<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-white-sox-confidential/2009/06/piniella-ozzie-on-sox-attendance.html" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-white-sox-confidential/2009/06/piniella-ozzie-on-sox-attendance.xml" />
  <id>tag:www.chicagonow.com,2011:/blogs/chicago-white-sox-confidential//33/tag:www.chicagonow.com,2009:/blogs/chicago-white-sox-confidential//33.10125-</id>
  <updated></updated>
  <title>Comments for Piniella / Ozzie On Sox Attendance</title>
  <subtitle>All about the White Sox</subtitle>
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.261</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.chicagonow.com,2009:/blogs/chicago-white-sox-confidential//33.10125</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-white-sox-confidential/2009/06/piniella-ozzie-on-sox-attendance.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.chicagonow.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=33/entry_id=10125" title="Piniella / Ozzie On Sox Attendance" />
    <published>2009-06-28T22:18:34Z</published>
    <updated>2009-06-28T22:38:33Z</updated>
    <title>Piniella / Ozzie On Sox Attendance</title>
    <summary>This is positively delicious:Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune got some comments from Cubs manager Lou Piniella that I don&apos;t think he meant to come out they way they did...but they did, and it didn&apos;t take Ozzie Guillen long to...</summary>
    <author>
      <name>Mark Liptak</name>
      <uri>http://www.chicagonow.com/profiles/MarkLiptak</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="cubs_sox_series" label="Cubs / Sox Series" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <category term="ozzieguillen" label="Ozzie Guillen" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <category term="whitesox" label="White Sox" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-white-sox-confidential/">
<![CDATA[
      This is positively delicious:<br /><br />Paul Sullivan of the <i>Chicago Tribune</i> got some comments from Cubs manager Lou Piniella that I don't think he meant to come out they way they did...but they did, and it didn't take <b>Ozzie Guillen</b> long to respond with a dead on the money remark.<br /><br />Here's Lou:<br /><br />
<p><i>"Look what the City Series does over here. I saw where the Dodgers came in the other night, a good baseball
team, and 22,000 people were here. The Cubs are in town for the City
Series and there's 40,000 some people here. Look, let's look at it from
a different standpoint than just the baseball standpoint."</i><br /></p><p>So as Paul asked do the Sox need the Cubs to help them draw fans?</p><p>Not according to Ozzie:</p><p><i>"Because our fans are not stupid like Cubs fans. They know we're (expletive)."</i></p>
<p><i>Guillen said Cubs fans will go watch any game at Wrigley Field because "Wrigley Field is just a bar."</i><br /></p><p>My take:</p><p>Fact...the Sox have had three of their top six highest attendance figures in franchise history in the past three seasons with the fewest number drawn at 2,500,648.</p><p>Sox fans saw an organization cut payroll by the second largest amount in MLB this off season. They've seen a team struggle to show any consistency AND the White Sox decided to charge "premium" prices for L.A. in the middle of the week. That's why they passed in large numbers.<br /></p><p>There's your answer Lou.</p>Me thinks Lou, the Cub organization and Cub fans need to get off the 'attendance' kick. That doesn't win a championship, if it did the Cubs might actually win something and the way this season is again shaping up for them, it may be the ONLY way they could ever win something.<br /><br />2005 Lou, that's all that needs to be said as opposed to 1908 (and counting...)<br />
      
]]>
    </content>
  </entry>

</feed>

