Change 1 Thing

by evillecubman on May 5, 2006 8:24 AM CDT Comment 70 comments

For those long, and short time fans of the game, what one thing would you like to see the Cubs organization change, top to bottom, that could make us a contender again.

My thought... look at the Reds. No better than the Cubs on paper, but they get NEW OWNERSHIP and suddenly, waken from their decades long slumber.

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 70 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Reds...

... change of ownership and their 20-9 record so far, are purely coincidental. Are you saying that if the Cubs were sold TODAY, they'd suddenly start winning?

It doesn't work that way.

by Al on May 5, 2006 8:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Change of attitude

The Reds have a different attitude this year and it started when spring training began. Narron and Krivsky didn't allow player's to come into camp overweight and they added a little pitching. A no nonsense attitude, timely hitting and a little pitching go a long way.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I must agree

The new ownership has little if anything to do with their stroke of luck. And I will repeat, this is a STROKE OF LUCK. The have awaken from a slumber yes, but it is an annual tease, in my opinion. They will doze off soon enough.

The new owner is a tool if there ever was one. In his press conference after he was chosen he said "Man, I'm gonna need a scotch after this". He is working on creating an "all boys club" in the organization and has gotten rid of the best people they had because they weren't "in the inner circle".

The only thing this guy is responsible in the Reds, is administering the weekly AA meetings.

she

by Sarah Hope on May 5, 2006 9:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

The Reds always start hot but there is reason to believe in the Reds and it starts with their pitching..

Who knew that Aaron Harang could go into Coors and strike out 12 and give up 1 run in 7 IP

Who knew that the Reds rotation would be one of the best in baseball frontlined by Bronson Arroyo and Aaron Harang..

by cubsfan2883 on May 5, 2006 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This has nothing to do with stats

but you should know not to expect that from me by now.

Harang looks like he was in the middle of evolving from ape to human.... and got stalled.

I really don't think there is anything to worry about. The Reds will cool off.

she

by Sarah Hope on May 5, 2006 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Harangutan!!!

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh.my.gosh.

that is awesome.

i must make signs.

she

by Sarah Hope on May 5, 2006 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Reds offense has soured...

if the drive (Freel and Lopez 1-2) is any indication of the team's success the team should start regressing any time now

by cubsfan2883 on May 5, 2006 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Having an owner

that puts winning above all else is a good thing. Look at the Mavericks. I like when I see the owners of these ballclubs in the stands watching the games. They want to win as much as the players. An owner with an ego would have made a move by now to improve this team -- rather than letting things play out which was widely recommended on this site. Other owners would have panicked and made a move. Waiting to see how things play out -- what a joke . We are losing ground during the easiest part of the schedule. I can't understand why the Tribune and Management is constantly given the benefit of doubt.

by tribhasnoego on May 5, 2006 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not so naive...

as to think if you and I ponied up a few hundred mil tomorrow, bought out Trib, and grabbed the goat by the horns that things would suddenly be all sunshine and rainbows.

As a frustrated Cub fan for the last 22 years, though, I have to believe that there is a systemic cancer within the organization. That is easier to believe than the existance of a curse.

I'd love a team that competed EVERY year, I think, more than a team like the Marlins, which blows up every 8, then sells the farm.

Just trying to look at the larger, cyclical picture... year in and year out.

Maybe it's the overabundance of day games (the likes of which fouled up the '69 edition.)

Languishing in Card Country.

by evillecubman on May 5, 2006 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

amen

nothing's going to change if nothing changes.

by gaius marius on May 5, 2006 9:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now that...

... is profound.

by Al on May 6, 2006 4:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

1969 Cubs...

... the day game excuse is false.

The '69 Cubs failed (in part, at least) because they had no bench.

by Al on May 6, 2006 4:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

69' Cubs...

...went 8-17 in the month of september. In the months prior they were playing well over .600 baseball. What manager is going to use his bench down the stretch and not play his regulars. Besides that was an era where most players played both ends of scheduled double headers and played throughout the season without rest. The difference with that team compared to the rest of the playoff contenders, they got gassed because of 82 day home games played in moslty the heat and humidity of chicago.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 6, 2006 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Many, many teams...

... used their bench to be effective; I'm not talking about playing the bench down the stretch. What they COULD have and SHOULD have done is use a bench effectively THROUGHOUT the season to keep the regulars rested for the stretch.

They couldn't do this because the bench sucked, Durocher didn't trust them, and he ran the regulars down.

The weather/day games had NOTHING to do with it. That's a myth.

by Al on May 6, 2006 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well..

..I wouldn't call it decades. They did win the WS in 1990. Not exactly the big red machine days but still somewhat recent.

