Bleed Cubbie Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: The Boxing Bulletin for Boxing Fans!

The game is on the field people

Last night I got to watch my first real time game on tv (and the last for a little while unfortunately) and couldn't have picked a better one.

The game will be discussed all day, but I noticed somewhere in I think the fifth that everyone in the bottom section of the stands were looking up at the aisle behind home plate, including everyone behind the cubs dugout.

Was there a streaker or something?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs  |  Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Well...
I called a friend who was at the game...he couldn't really tell what was going on, but thought there was some sort of fight. Presumably between a Cubs fan and an unfortunate Cards fan.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want somebody else to go chase it.

by 10 14 23 26 on Apr 10, 2006 9:05 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Fight
I wasn't at the game, but I noticed it too.  The people were definitely looking up into the stands, I would have to assume it was a fight as well.

by ontheuptick on Apr 10, 2006 9:11 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

actually...
All of a sudden everyone stood up and looked behind home plate as beer was being thrown between a group of people. There was also some pushing and shoving. The real fight was in the bottom of the eighth soon after we all know what happened right behind me in section 228. Lets just say it went on for a good 5 minutes before security could break them up, and then it took another 5 minutes for them to get them out of Wrigley.

by luv4cubs2 on Apr 10, 2006 9:13 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Its to bad
that those things happen.  I have been to Bush stadium in St. Louis and have had no problems with fans there.  Other than simple and fun trash talk, I have never seen any violence between fans.  No one, I mean no one should get in a fight at a ball game for crying out loud.  I mean, isnt suppose to be a fun and memeroble experience?  Ending up in jail for assult doesnt sound like much fun.
First Boston, then the White Sox, its now the Cubs turn.

by indytaz on Apr 10, 2006 9:17 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I agree about the fighting
I live about 2 miles from Fenway, and have to use the T the Fenway stop is on to get home from class, the worst nights, by far, are the Yankees series, you just never know whats going to happen. I had one friend (a Mets fan actually) that got his car keyed and spray painted just because he has NY plates

I don't like the Cards, but I think the Cubs Cards rivalry is the best in sports, both fans want to win, but both are very knowledgable and there is a mutual respect for the game

by flyball on Apr 10, 2006 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

a lot of this
has to do with the night games in wrigleyville. they're far, far worse than the weekend day games, imo, and of course the weekday day games -- the crowd is just unsavory, often incredibly drunk. i try not to go to night games at all anymore -- just don't want to be involved.

by gaius marius on Apr 10, 2006 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That depends...
... on where you go. I haven't run into any problems myself in the neighborhood after games.

Yes, there are drunks in the stands and in the bars. If you can focus on going to the game, watching the game, and going straight home after, you might feel differently.

by Al on Apr 10, 2006 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i actually think
the neighborhood is almost safer than the stands. the park at night is a 4am bar with 70-year-old bouncers. people have been drinking all day and then get packed into a raucous crowd atmosphere full of belligerence and beer -- and some percentage of the young fellows simply can't handle that. a lot of otherwise ordinary young people behaving as though they had been granted a temporary license to be as obnoxious and confrontational as they please. for every fight, there are a hundred lesser sneering confrontations and chest-puffings. it's no mistake that the warning-track litterings and cap-stealing brawls almost all happen at the night games.

seriously -- why bother? go to the day games. at least the 1pm starts haven't got 10+ hours of boozing time beforehand to bring out the worst in some.

by gaius marius on Apr 10, 2006 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have the same problem here in Cincy,
and I have made a mention to the Reds organization about having a family friendly zone, which Great American Ballpark currently lacks.  

When a Reds fan yells at me, "It's ok, I'd still [expletive] you even though you're a Cubs fan"... you know it's time to implement such an area.

she

by Sarah Hope on Apr 10, 2006 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thats wrong....
Its sad that people cannot go to a ballgame without being harrassed.

The worst ribbing I got was at a Cards game some guy tried to take my hat off (I was wearing a Cubs cap) and he said you got the wrong hat on.. I said You need us to beat Houston so Id watch it.  He kept walking.

People sometimes can take sports too seriously at times... this is one of those times where the competitive nature is embodied in the human spirit.  

