Replace Vikings with Bears, since the Vikings were predicted to be good this year, and the Bears were not, and it's a true statement.

If we are making comparisons, the Vikings are the Tigers of the NFC North.
The Bears are like the White Sox of the NFC North.

Are you saying that the Bears won't have had a successful season if they only make the playoffs? Most Bears fans, just like most Sox fans, would have taken that in a heartbeat before the season started.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Agreed.

No I get that - I myself had high expectations. This Cubs season was, overall, a failure. No doubt. Although, looking back, remember that many questioned the moves of Dempster/Wood.

This supports my argument, not Frank's. The expectations of BOTH teams changed as soon as the season started. Quentin was the real deal right away, until getting hurt. Danks and Floyd produced greatly. AND - Detroit and Cleveland struggled immensely. At that point, the Sox expectations changed immensely, didn't they?


These are similar to the bumps along the way that every contending team faces - including the Cubs. No different for the Sox.

Again - both team's "holes" were exposed late in the year. Both have work to do if they want to improve. Both had the same result this year. I feel more confident in the future of the Cub's core hitters than the Sox right now:(Ramirez, Soto, Soriano, Lee, DeRosa, Theriot) vs. (Konerko, Thome, Dye, Ramirez, Quentin, Pyrzienski) - not a whole lot better, but some of the Sox is quite a bit older than the Cubs.

_________________

Not quite. If at the start of December, the Bears are 8-4 and in first place from now until then, and maintain 1st until the start of the playoffs, aren't our expectations for them going to increase at that point? A first round bounce at the hands of, say, the Redskins (parallel to the Rays? Best I could come up with) will not qualify as a success in my book. The expectations change once the season starts and you see where you actually are relative to all the other teams. Preseason predictions don't matter anymore.

_________________

Our expectations may increase, but the season is judged as a whole. By your criteria, only one team can ever consider the season to be a success. If they were in first place at 8-4, then expectations change and you expect a first round win. Then you win the first game, and you expect a second round win. Where does it stop? Every team that has ever played and lost in the Super Bowl would have had an unsuccessful season, because as soon as you make it to the Super Bowl, your expectations change.

By the same logic, the 2007 Bears would also be reevaluated as they clearly weren't a good team. I would call 2007 a failure for the Bears, but that's based off of preseason predictions and where they ended the previous year. Winning a championship is the ultimate goal, but I don't see how you can have a criteria where all but one team fails to have a successful season.

Do you disagree that if the Bears make the playoffs this year, that it will have been a successful season even if they lose in the first round? I'm not sure if you made a prediction in the Bears prediction thread, but even my optimistic view had them at 8-8 and I was in the minority of people with a positive outlook. With that said, winning the NFC North or even being a wildcard team would be a success to me.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Nope. If the Bears make the postseason, then Bears fans can correctly label this season as being a success. If the Vikings fail to make the playoffs, then it is a failure.

The White Sox simply had the better season, all things considered. More was learned about the future of that team and how promising things are now looking for the future, whereas the Cubs have now made the postseason two years in a row AND got swept out immediately. The Cubs have no idea what is wrong, while the Sox have a better idea of what is right.

Thome 38
Dye 34
Konerko 32
Pierzynski 31
Ramirez 27
Quentin 26

Lee 33
DeRosa 33
Soriano 32
Ramirez 30
Theriot 28
Soto 25

Doesn't really seem like much of a difference other than Thome. Also, even though he sucked this year, Swisher will probably be around for another year or 2 and he's only 27. Good news for Sox fans...the 2 best players on that list are also the 2 youngest players.

_________________

Yes you could - a place setting designed for toddlers.

_________________

OH NO YOU DIDUNT

That is good news - hopefully Quentin wrist injury doesn't hamper his growth. He is legit, no question.

I do forget that Theriot and Quentin are both deceptively "old" - i.e. not as young as commonly thought.

I hope that the Swisher reference was made toungue-in-cheek.

_________________

Obviously he sucked. This was his worst year in the majors. But since he has a favorable contract I think he'll be here. And if he has an "average" year for him, he'll be OK....he won't carry the team, and neither will Theriot or DeRosa but that's not what they're there for anyway.