The Cubs have got to get more out of their position player draft picks and stop relying on free agents and the like. Looking at the Reds, their 2 big sticks in Dunn and Kearns are both from the Red farm system. The Cubs have had a couple busts recently in Patterson/Dubois, but Greenberg and Pie have potential. Cedeno and Murton have nice upside, but will take time for them to develop.

It is waaay too early to start saying "next year..", but we all as Cubs fans have the common characteristic of patience. Barring injury and incompetence, I believe the window will start to open soon.

Chicks dig the long ball

by Will23 on May 5, 2006 8:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

FWIW...

... Murton wasn't a Cub draft pick; he was acquired in the Nomar trade.

by Al on May 5, 2006 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

And that was with MARGE SCHOTT, the crappy owner of all crappy owners. (Except maybe Charlie Finley.)

--Tim http://fridayafternoonintheuniverse.blogspot.com

by elscorcho0682 on May 5, 2006 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

development failure

The Cubs haven't been able to develop a viable position player since Mark Grace. Maybe Cedeno is going to buck the trend, but the jury is still out on that. If we want to see the Cubs develop some position players then we have to see a change in philosophy, attitude and a complete change in the organizations infrastructure.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 9:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Reds are a Fluke

This isn't the first time in the last few years that the Reds have started off on a tear only to fall apart. They have one decent starting pitcher, who frankly is pitching over his head (not dissimilar to maddux in that regard), I would still put money on teh Reds finishing sub-500 for the year.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on May 5, 2006 9:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

an organization

that is determined to win. not determined to look like it wants to win. an organization that as a plan. over 90 years in this park and you still don't know what kind of team to build?

by mike bornemann on May 5, 2006 9:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

One thing...

I know this won't be popular with 99% of Cub fans. I think the Cubs should move to a new stadium. As lovely as Wrigley is, I believe the place is cursed and the Cubs will never win a World Series there. They could build a very nice retro stadium somewhere where parking is less than $30 and where you could actually take a pee without waiting in a 2 inning long line. Decent season tickets may also be available. I know this will never happen, it's just something I think makes a lot of sense. But then, the trib may actually have to put a winner on the field..

by wicubfan on May 5, 2006 11:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

attendance would plummet

anf the trib would lose money. not gonna hapen. 99% of the time wrigley is the only good thing going for the cubs.

by mike bornemann on May 5, 2006 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

attendence..

maybe. But do you really think no one would go to a new stadium? I agree though..it'll never happen

by wicubfan on May 5, 2006 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

to be honest

I would go to more games if there were less drunks, easier to get to, some actual parking etc. Will people keep coming once the focus is on the team? Doubt it.

by mike bornemann on May 5, 2006 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Get rid of it all

Considering the Cubs were the first real baseball dynasty and they had a winning tradition prior to moving into Wrigley in 1916, I wouldn't hesitate to say goodbye to Wrigley and the ownership.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The ballpark has nothing to do with it...

... they had a winning tradition up to 1945, not just 1916.

Put a winning TEAM together and they can win anywhere.

Plus, having just spent $13 million on the bleacher expansion, plus the other building that's going up this offseason, you can bet that Wrigley Field isn't going anywhere.

by Al on May 5, 2006 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I had an idiot

barista at Starbucks comment on my Cubs bag this morning and say "When are you guys gonna...."

I thought he was going to say "win" or "go to the WS" or something that might make sense.

But no.

He said "When are you guys gonna get a new stadium? That one's getting pretty old, isn't it?"

I just looked and him and couldn't say anything for awhile. I just shook my head and finally said,

"That is absolutely the dumbest thing I have ever heard." And walked away with my coffee.

What an idiot.

she

by Sarah Hope on May 5, 2006 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dome

I say build a dome, perhaps move to las vegas, maybe go with shorts and a butterfly collar, and hey, why don't we have a promo where everyone can demolish their disco cd's...

The day the Cubs tear down Wrigley for any reason other than the place falls apart, that will be the day after my last day as a cub fan

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on May 5, 2006 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wrigley or Cubs?

"The day the Cubs tear down Wrigley for any reason other than the place falls apart, that will be the day after my last day as a cub fan"

I've had to listen to Sox fans always say the only reason the Cubs have fans is because of Wrigley. I know that's not true but I guess there are exceptions. What are you a fan of? Wrigley or the Cubs?

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Cubs!

I haven't even been to a game since 98, and I rarely see them on TV. But, there is a message that would be sent if Wrigley was put to the wrecking ball to bring in more $. That would, to me, send a horrible message. I love the Cubs in large part because of the tradition. My father, grandfather, etc were Cub fans. I love sitting in the same park they sat in. How many dodger fans stuck with them when they left to LA? To imply that the two (Cubs/Wrigley) are somehow disconnected is not true.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on May 6, 2006 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of the things about Wrigley Field...

