to damning them with faint praise.

Seriously, this stuff is mostly ancient history. It has nothing to do with the 2005 White Sox being in first place. I can't imagine any really legitimate reason for the Flubune to even publish this at this juncture in time except to further try to piss on our parade.

chisoxfan64
05-17-2005, 10:40 PM
Seems to me they are trying to get more sheep on their side by ripping on the Sox owners.

NSSoxFan
05-17-2005, 10:40 PM
OK, so they praise Sox fans by slamming the owners. Where I come from, that's considered something akin to damning them with faint praise.

Seriously, this stuff is mostly ancient history. It has nothing to do with the 2005 White Sox being in first place. I can't imagine any really legitimate reason for the Flubune to even publish this at this juncture in time except to further try to piss on our parade.

Exactly. We're tired of hearing it, at least most of us are.

batmanZoSo
05-17-2005, 10:42 PM
OK, so they praise Sox fans by slamming the owners. Where I come from, that's considered something akin to damning them with faint praise.

Seriously, this stuff is mostly ancient history. It has nothing to do with the 2005 White Sox being in first place. I can't imagine any really legitimate reason for the Flubune to even publish this at this juncture in time except to further try to piss on our parade.

Yeah, really. I mean there's nothing untrue about it, but why is it necessary? We just can't get away from this kind of crap.

npdempse
05-17-2005, 10:47 PM
It's all true, but it ends in 1994, hardly qualifying it as NEWs. What's the point of publishing this now? How is it the least bit topical? There are ways to make it such--talk about KW putting together a winner despite the same cheapskate SOB in the chairman's office; talk about them turning it around and realizing the error of building a "mallpark." But the guy does none of that.

FarWestChicago
05-17-2005, 10:47 PM
Cheeses:

How is this negative? This is the gospel truth...

"So it isn't the Sox who need some love, it's their fans. Their loyalty knows no bounds, although it has left many of them bitter, rooting for their team but not trusting the team's owners. It has been a tough century for them."

History shows this as fact...not fantasy. You don't have to believe me...talk to George Bova, Dan Helpingstein, Bob Vanderberg or Rich Lindberg. All Sox fans, all Sox author's, all Sox historians... they'll tell you the same thing.

LipSo ****ing what, Lip? It's also true tomorrow morning the Sun will appear to come up as the Earth rotates. Nobody writes about that. It's BORING. Just like this ****. And this **** is boring and a very, very thinly disguised attempt to rain on our parade. Put aside your personal hatred for Reinsy for once and open your eyes to the big picture. :rolleyes:

Kilroy
05-17-2005, 10:59 PM
History shows this as fact...not fantasy. You don't have to believe me...talk to George Bova, Dan Helpingstein, Bob Vanderberg or Rich Lindberg. All Sox fans, all Sox author's, all Sox historians... they'll tell you the same thing.

Lip

Whoopdie ****ing doo!

You are the biggest broken record out there. Each and every one of us knows all about all of these "transgressions" and guess what? We're still Sox fans. So what does that tell you? We really don't care. If these things were that offensive, we wouldn't keep coming back so they could do it to us again, we'd move on.

Four words: LIVE IN THE NOW!

Not only has the present Sox management tried to appease all the complaints Sox fans have, from the park not being nice enough to the seats being ****ing blue (as if that mattered one damn bit), they just happen to have put together the best team in the league so far this season. Some ******** with a typewriter and a staff reporter job wants to piss on it, and sure as sunrise, Lip is right there to agree with him. This article, along with Lip, should be ignored because of complete and total insignificance.

doublem23
05-17-2005, 11:06 PM
Wow. Stephen Nidetz... Grade A reporting there. The Sox have had their share of crummy authors... I can't wait for his book, The Sun will Rise in the East to come out. Truly riveting, I hear.

:rolleyes:

I should have read 1/2 the responses in this thread before I posed this. :cool:

Lip Man 1
05-17-2005, 11:07 PM
He who doesn't learn from history is bound to repeat it.

That's what it f@#$%^& means. :smile:

By the way Kilroy, it didn't end in 94. Remember that little something called the White Flag Trade?

It 'ends' when the Sox finally win a title....that's when the slate is wiped clean.

Lip

FarWestChicago
05-17-2005, 11:13 PM
He who doesn't learn from history is bound to repeat it.

That's what it f@#$%^& means. :smile:

By the way Kilroy, it didn't end in 94. Remember that little something called the White Flag Trade?

It 'ends' when the Sox finally win a title....that's when the slate is wiped clean.

LipOK, Lip. And just exactly what are we the fans supposed to do to stop history from repeating itself? You're not making any sense here. I hope you realize that.

Kilroy
05-17-2005, 11:26 PM
He who doesn't learn from history is bound to repeat it.

That's what it f@#$%^& means. :smile:

By the way Kilroy, it didn't end in 94. Remember that little something called the White Flag Trade?

It 'ends' when the Sox finally win a title....that's when the slate is wiped clean.

Lip

I didn't say anything ended in 94, Lip. But since you mentioned it, how convenient it is for you to point out the White Flag part, but ignore the part where 3 of the players returned in that trade helped the Sox win the division in 2K. Change your name from Lip to Half Empty.

Tragg
05-17-2005, 11:37 PM
Cheeses:

How is this negative? This is the gospel truth...

"So it isn't the Sox who need some love, it's their fans. Their loyalty knows no bounds, although it has left many of them bitter, rooting for their team but not trusting the team's owners. It has been a tough century for them."