Your team lost..fighting doesn't change that.

by cubsfan2883 on Apr 10, 2006 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

why?
I dont know about the fight behind home plate, but the one i was talking about, deep behind visiting dugout, was between cub fans. The instigating group certainly had too much too drink before and during the game. Can't we all just get along??

by luv4cubs2 on Apr 10, 2006 10:46 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Nacho Cheese Brawl...
We had a nice scuffle in the UD (sec. 436) A girl and a guy got into a fight in about the 6th inning...yelling...screaming...the guy smacked the girl and she slammed a full tray of nacho cheese into his face. (I believe they were both Cubs fans). The guy got kicked out (and embarrassment beyond belief) and the woman got removed momentarily - she returned to a round of applause.
Funny, but c'mon people...relax!
It will happen...someday!

by bergs55 on Apr 10, 2006 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Nacho Cheese Brawl
Hey, I was up in 436 last night, too. I was writing on my scorecard and all of a sudden I heard a roar...and a guy walking out with nacho cheese all over him. I was wondering what had happened...

by elscorcho0682 on Apr 10, 2006 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was also in 436....
Last night. Didn't see the cheesing but was definately distracted by it.
"Harlem Furniture......You'll like our style!"

by Imtrejo on Apr 10, 2006 6:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fights at games
It got so ridiculous at games I was at last year that I started a tally. I went to 6 games last year and if my memory serves me correctly I believe that at 4 of them I saw fights of some sort. At a couple of those games I saw multiple fights. It's really annoying.
AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike on Apr 10, 2006 2:22 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I think the problem is
too much beer.  I'm all for a good beer at the park, but there were some very, very drunk people at that game.  Either they should exercise self control or the servers should exercise some judgment.  Hopefully, none of them were driving!

by dfrancon on Apr 10, 2006 2:38 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

it's funny
the problems have gotten much worse in recent years. more night games is only part of it -- there's also clark street, which has become bourbon street effectively. is there a single enterprise on clark between irving park and belmont that isn't a pub, club or nuts on clark? :) a few of us were laughing this weekend at how horrifyingly smashed up that whole area is now for gameday. they had gone to opening day on friday and saw no fewer than seven people projectile vomit in the middle of clark street, including one up into that frigid wind in order to spray a crowd of innocents.

by gaius marius on Apr 10, 2006 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

whatever it is,
it's flipping obnoxious-
 last time i went to Wrigley, in 2004, my sister and i were grabbing a sandwich on clark (i think)- she was 2 monthes pregnant and this thug fratboy douchebag tryed to feel her up- i got him off of her without much of a altercation, but it left a real sour taste in my mouth for the so-called "friendly confines"...

i love having a beer at the game, and dont think it should be made illegal, but i wish people were more ashamed about getting so agressively violently drunk. Its a real bummer.

On a lighter note, we did hang out by the parking lot afterwords and we saw Lee and Prior, neither signed autographes, but they waved and smiled, which was cool.  :)

a good team can't be beat!

by WrigleyCat on Apr 10, 2006 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

cosign
I don't have anything hard and fast to back this up, of course, but it's just seemed to me like every year I go back, games at Wrigley are becoming more of a see-and-be-seen place, an extension of the bar scene, and less of a ballgame.  Which, to me, is beyond annoying; fortunately, I don't have to put up with it as much as I'm no longer in town.  It's sad, though.

It would almost be worth a few miserable losing seasons to get folks back off the bandwagon.  Almost.

by dustyisdonnie on Apr 10, 2006 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

on saturday
when we were at the game, i saw some guy who's girlfriend was so drunk that he had to carry her around over his shoulder like a fireman.

i like to drink at games, but i don't see why the people who serve at stadiums don't have to live up to the same standards as bartenders--if you overserve, you are responsible for the consequences. maybe they are, its just not enforced.

unfortunately its a problem that will likely not have a solution until something terrible happens. wrigley's not going to crack down because they make a ton of money off the drunks. the fans aren't going to make enough noise because too many of them are drunk too. and no politician is going to make "let's crack down on drinking at wrigley" as their platform.

by tomas21 on Apr 10, 2006 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They are subject to the standards
All of the servers at Wrigley are supposed to have alcohol server training.  I think that includes roving beer vendors, but I'm not sure.

I saw a lot of the same ugliness Sunday night, just walking through the concourses after the game.

People booze it up for hours beforehand, and people know they can sneak booze in.  They do need to beef up security.

What does not kill you makes you stronger.

by Pa on Apr 11, 2006 1:00 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

beer vendors do have to be trained as well
but since they make 100% of the money on commission and tips, the pay structure actually provides an incentive to continue selling to drunks.
All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Apr 11, 2006 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

there can be punishment for overserving
in 2005, a jury handed down a $135 million verdict against Aramark and a drunk drivber after a vendor at Giants Stadium accepted a $10 bribe to break the 2 beers per person rule and sold 6 beers to a guy who was already drunk.  the drunk driver was responsible for $29.5 million of the verdict.

the fan got in his car after the game and caused a car crash that paralyzed a 2 year old girl.  his blood alcohol level was 0.266.

Aramark appealed and i'm not sure what happened at that point.  you can read about it here.

Also, according to this article, the family of the girl settled separate lawsuits with the National Football League, the Giants and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority.

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Apr 11, 2006 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re
As long as society continues to provide the means to allocate responsibility to those other than the person engaging in the problematic behavior, the behavior is going to continue.

Vendors should not be placed in the postion of having to judge a person's capacity for alcohol or what he may or may not do when he's outside of control.

If society really wanted to get serious about drunken behavior, whatever that behavior might be, it would lock people up on the criminal side and make them completely financially responsible on the civil side.

Yes, it's a tragic story.  But all shifting the financial penalty to people and organizations not responsible for the decision to drive while incapacitated does is spread the risk out to society in general.  Whenever that happens, it provides a disincentive to stop engaging in the risky behavior, since the risk has already been decided to be shared.

We have drunks because society accepts drunks.  Until that changes, these stories will continue.

by Jed Taylor on Apr 11, 2006 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

que?
i appreciate reactionary rants filled with conclusory overstatements and devoid of supporting studies or data as much as the next guy, but i fear this discussion has moved beyond the realm of anything tangentially related to baseball.

but for those who think they see nuggets of enlightenment in the post above, i would point you to any number of philosophers and political theorists who articulate a different view of man's relationship with his fellow beings, starting with Thomas Hobbes, continuing with John Locke and Jean-Jeaques Rousseau and ending with any serious study of the underpinnings of contemporary tort law for a far different perspective.  it's a perspective that understands none of us operate in a vacuum and we can and should be held responsible for our actions when the resulting harm is foreseeable.  

i've said too much.  i will now leave this discussion and return to my beloved cubs who i expect to fully rebound tomorrow as the ancient warrior greg maddux takes the mound with, at least as is currently predicted, strong winds blowing out to right field.

All will be fixed in 2006

by DSZ on Apr 11, 2006 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

haha
ancient warrior...that's funny, I like it.
2006 -- AC036097 -- Eamus Catuli!

by priorpwnz on Apr 12, 2006 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

such has been one course of thought
but you know as well as i, dsz, that self-determination has been giving ground to social management under utilitarian principles since bentham -- and socialism is the central meme we live under today. this is nothing like the society of personally responsible and socially considerate moral christians proposed by locke.

i agree that civic law is often a philosophical confusion of the two, patchworked together over time and by circumstance. but the basic notion of personal responsibility has been made to coexist with a desperate management against social deterioration in the last centuries as people become less responsible and more self-interested and detached.

it's that developed tendency to paternalism, i think, that jt dislikes. i'd argue that, however distasteful and even evil in the absence of harmonia, it's also what remains to hold this failing civilization together.

and now I'VE certainly said too much. :)

by gaius marius on Apr 12, 2006 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Too much?
Perhaps for the BCB blog, but you have no idea how enjoyable it is to run across someone who not only has been exposed to these theories, but who is also able to apply them in a contemporary context.

And you are correct.  I already have one mother, which is more than enough.  I want neither a government to regulate my behavior nor one that seeks to protect me from my own choices.  And forcing me to pay for the actions of others, either directly or indirectly, is the height of injustice.

I don't enjoy the drunks at Wrigley any more than the next guy.  I've even had a couple of heated exchanges with some, both ending with me getting a Cubs security person and having them tossed.

But I would never, ever hold a vendor responsible in any way, whether it be financially, criminally, or personally for participating in a transaction between two consenting adults, especially when the sponsoring organization (the Cubs) sets up his reward system so as to encourage maximizing such transactions.

Should a vendor decide to decline to participate in such a transaction because of his personal beliefs and how they relate to what he perceives about the other party (i.e., he's not going to be a participant in fueling a drunk), then that's well within his rights as free, independent adult.  In fact, I admire his choice of personal ethics over personal economic profit.  But to require him, by law, to make such a choice?  Never!

by Jed Taylor on Apr 13, 2006 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

LOL
As a philosophy major, let me assure you you have said way, way too much about people I doubt you've even read, much less studied.

Let me also assure you there are schools of thought that posit the best way for each of us to live with one another is to insist on personal responsibility.

To call an appeal to personal responsibility a "reactionary rant" speaks volumes about how much of life you're willing to take on vs. how much you expect those around you to do for you.  Moreover, American tort law has evolved increasing toward a perspective of assigning blame to those who can afford it and assuming individuals are too stupid to act as responsible, independent agents.

I prefer a system where stupid people shoulder the responsibilty for being stupid.  Unfortunately, we increasingly live in a society that spreads the cost of their stupidity amongst everyone, most commonly thru increased insurance costs.  One has only to look at the absurd and obvious plethora of warnings attached to every consumer product more sophisticated than a nail to observe this.

I'm more than happy to be my brother's keeper, and make sure he gets home safely when he's had too many at the ballpark.  But it's his choice to drink.  He's an independent adult who must be allowed to both enjoy and suffer the consequences of his decisions.  That's the essence of freedom.

by Jed Taylor on Apr 13, 2006 8:07 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

perhaps with this thread now safely buried
this is something that can be talked about, jt.

i used to agree with you -- and still do, on some level.

I prefer a system where stupid people shoulder the responsibilty for being stupid.  Unfortunately, we increasingly live in a society that spreads the cost of their stupidity amongst everyone, most commonly thru increased insurance costs.

the reading of philosophy is a lifelong commitment to incompleteness, but i wonder if you should have hanced upon mackay's "extraordinary popular delusions" or le bon's "the crowd". when i first did some years ago in the context of money management, it opened my eyes to a different view.

much of classical economics as encoded in locke is, we must remember, the prouct of a historical period obsessed with the emergence of society from under the wing of a decadent religious authority -- locke and all his peers wrote in reaction to the wars of religion, a trend which has continued to expound upon itself to the modern day (where we may be seeing an inflection point -- but that's another story).

much of what emerged is inextricably intertwined with the cult of reason. indeed, most austrian-chicago-school "washington consensus" free market economics is based on the fundamental assumption of the rationality of men -- their capacity to coolly judge (on average) what is best for themselves and therefore en masse for us all.

i do not believe that is so -- and mackay's recounting of the mississippi scheme and other madnesses (not to mention living through nasdaq 5000) pointed me to that belief, which is now gaining wider currency in behavioral economics. the lesson of history seems very much to be that man is gravely irrational and does need to be protected from himself -- for, without restraint and being hopelessly narcissistic, we succumb to what freud called the death drive.

the consequence of this revelation to me meant the recognition of the deep value of law -- and by this i mean not the ministerial edicts of our compulsive postmodern management class, but the transcendent moral law that recurs in history and societies to demonstrate its permanence -- over choice. choice is a conditional good -- we are creatures of free will, after all -- only within the boundaries of moral law.

there is a great darkness in that recognition, for from that perspective it is seen that this society has been bent for centuries on the flight from law and its institutions toward choice, from society toward individual, from outward to inward, and from superego to id -- so much so that choice has become a mere euphemism for irresponsibility.

the rise of the insurance state and the progress of industrial standardization of behavior is, i rather think, a desperate bulwark thrown up against this psychic decline and its frightening social consequences. it is the inevitable cost of abandoning harmonia and subservience.

and yet, if history is any indicator, one paid in futility. you and i both know, i imagine, that this managerial politico-industrial construct has no moral basis -- it is order for its own sake, and cannot long survive the wandering allegiance of disaffected, introverted millions. and it has in any case been increasingly perverted in the service of irresponsibility -- the state takes the onerous duties of a truly free man so that the man himself can debauche himself.

but neither is the reestablishment of uninhibited choice and responsibility a way forward -- as stated, an philosophical and spiritual overindulgence of choice is the underlying problem. choice now, increasingly without the moral stricture of the superego and supportive moral institutions to guide it, means the hobbesian war of all against all -- so much so that some theorists actually glorify it, not least fascists and neocons, finding justification and emacipation in the elevation of "darwinian" anarchic destruction.

our choice, then -- management state vs introvered choice -- is a false dichotomy. either path advances our troubles.

by gaius marius on Apr 13, 2006 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re
Very well stated, if I don't completely agree with your analysis.

While it's true that the field of economics is moving toward models that better incorporate the irrationality of man and away from the Adam Smith "invisible hand" of complete information and perfect decision making, they are doing so not for the purpose of deciding what should be, but rather, what is.

Moreover, some of these models call behavior that fulfills unquantifiable physic needs "irrational", thus exposing their underlying prejudice against such choices.  Others, which tend to be more accurate in their forecasting, simply don't care - in this sense they're agnostic.

It's the desire for the philosopher/king state that makes an appeal for an entity who knows what's better for an individual than the individual himself.  Such a desire combines a desire for power and control, empathy, a belief in superiority, and a play on others' fears and inadequacies in an attempt to convince people that's there's someone else who knows better than they do about what's best for them.  This is, after all, the foundation of Western religion.

The Hobbesian Leviathan presupposes that man is inherently "bad".  What "bad" includes has been debated, but essentially it requires an all-powerful entity to keep individuals from tearing each other to shreds. In contemporary terms, Saddam Hussein was such a figure.  In historical times, it was used to justify the omnipotent power of the King, and subjects were born into this state, and his protection.  Western religion has always attached itself to this model, for it provides a philosophical foundation to justify the control of others, and do so on the basis of proclaiming a monopoly on knowing "what's best", both for the individual and society as a whole.

Locke, et. al., challenged the fundamental underpinning of this structure by asserting that men, while imperfect in any given action, are inherently good.  Society's are primarily organized not to protect individuals from one another, but to gain further good that cannot be achieved without such organization.

At the foundation of this view of society is the axiom that each person is a free and independent agent who gets to decide what's best for himself by whatever means he desires.  There is no entity that "knows better".

Then, in forming a society, that individual begrudingly sacrifices as little of his complete freedom as possible in order to achieve the highest return on that sacrifice.  Individuals come together and agree as free agents to be bound by certain agreements, but each has the ability to agree or abstain.  Contrast this with the precept of Hobbesian society that says man is born into a state of dependence and obediance to the King.

It is the Lockian model that inspired the political philosophy that is at the foundation of the United States.  And such philosophy is not without a moral component; rather, it rests on the concept of natural law vs. positivism.

But this moral component is at its best when the sanctity of the individual is most protected.  Men are inherently good.  They inherently know what's right.  Other factors certainly act as forces that pollute the decision-making process, but deep in every person's soul, only the truly sociopathic are incapable of such knowledge.

The futher we move away from individual freedom of choice, and its requisite acceptance of personal responsibility, the further we move toward a Hobbesian model of authority, however benevolent that authority may be.  And if history has taught us anything, the power that comes from such authority is anything but benevolent to those subjugated by it.

I don't disagree with your observation that we increasingly live in a time of the id.  I believe, however, that this is the result of using the power of government to absolve personal responsibilty, regardless of the motivation for doing so, be it economic efficiency (no-fault insurance) or perceived moral superiority (theocratic legislation).  The only way out, in my mind, is to stop doing so, not because I believe that the society that will result will match my personal ideal of what the best society should be, but rather because I have no preconceived notion of such that I desire to bend other's choices toward.

Rather, I believe the best society is whatever results from free individuals making their own choices by whatever means they desire, and that same society holding them accountable for their choices.  This is the only type of society that truly respects each and every person for who they are and what they do.

Today, we have competing schools of economics, as you've noted.  They compete for attention and influence.  One favors the process, the other the outcome.  And we see their respective approaches reflected in our political sphere as well.  Some people want only the opportunity to succeed while others want the guarantee of success.

Historically, I'm hard-pressed to think of an example of a western society that succeeded on the basis of guaranting outcomes for its members.  For instance, what Utopian society still exists today except as an historical museum?  In every instance, when the ability of free individuals to make their owns choices and live with the consesequences has been subjugated, the authority doing so eventually is either overthrown or implodes.  This does not bode well for our own future.

Will some individuals suffer more than others if required to shoulder the responsibility of their own choices?  Absolutely.  But the alternative is to require, by the force and power of government, that some individuals shoulder the responsibility for choices to which they were never a party.  The only political philosophy that justifies such an approach is Socialism.  Socialism not only subjugates the individual for the collective "good" of the society as whole (which immediately disqualifies it in my book, both because of where it places the individual in the order of things and because there's no one correct definition of what "the good" is), its track record as well is one of either eventual brutal totalitarianism (the vast majority) or self-defeating ineptitude.

To be sure, I'm not an absolutist like Ayn Rand, who lived and wrote with far more personal experience as to the realities of Socialism than most of us will ever witness.  She is, essentially, a personal isolationist.  I welcome whatever appeals there may be to perceiving society in general as a shared struggle in which some days we help the person beside us and some days he helps us.  And I believe most people respond to such appeals because they speak to our common humanity.  But I refuse to require by law that he do so, or expect him to either suffer or benefit from my decisions.  And I reject that I should be made to do the same.

by Jed Taylor on Apr 13, 2006 7:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bleed Cubbie Blue, the Chicago Cubs blog for the SB Nation, created on February 9, 2005 by Al Yellon
Start posting about the Cubs »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Reversal of opinion...Bradley will not be moved
P272649reg_small
VERY OT: The BT Football, "Congrats to ballhawk" & "Sorry, sue369" Thread
Yelloncard_small
Baseball Picture Puzzles Overflow 1
Derrick_rose_poster_by_rokasm_small
You know you want him, Get it done Jim!
Yelloncard_small
Baseball Player Picture Puzzles

Recent FanPosts

Small
Here's a thought
Jake_fox_small
25th Annual Cubs Convention
Bucky_small
OT: Annual Thanksgiving  Thread
Dscn2381_small
Cubs 2010 2B and "the L word"
Cubswin712_small
Is there anyway we trade some of our high-priced players?
Yelloncard_small
Milton Bradley Named NL "LVP" By Joe Posnanski
Self-portrait-4_small
Crazy Idea: Rob Quinlan
10424_528302137858_173702948_31567344_967269_n_small
OT: Big Ten Football Thread, Nov. 21
Small
Grabow to sign
Small
SI archive story on Sandberg and Salaries

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

FanGraphs calls Grabow a "waste of cash."
Fangraphs hasn't given up on Geo, should you?
Baseball America's Top 10 Cubs Prospects
An animated tribute to the no-hitter that Pirates pitcher Dock Ellis threw on June 12, 1970. Simply...

Recent FanShots

Cubs install sign boards in bleachers to block Horseshoe Casino (Budweiser) building...
This one is for you sabermetricians
A Chicagoan, Part Of Cardinals Ownership Group, Dies
Making Fun Of Tim Lincecum's Hair...
Would you blow up the farm system for Halladay?
Minor League Ball Interview With Billy Beane
Castillo Rumor Won't Go Away
Minor League FA's
The Cubs Debut of Turk Wendell: A Cautionary Tale Of Classic Cubs History
Slightly OT re: Cards

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

It Is Only...

Cubs By The Numbers

Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.

Click here to order your copy, available now!

SPONSORS

Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges

Yelloncard_small
Ticket Exchanges: Cubs Convention 2010
Yelloncard_small
Ticket Exchanges: General 2009 Ticket Exchange
Yelloncard_small
Ticket Exchanges: September 29-October 4 Homestand

Managing Editor

Yelloncard_small Al

Editorial Cartoonist

Toonmike_small toonmike

Contributors

Dsc_0139_small holy mackerel

100px-boisehawkscaplogo_small Josh77

Small shawndgoldman