PDA

View Full Version : Rozner: White Sox a failure


thomas35forever
11-07-2007, 02:04 PM
I read the following in Barry Rozner's column regarding the Sox's World Series rust in '06.
There's no stronger evidence than the way the Sox played in September 2006, when one decent series would have put them over the top, into the playoffs and perhaps back in the Fall Classic.
But they just couldn't fire, and it remains one of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history.
Is he talking about the '06 Sox or this particular White Sox team going back to '05? Were the Bears of the mid-80s a failure too?

spawn
11-07-2007, 02:07 PM
But they just couldn't fire, and it remains one of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history.
One of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history? Is he serious??? That's not even close! What a moron.:rolleyes:

chisoxmike
11-07-2007, 02:07 PM
2006 was a complete, utter, failure.

There should be no question about it.

They should have, at least, made the playoffs, back to back years for the first time in franchise history. It would have done wonders for the organazation.

Instead, in typical White Sox fashion, they fell apart.

Domeshot17
11-07-2007, 02:09 PM
I read the following in Barry Rozner's column regarding the Sox's World Series rust in '06.

Is he talking about the '06 Sox or this particular White Sox team going back to '05? Were the Bears of the mid-80s a failure too?

To me what he is saying is the team in 2006 was probably more talented (actually SURELY more talented) than the 2005 team, but they couldnt shake off the world series hangover to finish the year. Crede hit like 170 down the stretch, Anderson after a decent 2nd half had a TERRIBLE september, Burls and Contreras pitched so bad a college team would have lit them up, and the bullpen could not hold a lead. We choked, plain and simple, we had a real chance to go back to back, and we choked.

spawn
11-07-2007, 02:12 PM
To me what he is saying is the team in 2006 was probably more talented (actually SURELY more talented) than the 2005 team, but they couldnt shake off the world series hangover to finish the year. Crede hit like 170 down the stretch, Anderson after a decent 2nd half had a TERRIBLE september, Burls and Contreras pitched so bad a college team would have lit them up, and the bullpen could not hold a lead. We choked, plain and simple, we had a real chance to go back to back, and we choked.
Sure. I see that. But I still wouldn't consider it one of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history. That's being a little overly dramatic I think.

Domeshot17
11-07-2007, 02:19 PM
Sure. I see that. But I still wouldn't consider it one of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history. That's being a little overly dramatic I think.

To an extent, but how many chicago teams in our history have ever been that disappointing. Im only 22, so I honestly can't comment on anything really pre-1990, in my lifetime, the only teams that come to mind would be a few Bears teams (but how short can a team come with QB rotation of Jim Miller and Shane Matthews). You can maybe count the 2 bulls teams without Jordan, but Pip took them within 1 terrible call of ANOTHER NBA Finals.

Im not saying 2006 would have been a cakewalk, but with a weak NL and Javy pitching good in september, if Buehrle pitches normal, Contreras just a little less sucky, and the bullpen does not implode, we could have breezed to another World Series.

chisoxmike
11-07-2007, 02:21 PM
... but Pip took them within 1 terrible call of ANOTHER NBA Finals.



I'll never forget that. Never bring that up again.

:whiner:

Steelrod
11-07-2007, 02:23 PM
Need we mention, Bartman, Buckner, or the goat?

mrfourni
11-07-2007, 02:42 PM
How bout this years bears? '99 Cubs, '04 Cubs?

chisoxmike
11-07-2007, 02:48 PM
This year's Bears are a major disapointment. You could put the '04 Cubs in there too.

Hokiesox
11-07-2007, 03:08 PM
I can't remember which years in the 80's the Bears lost to either the 49ers or the Redskins, but it seemed like it was every year but 1985. Those years were disappointing because those 2 teams had the Bears number.

Not a monumentally disappointing collapse, but it was horrible to watch.

hi im skot
11-07-2007, 03:19 PM
Definitely overdramatic.

Disappointing? Without a doubt. One of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history? I don't think I'd go nearly that far.

