PDA

View Full Version : <teal>Is Sean Salisbury Hangar?</teal>


Jaffar
05-10-2006, 12:24 PM
Sean Salisbury has been trying to figure out why the lowly Cub franchise is the talk of the town when the best team in baseball is across town. He has asked every guest and nobody has an answer so he is blaming it on the media. I just figured Hangar (Henry) would want to tune in and try calling in to fuel the fire. This is what you always needed, a voice in the chicago media!

Irishsox1
05-10-2006, 01:52 PM
I'm not surprised that it takes an "outsider" like Salisbury to point out how ridiculous the media coverage of the cubs has been in Chicago.

But, I think Hawk said it best when he said that the coverage and fans will turn around and Chicago will be more of a Sox town, but that it will take time. And if you think about it, things are better for future Sox fans, (young kids age 8 to 12). More coverage on television, a world championship and a great stadium. When I was a kid, the Sox were not on television, unless you had onTV, they were good in '83, but sucked by '85, didn't have any championship to speak of but played in a cool old stadium that had fireworks. In fact, if it wasn't for my brothers being Sox fans, and that the Sox blew off fireworks, I most likely would have ended up a Cubs fan...by default.

Hangar18
05-10-2006, 02:41 PM
Sean Salisbury has been trying to figure out why the lowly Cub franchise is the talk of the town when the best team in baseball is across town. He has asked every guest and nobody has an answer so he is blaming it on the media. I just figured Hangar (Henry) would want to tune in and try calling in to fuel the fire. This is what you always needed, a voice in the chicago media!

Hes not me, but we both think alike apparently. Ive been asking this question for well over a decade. He definitely deserves credit and is taking on an excellent subject. Think about this for a moment. When he woke up and decided what his topics would be, he couldve:
* Couldve talked about Derrek Lee and how Amazing a hitter he is
* Couldve talked about Juan Pierres Amazing HR/History Changing Catch
* Whats wrong with the Cubs
* What Players are available from the Pirates & Marlins to help the Cubs

Those 4 topics are the ONLY topics that have been visited in the Chicago Media the last month or so. Salisbury, decided to be a real JOURNALIST and cover a real topic. Good for Him. Just tells you how LAZY the Chicago Media really is

Jaffar
05-10-2006, 03:09 PM
Hes not me, but we both think alike apparently.

I know he's not you. I've got your back on this topic but in case you hadn't tuned in I figured I'd let you know the new guy in town is looking for the same answer that you have been. You should email him what you have documented it'll be interesting to see if he would run with that info you have compiled.

SOecks
05-10-2006, 03:58 PM
I called into the show today when they had Joe Buck on and said the same thing. I said how it was pathetic that Levineline was saying that the "cubs are the story right now" and that they were all just lazy. They cut me off before I could finish my point and rip into Salisbury for not knowing the Sox play at US Cellular Field but that's okay. He had been calling the stadium "Chisox" all day before that. "I'm going out to see the game AT CHISOX tonight". Way to do your homework...:rolleyes: He did agree with the points I made so there is some hope for him.

miker
05-10-2006, 04:08 PM
I'm not so sure Salisbury is up on it other than asking someone in Chicago to feed him a "lightning rod" type issue to hook listeners to his new show. I also was accidentally listening to Mike and Mike and and Greenberg goes into histrionics of how the Cubs are the Mets to the White Sox as Yankees, which is a complete misrepresentation IMHO.

I'll believe the anti-Cub backlash when it actually happens...meanwhile I'm going to sit back and enjoy the developing White Sox dynasty.

jdm2662
05-10-2006, 04:22 PM
I'm not so sure Salisbury is up on it other than asking someone in Chicago to feed him a "lightning rod" type issue to hook listeners to his new show. I also was accidentally listening to Mike and Mike and and Greenberg goes into histrionics of how the Cubs are the Mets to the White Sox as Yankees, which is a complete misrepresentation IMHO.

I'll believe the anti-Cub backlash when it actually happens...meanwhile I'm going to sit back and enjoy the developing White Sox dynasty.

I heard that yesterday. Greenberg worked in Chicago in the early 90s, and is very fair to the White Sox when they warrant it. He grew up in New York (I think he's a Mets fan), and mentioned when the Mets were good in the 80s and the Yankees weren't, the Mets ruled the city. He mentioned if the Sox keeps it up and the Cubs keep crapping out, the casual fan will start turning their attention the Sox. He mentioned the hard core fan won't switch sides, but the causal fan will go where it's "cool". It's nothing anyone has said before, but he's not into the Cubbie hype on how cool it is, unlike some other mediots.

Lip Man 1
05-11-2006, 01:45 AM
A future interview that you'll read at WSI with a member of the 'mainstream' media said the same thing. That if the Sox can get to the postseason like 5 of 7 or 6 of 9 years, they'll take over the town like they did from 1951 through 1965 or so.

Unfortunately some folks can't see this and expect twenty years of stupidity by the Sox themselves to be ignored while the attitudes of the city change literally overnight.

:rolleyes:

Lip

Hangar18
05-11-2006, 10:56 AM
A future interview that you'll read at WSI with a member of the 'mainstream' media said the same thing. That if the Sox can get to the postseason like 5 of 7 or 6 of 9 years, they'll take over the town like they did from 1951 through 1965 or so.

Unfortunately some folks can't see this and expect twenty years of stupidity by the Sox themselves to be ignored while the attitudes of the city change literally overnight.

