PDA

View Full Version : Cubune: '06 Sox bigger chokers than '69 Flubs


Chisox353014
09-18-2006, 01:52 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/redeye/red-091806-whitesox,1,6262974.column?vote25448217=1

And some of you here claim the Trib is just a Cub propoganda outlet.

MarySwiss
09-18-2006, 01:59 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/redeye/red-091806-whitesox,1,6262974.column?vote25448217=1

And some of you here claim the Trib is just a Cub propoganda outlet.
Well, so what? I have nothing but pity for Cubs fans, and I am really curious to see just how far they'll reach to try to find something about the Cubs (something that anyone cares about, that is) that's better than the Sox. This is a pretty good example of that mindset. The "attendance" crap is another. And Wrigley Field being a great place to see a game is a third.

And as far as laughing at Sox fans, we just shoot in the silencer: "And you last won the World Series when?"

MVP
09-18-2006, 02:02 PM
The comparison to the '69 Cubs doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the fact that our Sox have choked this year.

beckett21
09-18-2006, 02:02 PM
Hey, Jimmy Greenfield, **** you.

*pops in 2005 World Series DVD box set*

Choke on that, *******. :gulp:

zmz723
09-18-2006, 02:03 PM
How are we choking? when was the last time we had the division lead? June?

maurice
09-18-2006, 02:11 PM
Talk about grasping at straws. If underperforming = choking, then the 2006 Cubs are bigger chokers that the 2006 Sox. The Cubs have a similar payroll, far more resources / revenue, and a much MUCH softer division / wildcard race than the Sox yet, for all intents and purposes, they were eliminated from contention in May.
:rolleyes:

AuroraSoxFan
09-18-2006, 02:12 PM
can't exactly say the Cubune jag guy is entirely wrong with the choke job. It is sad that he has nothing better to write about. But didn't we have an 8 game lead on the WC around ASB? Qualifies as a choke job if you ask me. Especially since we had an overall minimal amount of injuries.

DaleJRFan
09-18-2006, 02:13 PM
Hey, Jimmy Greenfield, **** you.

*pops in 2005 World Series DVD box set*

Choke on that, *******. :gulp:

EXACTLY!!

How are we choking? when was the last time we had the division lead? June?

uh huh... how not playing to potential is "choking" I'll never know. You have to have something to lose. THe Sox have been either in 2nd or 3rd place for much of the season.

Meanwhile, the ****ing Cubs are stinking up the NL central with the league's worst record. If the sox are choking, then the Cubs have already "passed on".

maurice
09-18-2006, 02:19 PM
Note that they're running a poll and that at least 2/3 think the article is BS.

Dan Mega
09-18-2006, 02:30 PM
So the Cubune in 2003 scoffs at Sox fans for not supporting the Cubs. Then, just last year, the Cubune says that Cubs fans don't have to support the Sox. Now, the Cubune says "take heart, Cubs fans...".

Again, where is Knue, and I thought that Cubs fans don't care about the White Sox....

bryPt
09-18-2006, 02:30 PM
what a moron. This paper, and all it's rotten offspring, should be shut down.

viagracat
09-18-2006, 02:31 PM
Holy **** :o:

CaptainBallz
09-18-2006, 02:31 PM
What a loser.:rolleyes:

Baby Fisk
09-18-2006, 02:36 PM
Futility breeds insanity. Look at the kind of **** they need to comfort themselves with.

Lenin would laugh his ass off at these people.

bryPt
09-18-2006, 02:37 PM
don't forget to email him your comments, left side of the page. I am sure he will be happy to hear from all of us!

You gotta like how all these Cubune peeps get blinded by their 401k and ESOP program and not write about the truth. Don't say anything bad about the engine that drives your train, the CUB! "I don't wanna be called into the office and told again that I have to kiss cubbie butt."

what a moron.

StillMissOzzie
09-18-2006, 02:41 PM
Underachieve? Yes
Choke? Nope

The only choke job to surpass the '69 Cubs MIGHT be the '03 Cubs

Sorry, Jimmy, I ain't buyin' it. There's a reason you're writing for the Cubune's free rag.

SMO
:gulp:

QCIASOXFAN
09-18-2006, 02:41 PM
What a D-Bag.

StillMissOzzie
09-18-2006, 02:46 PM
Talk about grasping at straws. If underperforming = choking, then the 2006 Cubs are bigger chokers that the 2006 Sox. The Cubs have a similar payroll, far more resources / revenue, and a much MUCH softer division / wildcard race than the Sox yet, for all intents and purposes, they were eliminated from contention in May.
:rolleyes:

Hey, a guy named maurice posted exactly the same thoughts at 2:13pm CST on the "Comments to Jimmy" section. What a coincidence!'