... is that, despite the alterations and renovations, baseball has been played on that site, with most of the same structure, for 92 years. People connect that with previous generations, with the places where, as WGNstatic says, their fathers and grandfathers saw baseball.

When I first started sitting in the RF section that no longer exists, in 1979, I was introduced to the then-patriarch, a retired man we all called "Papa Carl".

Carl was born in 1908. He had been going to Wrigley Field since it opened; sat in that part of the bleachers since it was constructed, and saw the 1932 World Series when Babe Ruth played in Wrigley Field.

Baseball is part of American history and culture. For me to have actually known someone who saw a great part of this history is meaningful.

Do I want to win? Damn right I do. But I also love the game and its history. If you don't, that's fine.

But don't slam those of us who do.

by Al on May 6, 2006 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm also a big...

...fan of the history of the game. This is the reason I prefer national league baseball. Let me present this hypothetical question to you. If you knew the Cubs would win a championship in a new stadium and you had the option of keeping Wrigley or winning a World Series in a new ballpark what decision would you make for yourself?

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 6, 2006 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd take the title...

... but be very sad to lose the history.

by Al on May 6, 2006 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Agree

n/t

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 6, 2006 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love the game

and the history of the game. The problem is that there is very little good history in Wrigley. If there had been many dramatic Cubs playoff or wrold series victories there, I might feel different. Instead we have the college of coaches and a TV announcer singing Take Me Out to the Ballgame.

by wicubfan on May 7, 2006 8:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Ballpark....

...has alot to do with it. The Cubs prior to 1945 had 13 World Series appearances. The first nightgame was played in 1935 in Cinci. Most major league ballparks didn't have lights until 1940 and for a few years after(1945) they still played mostly day games. Here's my point, prior to night games the Cubs were on an even playing field with the rest of major league baseball because they all had to play day games. Since then the Cubs have been stuck having to go out on west coast/east coast road trips and come back to chicago and play early afternoon games. Even now that the Cubs have lights they still have to contend with playing over three times as many day games as other teams in the league.

Relocating the team wouldn't be a bad idea because then they would be able to get away from the whiny residents of wrigleyville. They are solely responsible for the lack of night games and they held up the Wrigley rebuilding plans for almost a decade.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here here..

and get away from that moroon Daley. My qustion is this: What about Wrigley would you miss exactly? Is it the cheap and easy parking and the convenience of getting to and from Wrigley? Is it the many fan amenities like wide concourses and large number of restrooms? Is it that there are no seats behind poles? Or maybe you would miss all the memories of playoff and World Series victories that have occured at 1060 West Addison??

I love Wrigley Field. But use it as a place for high school tournaments or something. People can still pay and tour it and drink in the neighborhood. Just get a new stadium for Major League Baseball. Having been to the new Busch, Miller Park, Chase Field, Coors Field, and seeing parks like Petco on TV, I just think the Cubs could have a beautiful new park and improve on the fan experience.

by wicubfan on May 5, 2006 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's never going to happen...

... but let's say you're right and that's the reason, just for grins.

Where are you going to put such a place, and who is going to pay for it?

by Al on May 5, 2006 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

on that

note, I thank god I don't live in chicago.

...the artist formerly priorpwnz.

by Faith plus 1 on May 5, 2006 8:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know...

...the answer to where a new stadium would be built, maybe a stadium could be built along lake shore near soldier field. The state and city would partly pay for the new stadium as well as funds from whomever owns the cubs at that point. Remember the Sweetheart deal the Sox got from the state? The agreement was, for as long as the Sox were drawing less than expected the city and state would pick up their end of the tab on a yearly basis until they got their attendance up. The Sox had to pay for the first 2 years and then our preciuos government Sox fans picked up the tab for several years after and wound up pretty much paying off the damn stadium. Must be nice when your mayor is a die hard Sox fan, while the Cubs are stuck trying to do minor renovations only to be steamrolled time after time by Daly.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

On the lakefront?

Get serious. Any proposal to build a stadium on the lakefront would be tied up in court for years by the Park District, Friends of the Parks, etc etc etc.

Try again.

by Al on May 5, 2006 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You asked

It's hypothetical isn't it? In reality the Cubs would never be able to build a new park in city limits because of Daly.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if the trib still owns them

that part's easy.

tribco owns swathes of land along the north branch where their main distribution facility is located -- just north of the ohio feeder to division and beyond.

as for paying for it, tribco certainly could -- and would maybe choose to. but they know how to grease the wheels downstate and would ensure the proper kickbacks were in place. financing would not be a problem.

by gaius marius on May 5, 2006 9:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don't really believe that, do you?