It depends on how the season unfolds. If the Bears continue to progress the way they have the last two weeks, and head into the playoffs looking like a legit post-season threat for the entire year, then a 1st rd. loss cannot be considered a success. Not in my book anyway.

_________________

Sorry spank, but I think that logic is flawed. More cannot be expected from a team just because they beat up on the Detroit Lions.

Let me look at it this way:

If a cinderella college basketball team makes it to the Final Four one season, but then gets destroyed by Memphis in that round, would you label the cinderella team's season a failure?

If said team were the White Sox he sure as fuck would

_________________

Right. Expecations do change as the season unfolds. That's why they were less in September. Sox lost Quentin. Crede and Contreras injuries lowered expectations too. They lost 5 in a row in late Septemeber. 8 out of 11 I think. But they still get in. They weren't better than any of the playoff teams in the AL. They lost in round 1. Still a good season for the Sox.

A good season - an unsuccesful finish. I could agree with that. Same as the Cubs.

_________________

Are you serious right now? Mr. "kettle" - please list your positiveviews on the Cubs and the finish to their season......





well, we're waiting......

_________________

This just in...

MLB has announced they will crown the Chicago White Sox as the 2008 world series champions for the great accomplishment of...Passing Expectations.

Who the hell cares? Both Chicago teams lost in the first round of the playoffs and that sucks!

_________________
Proud to be UNVERIFIED.

Um - I was talking about continued progression for the remainder of the season, like they have shown in the last two weeks. You took from that "beating up the Lions". Okay.......no further response from me on that one. You're on your own.



Let me use a "Frank-ism" on you: Apples and Oranges.

1.) Taking a school like James Madison (enrollment: At least several hundred. AD Budget: at least several thousand) and beating several mega-enrollment/mega million $ schools in one year

is NOT the same as:

2.) A professional sports team, with a HUGE budget and payroll and expecting them to compete with similar teams.

That is the very definition of flawed logic.

_________________

I believe, again using Frank's words against him, now that several people have at least somewhat agreed with me - Frank is being "taken to task" on this one.

_________________

And notice, the only people agreeing with you are CUB fans because they do not want admit the Sox were better.

Fact: You're still wrong. Fact: Sox 2008 > Cubs 2008

_________________

Tell that to my white sox fan - neighbor who handed me, a cubs fan, $50 of his hard earned cash.

_________________
Proud to be UNVERIFIED.

And? That bet has nothing to do with the Cubs and Sox success. The Cubs should have bad more wins: they were the better team, especially compared to the rest of thier division. The Sox were not, and thats the point. The Sox were NOT SUPPOSED to win 88 games, but they did. The Cubs WERE SUPPOSED to win the nl central again, and they did. Then shit the bed in the playoffs.

To think that your nieghbor is the only Sox fan who lost $ to a Cubs fan this season, or that because of you financial benefit the Cubs had a better season is the dumbest thing posed in this thread yet. And considering how many asinine posts spanky has in this thread, that is really saying something.

_________________

I never once POSED in this thread.

Way to your point!

_________________
Proud to be UNVERIFIED.

_________________

I propose the "Spanky theorem".
Winning your division = Successful season.
Both the White Sox and the Cubs won their division.
Therefore BOTH the Cubs & the White Sox had succesfull seasons.

Frank,
You're a moron for aguing against this truism.
Admit you are wrong, and just sit back and allow the Cubs fans to enjoy their successful season.

_________________
“Mmmm. Move over, eggs. Bacon just got a new best friend - fudge.”

Hmm...you raise a good point.



Fixed

_________________

Technically, since we've crossed from the 20th to the 21st, wouldn't it be "centuries"?

_________________
“Mmmm. Move over, eggs. Bacon just got a new best friend - fudge.”

Not yet

At least not until the 2008 WS Champ is crowned.

_________________

Frank I AM A SOX FAN!!! YOU ARE WRONG !!!!!!!!! Look at games lost and won the Cubs had a better record!!!!!! Just because you are a SOX fan you're not always right! I might start a group Sox Fans against Coztansa!

_________________
I'm going to bounce from the spot for awhile but I will be back at some point to argue with you about this hoops stuff again. Playoffs have been great this season. See ya up the road.

I'm out.