WhiteSox5187
11-07-2007, 03:32 PM
As far as I'm concerned every year in which we don't win the World Series is a "failure." (Half teal) That '06 team SHOULD HAVE made the playoffs (the starting pitching was gassed in the second half), so it was certainly a disappointment but I fail to see how any time a team wins ninety games it could be considered a failure.

jdm2662
11-07-2007, 04:27 PM
It's really how you define "failure". To me, I would define it as a team that did really well in the regular season, but losing early in the playoffs. Or, a situation like the 2005 White Sox had they blown a 15 game lead. The biggest failures in my time were probably the Blackhawks from the early 90s. They had awesome records in 1991 and 1993 only to get spanked in the first round of the playoffs. It's hard to call a team that made the finals a failure (1992), but they did win 11 straight games in the playoffs and had a 4-1 lead in game one of the finals. They ended up getting swept. I would certainly call the 2006 Sox a failure only because it was World Series or bust that year. In previous seasons, 90 wins would be considered a good season, but when the stakes are raised, things change.

spawn
11-07-2007, 04:29 PM
It's really how you define "failure". To me, I would define it as a team that did really well in the regular season, but losing early in the playoffs. Or, a situation like the 2005 White Sox had they blown a 15 game lead. The biggest failures in my time were probably the Blackhawks from the early 90s. They had awesome records in 1991 and 1993 only to get spanked in the first round of the playoffs. It's hard to call a team that made the finals a failure (1992), but they did win 11 straight games in the playoffs and had a 4-1 lead in game one of the finals. They ended up getting swept. I would certainly call the 2006 Sox a failure only because it was World Series or bust that year. In previous seasons, 90 wins would be considered a good season, but when the stakes are raised, things change.
But would you call them one of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history?

Johnny Mostil
11-07-2007, 04:36 PM
As far as I'm concerned every year in which we don't win the World Series is a "failure." (Half teal) That '06 team SHOULD HAVE made the playoffs (the starting pitching was gassed in the second half), so it was certainly a disappointment but I fail to see how any time a team wins ninety games it could be considered a failure.

Works for me. I wouldn't consider the '06 Sox to be nearly as big a failure as the '84 Sox . . .

jdm2662
11-07-2007, 04:41 PM
But would you call them one of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history?

No, I wouldn't. The early 90s Blackhawks were, at least in my lifetime, for reasons already explained. I wasn't around in 1969 or 1971, so I can't comment on those. I would certainly think those particular teams rank higher than the 2006 White Sox. I would probably put the 2006 White Sox on the same level as the 1986 and 1987 Bears. Those were teams that were expected to win their respective championships or bust.

DumpJerry
11-07-2007, 04:42 PM
A bigger failure than the hit parade put on by Soriano, Ramirez and Lee in the 2007 NLDS?

A bigger failure than the 1969 Cubs?

A bigger failure than the Blackhawks generally since 1961?

A bigger failure than the 1986 Bears?

A bigger failure than the ability of Prior and Wood to get the Cubs in the Fall Classic year in and year out?

*****.

Johnny Mostil
11-07-2007, 04:55 PM
A bigger failure than the hit parade put on by Soriano, Ramirez and Lee in the 2007 NLDS?

A bigger failure than the 1969 Cubs?

A bigger failure than the Blackhawks generally since 1961?

A bigger failure than the 1986 Bears?

A bigger failure than the ability of Prior and Wood to get the Cubs in the Fall Classic year in and year out?

*****.

Here's another nominee: DePaul basketball from 1980 to 1982. In that time, as I recall, the team went 79-6 and lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament each year, despite being ranked #1 in the nation entering two of those tournaments. Maybe it's not fair to label a college team as a "failure," especially in comparison to professional teams. But it also helps show Rozner is being a wee bit hyperbolic about the '06 Sox, no?

chaerulez
11-07-2007, 05:28 PM
The 2006 Sox were a better team on paper than the Twins and Tigers I thought. We choked, that's all that matters to me I don't care to relate it to any other Chicago sports failure, the fact is we didn't make the playoffs.

FarWestChicago
11-07-2007, 06:26 PM
Sure. I see that. But I still wouldn't consider it one of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history. That's being a little overly dramatic I think.

Definitely overdramatic.

Disappointing? Without a doubt. One of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history? I don't think I'd go nearly that far.

But would you call them one of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history?Yep, completely over the top. And the people defending him are totally missing the point. Nobody is saying the '06 Sox were successful. They just weren't in the same league as many other disappointments. Try the '71 Blackhawks (http://proicehockey.about.com/od/history/f/71_Stanley_Cup.htm) on for size.

DumpJerry
11-07-2007, 06:45 PM
Try the '71 Blackhawks (http://proicehockey.about.com/od/history/f/71_Stanley_Cup.htm) on for size.
Thanks West. I just finished therapy for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for that one and you had to re-open the wounds. I still do a burn at the memory of the Canadiens skating around our ice with The Cup.