I think the days of public financing of stadiums in Chicago and Illinois are done.

Sure, Tribco could pay for it, but they won't.

by Al on May 6, 2006 4:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think that what gets stadiums built

is money directed at the proper officials. public opinion will have remarkably little to do with it -- baseball learned some lessons in florida, imo, and it'll all be decided before anyone even knows it's happening. this is illinois, after all.

by gaius marius on May 6, 2006 8:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

Hardly. Public financing is a function of the support team owners provide elected officials. It also wouldn't hurt to have a mayor who was a Cubs fan combined with the current Lord of the Realm's worldview that he personally owns the city and can do whatever the f* he wants.

But seriously, as long as private money greases the palms of local and state officials, the taxpayers will wind up building facilities for what are, after all, private businesses. And the last state in the Union that's going to put an end to greasing politicians is Illinois.

The Trib's biggest problem is that it's in the business of exposing what a corrupt ass HRH RJD is. Screwing them over is the only way Daley can really get back at them.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 6, 2006 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In a related item

did you see that the Marlins stadium bill died?

by Santos Sorrow on May 6, 2006 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

Just for grins?

I annex all the property around Wrigley. I extend the stadium east up to the L tracks and include them as part of the structure. And extend it north, as well. I build out the facility in a campus-style that closes off Addison and bridges over Clark.

And since I'm starting over from scratch, I play a couple seasons down in Comiskey while they do the tear down and new build.

As for parking, isn't it about time we start designing things that don't revolve around cars?

After all, it's only money.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 6, 2006 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about north of the museums

On the lake in Lincoln Park?

by Santos Sorrow on May 6, 2006 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Been to Petco many times

It's modern, cool, great concourses to buy overpriced food, convenient to downtown SD, new washrooms, plasma TV monitors all over the place etc, etc, etc.

But it has no soul and character like Wrigley and never will.

by JFCubFan on May 5, 2006 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

DING DING DING!!

We have a winner!

by Al on May 5, 2006 8:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the park has a lot to do with it

i don't know about the day game thing or the wind out/wind in thing, but i do know this:

wrigley is a cathedral, a shrine. people come to it just to see it and drink a beer -- or to be a bleacher bum, which is rather like taking a secular version of holy orders for some.

that means a lot of people simply don't give a shit if the cubs are good or bad -- they pay up just the same.

the trib and the wrigleys before them did everything in their power to encourage it -- to disassociate winning from attendance -- it thoroughly pervades the advertising. and they did so because sun and beer are a lot easier, profitable and predictable than winning baseball.

until that park is demolished, the cubs will have at least in large part an attendance base that happily pays up even when the team is horrid and has been horrid for decades.

that is a disincentive to winning -- losing is, after all, much cheaper and more profitable.

i cannot wait for the day wrigley burns to the ground. a lot of things will change for the better the day after.

by gaius marius on May 5, 2006 9:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In your assesment...

...you think the futility is mostly the ownerships fault. I agree with you but the Cubs have been bad for the better part of the last 60 years. That is when lights were finally installed in most of all mlb parks. We've seen plenty of Cub teams fail down the last stretch of the season because of day baseball fatigue.

I do believe the day games play a role but theres more. The Cubs have the fewest scouts of any team in mlb and their player development is a joke. I said this before but they had Piersall working as their player development outfield instructor, enough said.

Can't Mark Cuban make tribco an offer they can't refuse.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 6, 2006 12:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Im pretty sure

he is a Pirates fan.

by Santos Sorrow on May 6, 2006 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

I agree with your analysis that focusing the business on the parts of entertainment that can consistently be produced is a profitable way to run things. It's not true, however, that losing is cheaper and thus more profitable - unless you're Bill Wirtz and you simply refuse to pay for major league talent.

The Cubs spend the money; that's not the problem. The problem is their baseball operations have proven to be, at best, inconsistent in putting together a program that is as successful as the Wrigely experience is in selling the team.

Just imagine how valuable and profitable the franchise would be if it could combine championships with Wrigley.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 6, 2006 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

For once I agree with you Gaius..

I happen to agree that ownership cares more about fannies in the seats than winning. Your assesment that Wrigley Field itself sells tickets is therefore a hinderence to putting a winning ballclub on the field.

Also, character is way overrated. All the losing Cub fans have endured has built a lot of character. I doubt any of us need any more character.

by wicubfan on May 6, 2006 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Get rid of Baker

Sorry, but you knew someone was going to say it. Not only is he a horrible strategic manager, he's completely unable to get this team to perform when they are flat.

