White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
GO SOX! DSNB!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-11-2018, 06:19 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 4,033
Default

I don't care about the past. I choose to look forward.
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-11-2018, 10:49 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 33,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
I don't care about the past. I choose to look forward.
Almost sounds like something Mark McGwire said at the Senate hearings...LOL.

Also remember the famous quote attributed to a few different people. It goes along the lines of, "those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it..."
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-12-2018, 02:35 AM
TDog TDog is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 17,896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
... followed by the "philosophy" espoused by Eddie Einhorn that the Sox were going to be "Chicago's American League team..." and not to even challenge the Cubs for a rightful place in their own market at a time when the Cubs were awful and all the momentum in the area was towards the Sox especially after they signed Fisk and Luzinski. ...

The emphasis on "Chicago's American League team" was on Chicago. The previous ownership didn't challenge the Cubs as the Chicago team. The White Sox were the southside team, at their best under the return of Veeck the "Southside Hitmen". At a time when the Cubs were claiming the entire city and, as a 1970s Jim Croce song noted, the southside of Chicago was considered the baddest part of town.

It seemed clear at the time that the White Sox were reclaiming Chicago. It wasn't as if Veeck didn't acknowledge the Cubs's existence. After all, he planted the ivy at Wrigley Field and held court in the Wrigley bleachers regularly after his second sale of the White Sox.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-12-2018, 05:01 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 4,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
Almost sounds like something Mark McGwire said at the Senate hearings...LOL.

Also remember the famous quote attributed to a few different people. It goes along the lines of, "those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it..."
McGwire's comment, on whatever subject in whatever venue, is a weak analogy to this particular subject.

I said I don't care about the past, I said nothing about learning from it.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-12-2018, 10:48 AM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 33,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
The emphasis on "Chicago's American League team" was on Chicago. The previous ownership didn't challenge the Cubs as the Chicago team. The White Sox were the southside team, at their best under the return of Veeck the "Southside Hitmen". At a time when the Cubs were claiming the entire city and, as a 1970s Jim Croce song noted, the southside of Chicago was considered the baddest part of town.

It seemed clear at the time that the White Sox were reclaiming Chicago. It wasn't as if Veeck didn't acknowledge the Cubs's existence. After all, he planted the ivy at Wrigley Field and held court in the Wrigley bleachers regularly after his second sale of the White Sox.
TDog: In the 10th Inning interview that I have in my library from April 23, 1981 after the Sox blew out Baltimore 18-5 in the first game of a DH at Comiskey Park, Harry Caray interviewed both EE and JR. Harry specifically asked EE about the Cubs and their terrible start and EE again talked about the Sox "not caring" about what the Cubs did, that we are "Chicago's American League team..." etc.

That dynamic, that philosophy of "not cariung" in my opinion directly led to the situation the Sox are in today. Playing the nice guy, ignoring what was happening with the Tribune Company and their relationship with the Cubs and so forth.

And here's the kicker...those two men SHOULD have known better! They both lived regularly in Chicago since the late 1950's!

White Sox fans were NOT going to cheer for the Cubs when the Sox were out of town and Cub fans were NOT going to cheer for the Sox when the Cubs were out of town.

That thinking was total nonsense. Do Yankee fans cheer for the Mets? Do Angel fans cheer for the Dodgers??

Ridiculous and a major, major mistake.

The only time the Sox ever took on the Cubs was when Brooks had his brilliant "Us vs. Them" market campaign which bent out of shape so many Cub fans and Cub-loving media members.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-12-2018, 11:35 AM
TDog TDog is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 17,896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
TDog: In the 10th Inning interview that I have in my library from April 23, 1981 after the Sox blew out Baltimore 18-5 in the first game of a DH at Comiskey Park, Harry Caray interviewed both EE and JR. Harry specifically asked EE about the Cubs and their terrible start and EE again talked about the Sox "not caring" about what the Cubs did, that we are "Chicago's American League team..." etc.

That dynamic, that philosophy of "not cariung" in my opinion directly led to the situation the Sox are in today. Playing the nice guy, ignoring what was happening with the Tribune Company and their relationship with the Cubs and so forth.

And here's the kicker...those two men SHOULD have known better! They both lived regularly in Chicago since the late 1950's!

White Sox fans were NOT going to cheer for the Cubs when the Sox were out of town and Cub fans were NOT going to cheer for the Sox when the Cubs were out of town.