SMO
:D:

bryPt
09-18-2006, 03:04 PM
http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/columnist/2006-07/23795913.jpg

"Never show your face at USCF, or we will all hold you down and put a nice White Sox tattoo on that gargantuan cranium you got going on there." - Liggue.

cheeses_h_rice
09-18-2006, 03:05 PM
I think "choking" is a relative term. It means succumbing to the pressures of a tight race with an opponent who is quickly gaining on you. The 2006 White Sox just haven't been very good at all for half the season; the 1969 Cubs folded like a rusty rental hall chair under the Mets' onslaught during a compressed portion of the schedule, particularly September (when the Cubs lost 11 of 12 at one point).

Check out the schedules for the '69 Cubs (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1969_sched.shtml) vs. Mets (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYM/1969_sched.shtml).

On August 15, the Cubs were 74-44, the Mets 62-51 (Mets 9.5 GB)
On September 1, the Cubs were 83-52, the Mets 76-55 (Mets 5 GB)
On September 10, the Cubs were 84-59, the Mets 84-57 (Mets 1 GB)
On September 20, the Cubs were 88-66, the Mets 91-61 (Cubs 4 GB)
On September 30, the Cubs were 91-69, the Mets 99-61 (Cubs 8 GB)

The Sox's poor performance the second half of this year is nothing to crow about, but they never dumped the race in so quick a span to one opponent.

BigPapaPump
09-18-2006, 03:06 PM
Great article Baldy Locks!:angry: :angry:

jdm2662
09-18-2006, 03:17 PM
*YAWN*

Just some jealous, Cubbie apologist trying to deflect failure from his team. I got my picture with the World Series trophy. Does he has his? I thought so... Such articles should be ignored.

Soxfanspcu11
09-18-2006, 03:23 PM
Wow! Unreal!

This is the reason that I don't buy that paper and encourage EVERYONE I know not to waste their money as well.

Hopefully they will all go bankrupt soon, it will be a FINE day! :D:

Dan Mega
09-18-2006, 03:23 PM
I sent him an email and he responded:

name: Dan
city: Chicago, IL
email: removed

Hey Jimmy, I thought Cubs fans don't care about the Sox? Oh wait, according to Cubs fans, nobody cares about the Sox! Seems like you whining is wearing thin.
-----------------------------------------

"Greenfield, Jimmy" <JGreenfield@tribune.com>
RE: Sent from RedEye Web site

Dan,
Clearly I do care about the White Sox, that's something I've never denied. The other 10 people who care about the White Sox don't deny it either. Enjoy the rest of the offs-season. I know I will.
Cheers,
Jimmy

:rolleyes:
(Note to Jimmy- spell check can be your friend)

wolcott10
09-18-2006, 03:26 PM
Who the hell is Jimmy Greenfield?

Hitmen77
09-18-2006, 03:36 PM
Further proof that Cub fans are pathetic. Seeing as their team team is closing in on 100 losses and now has a 99 year championship drought, they are absolutely no position to laugh at a 90 win team that just won the world series last year.

Funny to see that Cub fans still have such sour grapes over the Sox success last year.

mark2olson
09-18-2006, 03:41 PM
Talk about grasping at straws. If underperforming = choking, then the 2006 Cubs are bigger chokers that the 2006 Sox. The Cubs have a similar payroll, far more resources / revenue, and a much MUCH softer division / wildcard race than the Sox yet, for all intents and purposes, they were eliminated from contention in May.
:rolleyes:

The trib should also remember 2004 Cubs. Virtually every media outlet had them pegged as the "best team on paper," with a staff that was "designed to win a series." And then, there was the ever-popular phrase that many writers parrotted, "if the Cubs make it to the playoffs, they will win the world series."

Sheesh.

CaptainBallz
09-18-2006, 03:46 PM
-----------------------------------------

"Greenfield, Jimmy" <JGreenfield@tribune.com>
RE: Sent from RedEye Web site

Dan,
Clearly I do care about the White Sox, that's something I've never denied. The other 10 people who care about the White Sox don't deny it either. Enjoy the rest of the offs-season. I know I will.
Cheers,
Jimmy



Wow. Just like a true 12 year old.

I guess it works because I do want to punch him in the face. You win, Jimmy.

Uncle_Patrick
09-18-2006, 03:46 PM
This article was a waste of time and space. Why anyone should get worked up over some loser Cubs fan's loser theory is beyond me. This is just the sign of a fan base hitting rock bottom, looking for any excuse to make themselves feel better. Its like a homeless man laughing at someone for moving from a house to a condo. Yeah, its a downgrade and disappointing, but at least we're not stuck in the gutter.

cheeses_h_rice
09-18-2006, 03:47 PM
The trib should also remember 2004 Cubs. Virtually every media outlet had them pegged as the "best team on paper," with a staff that was "designed to win a series." And then, there was the ever-popular phrase that many writers parrotted, "if the Cubs make it to the playoffs, they will win the world series."