"Aw, how could he lose the ball in the sun, he's from Mexico!"--Harry Caray

by cubbiejulie on May 5, 2006 1:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Hendry's Fault

He is responsible for for setting this team up for failure. at the end of the last couple of seasons he has said that he thinks the roster when healthy can compete. Well Jim the keyword there is healthy and your pitchers haven't been healthy in over 2 years. When you have a smelly pig and you put a dress on it(Pierre) and you put some makeup on it(Howry and Eyre) you are still left with a smelly pig. This isn't Baker's fault, in fact I feel bad for the guy because he's going to take the fall for this season.
You said Baker is unable to get this team to perform when they are flat? Well, it's hard to get a yellow lab to act like a pit bull.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But you are left with..

a cute smelly pig... and after a few Old Styles.... anything can happen.

by cubsfan2883 on May 5, 2006 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought that...

...pig love type of thing only occured on the south side of town.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That pig...

won best in show last year.. that pig was nice. Unfortunately that pig looks okay this year too which makes our pig stink even more.. Our pig would look a lot better with a certain OF who plays his games out west.

by cubsfan2883 on May 5, 2006 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If your..

...referring to Giles, then yes he would have made the pig look rather sexy.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You beat me

to the proverbial punch, good job :)

by Santos Sorrow on May 6, 2006 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The blame

is system wide. There seems to be no consequence for failure. At present, there is only one unforeseen occurrence from the beginning of spring training. Lee got injured. Other than that, we have the same group of players we put on the roster. Now if Lee's injury is the reason for the total absence of offense, the blame has to go to Hendry. He chose get Jones and Pierre and failed to get any starters in the winter.

If the team is that dependent on one player, the plan is faulty. The Trib board likes MacPhail who likes Hendry who likes Baker who likes Rothschild. So everyone covers the other's butt and excuses are spun at the fans ad nauseum. Boardrooms are terrible team owners. Give me a passionate owner like Steinbrenner or Cuban anytime.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on May 5, 2006 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

Saved me from posting it.

Unless Baker has a team that's both healthy and producing, he's at a loss to know what to do.

Just look at last nite's lineup. Starting Bynum once should be grounds for suspension. Starting him two games in a row is grounds for firing. And batting him second? And here I thought I'd never see a situation in which I'd rather see Neifi in the 2-hole.

And then there's the matter of benching two of the best offensive players the team currently has just as the offense scores 5 runs over the past 6 games. Make that 7 now.

Baker is an idiot. He's never going to be reason a team he's associated with wins; if it does, it's in spite of him. And the Cubs simply aren't good enough to overcome the handicap he saddles them with.

Visit The Digital Gazette

by Jed Taylor on May 6, 2006 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Bleachers and the Fans in the Bleachers..

the real fans in the bleachers are far too loyal. Get rid of them, and soon the rest of the real fans will disappear. And then the complaints about the Club losing will go away.

Either that or get rid of the mindset that the best way to win is with one or two top players and a bunch of "grizzled" veterans. Rather, the focus should be on an Earl Weaver-like balanced Oriole team of the early 70's in which the team didn't really depend on a superstar (yes, I know they had the Robinson Brothers.... but the team was really built around having good players from top to bottom), but rather won by having a whole bunch of above average ball players.

by Frustrated Fan on May 5, 2006 3:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Who gives a...

...damn about the soul and character of a ballpark. I want my TEAM to have soul and character, something this current team is sorely lacking. Don't get me wrong, I love Wrigley but I would trade it in a second to see a World Series Champion.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 5, 2006 8:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Wrigley Purist?

"The weather/day games had NOTHING to do with it. That's a myth".

I get the impression that you were never in favor of night games at Wrigley. Is it just a coincidence that Cub futility began after all of major league baseball parks had lights? Ron Santo even said the day games played a part in their collapse.

cubsfan4life

by cubfan4life on May 6, 2006 10:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Whether I am in favor of it or not...

... has nothing to do with it. Santo's comment proves my point -- they were run down NOT because of the day games, but because they HAD NO REST.

Three of the top nine players in games played in the NL in 1969 were Cubs -- Billy Williams, who was in the middle of his consecutive game streak, played 163 (1 tie), Santo (160), and Don Kessinger (158). Two others (Randy Hundley and Ernie Banks) played more than 150 games.

Santo and Kessinger had horrid Septembers. If the Cubs had had a couple of backup IF's better than Nate Oliver and Paul Popovich (though Popovich had a decent year), they might have been rested for September.

by Al on May 6, 2006 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs