Friday Morning Headlines

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 9:42 AM CST in Chicago Cubs News

There's an interesting discussion at ESPN.com on the merits of Goose Gossage for the Hall of Fame. OK, so one of the participants is Phil Rogers. It's still interesting.
Roger Clemens and his lawyers have hired a private investigator to try to discredit trainer Brian McNamee's claims about Clemens' steroid use. While they're at it, maybe they can help O. J. Simpson find the "real killer".
Congress is getting involved in the steroid investigation; hearings are scheduled for next month. One of the Congresspeople blasted Bud Selig for his lack of leadership -- master of the obvious, methinks.
MLBTR quotes Rick Wilton's "Baseball Injury Report" as saying that " the chance of a meaningful contribution from [Mark] Prior in '08 is close to zero." I tend to agree.
Rick Morrissey strikes again, this time with a column about naming rights at Wrigley Field. I happen to agree with his premise -- which is basically, "Who cares what it's called, it'll still be baseball", but he makes two false claims:
Just remember that when you get all nostalgic over Wrigley Field, you are doing so over a ballpark named for a chewing gum company.

No, Rick. Wrigley Field wasn't named for the gum company. It was named to honor William Wrigley, first member of that family to own the team, after he died in 1932. Before that the park was known as Weeghman Park and then Cubs Park. Yes, I know -- the gum company bears Wrigley's name. But Morrissey's comment implies that the ballpark bears a corporate name, in a 1930's version of "naming rights". That's simply false. Second false claim:

When the Cubs began allowing Fox to scroll its ads on the bricks behind home plate at Wrigley a few years back, I wasn't outraged.

Well, I wasn't outraged either, but the Cubs didn't "allow" Fox to scroll ads -- this was mandated under MLB's contract with Fox. All major league parks must carry Fox's (and ESPN's, too) green-screen ads during national telecasts.
I was, at first, interested to see a link to a Q&A with Sam Fuld on the Cubs website; thought it might give us some insight into the kid who's a real feel-good story. Nope. Carrie Muskat asked him about whether he celebrates both Christmas and Hanukkah and what color lights he puts on his Christmas tree. Booooooring.

There -- that ought to keep you busy on a snowy Friday in Chicago.

Tweet Comment 136 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Goose

That was a pretty good article, but I wish it had been written by someone other than Phil Rogers. I admit I'm on the fence about Goose for the Hall too, and pretty much for the same reason McAdam listed - he hung on too long at the end and hurt his image as a dominant player. In fact, at 34, I'm too young to remember a dominant Goose Gossage. I remember a decent reliever with the Padres and a terrible Mariner, Cub, and Giant.

I started reading the article hoping someone would sway me one way or the other, but when Rogers lists arguments for Hall merit like - he was the career saves leader, but now he's been passed up so I won't vote for him - it's hard to agree with anything else that comes out of his mouth. Either Lee Smith is a HOFer or he's not - that should be based on what he did in his career, not on what Trevor Hoffman, pitching in an different era in a redefined role, did in his. That's one of the stupidest bits of rationale I've ever heard from a HOF voter.

I'd really like to hear an intelligent argument for players that I'm on the fence for - Rice, Goose, John, Morris or ones that people are voting for, but I don't think belong - Murphy, Trammell, Raines... I guess I shouldn't look to Phil Rogers for that intelligent argument.

This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again.

by HectorVillanueva on Dec 28, 2007 9:48 AM CST reply actions

100% agreed.

Gossage was a dominant force as a closer for nearly a decade, finished in the top six of Cy Young voting five times, and was a nine-time All-Star.

I can't help thinking, though, that if he had had his dominant years for the Pirates or White Sox rather than the Yankees, we wouldn't even be considering him for the Hall. I'm on the fence, too, and I too wish someone other than Rogers had made the argument.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 10:28 AM CST up reply actions

Naming rights at Wrigley

First, I have to say I am a bit disappointed at my fellow Cub fans, at least the ones I have talked to, at the lack of outrage over at least the suggestion of changing Wrigley Field's name. Yes, I know it would still be Wrigley Field to all Cub fans, and that's what most fans would still call it. But for God's sake, can you imagine the bright red marquee outside the ballpark being taken down or defaced with a corporate logo? Signage on the outfield walls, or naming the bleachers the Bud Lite bleachers, I can deal with all of that. But if any corporate name ever replaces Wrigley Field, I will boycott that company for life, and I would ask all Cub fans to do the same.

