On Saturday Tim explained how silly the Cubs are, but I came to a much different conclusion than he did after reading the same thing. Let me start with just quoting some of the same things Tim did.
General manager Jim Hendry and assistant GM Randy Bush will preside over the two days of meetings. Hendry’s objective will be to give the scouts direction as the team looks to acquire new players or move some off the present 25-man roster.
I’m not even sure why such a meeting is news. Every single organization in baseball is having the same meeting. We’re approaching the mont of July and teams need to start figuring out if they’re buyers or sellers. You don’t necessarily have to be one or the other. You could be both as we’ve seen some teams do over the years. I’m not sure the Cubs are in a position to do it. They would have been after 2009, but now it’s just going to be too difficult to accomplish, but that’s not really the point.
I’m sure fans immediately thought fire sale when they read this comment, which is exactly what the media wanted us to think. I couldn’t help but think why this was even news.
I want to break the next quote into two quotes.
“In other words, don’t believe all the hype surrounding the front-office meetings next week involving top scouts and baseball brass.
There it is. The media made a big deal about nothing. If the media told us about every single meeting the Cubs executives and scouts have it would be the most boring topic on the planet. No idea at all why we even heard about this one. The meeting was nothing from the start. It was never going to be anything close to what some in the media speculated. The media tried to create a story about a meeting that takes place on a regular basis and one that all teams have.
“It’s not as complicated as people would think,” general manager Jim Hendry said. “You want to get healthy. You want Marlon [Byrd] to come back [from the disabled list], and [Darwin] Barney, and let Mike manage a club that looks a little more like the one we broke camp with, and see how we play for a while.”
Tim head-desked this one, but I don’t see anything wrong with that statement. Every GM wants to see his team healthy and the manager have a chance to manage the team they thought they had entering the season. Furthermore, every GM wants his players to get healthy so he has a better idea of what he can and cannot trade in the next month plus. He wants Marlon Byrd back for two reasons: he’s better than what the Cubs have been trotting out there and if he proves he’s healthy he’s worth a decent prospect in a trade.
Also, and you may not like this, it gives the club an idea of what they have entering next season. Do they play well enough that they think they can add some pieces? We’re mostly in agreement that they don’t, but that’s a decision they have to reach themselves and they aren’t going to do it with Marlon Byrd on the disabled list. In fact, having Marlon Byrd on the DL makes it less likely the Cubs are sellers because that’s one of their major contributors that’s been out of the lineup for a long time now. As long as there are a number of injuries the team can always say that they’d have played better were it not for the injuries and they’re 100% correct. How much better? This was a .500 team at best entering the season so there you go.
Now I’m going to quote something Tim said because I don’t think I was clear enough a few weeks ago when I wrote the article about team presidents.
It started with Ricketts giving that little talk about how he doesn’t need a baseball guy watching his baseball guy, which I know MB liked, but I don’t think he meant it how MB took it. He wasn’t saying, “I’m not going to limit the pool of people from which I pick the next leader of the Cubs baseball operations.” He was saying, “I have my leader of Cubs baseball operations right here and I’m not going to bring in anyone to oversee him, overrule him, or otherwise deter him from his plan.”
I definitely liked it. Here’s why: look at the New York Yankees front office. You have five Steinbrenners at the top ranging from principal owner and chairperson (George Steinbrenner). That’s interesting in itself since the man is dead. The Yankees have a dead man owning their team. Can you imagine how much fun we’d have if the Cubs had a dead man who owned the Cubs? That would be so Cub-like. After George you have Hal, Henry, Jennifer Steinbrenner Swindal, Jessica Steinbrenner and Joan Steinbrenner. The latter 3 are all vice chairpersons, but the Jennifer and Jessica are also General Partner. Henry is the General Partner and Co-Chairperson while Hal is the Managing General Partner and Co-Chairperson.
After the five Steinbrenners you have Randy Levine who I mentioned recently. He’s the team president. You then have Lonn A. Trost who is the Chief Operating Officer and then Brian Cashman who is the Senior Vice President and General Manager. Neither Trott nor Levine, both attorneys, are involved with baseball related decisions. Those decisions are left to Brian Cashman and at least one of the Steinbrenners.