History shows this as fact...not fantasy. You don't have to believe me...talk to George Bova, Dan Helpingstein, Bob Vanderberg or Rich Lindberg. All Sox fans, all Sox author's, all Sox historians... they'll tell you the same thing.

Lip

Sorry, but I get a little sick to my stomach seeing an editorial in which, essentially, the owners of the Cubs, a club that has been 10X more hapless than we've been over the plast 90 years, criticizing the owners of the Sox.

FarWestChicago
05-18-2005, 12:00 AM
Sorry, but I get a little sick to my stomach seeing an editorial in which, essentially, the owners of the Cubs, a club that has been 10X more hapless than we've been over the plast 90 years, criticizing the owners of the Sox.Yes but Lip belongs to the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" school. So the Flubs owners as Reinsy's enemy become Lip's buddies. :rolleyes:

Tragg
05-18-2005, 12:09 AM
Yes but Lip belongs to the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" school. So the Flubs owners as Reinsy's enemy become Lip's buddies. :rolleyes:

I think I get it - to be a true Sox fan, we should all root for the Cubs and root against the Sox! Bad for JR, Bad for JR, good for Sox!

I do love the interviews though, Lip.

TDog
05-18-2005, 12:13 AM
The ONLY sports team I care about is the White Sox. I don't watch other sports. In fact, this century I've seen more televised cricket than football. (I fell asleep in front of a television during a test while in Scotland.) I have no idea who played in the last Super Bowl and don't even know if they still play the Rose Bowl. The only team in the universe I want to see win is the White Sox. I care about the Sox, and it hurts when they lose. In more than 35 years, some seasons have hurt more than others.

That being said, I don't believe Sox fans have any reason to be bitter. Brooklyn Dodgers fans have a reason to be bitter (ironically, that would include Jerry Reinsdorf). Sure, I would agree with a T-shirt proclaiming White Sox baseball is life, but there is a lot more to life than White Sox baseball. If I were so bitter that I couldn't enjoy going to the Cell, no matter the outcome of the game, there would be no reason to be a fan.

If there are truths about the editorial, it sounds like they reflect worse on bitter fans than management.

crector
05-18-2005, 12:28 AM
It 'ends' when the Sox finally win a title....that's when the slate is wiped clean.

Lip


Nope because you'll keep on harping about this stuff even after the team wins a title.............

owensmouth
05-18-2005, 01:38 AM
It is indeed interesting that the Tribune, the principal voice of the Tribune Company, should carry such an editorial.

The Tribune Company has owned the Cubs for virtually the same amount of time as Reinsdorf has owned the White Sox. Would someone please tell me what the Tribune Company has done to make the Cubs' fans so damn joyous?

They have failed every bit as completely to win a World Series.

They have no starting staff, not because of a White Flag Trade, but because of a series of personnel moves (Garland, Willis, Lieber and Clement) that have left their fans wondering what could have been.

They play ball in a smelly, outdated wreck of a ballpark because they can't risk building a new one. To build a new ballpark, they would lose the ambience of Wrigley. Move to the suburbs? Then they'd lose Chicago.

The Cubs ownership has merely continued to deliver annual editions of Lovable Losers.

The Tribune Company is seen as a greedy, money obsessed ownership. They screw their neighborhood, run off their players, and make no attempt to improve their product.

The Tribune Company badmouthing the White Sox ownership is indeed the pot calling the kettle black.

IowaSox1971
05-18-2005, 01:50 AM
During the past few weeks, the Tribune has come up with some ridiculous articles. There was a story about camera angles during Sox telecasts. There have been numerous stories about attendance, claiming that the Cubs still are the more popular team, as if the attendance disparity is news. And now this latest story, where Sox ownership is bashed, even though the team has the best record in baseball. One question for the Tribune: Have the Sox owners ever created a subsidiary to "legally" scalp their own tickets?

mikehuff
05-18-2005, 08:04 AM
Can someone explain exactly what JR did to end the season in 1994? Most people are aware that he had a hand in the cancellation of the season, but I don't know much more than that. Everyone blames him "single handedly."

What did he specifically do?

daveeym
05-18-2005, 08:05 AM
Sorry, but I get a little sick to my stomach seeing an editorial in which, essentially, the owners of the Cubs, a club that has been 10X more hapless than we've been over the plast 90 years, criticizing the owners of the Sox. Yeah but they're Lip's heroes. They get paid a ton to piss you guys off.

Hangar18
05-18-2005, 08:58 AM
OK, so they praise Sox fans by slamming the owners. Where I come from, that's considered something akin to damning them with faint praise.

Seriously, this stuff is mostly ancient history. It has nothing to do with the 2005 White Sox being in first place. I can't imagine any really legitimate reason for the Flubune to even publish this at this juncture in time except to further try to piss on our parade.

Lip and the article are right. This fanbase has been extremely loyal, despite
everything thrown in the way, Build-us-Stadium-or-we-leave foolishness, The Strike, WhiteFlag, Carlton Fisk saga, Come-out-first-then-we'll-get-players fiasco, We-compete-against-ourselves nonsense, Its-always-been-cubtown ridiculousness. For the fans to stick behind is phenomenal. If Mariotti had half a brain, he'd have written this article years ago.
The WHITE SOX FANS, like the team this year, are the real story in baseball.
We best represent the passion of chicagoans

Hangar18
05-18-2005, 08:59 AM
Can someone explain exactly what JR did to end the season in 1994? Most people are aware that he had a hand in the cancellation of the season, but I don't know much more than that. Everyone blames him "single handedly."