FarWestChicago
11-07-2007, 06:57 PM
Thanks West. I just finished therapy for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for that one and you had to re-open the wounds. I still do a burn at the memory of the Canadiens skating around our ice with The Cup.That was perhaps the most crushing collapse I remember. It had been forever since a Chicago team won crap. And it would be many long years after that. The younger folk here who blast the Sox for sucking two years after a title, who grew up during a double 3-peat by the Bulls, have no idea what it was like to be pushing 30 and feeling like you would never, ever see a Chicago champion. And that Hawks team really poured salt in the wound. :whiner:

Brian26
11-07-2007, 07:15 PM
Here's another nominee: DePaul basketball from 1980 to 1982.

Let's not get carried away. I group DePaul basketball with the NASL Sting and the Chicago Bruisers of the original Arena League.

Johnny Mostil
11-07-2007, 07:19 PM
Let's not get carried away. I group DePaul basketball with the NASL Sting and the Chicago Bruisers of the original Arena League.

Heh. Point scored for Brian26 . . .

PKalltheway
11-07-2007, 07:19 PM
'06 Sox being Chicago's biggest failure? Please! How about the 1999 Cubs? The year after they make the playoffs, they lose 95 games!

Johnny Mostil
11-07-2007, 07:27 PM
That was perhaps the most crushing collapse I remember. It had been forever since a Chicago team won crap. And it would be many long years after that. The younger folk here who blast the Sox for sucking two years after a title, who grew up during a double 3-peat by the Bulls, have no idea what it was like to be pushing 30 and feeling like you would never, ever see a Chicago champion. And that Hawks team really poured salt in the wound. :whiner:


Another not quite as bad, but still pretty rough . . . was it '75 that the Bulls had something like a five-point lead at Golden State with about a minute to go in the seventh game of the Western Conference finals but ended up losing by four? Then Golden State swept Washington for the championship . . .

TommyJohn
11-07-2007, 07:35 PM
No need to add on what is already being said, except to chime in that the
statement is utterly absurd. It was disappointing to be sure, but to call it
that is just overreaching hyperbole at its dumbest. I mean, we are talking
about a team that defended Chicago's first baseball World Championship
in 88 years.

I would rank the 1983-84 White Sox a bigger failure, along with the 1967
Sox. And no list of Chicago failures is complete without the 1969 Cubs,
the 1984 Cubs, the 2003 Cubs and the 2004 Cubs.

By the way, has anyone cast a vote for the 1974-75 Bulls? Up 3 games
to 2 on Golden State in the Conference Finals, then losing Game 6 and
blowing a lead in Game 7 and losing 83-79. There's an oldie but goodie.

Johnny Mostil
11-07-2007, 08:34 PM
By the way, has anyone cast a vote for the 1974-75 Bulls? Up 3 games
to 2 on Golden State in the Conference Finals, then losing Game 6 and
blowing a lead in Game 7 and losing 83-79. There's an oldie but goodie.

Blowing a last-minute lead, TJ. In fact, I think it was Bulls by five with 51 seconds to go, but I couldn't find anything in a quick web search to confirm that.

DumpJerry
11-07-2007, 08:56 PM
That was perhaps the most crushing collapse I remember. It had been forever since a Chicago team won crap. And it would be many long years after that. The younger folk here who blast the Sox for sucking two years after a title, who grew up during a double 3-peat by the Bulls, have no idea what it was like to be pushing 30 and feeling like you would never, ever see a Chicago champion. And that Hawks team really poured salt in the wound. :whiner:
Amen. That is why the 1985 Bears felt so damn good. The only champion team most of us had experienced was the Sting a few years earlier and that wasn't that much a big deal, comparatively speaking. Super Bowl XX finally showed us, for the first time in Chicago history since television was relatively new when the Bears last won a major championship for the city, what it feels like to win the damn thing.

That is why we never shut the Hell up about the '85 Bears. They are like a first love, you never forget him or her.

Grzegorz
11-07-2007, 08:59 PM
That was perhaps the most crushing collapse I remember. It had been forever since a Chicago team won crap. And it would be many long years after that. The younger folk here who blast the Sox for sucking two years after a title, who grew up during a double 3-peat by the Bulls, have no idea what it was like to be pushing 30 and feeling like you would never, ever see a Chicago champion. And that Hawks team really poured salt in the wound.

Damned right; I never liked the Montreal Canadiens. 1971 sealed their fate in my eyes for eternity.

A. Cavatica
11-07-2007, 09:30 PM
If you didn't think 90 wins in 2006 was failure, then 2007 should have cleared that right up for you.

The Sox have failed to turn the 2005 champions into a consistent winner.

Red Barchetta
11-07-2007, 09:36 PM
2006 was a complete, utter, failure.

There should be no question about it.

They should have, at least, made the playoffs, back to back years for the first time in franchise history. It would have done wonders for the organazation.