:rolleyes:

Lip


Thats what I dont get about this town/the media here. Why is the Burden Of Proof on the White Sox .............. when the freaking Cubs didnt have to win ANYTHING?

SOecks
05-11-2006, 12:04 PM
Unfortunately some folks can't see this and expect twenty years of stupidity by the Sox themselves to be ignored while the attitudes of the city change literally overnight.

:rolleyes:

Lip

Lip, if we were to agree that the Sox just came out of their "twenty years of stupidity", what would you call the last 20 years for the Cubs? I'd say it's pretty easy to also deem it 20 years of stupidity for them as well. Why do they get a pass considering the numerous debacles that have happened on the north side during the same period? If they were both stupid, why the double standard? Why should the Sox be the ones to have to scratch and claw for 5-7 years, or even 2-3 years to get things even and equitable? It would be different if during the last 20 years, the Cubs were a finely tuned, great team and the tide just turned last year. That's not the case though.

Lip Man 1
05-11-2006, 01:21 PM
Socks:

Because when you have two teams in a market the more popular team CHANGES over the years. It swings back and forth. Both the Sox and Cubs have been more popular at various times. Same in New York, same in the Bay Area.

While the Sox were doing stupid things like SportsVision, the 94 labor imapasse, the White Flag Trade and threatening to move, the Cubs took advantage of it.

When the Cubs were doing stupid things like the College of Coaches, losing 95 games a year, trading Lou Brock for sore armed Ernie Broglio and having a rookie of the year die in a plane accident (that was fate's hand) the Sox took advantage of it.

There's no 'conspiracy'..... it's a natural cycle.

The Sox making the post season a few more times puts the city squarely back in their pocket.

History has shown this.

Lip

ode to veeck
05-11-2006, 04:26 PM
Except Lip, for the previous 80 years it had more to do with what happened on the field, for the last 20 years or so it's been more about who owned the Flubs

Lip Man 1
05-11-2006, 08:35 PM
Ode:

It's called MARKETING something that was practically ignored by the esteemed Rob Gallas. Chalk up another Sox blunder.

In the long run the smartest move Reisdorf may have ever done was dumping that moron in favor of Brooks Boyar, a guy who 'gets-it.'

Lip

Ol' No. 2
05-11-2006, 09:32 PM
Ode:

It's called MARKETING something that was practically ignored by the esteemed Rob Gallas. Chalk up another Sox blunder.

In the long run the smartest move Reisdorf may have ever done was dumping that moron in favor of Brooks Boyar, a guy who 'gets-it.'

LipNo question, Gallas was a disaster. But there's more to it than that. Up until the mid 80's, both teams' attendance went up and down with the quality of the product on the field, just like it has for decades for every other team in the league. Then a strange thing happened. From that point on, White Sox attendance continued to go up and down with their on-field performance, but Cubs' attendance did not - it stayed high no matter how good or (more often) bad the team was. That's a major departure, and it's surely no coincidence that it began shortly after the Tribune bought the Cubs and began exploiting the "synergy". (We all know what that means.)

Lip Man 1
05-11-2006, 11:28 PM
No. 2:

Exactly my point. The Cubs did a much, much better job of marketing their product. The Sox?

Well Gallas 'invented' (so he says) Turn Back The Clock Day and Elvis night...

:rolleyes:

Of course there is no way to know for sure but if the Sox had Boyar in the 80's instead of Gallas, I'm sure even with the Tribune Company the swing wouldn't have been as dramatic as history shows.

Was it a factor? Without question BUT the Cubs got a BIG helping hand from that idiot. (Plus the fact that ownership refused to even try taking on the Cubs by their own admission. Still another Sox blunder.)

Lip

elrod
05-12-2006, 02:35 AM
The Sox have already made this town 50-50, and are quickly pushing into a Sox town. I live in Evanston and I see more Sox hats than Cub hats. A year ago Cub hats outnumbered Sox hats 20-1. I'm not exaggerating on any of these figures.

34 Inch Stick
05-12-2006, 12:01 PM
No question, Gallas was a disaster. But there's more to it than that. Up until the mid 80's, both teams' attendance went up and down with the quality of the product on the field, just like it has for decades for every other team in the league. Then a strange thing happened. From that point on, White Sox attendance continued to go up and down with their on-field performance, but Cubs' attendance did not - it stayed high no matter how good or (more often) bad the team was. That's a major departure, and it's surely no coincidence that it began shortly after the Tribune bought the Cubs and began exploiting the "synergy". (We all know what that means.)

Don't forget to include the housing boom that started around 1990 and continues to this day. Gentrification to a neighborhood that was previously a borderline skid row put young people in homes and apartments. Those young people are looking for relatively inexpensive entertainment within walking distance.

Railsplitter
05-13-2006, 02:19 PM
Also, the Cubs got hot at the same time of the cable TV boom, allowing them to obtain a following beyond thier natural fan base, allowing for the Trib company to promote Wrigley field as a tourist attraction by pandering to these Cable Carpetbaggers.

Lip Man 1
05-13-2006, 11:02 PM
The White Sox could have been a part of the same Superstation boom only they decided that SportsVision and, at best, 25,000 subscriptions were a better deal.

:rolleyes:

Lip

miker
05-15-2006, 02:12 PM
The Cubs did a much, much better job of marketing their product.
Because as P.T. Barnum once said: "There's a sucker born every minute!"