Now take a look at the Cubs front office. You have Tom Ricketts at the top followed by Pete, Laura and Todd Ricketts. The Tribune Company serves as a Board of Directors along with the latter three Ricketts and then Crane Kenny is the team President.
Kenney is no longer involved in baseball related decisions. Those decisions, exactly like the New York Yankees system, are left to the general manager and at least one member of the owning family.
What I’m saying is that I don’t care who or what they hire to replace Crane Kenney or even if they do replace him. The structure of the Cubs front office is nearly identical to that of the Yankees and they’ve won a million titles. The only way it could be more similar is if the Ricketts family found another member of their family to do whatever the hell it is they all do. The Yankees have five members of the owning family while the Cubs have four. The next person involved with baseball related decisions is the General Manager.
We can’t attack the system the Cubs have setup in the front office without also attacking the same structure that the Yankees have. Does anyone feel like attacking the structure of the greatest franchise in sports history? Yes, I realize sports history ended, but still.
Back to comments that Tim quoted.
“It’s no different than I would tell you a month ago,” he said. “My main objective would be to see how we do by the end of July and also make logical decisions that help the ballclub for next year, too.”
I actually like this comment. Do I trust Hendry to make logical decisions that help the ballclub next season? Probably not, but you can’t advertise your players for sale at the end of June. Have the Astros done it? Have the Royals done it? Has any team in baseball told the baseball world which players they have that are available? For that matter, has any team in baseball ever announced which players they want to trade? If the Cubs said publicly they’re selling all players, they don’t really have a fire sale. They have a garage sale instead because teams aren’t offering maximum value for something someone else is desperately trying to rid themselves of.
The game plan will include going after top prospects and young players from other teams. Three Cubs players — Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Zambrano and Aramis Ramirez — with no-trade clauses or 5-and-10 no-trade rights have responded to media inquiries about whether they would accept trades.
This is a quote that I think we all have to read carefully and I realized after reading it two to three times the first time that it was written this way for a specific reason. The first sentence states some game plan about going after top prospects and young players. Keep in mind this so-called game plan is from an unnamed source so we must take it with a grain of salt. Also important, there are two things they are going after: top prospects and young players. More specifically, the best prospects they can get for what they are trading because, well, that’s just how it works.
It’s interesting that the next sentence is written right after the first, because the implication is that those players are going to bring top prospects and young players in return. I can tell you for a fact that the Cubs know they aren’t getting prospects for Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Zambrano and Aramis Ramirez. I’m left to think only one thing: Gordo, or whoever it was that wrote it, combined those two sentences for a specific reason.
I don’t think the second sentence has anything to do with the first. I don’t even think they’re connected in any way. There was no quote from even an unnamed source. This was Gordo writing something that would get some hits so you include some popular names that are searched on google. Then you throw in top prospects, young players, trade, no-trade clause, 5-and-10 no-trade rights and accept trade and you’re going to get a shitload of hits over the years simply because you combined so many words that fans are frantically searching during the baseball season in July. It would not surprise me one bit to learn this entire two sentence paragraph was written by someone other than Gordo.
I know from running ACB over the years that popular search hits have to do with trades, rumors, no-trade clause, salary, contract, popular player names and top prospects. That paragraph is written with the specific intention of getting hits from search engines.
For example:
The Cubs of Major League Baseball will trade players like Aramis Ramirez, Carlos Zambrano and Alfonso Soriano if a team like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers or Cardinals are interested. They would want top prospects, preferably ones from the MLB Draft’s first round, which takes place in June, so they would have plenty of service time remaining before they’re eligible for free agency. They might then negotiate a free agent contract for a long-term deal keeping him in Chicago while at the Winter Meetings in December. Along with other young players and/or prospects like Starlin Castro, Brett Jackson, Trey McNutt, Matt Szczur they could win the division by 2013 and be World Series Champions.
Over the next year, that paragraph is going to lead to a lot of hits on Obstructed View. There are two months listed. I’ve named 3 popular Cubs, five of the most popular teams in baseball, talked about several prospects, winning the division, a specified year, the World Series and its champion, the MLB Draft, and free agency. About the only thing I could to get more hits would be to randomly say something like Albert Pujols traded, Pujols signs with Cubs, Barry Bonds and steroids, A-Rod, and of course Brad Fucking Snyder. Or how about the one sentence search engine hit machine?
What does Metta World Peace mean?
You know that shit is going to be searched for along time by a lot of people.
You see, journalists may be bad at their jobs, and beat writers covering baseball may be especially bad, but their articles are filled with popular search terms.
There’s also one additional thing we have to accept as Cubs fans. As baseball fans for that matter. Those who run organizations have two jobs: put butts in the seats and be good. It’s arguable which one is more important to any franchise and a franchise like the Cubs, being good is less important than it is for others. Their goal will always be to put butts in the seats. Winning is secondary. It has been my entire life and will be the rest of my life.
There are a number of things to blame for this. Wrigley takes its share of blame for sure. I don’t care if you like Wrigley or not, but you have to acknowledge that since the Cubs fans love Wrigley so much and would go watch a shitty team there that it’s part of the problem. There’s less incentive for this team to win because they have the attraction of Wrigley Field. The number of fans can be blamed, as well. There are a lot of Cubs fans. As a result, their attendance will always be better than teams with similarly bad records. Chicago is a very large city. There’s obviously a lot to do there, but going to a baseball game is one of them. People who aren’t baseball fans will attend games just so they have something different to do. There are others of course, but those are the three big things as far as I can tell. They all enable the the Cubs to focus almost solely on the bottom line and focus little time and energy on winning baseball games. There’s not much you can do about the size of Chicago or the number of Cubs fans. There’s not a lot you can do about Wrigley at the moment either.
We root for a team that has much less incentive to win that most other franchises. My brother used to tell me when we were kids that the Cubs didn’t want to win a championship. I thought he was full of shit at the time, but I think there is some truth to that. Once the Cubs win a championship, this idea of them being the lovable losers vanishes. They become a team that outspends all but a team or two and we know how much fans enjoy hating those who spend money. I don’t believe the Cubs have been actively trying not to win, but I also don’t believe they’ve cared as much about it as other teams might.
People talk about what the Cubs may lose if they left Wrigley. Well, what might they lose if they actually won a championship? Just as much. If you think Wrigley means as much as some do to the Cubs then you also have to think that continuing to lose is equally important.
Comments
It’s like what Hitchcock said about the bomb NOT going off being why people watch movies.
EDIT: Slightly drunk.
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I’m not even sure why such a meeting is news. Every single organization in baseball is having the same meeting. We’re approaching the mont of July and teams need to start figuring out if they’re buyers or sellers.[/quote]
I thought this made news because of how awesome this front office is, they finally decided such a meeting would be a good idea and it would be the first of its kind for this team.
Bubba BiscuitQuote Reply
Also, from what I have read from these hacks, I would have no trouble believing they are better at SEO than at journalism.
Bubba BiscuitQuote Reply
[quote name=Bubba Biscuit]Also, from what I have read from these hacks, I would have no trouble believing they are better at SEO than at journalism.[/quote]To be fair to those guys, I think they’re just as eager for something to happen, or their editors keep bugging them saying like “What’s going on with the Cubs ANYTHING!?” Everyone is sort of eager for something to happen. And the editors probably do the SEO, or they have a guy who changes everyone’s articles to do that. Or they fire you if you don’t do it. This is the Trib we’re talking about, right?
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=josh]To be fair to those guys, I think they’re just as eager for something to happen, or their editors keep bugging them saying like “What’s going on with the Cubs ANYTHING!?” Everyone is sort of eager for something to happen. And the editors probably do the SEO, or they have a guy who changes everyone’s articles to do that. Or they fire you if you don’t do it. This is the Trib we’re talking about, right?[/quote]
So you are saying that since they are rushed and have a web department that they aren’t any good at either SEO or journalism. I can believe that just as easily.
Bubba BiscuitQuote Reply
[quote name=Bubba Biscuit]Also, from what I have read from these hacks, I would have no trouble believing they are better at SEO than at journalism.[/quote]I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. That paragraph is just odd. It doesn’t make sense the way it’s written. It’s not even attributed to any source. It’s just the plan is to get top prospects or young players (duh!) AND that they would like to free up some payroll (duh!). As I wrote this I think it became clear to me that paragraph was written with the specific intention of getting search engine hits.
mb21Quote Reply
I figured the team couldn’t just out and say “We give up” this early but I hope they’re thinking in terms of selling in the back rooms where the press can’t follow.
Check this out:
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=g_log&gid=2011_06_26_kccafx_peoafx_1
Hayden Simpson actually pitched a good game but it sounds like he got BABIPed to death and his defense had some major epic fails too.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]
Hayden Simpson actually pitched a good game but it sounds like he got BABIPed to death and his defense had some major epic fails too.[/quote]Only 2 strikeouts? Meh.
ACTQuote Reply
How does an article get written about the Cubs front office meeting with their scouts unless they actually tell the writers about it? It’s not like the Cubs beat writers are investigative journalists that have just uncovered some top secret meeting. There seems to be an implication that the writers have somehow contrived a story but the front office wanted them to write about it for whatever reason. Hendry wants the media to know that he’s working really hard and meeting with top scouts and they’re going to get their game plan together. To me it smacks of a guy desperate to do damage control to his faltering image.
It also makes me laugh when he talks about getting Mike back the guys he broke camp with when the team was terrible with those guys. This team was not good with Byrd and Barney playing every day. I’ve heard GMs talk about guys under-performing and say that if things don’t turn around there could be a lot of changes and guys moved. It’s not like Hendry needs to blast individuals he wants to move like he did with Bradley in 09 and Z last season.
I don’t expect Hendry to tell the truth, that he has a roster full of over-paid, under-producing veterans and most of his inexperienced players will never amount to shit. I also don’t need him to say we just need to get “our guys” back because that’s not the answer either. I’d also like to add that while the Cubs front office structure may resemble the Yankees, the actual people holding down the jobs aren’t comparable. I’d be willing to bet that there is approximately zero chance Hendry would ever be the Yankees GM or Kenney their team President. The very thought of it leaves me (dying laughing)
melissaQuote Reply
THISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
[quote name=Veena Sud on the Cubs]The Yankees are a highly successful baseball team. If the Cubs can be in that company it’s a deep compliment.[/quote]
.
BerseliusQuote Reply
I’m really confused by the last two paragraphs. How does winning a World Series compute with losing Wrigley? They are conflicting statements.
I just don’t understand how winning could make a team lose revenue. It’s not like Cub fans will change to another team because they like rooting for losers. Or that other teams fans will stop watching us (if they even do). If anything the Cubs will gain so much revenue from a championship. Think about how many girls who don’t watch sports bought all this Sox gear after their WS. Same exact thing will happen when (or if (dying laughing)) the Cubs win. You and I both know how many Sox fans popped up and have been die hard fans since ’05. Shit, I wasn’t even that big of a Cub fan until ’03 (when I was 15).
I can’t buy into this “winning takes away the Lovable Losers tag which takes away from the teams aura.” The Cubs aren’t popular because they lose. They are popular from being on national TV for 40 years and being in the 3rd biggest city in the U.S.
jtsunamiQuote Reply
It’s the same way trades get leaked to the media. If you think Hendry leaked this, you haven’t paid a bit of attention to the Cubs since mid 2002. Hendry couldn’t care less about his faltering image. The idea that these guys gives a shit what you or I think is laughable. We’re second-guessing someone who performs a job we’re not the least bit qualified to perform. It is literally the equivalent of a 4-year old making fun of you. Are you going to care? Of course not. The 4-year old might make some valid points, but you’re an adult. You aren’t going to care one bit.
And that’s all that is important to the discussion. Nobody said Hendry was comparable to Cashman. The structures are identical. We know for an absolute fact that you do not need some genius baseball guy team president presiding over a GM. That’s my argument.
mb21Quote Reply
jt, the Cubs being the lovable losers has helped them get a lot of fans and it’s part of why so many non-baseball fans root for them. They’re losers and everybody likes to see the losers win. Once they win, they lose those fans. How much? I don’t really know, but I suspect it’s the same number of people that the Cubs would lose if they moved to a new ballpark.
But the more important point is that they don’t have to win so why even bother?
mb21Quote Reply
I have a few points I would like to make in response:
– Kate Middleton was married to Prince William in a grand royal wedding.
– Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon will be coming to theatres soon.
– Rod Blagojevich, who is currently on trial and is awaiting the jury’s decision, is a Cubs fan.
– Jessica Alba naked.
Aisle424Quote Reply
(dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
I think my point has been made as clearly as Anthony’s Weiner’s penis.
Aisle424Quote Reply
But the Lovable Loser argument only works if they’re lovable. That can come from being scrappy, good pitchers, homerun hitters, etc. Right now they have about a 4% lovable level, and that’s why people aren’t coming out. Fans have to think they have a chance, but right now no one does.
binkyQuote Reply
Who deleted my post?
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
That’s weird.
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]jt, the Cubs being the lovable losers has helped them get a lot of fans and it’s part of why so many non-baseball fans root for them. They’re losers and everybody likes to see the losers win. Once they win, they lose those fans. How much? I don’t really know, but I suspect it’s the same number of people that the Cubs would lose if they moved to a new ballpark.
But the more important point is that they don’t have to win so why even bother?[/quote]See I don’t buy this. You saw an increase in fans in ’03 ’04 ’07 and ’08. They were winning those years. Obviously they didn’t get the absolute prize, but if they did I can’t imagine attendance would go down the following year. In my mind the city would be on a 5 year Cub-high. The Red Sox lost for almost as many years as the Cubs. Granted they have maintained a high level of success, but their number of fans have increased.
jtsunamiQuote Reply
BOS is a well-run organization. When they finally won, it wasn’t a fluke. IF CHC ever wins, it’ll be a fluke. More people will be Cubs fans, yet the team backing will taper over a five-year period.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
How can you say the Lovable Losers is what got them fans like its an absolute? Factor in the Cubs were on national TV throughout the baby boomers’ lives, the park is in an area not rivaled by any other MLB club, they have rich history, and they are in a huge city which loves sports (unlike L.A.).
If the Lovable Losers tag is why we have so many fans, why aren’t there more baseball fans in Pittsburgh, or football fans in Buffalo, etc. Why are there so many Yankee, Red Sox, Lakers, Packers, etc. fans?
People like teams that win. They don’t show up for teams that lose. The Cubs have something that let’s them overcome losing. I agree that this enables the FO to not care about winning. But them losing is not what makes them special to the baseball or casual sports fan.
jtsunamiQuote Reply
Lovable Losers is a media ploy. A made up fallacy that was attributed to the Cubs. When someone asks, “Why are you a Cub fan?” Is the response, “Because they lose and I want to be there when they finally win?”
jtsunamiQuote Reply
[quote name=jtsunami]When someone asks, “Why are you a Cub fan?” Is the response, “Because they lose and I want to be there when they finally win?”[/quote]
It’s probably not the majority, but I bet you’d be surprised how many people are motivated by this.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]It’s probably not the majority, but I bet you’d be surprised how many people are motivated by this.[/quote]But those type of fans aren’t the ones that the organization is making money off of.
jtsunamiQuote Reply
[quote name=jtsunami]But those type of fans aren’t the ones that the organization is making money off of.[/quote]
Not a steady stream, but there are a lot of people who buy merchandise an attend games. It’s not much, but it’s something. Most of those people aren’t spending right now.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]Who deleted my post?[/quote]I did. I don’t even know what you’re doing or why you posted it.
mb21Quote Reply
I didn’t. Here’s what I wrote:
.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]It’s probably not the majority, but I bet you’d be surprised how many people are motivated by this.[/quote]I think it’s quite a few to be honest. Look around on BCB and you find Cubs fans whose identities are tied to the losing franchise they root for. Any person who cites the losing tradition as much as some of them do are Cubs fans because they are losers.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I did. I don’t even know what you’re doing or why you posted it.[/quote]
If you delete it, you ruin the joke.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]I think it’s quite a few to be honest. Look around on BCB and you find Cubs fans whose identities are tied to the losing franchise they root for. Any person who cites the losing tradition as much as some of them do are Cubs fans because they are losers.[/quote]
People like the Cubs for the same reason you’ll see more Darwin Barney shirts than Starlin Castro shirts. People want to be inspired by underdogs overachieving.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
That’s why there’s a movie about Rudy and not one about…I don’t know, Barry Sanders.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=jtsunami]But those type of fans aren’t the ones that the organization is making money off of.[/quote]They’re making money off of anyone who watches the games on TV, attends a game in person or buys merchandise.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]People like the Cubs for the same reason you’ll see more Darwin Barney shirts than Starlin Castro shirts. People want to be inspired by underdogs overachieving.[/quote]Yeah, the question is how much of an impact does finally winning have on those people? They’re not really Cubs fans, but they do spend money on them.
mb21Quote Reply
hayden simpson sucks
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]hayden simpson sucks[/quote]Yeah, but the Cubs saved half a million bucks when they signed him so Tom Ricketts could be a little richer. (dying laughing)
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Yeah, but the Cubs saved half a million bucks when they signed him so Tom Ricketts could be a little richer. (dying laughing)[/quote]
I’d Nelson Muntz, but the guy I’d have taken is putting up a robust .059/.238/.235 line in rookie ball at 19.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]I’d Nelson Muntz, but the guy I’d have taken is putting up a robust .059/.238/.235 line in rookie ball at 19.[/quote]I would have taken anyone higher rated than Simpson that was still available. He was probably my 165th choice.
mb21Quote Reply
i think between the pedo bear humping a pre teen and todays post somebody needs to suspend JG. No dinner & a benching to clear his head
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Yeah, but the Cubs saved half a million bucks when they signed him so Tom Ricketts could be a little richer. (dying laughing)[/quote]
MB, that money went toward Carlos Silva’s buyout
BerseliusQuote Reply
What was wrong with today’s post, dj?
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles —————-> filed for bankruptcy
BerseliusQuote Reply
Lineup today for delayed sweep vs COL
RF Fukey
CF Campy
SS Linney
3B Ramy
1B Carly
LF Alfie
2B Witty
C Sotey
P Garzy
BerseliusQuote Reply
[quote name=Aisle424]
– Jessica Alba naked.[/quote]
Pictures or it didn’t happen.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=mb21]Yeah, the question is how much of an impact does finally winning have on those people? They’re not really Cubs fans, but they do spend money on them.[/quote]The Blackhawks fans saw a huge boost in fans the past three years by winning. The Bulls have tons of fans and sell out every game for the past 10 years because they won 6 championships 15 years ago. The White Sox have had 6 of their 9 highest season attendance records during and since their 2005 championship. Since 2003, the Cubs attendance has been the highest ever.
Explain to me how losing would be bad using something other than being subjective. If the Cubs lost any fans from winning, how many would they gain from winning? How many would they gain from signing an extremely popular name like Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder?
mb, I just think you being overly-pessimistic. Losing is never good. Winning is always good.
jtsunamiQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]Only 2 strikeouts? Meh.[/quote]
That’s what I said at first, but then I looked at the play-by-play because I saw he’d given up a ton of hits, and I think he only gave up a couple liners. The rest were hits around the infield that were either squibblers or so sharply hit that all the infielder could do was knock it down. He didn’t get hammered in the traditional sense of the word, but he wasn’t a FIP-master either.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Lineup today for delayed sweep vs COL
RF Fukey
CF Campy
SS Linney
3B Ramy
1B Carly
LF Alfie
2B Witty
C Sotey
P Garzy[/quote](dying laughing)
jtsunamiQuote Reply
Soto hits HRs in 2 consecutive games and he bats 8th (dying laughing)
jtsunamiQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Lineup today for delayed sweep vs COL
RF Fukey
CF Campy
SS Linney
3B Ramy
1B Carly
LF Alfie
2B Witty
C Sotey
P Garzy[/quote]
I might be sour on Campana but so far the dude can’t seem to get on base. What’s with managers putting auto-outs in the #2 spot?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
As far as being lovable losers, I think that what attracted me to the Cubs as a kid was the 1984 and 1989 seasons. I was a little young to remember 1984, but my Dad started watching them then and got me into it. Point being, it was the winning seasons that attracted us, as fans, for sure, but also the suspense of them getting so close and not quite making it (that’s what I think of when I think of Lovable Losers, though yeah it’s an advertising thing I guess). They win just often enough to keep you interested. How many fans are still thinking about the 2003 season? Or 07 and 08? They put just good enough teams together to be lovable, but they tend to end up the loser. It’s an infinite tease.
binkyQuote Reply
I agree with Josh. Me —> Cubs = Sammy Sosa in 1998. Winning! Then lots and lots of losing (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Peoria —-> 10 game losing streak
jtsunamiQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]I might be sour on Campana but so far the dude can’t seem to get on base. What’s with managers putting auto-outs in the #2 spot?[/quote]That’s almost as silly as putting DJ in the 3-hole. Or Soto in the 8-hole.
ACTQuote Reply
Dodgers —> no more money
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AlCtjjKmblK45UNtzgKbeJs5nYcB?slug=ap-dodgersbankruptcy
Rice CubeQuote Reply
So, is Cassie’s day off a scheduled thing, or is it because he failed to chase down that ball the ricocheted off his glove yesterday?
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]That’s almost as silly as putting DJ in the 3-hole. Or Soto in the 8-hole.[/quote]
fuck you man, i can handle the 3 spot
dylanjQuote Reply
[quote name=dylanj]fuck you man, i can handle the 3 spot[/quote]
Is that the urethra or the butt?
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Also, it’s not that Campy can’t get on base, it’s that his prefered method for reaching base is being brought in as a pinch-runner.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Me —> Cubs = Sammy Sosa in 1998[/quote]
So Sammy Sosa’s 1998 season was the result of your fandom? I’m not sure I get your equation.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
This is my favorite part of this article:
[quote name=mb21]There’s obviously a lot to do there, but going to a baseball game is one of them.[/quote]
WenningtonsGorillaCockQuote Reply
[quote name=Berselius]Lineup today for delayed sweep vs COL
RF Fukey
CF Campy
SS Linney
3B Ramy
1B Carly
LF Alfie
2B Witty
C Sotey
P Garzy[/quote]Who the hell is Linney?
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]So Sammy Sosa’s 1998 season was the result of your fandom? I’m not sure I get your equation.[/quote]
You have to use the reflexive property here. Thus you can reverse it to:
Sammy Sosa in 1998 = Me —> Cubs
Does that work?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=josh]Who the hell is Linney?[/quote]
He means Starlin Castro (dying laughing)
I think the Official Q Nickname (TM) for Castro is “Cassie” but I lost track of all the stupidity.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]He means Starlin Castro (dying laughing)
I think the Official Q Nickname (TM) for Castro is “Cassie” but I lost track of all the stupidity.[/quote]I got thrown off b/c someone said Starlin had the day off. Makes sense now. Is Quade a feline? Is that why he likes words that end in “ee”?
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=ACT]So, is Cassie’s day off a scheduled thing, or is it because he failed to chase down that ball the ricocheted off his glove yesterday?[/quote]OK, I misunderstood/misread “linney” as being DJ Lemahieu. Disregard.
ACTQuote Reply
[quote name=josh]I got thrown off b/c someone said Starlin had the day off. Makes sense now. Is Quade a feline? Is that why he likes words that end in “ee”?[/quote]
Maybe it’s because his name is “Quad-y” instead of “Quay-d”…
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Maybe it’s because his name is “Quad-y” instead of “Quay-d”…[/quote]Square-y
jtsunamiQuote Reply
[quote name=josh] I was a little young to remember 1984, but my Dad started watching them then and got me into it.[/quote]
That’s part of the reason for quite a few ‘life long’ fans. I see it in my own son now. He roots for the Cubs purely because I do. By the time he gets old enough to realize what a terrible mistake that was, it’ll be too late.
If the Cubs win, it will greatly impact their profitability in the near term. The Cubs will make infinity dollars on championship merchandise/events/etc. I mean, I agree people liked cheering for Rudy, but it was become he overcame his obstacles. Would Rudy be a classic if he didn’t get into ND and then hung himself as the credits rolled at the 40 minute mark of the film?
There is an absurd amount of pent up demand for Cubs championship pageantry. We’re talking about multiple generations of families that have been waiting for this event. Think about the number of people who would buy stuff and say to each other “I bought this because it may never happen again, yuk yuk yuk”.
The Cubs winning the WS would be incredibly profitable for both the Cubs and MLB.
Chris DickersonQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]You have to use the reflexive property here. Thus you can reverse it to:
Sammy Sosa in 1998 = Me —> Cubs
Does that work?[/quote]
That works, but your arrow indicated a forward reaction.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Chris Dickerson]That’s part of the reason for quite a few ‘life long’ fans. I see it in my own son now. He roots for the Cubs purely because I do.[/quote]
You’re a bad father.
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
[quote name=Chris Dickerson]That’s part of the reason for quite a few ‘life long’ fans. I see it in my own son now. He roots for the Cubs purely because I do. By the time he gets old enough to realize what a terrible mistake that was, it’ll be too late.[/quote]My kid will probably hate baseball b/c I usually listen on the MLB radio. To him it will be the most boring use of the internet ever.
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]You’re a bad father.[/quote]
I justify it to myself that until the economics of baseball change, the Cubs stand a better chance of winning than most other teams.
Eventually, a team with the resources that the Cubs have will be able to go into every season as a contender.
Chris DickersonQuote Reply
[quote name=Chris Dickerson]Eventually, a team with the resources that the Cubs have will be able to go into every season as a contender.
— Benjamin Franklin[/quote].
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Don’t the Cubs, as a franchise, have an overall winning record? How is that even possible?
binkyQuote Reply
[quote name=josh]Don’t the Cubs, as a franchise, have an overall winning record? How is that even possible?[/quote]
Because they were badass before World War II.
Plus there were multiple years before the 1960s expansions where you had to win your league to get to the playoffs, so you can have a .500+ record and still not get to the show. It’s still possible these days despite expanded playoffs and the wild card (i.e. 2009).
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Because they were badass before World War II.
Plus there were multiple years before the 1960s expansions where you had to win your league to get to the playoffs, so you can have a .500+ record and still not get to the show. It’s still possible these days despite expanded playoffs and the wild card (i.e. 2009).[/quote]Right, good point.
binkyQuote Reply
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/27/mike-quade-on-starlin-castros-lack-of-hustle-it-better-not-happen-again/
I know SK was talking about this yesterday during the game, which allowed the Royals to turn a single into a double, but I think there were other guys that could’ve been thrown under the bus besides Starlin Castro. I feel like Castro’s being picked on because he’s so young and basically has no pull right now since he’s still bound by indentured servitude.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
[quote name=Rice Cube]Because they were badass before World War II.[/quote]Especially in the dead-ball era between 1904 and 1913. Bill James once pointed out that the club had the best record for 1 season, 2 seasons, 3 seasons, etc. all the way up to 10 seasons.
ACTQuote Reply
Here’s the Bill James piece: http://books.google.com/books?id=3uSbqUm8hSAC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=bill+james+%22bear+cubs%22&source=bl&ots=1lkaie2Gzi&sig=wj2-I8IdMdxTsYwCwp6BFb12R88&hl=en&ei=b7UITsTsJaXj0QHfpIDKCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
ACTQuote Reply
I also love how Frank Chance averaged 3 home runs and 53 steals as a first baseman. Times have changed…
ACTQuote Reply
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
Unobstructed:
http://obstructedview.net/unobstructed-views/cubs/nick-jonas-takes-bp-at-wrigley-why-not-sign-him.html
AndCountingQuote Reply
Alvin’s game preview is up:
That’s quite a story.
No shit?! What are the odds, like 1/5?
Dr. Aneus TaintQuote Reply
It’s probably greater than 1 in 5 since we knew he was scheduled on April 27th and how many scheduled games the Rockies had in between. I’m way too lazy to look it up though.
mb21Quote Reply
[quote name=Jame Gumb]That’s quite a story.[/quote]
That was just after they found out Wells and Cashner were hurt and were scrambling to get the rotation figured out. April 27th was just one day after the James Russell mini-fail, and they had to pencil Casey Coleman into the matchup against Chacin, so the wussout was on.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/articles/general/contest-update.html
mb21Quote Reply
The article was instead catching and intriguing enough to get all possible nuances
to recall. I do enjoy reading the material and the writing manner of
the author, etc as I did if finding https://elizamariejones.com/. I advise you to write such kinds
of articles daily to give the audience like me all the essential information. In my view, it
is better to be ready for all the unexpected scenarios in advance,
so thanks, it was pretty cool.
CameronQuote Reply