What did he specifically do?

Maybe some of the elders can take this one ..........
Basically though, cut off his nose to spite his face

daveeym
05-18-2005, 09:36 AM
Lip and the article are right. This fanbase has been extremely loyal, despite
everything thrown in the way, Build-us-Stadium-or-we-leave foolishness, The Strike, WhiteFlag, Carlton Fisk saga, Come-out-first-then-we'll-get-players fiasco, We-compete-against-ourselves nonsense, Its-always-been-cubtown ridiculousness. For the fans to stick behind is phenomenal. If Mariotti had half a brain, he'd have written this article years ago.
The WHITE SOX FANS, like the team this year, are the real story in baseball.
We best represent the passion of chicagoans No one's disagreeing with the article's facts or representations. They're rightfully distrustful due to the source and the timing of the article and the fact that 75% of Sox articles are negative in some fashion. Lip and Hangar's hatred of Jerry seems to trump media bias and every thing else they may hate.

SoxFan48
05-18-2005, 09:58 AM
Everytime I think of the Arthur and John Allyn years--late 60's and early 70's--I go into a fetal position and start sucking my thumb. What year did we lose those 103 games? What an awful period.

tebman
05-18-2005, 10:05 AM
No one's disagreeing with the article's facts or representations. They're rightfully distrustful due to the source and the timing of the article and the fact that 75% of Sox articles are negative in some fashion. Lip and Hangar's hatred of Jerry seems to trump media bias and every thing else they may hate.
The timing is curious, both of that article and the sudden gushing over the Sox in last Sunday's Tribune. The Trib is first and foremost a corporation, dedicated only to improving its cash flow and its net return to it's corporate shareholders. All the posing it does about journalistic integrity is really performance art.

What's probably going on over there is that marketing surveys showed that the happy-face trends are slipping from the Cubs and improving for the Sox. The Trib needs to sell more papers because its circulation has been steadily declining, so the bosses called down to the Trib's engine room and ordered a change in course -- "We love the Sox, too!"

The company will still make plenty of money scalping tickets and selling beer to the frat-boy and soccer-mom crowd that they've already hypnotized. But the newspaper is in trouble and the bosses don't want to miss a trend.

bluestar
05-18-2005, 10:10 AM
I think the article is relevant. I can see that those of us who live and die with everything the Sox do would see this as another attempt to print something negative about the organization, but to the casual baseball fan that is suddenly wondering things like, "Why haven't the White Sox been more successful over the years?" articles like this help explain things.

My friends that know I am a Sox fan have been asking all sorts of questions recently along this line. Now the the Sox are garnering the attention from the media, people who are not such ardent baseball fans, or perhaps are more focused on other teams and divisions (in my area, it's all about the Braves) don't know anything about the Sox or their history. Now people are beginning to wonder about the history of the franchise, relevancy of the 1919 scandal, contrast to the Cubs, etc.

I think the article gives the credit where it is due, namely to the fans of the Sox. We are the people that have stood by this team through thick and thin, ownership changes, personnel changes, etc.

NorthlakeTom
05-18-2005, 10:25 AM
During the past few weeks, the Tribune has come up with some ridiculous articles. There was a story about camera angles during Sox telecasts. There have been numerous stories about attendance, claiming that the Cubs still are the more popular team, as if the attendance disparity is news. And now this latest story, where Sox ownership is bashed, even though the team has the best record in baseball. One question for the Tribune: Have the Sox owners ever created a subsidiary to "legally" scalp their own tickets?
Exactly.

I consider the source when reading anything from the Tribune.

I had to laugh my ass off reading this lead-in from today's on-line edition:
Frank Thomas made his first appearance in a competitive game Tuesday since July 6 and was predictably rusty. For example, a hitter usually takes his base after four balls.

Sure, Big Frank is rusty. He only went 2 for 3 with a double, but of course, the Tribune focuses on any obscure point to put a negative spin on the story.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/

TDog
05-18-2005, 10:47 AM
... What year did we lose those 103 games? What an awful period.

That was 1970. But they weren't through. They went to California to close out the season with three more losses, bringing the season total to 106.

AZChiSoxFan
05-18-2005, 11:15 AM
Tonight on the Tribune web site:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050517soxrowcorner,1,6179205.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

I happen to agree with it.

Lip

Yeah, and by contrast, the Scrubs have had a great century!!

AZChiSoxFan
05-18-2005, 11:19 AM
He who doesn't learn from history is bound to repeat it.

That's what it f@#$%^& means. :smile:

By the way Kilroy, it didn't end in 94. Remember that little something called the White Flag Trade?

It 'ends' when the Sox finally win a title....that's when the slate is wiped clean.

Lip

So the current ownership gets zero credit for anything they have done recently, because they haven't won a title? Nice.

Lip Man 1
05-18-2005, 11:24 AM
Az:

Current ownership gets much credit for raising the payroll to a compeditive level. It's a lot higher then it was say four years ago.

However that doesn't change the fact that the numerous PR disasters and bad hirings (Rob Gallas anyone?) have diminished the Sox market share and fan base in their own city. Taking emotion out of the situation that's simply bad business isn't it?

Lip

AZChiSoxFan
05-18-2005, 11:25 AM
Maybe some of the elders can take this one ..........
Basically though, cut off his nose to spite his face

I guess I never realized that the other 27 owners had no say whatsoever.

AZChiSoxFan
05-18-2005, 11:29 AM
Az:

Current ownership gets much credit for raising the payroll to a compeditive level. It's a lot higher then it was say four years ago.

However that doesn't change the fact that the numerous PR disasters and bad hirings (Rob Gallas anyone?) have diminished the Sox market share and fan base in their own city. Taking emotion out of the situation that's simply bad business isn't it?

Lip

Well said, on both points.

ode to veeck
05-18-2005, 11:32 AM
I'm more of a glass half full guy myself, but the Trib editorial is actually accurate, the current ownership is responsible for the demise of the Sox fan base. C'mon, the guy abdicated the city to the Flubs for crying out loud, and has consistently insulted his own fan base.

Of course it is yellow journalism to throw rocks when you live in a glass house, as the Trib does, but the article is accurate. Too bad they don't paint an accurate picture of their own hubris in baseball ownership.

Lip Man 1
05-18-2005, 12:02 PM
Ode:

Just remember...'Chicago has always been a Cubs town.' Jerry Reinsdorf on ESPN Radio 1000 June 2002.

LOL

I guess Jerry doesn't remember living in Chicago in the late 50's through the mid 60's!
Lip

Flight #24
05-18-2005, 12:10 PM
Ode:

Just remember...'Chicago has always been a Cubs town.' Jerry Reinsdorf on ESPN Radio 1000 June 2002.

LOL

I guess Jerry doesn't remember living in Chicago in the late 50's through the mid 60's!
Lip

No, I'm sure he was referring to the fact that back when Marquette & Joliet first came across the land known as Chicago, the native inhabitants worshipped a group of young bears who lived in a urine-stained area near the lake.

Seriously - this has been covered and re-covered. The Cubs have been outdrawing the Sox for most of the time since 5-10 years before JR took over. So while the term "always" may not be technically correct, its common usage, i.e. "for a long time" is 100% accurate.

Much like if I were to say "I've always been a Sox fan", it would be accurate in common usage, but not technically since I could not have been a Sox fan before I was born.

tebman
05-18-2005, 12:35 PM
Seriously - this has been covered and re-covered. The Cubs have been outdrawing the Sox for most of the time since 5-10 years before JR took over. So while the term "always" may not be technically correct, its common usage, i.e. "for a long time" is 100% accurate.

Much like if I were to say "I've always been a Sox fan", it would be accurate in common usage, but not technically since I could not have been a Sox fan before I was born.

That's why I think it's important to take the long view. Hell, this is baseball, so everything has to be taken in the long view. :wink:

Everything goes in cycles and for all the reasons that have been discussed to death (Harry, Channel 9, Comiskey/Allyn/Reinsdorf, etc.), the Chicago Nationals have enjoyed living on Sugar Mountain for the last 15 years or so. We can see signs of that changing just like geologists see signs of continental plates shifting. We just hope it doesn't take that long. :tongue:

Brian26
05-18-2005, 12:36 PM
He who doesn't learn from history is bound to repeat it.

That's what it f@#$%^& means. :smile:

By the way Kilroy, it didn't end in 94. Remember that little something called the White Flag Trade?

It 'ends' when the Sox finally win a title....that's when the slate is wiped clean.

Lip

Lip, it's old news. JR & the ownership, in my opinion, has been busting their asses this decade to put a winning product on the field and make the fans happy.

Brian26
05-18-2005, 12:40 PM
However that doesn't change the fact that the numerous PR disasters and bad hirings (Rob Gallas anyone?)

Gallas was a bad hire? I disagree. I always felt like Gallas was a tremendous hire back in the late 80's and early 90's and did a phenomenal job with the franchise. He handled the new uniforms, closing of the old Stadium, and marketing of the new stadium tremendously. Didn't he just seem to get a little worn out towards the end and we needed some fresh blood to liven things up for a new generation? That's how I view the Gallas era. He did a great job in the early 90's, but it was time for some new ideas. I'm not going to piss all over Gallas like that. The one thing he ultimately deserves credit for is FINALLY getting the uniforms right....and they should last us a long time to come. If anything, he deserves major props for that.

TDog
05-18-2005, 12:43 PM
Lip, it's old news. JR & the ownership, in my opinion, has been busting their asses this decade to put a winning product on the field and make the fans happy.

You're right. And not giving current ownership a chance to make up for past mistakes is ensuring that Chicago will always be a Cubs town.

Dan H
05-18-2005, 03:11 PM
Lip, it's old news. JR & the ownership, in my opinion, has been busting their asses this decade to put a winning product on the field and make the fans happy.

It will be old news once the White Sox go to the World Series. Win totals in the low to mid 80's don't impress me.

chisox
05-18-2005, 03:22 PM
the article had a very condescending tone, like, "look how the cubs have done everything right, and the sox have done everything wrong."

i agree that the article was thinly veiled sox bashing.

Brian26
05-18-2005, 03:27 PM
It will be old news once the White Sox go to the World Series. Win totals in the low to mid 80's don't impress me.

The teams have been assembled to be 90+ win, competitive teams. The teams haven't been going out there with Dave LaPoint and Jerry Reuss as the #1 and #2 starters. These teams have been loaded on paper, and ownership deserves credit. Moves have been made at the break to bring guys in. Moves have been made to bring in big-game pitchers (David Wells, Bartolo Colon, Freddy Garcia).

The park has been improved tremendously.

I just can't see why people won't give the ownership some credit.

Fenway
05-18-2005, 04:46 PM
I wouldn't be shocked if Kass wrote that editorial


One thing I will take issue with is the move to UHF in 1968 ( and here the Tribune is crying sour grapes because at the time they owned WGN but not the Cubs )

By 1968 most TV sets were able to receive UHF as the FCC had made it a rule a couple of years earlier that all sets in the US had to receive UHF.

Now granted UHF was a little tricky to pull in with the stupid hulu hoop antennas BUT WSBK-TV in Boston in 1968-69 was pulling down 20.0 ratings for Boston Bruins hockey.

What the Tribune also fails to mention in that editorial and is forgotten by Sox historians is the White Sox HAD NO CHOICE but to move to 32, as their schedule on WGN was to be cut by a huge amount as WGN decided to televise most Cubs road games as well as home. The White Sox had no other option other than see their TV games on 9 reduced to days the Cubs were not playing or road games when the Flubs were at home.

The SportsVision debacle was another story and that and letting Harry go north hurt the fanbase to this day.

miker
05-18-2005, 04:59 PM
Tonight on the Tribune web site:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050517soxrowcorner,1,6179205.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

I happen to agree with it.

Lip

Is this news or did some Cub-une staffer just cut and paste from the articles posted on WSI?

I wish I had a job in the media, then I wouldn't have to work.:smile:

Dan H
05-18-2005, 05:19 PM
The teams have been assembled to be 90+ win, competitive teams. The teams haven't been going out there with Dave LaPoint and Jerry Reuss as the #1 and #2 starters. These teams have been loaded on paper, and ownership deserves credit. Moves have been made at the break to bring guys in. Moves have been made to bring in big-game pitchers (David Wells, Bartolo Colon, Freddy Garcia).

The park has been improved tremendously.

I just can't see why people won't give the ownership some credit.

I do give the ownership credit for improving the ballpark though it was in denial for some time. I also give the ownership credit for re-assembling this team and getting away from the homer happy clubs that under-achieved. What Lip and I maintain is that the fan base has eroded because of past acts, and it is taking a long time to re-build that base. That is all I am saying.

Dick Allen
05-18-2005, 05:30 PM
I do give the ownership credit for improving the ballpark though it was in denial for some time. I also give the ownership credit for re-assembling this team and getting away from the homer happy clubs that under-achieved. What Lip and I maintain is that the fan base has eroded because of past acts, and it is taking a long time to re-build that base. That is all I am saying.Dan, I don't think any of us can really argue with those points. It is just very curious as to the timing and the motives of the article, considering where it is originating from.

SOXSINCE'70
05-18-2005, 05:33 PM
I do give the ownership credit for improving the ballpark though it was in denial for some time. I also give the ownership credit for re-assembling this team and getting away from the homer happy clubs that under-achieved. What Lip and I maintain is that the fan base has eroded because of past acts, and it is taking a long time to re-build that base. That is all I am saying.

It's the same theme that runs throughout the franchise's history.
They won't commit to quality. A 72 mil payroll in the third largest city in America?? *****!!!The hiring of Brooks Boyer will help begin (note the word begin) to repair the 10 year old rift between Sox fans and Sox management.You can thank former PR guru Rob Dumbass (Galas) for some of the hatred that exists between the Sox fans and management. I remain a Sox fan,but don't get me started on Reinsdorf and Einhorn's business practices.Hey,listen, 35 years of crap (some posters on this board have decades of suffering on me) is enough to piss anyone off!!:angry: :angry:

Jurr
05-18-2005, 05:38 PM
Sorry, but I get a little sick to my stomach seeing an editorial in which, essentially, the owners of the Cubs, a club that has been 10X more hapless than we've been over the plast 90 years, criticizing the owners of the Sox.
This is quite a statement. Kudos to you for making that point.

gosox41
05-18-2005, 08:28 PM
Tonight on the Tribune web site:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050517soxrowcorner,1,6179205.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

I happen to agree with it.

Lip

I'm not surprised.


Bob

jehosaphat
05-18-2005, 11:11 PM
Now, if we want to really get our heads out of the past and look toward the future, we (i.e., Sox fans) will stop worrying so much about the Cubs. It doesn't really matter if the Cubs outdraw the Sox or if the Cubs' TV games get more viewers, anymore than it matters if the Cincinnati Reds, Texas Rangers, or San Diego Padres outdraw the Sox or get more viewers. What matters is that the Sox fan base grows and the ownership has some reason other than guilt (which Reinsdorf has never experienced in his entire life) to pump reasonable amounts of money into the team.



This constant obsession of many Sox fans with the Cubs is nuts. Who cares what they do? I would rather the Cubs rank first in attendance and revenue and the Sox rank second, than if the Sox ranked 29th and Cubs ranked 30th. If the Sox have a competitive team that plays the game hard, and is not full of a bunch of jerks, fans will be drawn to the club over time. Chicago is plenty big enough to fully support two teams.



Brothers and sisters in the Sox nation, I plead with you, stop worrying about the Cubs. It's embarrassing and it doesn't do any good. We have a great team this year, and let's just enjoy it.



Since I'm preaching, I will end with a parable. Boris and Bruno were two Russian farmers, both poor as poor could be. But, Boris had a pig and Bruno did not. One day the good fairy came to Bruno and granted him one wish. Bruno wished that Boris’ pig would die.

Get the point? Don't be a Bruno.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-18-2005, 11:16 PM
Since I'm preaching, I will end with a parable. Boris and Bruno were two Russian farmers, both poor as poor could be. But, Boris had a pig and Bruno did not. One day the good fairy came to Bruno and granted him one wish. Bruno wished that Boris’ pig would die.

Get the point? Don't be a Bruno.

Bruno sounds like a pretty smart Sox Fan. He knows if Boris's pig dies, they'll all have bacon for breakfast. And bacon tastes gooood... pork chops taste gooood...
:wink:

Welcome to WSI.
:redneck

Dan H
05-19-2005, 08:33 AM
Dan, I don't think any of us can really argue with those points. It is just very curious as to the timing and the motives of the article, considering where it is originating from.

I don't know about the timing, but obviously anything written in the Tribune has to be viewed with suspicion. However, what I liked about the article is that it stuck up for the fans for a change. So many articles have been written blaming the fans for the problems facing the Sox. That is like killing the messenger. The media has been clueless regarding the Sox. With few exceptions, it still is.

Hangar18
05-19-2005, 09:45 AM
The timing is curious, both of that article and the sudden gushing over the Sox in last Sunday's Tribune. The Trib is first and foremost a corporation, dedicated only to improving its cash flow and its net return to it's corporate shareholders. All the posing it does about journalistic integrity is really performance art.

What's probably going on over there is that marketing surveys showed that the happy-face trends are slipping from the Cubs and improving for the Sox. The Trib needs to sell more papers because its circulation has been steadily declining, so the bosses called down to the Trib's engine room and ordered a change in course -- "We love the Sox, too!"

The company will still make plenty of money scalping tickets and selling beer to the frat-boy and soccer-mom crowd that they've already hypnotized. But the newspaper is in trouble and the bosses don't want to miss a trend.

Good Post ..............the Cubune is indeed worried ....... market share might slip ....... cubs getting booed .........sox in 1st place .......

slavko
05-19-2005, 11:29 AM
I wouldn't be shocked if Kass wrote that editorial


One thing I will take issue with is the move to UHF in 1968 ( and here the Tribune is crying sour grapes because at the time they owned WGN but not the Cubs )

By 1968 most TV sets were able to receive UHF as the FCC had made it a rule a couple of years earlier that all sets in the US had to receive UHF.

Now granted UHF was a little tricky to pull in with the stupid hulu hoop antennas BUT WSBK-TV in Boston in 1968-69 was pulling down 20.0 ratings for Boston Bruins hockey.

What the Tribune also fails to mention in that editorial and is forgotten by Sox historians is the White Sox HAD NO CHOICE but to move to 32, as their schedule on WGN was to be cut by a huge amount as WGN decided to televise most Cubs road games as well as home. The White Sox had no other option other than see their TV games on 9 reduced to days the Cubs were not playing or road games when the Flubs were at home.

The SportsVision debacle was another story and that and letting Harry go north hurt the fanbase to this day.

I like facts, but don't let them spoil a good argument. I had a little $20 converter sitting on top of the TV that did the job just fine. And don't give the fans too much credit. Half of them jumped ship for whatever reason between then and now.

TDog
05-19-2005, 12:02 PM
I...

What the Tribune also fails to mention in that editorial and is forgotten by Sox historians is the White Sox HAD NO CHOICE but to move to 32, as their schedule on WGN was to be cut by a huge amount as WGN decided to televise most Cubs road games as well as home. The White Sox had no other option other than see their TV games on 9 reduced to days the Cubs were not playing or road games when the Flubs were at home....

This doesn't fit the history a lot of people around here prefer to believe. No matter how surprised Jack Brickhouse was that the Sox were moving to 32, you have to see that Tribune-owned WGN was pushing the Sox out. Near the end, WGN was mostly doing weekend home games for the Sox, not messing with their weeknight television schedule. Within two years, WGN was televising all of the Cubs home and road games.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-19-2005, 12:12 PM
This doesn't fit the history a lot of people around here prefer to believe. No matter how surprised Jack Brickhouse was that the Sox were moving to 32, you have to see that Tribune-owned WGN was pushing the Sox out. Near the end, WGN was mostly doing weekend home games for the Sox, not messing with their weeknight television schedule. Within two years, WGN was televising all of the Cubs home and road games.

Thanks to Rich Lindberg and others, it has become part of the Sox Fans' Holy Gospel that moving off WGN and to WFLD was the kiss of death for the team's popularity. Personally I think it's b.s.... the Cubs' superstation affiliation in the 80's and especially the advent of night games at the Urinal had a far more debilitating effect on Sox popularity than UHF broadcasts back in the late-60's.

I've never heard this angle about WGN "pushing out" the Sox in favor of the Cubs in the late 60's. If that's true it is probably more due to the Cubs' improved W-L fortunes matched with the Sox' declining ones. The Tribune didn't own the Cubs for another 14 years. What do they care which team to telecast besides the one that brings them the biggest ratings?
:?:

tebman
05-19-2005, 12:22 PM
Thanks to Rich Lindberg and others, it has become part of the Sox Fans' Holy Gospel that moving off WGN and to WFLD was the kiss of death for the team's popularity. Personally I think it's b.s.... the Cubs' superstation affiliation in the 80's and especially the advent of night games at the Urinal had a far more debilitating effect on Sox popularity than UHF broadcasts back in the late-60's.

I've never heard this angle about WGN "pushing out" the Sox in favor of the Cubs in the late 60's. If that's true it is probably more due to the Cubs' improved W-L fortunes matched with the Sox' declining ones. The Tribune didn't own the Cubs for another 14 years. What do they care which team to telecast besides the one that brings them the biggest ratings?
:?:
I never heard that angle either. My understanding is that WFLD simply offered the Allyn brothers a better deal than WGN-TV did. In retrospect maybe it was a mistake because of the limited number of UHF-savvy viewers at the time, but the Sox brass in '67 thought they could make a big splash so they gave it a shot.

Hindsight is always very clear, and we've got plenty to look at. :tongue:

MisterB
05-19-2005, 01:42 PM
I won't argue much with the meat of the piece, it's the stale slices of bread it sits between that leave my stomach upset:

Before giving some love to the White Sox, as we have been urged to do lately, here's a word of warning:

Never in the history of baseball has one team's ownership done so much to alienate its fans.

...

So it isn't the Sox who need some love, it's their fans. Their loyalty knows no bounds, although it has left many of them bitter, rooting for their team but not trusting the team's owners. It has been a tough century for them.


In essence: Sox fans are to be pitied, but don't bother supporting the team, and certainly don't bother going to the games, despite the Sox winning ways.

This piece is 100% Tribune anti-Sox spin.

Fenway
05-19-2005, 02:57 PM
This doesn't fit the history a lot of people around here prefer to believe. No matter how surprised Jack Brickhouse was that the Sox were moving to 32, you have to see that Tribune-owned WGN was pushing the Sox out. Near the end, WGN was mostly doing weekend home games for the Sox, not messing with their weeknight television schedule. Within two years, WGN was televising all of the Cubs home and road games.

Problem in Chicago was unlike New York or LA their was only one indy VHF station ( Channel 9 ) so it had to be a UHF

What is interesting the Tribune did not even bother to mention that the White Sox were moving to Channel 32 until this letter to the editor appeared in February of 1968

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?vinst=PROD&fmt=10&startpage=-1&clientid=11417&vname=HNP&did=580302342&scaling=FULL&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1116532511&clientId=11417

Channel 9 to Carry 160 Cub and Sox Games
Chicago Tribune (1963-Current file) Chicago, Ill.:Apr 1, 1967. p. b2 (1 pp.)
Document URL:http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=594961722&Fmt=1&clientId=11417&RQT=309&VName=HNP (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=594961722&Fmt=1&clientId=11417&RQT=309&VName=HNP)

Ol' No. 2
05-19-2005, 03:56 PM
Lip, have you been writing articles under an assumed name?

TDog
05-19-2005, 10:22 PM
...

I've never heard this angle about WGN "pushing out" the Sox in favor of the Cubs in the late 60's. If that's true it is probably more due to the Cubs' improved W-L fortunes matched with the Sox' declining ones. The Tribune didn't own the Cubs for another 14 years. What do they care which team to telecast besides the one that brings them the biggest ratings?
:?:

WGN did Cubs radio, and I've always believed that relationship had something to do with WGN becoming the Cubs television station. I don't know if the broadcast rights were packaged together, though. What I do know is the station that didn't show Sox road games when they were contending for the World Series suddenly decided people wanted to see most Cubs road games. I got the feeling that WGN considered Chicago a Cubs town that would be more enthused about watching televised baseball with the Cubs beginning their brief resurgence in 1967.

WFLD apparently offered more money than WGN, but it also wanted to show White Sox baseball, home and away. Scheduling conflicts? No problem. WFLD will build its schedule around your games.

I agree with you that the WFLD situation is exaggerated. What really hurt the Sox and WFLD was the 10-game losing streak at the beginning of the 1968 season. No buzz about where you could watch Sox games to give the new station the boost it expected. No one cared about the Sox because the Sox had become big losers overnight.

WFLD thought they were getting something. They thought they were getting contenders instead of the bums they were.

fox2
05-19-2005, 10:32 PM
The timing is curious, both of that article and the sudden gushing over the Sox in last Sunday's Tribune. The Trib is first and foremost a corporation, dedicated only to improving its cash flow and its net return to it's corporate shareholders. All the posing it does about journalistic integrity is really performance art.

What's probably going on over there is that marketing surveys showed that the happy-face trends are slipping from the Cubs and improving for the Sox. The Trib needs to sell more papers because its circulation has been steadily declining, so the bosses called down to the Trib's engine room and ordered a change in course -- "We love the Sox, too!"

The company will still make plenty of money scalping tickets and selling beer to the frat-boy and soccer-mom crowd that they've already hypnotized. But the newspaper is in trouble and the bosses don't want to miss a trend.

This is what it's all about. I don't think the Tribune wants the Cubs to succeed, because then they wouldn't have that "lovable loser" shtick that they've been selling (very successfully I might add). Of course, they're also scared to death that the Sox might actually win, because losers aren't so lovable when there's a champion across town. The bottom line is profit, pure and simple.

ode to veeck
05-20-2005, 09:03 AM
Seriously - this has been covered and re-covered. The Cubs have been outdrawing the Sox for most of the time since 5-10 years before JR took over. So while the term "always" may not be technically correct, its common usage, i.e. "for a long time" is 100% accurate.


When JR took over, Chicago was not by any means, "a Cubs town", as JR stated in his 2002 interview ("Chicago's always been a Cubs town"). Fan market share was pretty evenly split at the time. Veeck had re-invigorated Sox fans base with his endless promotions, Harry & Jimmy, good stable of young pitchers (which carried the Sox to their division title under JR by the way).

It is really only in the last 10 years or so where Chicago has become predominantly a Scrubs fan base. I still find it mystifying when I am in Chicago these days, because it's much different than the first few decades of my life.

Tribune didn't buy the Scrubs from the Wrigleys until many years after the move to WFLD in '68, so their interests and ownership really weren't a factor. In fact they covered the Sox pretty well in the newsprint throughout the 60s, 70s, early 80s. However, since then their stable of writers and equitable coverage went by the wayside along with increasing influence of their self- interests in the Scrubs.

MisterB
05-20-2005, 09:28 AM
When JR took over, Chicago was not by any means, "a Cubs town", as JR stated in his 2002 interview ("Chicago's always been a Cubs town"). Fan market share was pretty evenly split at the time. Veeck had re-invigorated Sox fans base with his endless promotions, Harry & Jimmy, good stable of young pitchers (which carried the Sox to their division title under JR by the way).

It is really only in the last 10 years or so where Chicago has become predominantly a Scrubs fan base. I still find it mystifying when I am in Chicago these days, because it's much different than the first few decades of my life.

Tribune didn't buy the Scrubs from the Wrigleys until many years after the move to WFLD in '68, so their interests and ownership really weren't a factor. In fact they covered the Sox pretty well in the newsprint throughout the 60s, 70s, early 80s. However, since then their stable of writers and equitable coverage went by the wayside along with increasing influence of their self- interests in the Scrubs.

Interesting to compare JR's oft-quoted 'Cubs Town' line with this quote that was posted in another thread (this one (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=50488)):


Complicating matters was the second-class status of the White Sox. At the time Reinsdorf and Einhorn bought the team, it was clearly number two in the hearts and minds of Chicagoans. Most were Cub fans. "This wasn't always the case," Reinsdorf says in their defense. "The White Sox were able to hold their own with the Cubs through the late 1960s. But something happened in the late '60s, it was probably 1969, that in retrospect was probably the dumbest thing that was done on behalf of this ball club." Lousy TV deals ruined the White Sox for more than a decade, Reinsdorf says. Until the late '60s, the Sox and Cubs both broadcast their games on Chicago's WGN-Channel 9, a VHF station accessible to everyone in the Chicago area. But the then-Sox ownership moved to Channel 32 (now WFLD), a UHF station that few people knew how to tune to, let alone wanted to. In those days -- and even today -- UHF signals are not well-received in Chicago. Putting the games on Channel 32 was like taking them off TV.


Pretty contradictory, no? Also interesting that JR points out how dumb it was taking the Sox to UHF TV in the late 60's, yet he did the same thing taking them off free TV to SportsVision in '83. :?:

Flight #24
05-20-2005, 09:30 AM
Interesting to compare JR's oft-quoted 'Cubs Town' line with this quote that was posted in another thread (this one (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=50488)):



You mean JR might have used the term "always" without meaning "since the beginning of time"? He might just have meant "for a long time"?

Shocking.

PaulDrake
05-20-2005, 05:00 PM
I didn't read this entire thread so if I'm repeating someone else, my apologies. The White Sox laid an egg in the 59 WS, but at the time they were well stocked with young talent and poised to contend for the forseeable future. The "fan friendly" Bill Veeck and his management team put the kibosh on that, with a series of ill advised trades. Veeck Act 2 was not a bravura performance either. After teasing the fans to whom he was friendly with the 77 hitmen, he either couldn't or wouldn't (probably the former) follow through to keep the team competitive. He supposedly was ready to sell the team to Denver interests in 1980. Veeck was an intelligent, interesting character of the world of sports. His legacy as a two time owner of the White Sox is mixed to say the least.

ode to veeck
05-20-2005, 06:32 PM
At the time Reinsdorf and Einhorn bought the team, it was clearly number two in the hearts and minds of Chicagoans. Most were Cub fans

This is not true, plan and simple, Chicago was pretty split on baseball (Sox and Cubs) at the time EE and JR purchased the Sox.

Actually, it was the Scrubs who were second class citizens throughout the 50s and 60s, the doormat of the NL (well, joined by the Mets in the 60s, but still terrible until '68).

viagracat
05-20-2005, 09:04 PM
I'm not necessarily a fan of Reinsdorf, but I'm tired of him getting all the blame for the Sox' second-class status in Chicago. He owned the Bulls when they won all those championships, and no one complained about him then, did they? Just more propaganda from the Cubune, but actually, I think the Scum-Times is even worse in their anti-Sox bias.

ode to veeck
05-21-2005, 09:56 AM
but I'm tired of him getting all the blame for the Sox' second-class status in Chicago.


uh, then whose fault is it? certainly not the competition's fault for being a biased media giant/museum/drunk tank. The Sox weren't such a 2nd class citizen as they've become before the JR era.

RKMeibalane
05-21-2005, 10:13 AM
A few things:

1. Jerry Reinsdorf isn't exactly the greatest owner in professional sports, but it's unfair to blame the Sox problems entirely on him. Reinsdorf has owned the team since the early 1980's. The Sox weren't exactly setting the world on fire before he bought the team. What makes people think that they would have been any better had someone else purchased the franchise.

2. Reinsdorf has, at times, tried to accomodate the fans. Let's remember that it was Reinsdorf who allowed the Sox greatest player to remain in Chicago after the 2002 season. There were several people within the Sox front office who wanted Frank Thomas gone. JR was able to keep him around. I think everyone here is glad that happened.

3. Finally, why are people putting any stock in the bull**** that the Cubune and other papers are putting out? It should be obvious by now that the Sox are something of a joke to the local and notional media. Why are poeple so concerned about what some idiot with a word-processing program thinks?

4. The Sox have the best record in baseball. Let's enjoy that and not waste time whining about the mediots who are jealous of the Pale Hose's success thus far in 2005.