Sheesh.

You mean the team that lost 7 of their last 9 games against the dregs of the NL?

You mean this team?

http://i.cnn.net/si/2004/magazine/03/29/main/cover_0405.jpg

:gulp:

Hitmen77
09-18-2006, 03:51 PM
some facts:

- The Sox this year will still likely finish with more wins than all but one Cub team ('84) in the last 60 years. This includes the beloved '03 Cubs.

- The Sox would have easily made the playoffs this year if they were in the NL.

- The Cubs are the ones that have always benefitted from easy playoff berths since division play began. The '89, '98, and '03 teams all benefitted from weak competition while Sox teams in '72, '77, '90, and likely '06 had better records but suffered from superior competition.

- 2005 vs. 1908, 90 wins vs. 100 losses .... 'nuf said.

cheeses_h_rice
09-18-2006, 03:54 PM
some facts:

- The Sox this year will still likely finish with more wins than all but one Cub team ('84) in the last 60 years. This includes the beloved '03 Cubs.

- The Sox would have easily made the playoffs this year if they were in the NL.

- The Cubs are the ones that have always benefitted from easy playoff berths since division play began. The '89, '98, and '03 teams all benefitted from weak competition while Sox teams in '72, '77, '90, and likely '06 had better records but suffered from superior competition.

- 2005 vs. 1908, 90 wins vs. 100 losses .... 'nuf said.

If the Sox were in the NL Central, they'd have a 4 game lead on the Cardinals.

That pisses me the **** off.

mark2olson
09-18-2006, 03:56 PM
You mean the team that lost 7 of their last 9 games against the dregs of the NL?

You mean this team?

http://i.cnn.net/si/2004/magazine/03/29/main/cover_0405.jpg

:gulp:

When that issue came in the mail (yes, I confess, I used to subscribe), my son did his best imitation of a 1940 subway graffiti artist on the cover. It was completely defaced by the time I got to read it. Needless to say, I was ROTFLMFAO when I saw his work.

:gulp:, indeed!

Tekijawa
09-18-2006, 04:19 PM
If the Sox were in the NL Central, they'd have a 4 game lead on the Cardinals.

That pisses me the **** off.


If the Sox were in the NL central they would probably have a 15 Game lead on the Cardinals.

Iwritecode
09-18-2006, 04:21 PM
I think "choking" is a relative term. It means succumbing to the pressures of a tight race with an opponent who is quickly gaining on you. The 2006 White Sox just haven't been very good at all for half the season; the 1969 Cubs folded like a rusty rental hall chair under the Mets' onslaught during a compressed portion of the schedule, particularly September (when the Cubs lost 11 of 12 at one point).

Check out the schedules for the '69 Cubs (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1969_sched.shtml) vs. Mets (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYM/1969_sched.shtml).

On August 15, the Cubs were 74-44, the Mets 62-51 (Mets 9.5 GB)
On September 1, the Cubs were 83-52, the Mets 76-55 (Mets 5 GB)
On September 10, the Cubs were 84-59, the Mets 84-57 (Mets 1 GB)
On September 20, the Cubs were 88-66, the Mets 91-61 (Cubs 4 GB)
On September 30, the Cubs were 91-69, the Mets 99-61 (Cubs 8 GB)

The Sox's poor performance the second half of this year is nothing to crow about, but they never dumped the race in so quick a span to one opponent.

The only difference is that the Cubs did it in a month and a half. The Sox have almost done the same thing but it has just taken longer.

The Twins were 11 games behind the Sox for the Wild Card on 6/10. They are currently 4 ahead. That's a 15 game swing in just over 3 months. Not quite as bad as the 17.5 game swing the 69 Cubs had but still...

A few things though:
1. The season isn't over quite yet.
2. The Sox lost the WC lead, not the division lead.
3. How bad will the Tigers have "choked" if the get passed by both the Twins and Sox?

Scottzilla
09-18-2006, 04:22 PM
When that issue came in the mail (yes, I confess, I used to subscribe), my son did his best imitation of a 1940 subway graffiti artist on the cover. It was completely defaced by the time I got to read it. Needless to say, I was ROTFLMFAO when I saw his work.

:gulp:, indeed!


What a waste of perfectly good toilet paper. NO TEAL

PKalltheway
09-18-2006, 04:24 PM
2006 Sox bigger chokers than the 1969 Cubs?:?: Ummm...no.

DickAllen72
09-18-2006, 04:38 PM
Comparing the '06 Sox to the '69 Cubs makes absolutely no sense at all.

A more appropriate comparison may be the '06 Sox to the '04 Cubs, but comparing the Sox to any Cubs team is a low blow.

I'd laugh if now the Sox make the playoffs and win the World Series! :D:

Lip Man 1
09-18-2006, 04:50 PM
I'm not taking sides with this but I've just received information (which I have passed along to Hal for investigation) that certain "changes" may have been made in Jimmy Greenfield's comments to one of our WSI members.

Certain things were listed that may in fact not been stated in the original e-mail.

We'll see how this shakes out.

Lip

CaptainBallz
09-18-2006, 04:55 PM
I'm not taking sides with this but I've just received information (which I have passed along to Hal for investigation) that certain "changes" may have been made in Jimmy Greenfield's comments to one of our WSI members.

Certain things were listed that may in fact not been stated in the original e-mail.

We'll see how this shakes out.

Lip

The plot thickens??:?:

russ99
09-18-2006, 05:28 PM
What a bunch of hooey. Our team is still alive with 12 games left, their team is closing in on the worst record in baseball. Just sour grapes.

I intend to ignore those chowderheads at the Cubune if the Sox miss the playoffs, then again - no more or less than usual. :tongue:

MarySwiss
09-18-2006, 06:07 PM
I sent him an email and he responded:

name: Dan
city: Chicago, IL
email: removed

Hey Jimmy, I thought Cubs fans don't care about the Sox? Oh wait, according to Cubs fans, nobody cares about the Sox! Seems like you whining is wearing thin.
-----------------------------------------

"Greenfield, Jimmy" <JGreenfield@tribune.com>
RE: Sent from RedEye Web site

Dan,
Clearly I do care about the White Sox, that's something I've never denied. The other 10 people who care about the White Sox don't deny it either. Enjoy the rest of the offs-season. I know I will.
Cheers,
Jimmy

:rolleyes:
(Note to Jimmy- spell check can be your friend)

His snotty response is the reason I didn't bother sending him an e-mail, and why I hope the rest of us don't either. He wants us to respond; it helps him keep his job. What else would?

TheOldRoman
09-18-2006, 06:25 PM
I sent him an email and he responded:

name: Dan
city: Chicago, IL
email: removed

Hey Jimmy, I thought Cubs fans don't care about the Sox? Oh wait, according to Cubs fans, nobody cares about the Sox! Seems like you whining is wearing thin.
-----------------------------------------

"Greenfield, Jimmy" <JGreenfield@tribune.com>
RE: Sent from RedEye Web site

Dan,
Clearly I do care about the White Sox, that's something I've never denied. The other 10 people who care about the White Sox don't deny it either. Enjoy the rest of the offs-season. I know I will.
Cheers,
Jimmy

:rolleyes:
(Note to Jimmy- spell check can be your friend)
And that just confirms what I thought. If the Sox don't make the playoffs this year, the "fans" of that loveable 100 loss team will once again start ripping the Sox because "nobody cares about them". Even though our attendance was great this year, they will shout incessantly that "they are all bandwagon fans, and when they finish in last place next year (just a little presumptuous), nobody will come to see them". They really are sick, pathetic people.

cheezheadsoxfan
09-18-2006, 06:41 PM
I have kept my subscription to the Cubune up here in Wisconsin because the local papers are pretty lightweight. Screw it! Today's coverage pushed me over the edge. I have a mental picture of the Cubune's sports department salivating over ever Sox loss. I can read the comics on line.:redneck Also, if I go local I'll get Packer's coverage. (Please don't flame, we're very pathetic this year).

chisoxfanatic
09-18-2006, 06:45 PM
So cheer up Cub fans, the season isn't entirely lost. Two more weeks and you'll be able to laugh at Sox fans all winter long. Maybe even longer.

I had fun purchasing my World Series gear just LAST YEAR. This pud has NEVER been able to do that. That article wreaks nothing more than jealousy.

slavko
09-18-2006, 07:48 PM
This is more attention than Jimmy Greenfield has gotten in his life! He's a hack not good enough for the real newspaper working for Walmart clerk money for the fake Tribune. How can we be choking if we never led for a moment? Jimmy, get a real job.

mccoydp
09-18-2006, 08:18 PM
2006 Sox chokers?

Disappointing? Yes.

Victims of inflated expectations? Yes.

But not chokers? No way.

buehrle4cy05
09-18-2006, 08:19 PM
You know what?

The reactions of the people in the thread is just what that asshat wanted. He's just like Mariotti, he probably gets off on how much people hate him.

Us ripping him like this probably is just what he wants. When a journalist resorts to that, he is a pathetic bastard.

Daver
09-18-2006, 08:29 PM
A lot of this disdain is based on an e-mail doctored by Dan Mega.

This thread is closed, and Dan will be dealt with for making this site look bad.