That thinking was total nonsense. Do Yankee fans cheer for the Mets? Do Angel fans cheer for the Dodgers??

Ridiculous and a major, major mistake.

The only time the Sox ever took on the Cubs was when Brooks had his brilliant "Us vs. Them" market campaign which bent out of shape so many Cub fans and Cub-loving media members.

In 1981, saying the White Sox were Chicago's American League team was taking on the Cubs. During the Veeck years, they were the southside team and the Cubs were Chicago's team. Veeck didn't take on the Cubs. Veeck conceded Chicago to the Cubs.

For new ownership at the time that had wrestled the team from a prospective owner whose desire to move the team was so well known he agreed to pay the league a financial penalty if he did so, saying the White Sox was a Chicago team was an important statement.

Us vs. Them didn't do anything to improve the standing of the White Sox in Chicago. It only made some White Sox fans feel better. Essentially, it was about getting the base excited, not about expanding interest in the team beyond the base.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-12-2018, 11:56 AM
Noneck Noneck is offline
The Blind Squirrel that finally found an acorn.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nw Side
Posts: 10,766
Default

When veeck bought the team in 1975 he didnt have 2 nickles to rub together. His goal was to keep the team above water so he could sell them. No way he could compete with the cubs. But when the new ownership came in they had resources and could and should have put a death grip on the cubs and chicago but didnt. That was mainly due to bad decisions early in their ownership.


Back to renteria, if I knew what his job duties are I could make a decision on how I feel about his extension, if it is on how he handles the media, which is the only thing I know is his responsibility, this was a good move.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:01 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 4,033
Default

Lip,

This isn't a Bears-Packers issue where they've go head to head for years.

Throw out the records. Was there a rivalry between the two Chicago teams in the 50's? Should the Wrigley's have "cared" about Comiskey's White Sox and visa versa?

I'd don't see how Eddie Einhorn's Wannstedt moment matters as it apples to baseball in this town.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:02 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 55,338
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
When veeck bought the team in 1975 he didnt have 2 nickles to rub together. His goal was to keep the team above water so he could sell them. No way he could compete with the cubs. But when the new ownership came in they had resources and could and should have put a death grip on the cubs and chicago but didnt. That was mainly due to bad decisions early in their ownership.
There were a lot of factors that have held the Sox down in terms of Chicago popularity and ignoring the fact a lot of the Sox long term fans had move to the suburbs and that the area around Comiskey was viewed as unsafe by a lot of people plus the lack of things to do around the park before and after the game all played factors.

Purely blaming ownership for these inherent issues seems like a stretch.

Yes the team could have fought harder to maintain market share in the early days but they have proven to draw well when they have a winner and the simple fact is for 2+ decades they fought the fact the Cubs were owned by the biggest most popular newspaper in Chicago which acted as de facto marketing arm for them.

It seems unlikely given the history of Chicago and the ownership of the Cubs over that stretch the Sox ever could have created a "death grip" on the Chicago market. I get it, we've had problems with our management but a lot of this stuff is outside their control also.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:14 PM
Noneck Noneck is offline
The Blind Squirrel that finally found an acorn.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nw Side
Posts: 10,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
There were a lot of factors that have held the Sox down in terms of Chicago popularity and ignoring the fact a lot of the Sox long term fans had move to the suburbs and that the area around Comiskey was viewed as unsafe by a lot of people plus the lack of things to do around the park before and after the game all played factors.

Purely blaming ownership for these inherent issues seems like a stretch.

Yes the team could have fought harder to maintain market share in the early days but they have proven to draw well when they have a winner and the simple fact is for 2+ decades they fought the fact the Cubs were owned by the biggest most popular newspaper in Chicago which acted as de facto marketing arm for them.

It seems unlikely given the history of Chicago and the ownership of the Cubs over that stretch the Sox ever could have created a "death grip" on the Chicago market. I get it, we've had problems with our management but a lot of this stuff is outside their control also.

Maybe you arent aware but the area where the cubs played was no great shakes in the 70's and early 80's. There was more to do in Bridgeport than around Wrigley field at that time. The Sox owned the city in the 50's and most of the 60's and always played in the same area of the city. Good teams bring in fans and new ownership had some good teams but alienated fans by poor decisions. The biggest bad decision was ontv. The way they lost Caray was also a blunder. these two decisions affected their fan base more than the fans moving to suburbs in my opinion.