Instead, in typical White Sox fashion, they fell apart.

I agree it was a major disappointment that we didn't make the playoffs, however considering we won 90 games and still only came in 3rd place in our division talks more about Detroit and Minnesota winning vs. the SOX collapsing.

soxwon
11-07-2007, 10:16 PM
Sure. I see that. But I still wouldn't consider it one of the biggest failures in Chicago sports history. That's being a little overly dramatic I think.

Death penalty for all media turncoats!!!

FarWestChicago
11-07-2007, 10:47 PM
Another not quite as bad, but still pretty rough . . . was it '75 that the Bulls had something like a five-point lead at Golden State with about a minute to go in the seventh game of the Western Conference finals but ended up losing by four? Then Golden State swept Washington for the championship . . .You are right. That was the other big one. The Bulls were so much better than them. That hurt. :whiner:

FarWestChicago
11-07-2007, 10:49 PM
If you didn't think 90 wins in 2006 was failure, then 2007 should have cleared that right up for you.

The Sox have failed to turn the 2005 champions into a consistent winner.Do you want some cheese with that whine? Listen to some of your elders for once. :rolleyes:

Lip Man 1
11-07-2007, 11:56 PM
I don't think the Bulls had that type of lead in the final minute of game #7 vs. the Warriors. I'm working on this to try to find out one way or another.

Here's what I've found so far:

"In a true stroke of irony, the Warriors faced off against the Bulls in the 1975 Western Conference Finals. The two teams split the first four games, but the Bulls stole the home court with an 89-79 Game 5 win, and looked to wrap things up on Motherís Day in Chicago. In that Game 6, the Bulls were outscored 28-13 in the second quarter and lost, 86-72. By Game 7, the Bulls were playing not to lose, coughing away another double-digit lead in an 83-79 defeat."

"Their next opponents, the Chicago Bulls (http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/teams/bulls/index.html) presented some difficult matchups with star forwards Bob Love and Chet Walker. Nonetheless, the Warriors were able to take the series in seven games despite a poor shooting effort by Barry in Game 7. The key to Golden State's victory in that game was its defense. It held the Bulls scoreless for the final seven minutes of the game, until Barry finally found his shooting touch and hit several key shots to ice the victory. With that win, the Warriors were headed to the Finals for the first time since 1967."

Lip

slavko
11-08-2007, 12:14 AM
[quote=Domeshot17;1717165]You can maybe count the 2 bulls teams without Jordan, but Pip took them within 1 terrible call of ANOTHER NBA Finals.

quote]

To be fair, it was the same call a young Jordan got at the end of regulation when he laid 63 on the Celtics in a playoff game. (foul after the shot called on a runout at a jump shooter.)

Nellie_Fox
11-08-2007, 12:14 AM
Let's not get carried away. I group DePaul basketball with the NASL Sting and the Chicago Bruisers of the original Arena League.

Heh. Point scored for Brian26 . . .Don't kid yourself; DePaul basketball was HUGE in Chicago during those years. No points awarded.

slavko
11-08-2007, 12:18 AM
Another not quite as bad, but still pretty rough . . . was it '75 that the Bulls had something like a five-point lead at Golden State with about a minute to go in the seventh game of the Western Conference finals but ended up losing by four? Then Golden State swept Washington for the championship . . .

I remember about 2-1/2 minutes to go. Still bad enough to taste after 32 years, you OF.

LITTLE NELL
11-08-2007, 04:53 AM
The Blackhawks of the 60s were huge failures(except for 61) when playoff time came around.

pudge
11-08-2007, 11:32 AM
To an extent, but how many chicago teams in our history have ever been that disappointing. Im only 22, so I honestly can't comment on anything really pre-1990, in my lifetime, the only teams that come to mind would be a few Bears teams (but how short can a team come with QB rotation of Jim Miller and Shane Matthews). You can maybe count the 2 bulls teams without Jordan, but Pip took them within 1 terrible call of ANOTHER NBA Finals.

Im not saying 2006 would have been a cakewalk, but with a weak NL and Javy pitching good in september, if Buehrle pitches normal, Contreras just a little less sucky, and the bullpen does not implode, we could have breezed to another World Series.

Yes, plenty of teams have been that disappointing. This statement by Rozner is moronic. It is not easy for teams to repeat in any professional sport these days. The Sox staff pitched more innings than they had in their lives to win that '05 title. And considering the competition in the Central in '06, it is not such a shock. They took a huge in gamble in centerfield, which wound up being a bad move that cost them dearly. They were not a dominating team when they won in '05 either; they survived numerous one-run games, and you don't necessarily repeat that sort of luck the following year.