Thinking about the death grip maybe they couldnt have gotten it but they sure as heck could have at least tried.

Last edited by Noneck; 11-12-2018 at 12:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-12-2018, 01:39 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 55,338
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
Maybe you arent aware but the area where the cubs played was no great shakes in the 70's and early 80's. There was more to do in Bridgeport than around Wrigley field at that time. The Sox owned the city in the 50's and most of the 60's and always played in the same area of the city. Good teams bring in fans and new ownership had some good teams but alienated fans by poor decisions. The biggest bad decision was ontv. The way they lost Caray was also a blunder. these two decisions affected their fan base more than the fans moving to suburbs in my opinion.


Thinking about the death grip maybe they couldnt have gotten it but they sure as heck could have at least tried.
In the 50's and 60's the demographics of the southside were completely different. I don't want to get into politics, but that whole area changed dramatically since those times. The Robert Taylor Homes went up across the street from Comiskey starting in 1961 and that changed the area dramatically as white middle class people fled the area for the suburbs. The area has been fighting its way back as gentrification from the 90's on has moved further south and the RTH were torn down, but the simple fact is that area went through a MASSIVE shift in wealth, crime and demographics right after the time you mentioned.

Meanwhile the area around Wrigley was doing the exact opposite starting in the late 70's and 80's when Jane Byrne and subsequent administrations poured a ton of money into Halsted Avenue from North Avenue north. It completely changed the area from the area you mention to one of the hotest most expensive places to live in the city.

Have you been to Wrigleyville since 1990? It's a freaking party 24/7/365. Add in the Trib selling the team right and left all of that played a HUGE role in the changes of the two teams' destinies.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-12-2018, 01:48 PM
Noneck Noneck is offline
The Blind Squirrel that finally found an acorn.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nw Side
Posts: 10,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post

Have you been to Wrigleyville since 1990? It's a freaking party 24/7/365. Add in the Trib selling the team right and left all of that played a HUGE role in the changes of the two teams' destinies.



Unfortunately I have but the new Sox ownership had no way of knowing what would happen to that area at the time they bought the club.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-12-2018, 03:42 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
Winner 2016 WSI Preseason Prediction Contest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 15,827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
Unfortunately I have but the new Sox ownership had no way of knowing what would happen to that area at the time they bought the club.
Wrigleyville didn't become the party-area it is today until like the late 1990s I feel like. Like if you see an old Cubs game on YouTube, there are still plenty of empty seats in the ballpark and the people on the rooftops were people who lived in those buildings.

One thing I do wonder is if the White Sox ownership had marketed old Comiskey the way the Cubs marketed "historic Wrigley Field) and used the money that went to building New Comiskey into rehabbing Old Comiskey (like the Yankees did with Yankee Stadium in the '70s), how much of a difference (if any) would that have made?

As someone else pointed out, the Sox ownership certainly missed some opportunities but the fact the Cubs were bought by the Tribune Co. who marketed them extensively across the country on WGN was what REALLY helped the Cubs. Even if Harry had stayed with the Sox and even if the Sox had marketed and renovated Old Comiskey, I still think they'd be the "second team" in Chicago, but maybe they wouldn't be quite as far behind? But I dunno.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-12-2018, 08:01 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 55,338
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
Unfortunately I have but the new Sox ownership had no way of knowing what would happen to that area at the time they bought the club.
What was happening at the Southside had already happened though.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-12-2018, 08:02 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 55,338
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
Wrigleyville didn't become the party-area it is today until like the late 1990s I feel like. Like if you see an old Cubs game on YouTube, there are still plenty of empty seats in the ballpark and the people on the rooftops were people who lived in those buildings.

One thing I do wonder is if the White Sox ownership had marketed old Comiskey the way the Cubs marketed "historic Wrigley Field) and used the money that went to building New Comiskey into rehabbing Old Comiskey (like the Yankees did with Yankee Stadium in the '70s), how much of a difference (if any) would that have made?

As someone else pointed out, the Sox ownership certainly missed some opportunities but the fact the Cubs were bought by the Tribune Co. who marketed them extensively across the country on WGN was what REALLY helped the Cubs. Even if Harry had stayed with the Sox and even if the Sox had marketed and renovated Old Comiskey, I still think they'd be the "second team" in Chicago, but maybe they wouldn't be quite as far behind? But I dunno.
The Cubs won the division the year after the Sox did.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.