Personally, I don't doubt that Sam Zell would do this. He is a cold-blooded shark who worships on bended knee at the altar of money. But I wonder if any corporation out there would really want all the negative publicity that would come its way. Despite the lack of outrage on BCB so far, I still believe that most Cub fans share my point of view, and would view any corporate name that replaced Wrigley as pissing on a sacred shrine. In the end, I don't think this will happen, but I want Zell to complete this sale quickly and get the Cubs out of his hands, because I don't trust him with it at all.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 28, 2007 9:59 AM CST reply actions

I agree

totally, and I'll join you in the boycott.

by bjs on Dec 28, 2007 10:22 AM CST up reply actions

Seriously?

Man, it's just a name. Morrissey was right about one other thing, too -- do you really think anyone would call it by its corporate name? I wouldn't, and you wouldn't. Does anyone call the place on the South Side "U.S. Cellular Field" other than the MSM? Nope, almost everyone calls it "the Cell", which likely doesn't help that phone company sell service.

Honestly, this is outrage over nothing. It changes nothing. The Cubs would still play at Clark & Addison, nothing would change except a couple of signs.

Oh, and maybe the park would be improved because the sale of the rights would help finance reconstruction of parts that badly need it. You're not against that, are you?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 10:31 AM CST up reply actions

Al, have a little compassion...

...for their passion.

I understand where you're coming from, but I also understand where ctcoff99, bjs and I'm sure many more are coming from. It's not "nothing", at least not to them. If naming rights happen, it will be a change, no matter how sensitive the sponsoring company is. And to some people, it will be a huge change that they will have to deal with. Or become Sox fans... ;-)

They say everyone has a price. As I've posted before, I'd be willing to say every baseball fan has a line too, a line on commercialization of baseball. For some that line gets crossed early on, others not til much later.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Dec 28, 2007 11:14 AM CST up reply actions

I understand.

My position is that it doesn't matter to ME. Yes, I accept that it is important to others. If that's going to change how they feel about the Cubs as a fan, that is, of course, their own choice.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 2:04 PM CST up reply actions

I am a Cub fan forever.

For better or worse, till death us to part.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 28, 2007 6:45 PM CST up reply actions

I don't want this to sound harsh

but I think it's this type of mentality that's led to 99 years of losing. To compete at the level the Cubs are competing at, they need to take advantage of every opportunity that's presented to them. This is one of those opportunites.

I want the Cubs to win and honestly, I love Wrigley the way it is, or really, more the way it was 10 years ago. Times change however. Anachronisms like Wrigley have expiration dates.

This isn't the 1950's. The name of the field is so far down my list of Cubs priorities I can't even begin to care.

Also, Wrigley Field isn't going to be changed to Boeing Field for example. It would be changed to something like "Boeing's Wrigley Field". Any company buying naming rights would be sensitive to maintaining some history.

by NO100 on Dec 28, 2007 10:33 AM CST up reply actions

Loud, sustained applause.

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 10:41 AM CST up reply actions

Remember who will profit.

Sam Zell. Does anyone think that profits from naming rights will be used to go out and acquire quality players or improve the ballpark? If so, you're being naive. This guy just closed on an $8.2 billion transaction to buy a company already in heavy debt, and he needs easy cash to try to offset the cost of his acquisition. Sam Zell does not care about the Cubs...he's trying to raise money for himself, period.

Also, to show that I am not totally unreasonable and that yes, winning the World Series is still my number one priority, I would be willing to go along with a compromise (if selling out absolutely MUST be done) with a corporate name if Wrigley Field was still in the title, i.e. the example presented above, like "Boeing's Wrigley Field". I would be knashing my teeth, but I would go along with that. But as I said, don't think for a minute that one penny made off naming rights would be put back into the Cubs or the ballpark, because it won't be.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 28, 2007 10:41 AM CST up reply actions

It strikes me as odd...

... that Zell, who professes to want to sell the Cubs by Opening Day, would be the one who would pocket the money from the naming rights.

You'd think any new owner would want those. Not sure how this part of the deal would play out.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 10:43 AM CST up reply actions

Quite simply

it makes the Cubs more attractive to prospective buyers if they have a flow of cash from naming rights. These deals are not paid upfront, but are usually paid in yearly installments. Therefore, the new owner would reap the benefits of any naming rights.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Dec 28, 2007 10:57 AM CST up reply actions

Correct.

But then, it is a mischaracterization that Zell wants the rights for himself. He may want them, but only to make MORE money. After that, whatever money comes in from any such rights would accrue to the new owner.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 2:03 PM CST up reply actions

There's nothing wrong with making money

even if it's a billionaire. Now, I am against it if he is using public funds to do so as it would be if the ISFA were involved, but that's a differnt argument and one that's been vetted here a bit already.

I don't know if any of the money would make it back to improve the ballclub. However, I do think that as revenues and profits increase, there's a greater likelihood that more is spent to improve the ballclub.

It's kind of a broken record that everytime corporate sponsorship is suggested within Wrigley, management always says "It's to improve the team ... yada, yada, yada." I don't completely buy that either, but when they do these things, there is a PR hit. If they were to completely pocket the money, that would be an even bigger PR hit. Even though Zell might be the one selling the naming rights, there still would be positive downstream effects for the Cubs' new owner.

I do empathize with your point of view. I get it, but in the current MLB landscape, the Cubs are well within accepted MLB practices to sell Wrigley's naming rights.

by NO100 on Dec 28, 2007 11:17 AM CST up reply actions

Yes, Yes, Agreed!

It's the mentality that put a statue of an announcer in front of the ballpark instead of Ernie Banks -- an announcer that was no longer competent most of his Cubs career. A mentality that believes said announcer revitalized the franchise (no, check the attendance figures and W-L records; 1984 did it).

It's the mentality that thinks throwing an opponent's HR back is more important than knowing who's pitching.

It's the mentality that glorifies an unemployed fan who dresses in full uniform.

Tradition is great; I really do like it. I also like winning. Sometimes change is inevitable.

by Shanghai Badger on Dec 28, 2007 11:18 AM CST up reply actions

How does

someone being a little sentimental about the name on the park, show you the kind of mentality that leads to losing, or makes you think he is ok with losing?

by tizzle on Dec 28, 2007 2:36 PM CST up reply actions

I didn't write

that he was OK with losing. I just wrote that this mentality has led to losing. I don't think he's doing it intentionally.

To expand on the point, I think it's misplaced sentimentality. It's the mentality that the "Cubs experience" is more important than putting together a winning team. He's the one who's advocating a boycott of the team if the name of the field changes. He's mentioned nothing of a boycott if the team, say, doesn't win 70 games next year. Apparently, the on the field product can suck all it wants as long as it stays "Wrigley Field".

In the end, it's still just a name. US Cellular Field is US Cellular Field to me. It' snot "The Cell" either. It's Comiskey. It will always be Comiskey.

by NO100 on Dec 28, 2007 3:41 PM CST up reply actions

It snot

that's funny.

by NO100 on Dec 28, 2007 3:42 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah, gotta go ahead and say...

...that it grieves me not one bit to see U.S. Cellular take away from the greatness of Charles Comiskey. He was an absolutely horrible person to his players - ironically enough he had played himself and helped start the own player's union, back when it served his OWN interests. No player's union for his players, though.

I would suggest you learn to truly interrupt all stats before using any selective stats. -- cubswin

by cwyers on Dec 28, 2007 4:53 PM CST up reply actions

You misunderstood me completely.

I said I would boycott any COMPANY whose corporate name replaced Wrigley Field, not the Cubs themselves. Look, I'm a Cub fan for life, no matter what. I simply said that any company who puts their corporate name on Wrigley Field had better be prepared for a lot of negative publicity and angry fans, of which I would be one, and I would boycott said company's products for life just to be a vindictive jerk, and would encourage other Cub fans to do the same. I was not advocating a boycott of the Cubs or from going to the ballpark.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 28, 2007 6:51 PM CST up reply actions

You're right

I misread that.

I still don't agree with you, in fact, even less so now. Why punish a company for buying something that another one is selling? Though I wouldn't recommend any action against any company in such a transaction, if anyone should bear more of the responsibility for it, it would be the Cubs. Who blames US Cellular for buying those naming rights?

by NO100 on Dec 28, 2007 10:16 PM CST up reply actions

We'll have to agree to disagree.

As I said above, winning is my number one priority, but it just seems to me that a corporate name will serve no one's interests in this case but Zell's. I just don't believe for one minute that any money made from selling out here will be put back into the team or ballpark. And as for U.S. Cellular, if they had bought the rights to name Wrigley Field and I had their cell service, I would immediately switch to a new carrier just to give them the finger. Childish and immature? Of course. But that's the way it would be. Screw them.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 28, 2007 10:26 PM CST up reply actions

It

Seems to me that the company that buys the naming rights is hurting themselves more by spending money on something that wont get them much more business.

by tizzle on Dec 29, 2007 2:33 AM CST up reply actions

Re: How does

The same way that some folks don't think you're a real Cub fan if you don't like Ron Santo in the booth.

PERRY!!!!

by Goat Whisperer on Dec 28, 2007 4:01 PM CST up reply actions

My heart loves Ronnie,

but my ears can't stand him. Strike me down, but I think he offers little that even the casual fan can't decipher on his/her own.

"I got mad hits like I was Rod Carew!"

by lostinthevines on Dec 29, 2007 9:25 AM CST up reply actions

I tend to agree with this.

I like a radio analyst to be, well, an analyst. Ronnie's not an analyst.

But as you say, he appeals to the heart of a Cubs fan. And he's a great guy who has dealt with really tough circumstances with unfailing good humor.

No one will be happier WHEN the Cubs win the World Series than Ron Santo.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 29, 2007 11:16 AM CST up reply actions

He does have his benefits

No other broadcaster like him let's you know when something's happening. There have been plenty of times when I haven't been listening attentively to the radio broadcast of a game and Ronnie's let me know when to start paying attention.

by snley @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 29, 2007 12:17 PM CST up reply actions

I believe the marquis

out front is protected historically by the city so that will never change. I could deal with <insert company here> Park at Wrigley Field, especially if the funds would go towards replacing the upper deck, updating the restrooms or acquiring a no 2 starter or a left-handed, obp machine, infielder. It's just a name. Everyone will still call it Wrigley Field. The baseball will still be played the same (well, I hope not the same. Better than the same would be really, really nice). I'll still go see the Cubs, same as millions of others. A different name on the park won't change how I feel about the Cubbies.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

by Jettero2112 on Dec 28, 2007 10:45 AM CST up reply actions

Exactly.

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 10:47 AM CST up reply actions

That's true.

I forgot about the Landmark status. That makes me feel a little better, but I still say that this is not being done to raise funds to improve the team or the ballpark. I think it is strictly being done to offset some of Sam Zell's debt. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 28, 2007 10:55 AM CST up reply actions

Understood

Everybody feels some sort of disgust towards this, but Al's right, it's just a name. Besides, I don't think it really matters how people feel about it, if it's going to be done, then it's going to be done. There's nothing you can do about it. Unless you want to pay them for the naming rights.

C'mon Cubbies!!!

by McRipper on Dec 28, 2007 11:42 AM CST up reply actions

I'll Donate!

BleedCubbieBlue Park at Wrigley Field has a nice ring to it!

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

by Jettero2112 on Dec 28, 2007 3:04 PM CST up reply actions

the only corporate sponsor name

that I have ever liked is the HP Pavilion in San Jose. very clever.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 28, 2007 3:43 PM CST up reply actions

Wow

I've heard of no-trade clauses and guaranteed contracts, but to be protected historically...

Man, that Jason has one savvy agent. ;-)

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Dec 28, 2007 10:59 AM CST up reply actions

He's been living off the past

for awhile now, so why not?

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Dec 28, 2007 11:15 AM CST up reply actions

Why is one of our pitchers out front?

Is he standing next to the MARQUEE?

"I got mad hits like I was Rod Carew!"

by lostinthevines on Dec 29, 2007 9:26 AM CST up reply actions

boycott

I am with you. I'm in on a boycott if they change the name. And I am also pretty amazed more people are not upset with the suggestion to sell the naming rights to Wrigley.

wccubfan

by wccubfan on Dec 29, 2007 1:46 PM CST up reply actions

If selling naming rights

to Wrigley buys us one more 18 game winner or another 100 rbi outfielder, it's worth it.

by Clark Addison on Dec 28, 2007 10:19 AM CST reply actions

This is where I disagree...

...I'd love to see the Cubs win a world series. But I don't want to see tradition flushed in the process. There is pretty good evidence that spending a ton of money on payroll doesn't necessarily equal success. I think the Cubs are plenty profitable as is and have made some good moves lately. If what they have spent doesn't produce a winner, I'm OK with that. But please don't sell out just to get over a hump.

"You know what? You want a job? Go out and earn one." Sweet Lou

by Kyle Turney on Dec 28, 2007 10:24 AM CST up reply actions

Agreed

Selling your soul just to win is not the answer. Losing sucks, but there are MANY reasons I am a Cub fan that have nothing to do with winning or losing. And I doubt the money would be put back into the team or ballpark.

by markleonette on Dec 28, 2007 7:08 PM CST up reply actions

It won't

It will look rather nice on a quarterly statement though, which is why it's being considered.

Look at it this way: Money for nothing. The owners of Wrigley Field will need to do exactly nothing in order to receive this cash. Announcers will need to mention the name every so often, some signage will probably change, and those of us who know and believe will always refer to it was Wrigley Field.

by MN exile on Dec 28, 2007 10:27 AM CST up reply actions

Loud, sustained applause.

n/t

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 10:31 AM CST up reply actions

Exactly

n/t

This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again.

by HectorVillanueva on Dec 28, 2007 10:39 AM CST up reply actions

More like...

One more overpriced utility infielder and another overpriced 5th starter.

Ed Lynch is STILL on the Cubs payroll, as our D-Backs scout in Phoenix. Lynch attends all 81 D-Back home games with a notepad in hand. Really paid off for us!

by SackMan on Dec 28, 2007 8:39 PM CST up reply actions

Slick Rick

How can a guy be a sports writer in Chicago and know so little about it's teams. Is there anyone who edits this guy?

"You know what? You want a job? Go out and earn one." Sweet Lou

by Kyle Turney on Dec 28, 2007 10:25 AM CST reply actions

Fulds interview

I read through about 2 questions and was OUTRAGED, kinda like Mr Morrisey, well not really but it had nothing to do with baseball.

"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry "I strongly dislike Steve Stone." ---Hammer

by Hammer on Dec 28, 2007 10:27 AM CST reply actions

About Congress getting involved

Is this really that imprtant to them? I know that they can and should concentrate on multiple things. They don't only have to concentrate on Iraq or health care or a bunch of other things, but there really aren't any other things that they should be invovled in before this?

What has MLB done to deserve this scrutiny? If Congress really were required to do something in this area, shouldn't they look at pro-wrestling as, you know, 2 people got murdered and one committed suicide and part of the cause could have been the tempermant changes associated with PED's?

by NO100 on Dec 28, 2007 10:42 AM CST reply actions

Congress

has plenty of baseball fans too. This is nothing more than their way of interacting with the sport. To justify it they have to feign some type of outrage and glorify the problem to make it seem worse and worthy of their attention. Once the problem is glorified the rest of the attention whores in congress jump on the bandwagon so they can get their face in a photo op or be heard in a sound bite. Basically, it's pure politics, and MLB is suffering a little but more every time it happens. Politicians do have other more pressing needs that they could be addressing but they aren't so much interesting in fixing things as they are in getting re-elected. Getting their name attached to a national story goes a long way toward making that happen. Sad, but true.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Dec 28, 2007 11:13 AM CST up reply actions

Wrigley Field according to morrissey

but Al, you can't expect him to get the facts right about the why it was named Wrigley Field. It's not like it's his job or anything...oh wait. It is.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 28, 2007 10:57 AM CST reply actions

Morrissey getting facts right

Why start now?

by Shanghai Badger on Dec 28, 2007 11:15 AM CST up reply actions

On Payroll=Winners

Some of you still naively believe that, "well, just b/c you spend dough, doesn't mean you win."

Below are the Pennant winners from the respective leagues, 1991-2007. The small market, "cheap" teams, are represented in a couple of instance - bit a very small relative percentage. The money certainly does not guarantee anything. But it sure gives you a hell of a better chance!

1991 Atlanta Braves Minnesota Twins
1992 Atlanta Braves Toronto Blue Jays
1993 Philadelphia Phillies Toronto Blue Jays
1994 STRIKE
1995 Atlanta Braves Cleveland Indians
1996 Atlanta Braves New York Yankees
1997 Florida Marlins Cleveland Indians
1998 San Diego Padres New York Yankees
1999 Atlanta Braves New York Yankees
2000 New York Mets New York Yankees
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks New York Yankees
2002 San Francisco Giants Anaheim Angels
2003 Florida Marlins New York Yankees
2004 St. Louis Cardinals Boston Red Sox
2005 Houston Astros Chicago White Sox
2006 St. Louis Cardinals Detroit Tigers
2007 Colorado Rockies Boston Red Sox

Wait 'til next year. And the next. And the Next. And the next after that too.

by TheEman on Dec 28, 2007 11:17 AM CST reply actions

Re: 1994

I just remembered I have this T-shirt....;-)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dragonsfanatic/2146859757/

by dragonsfanatic on Dec 29, 2007 5:30 PM CST up reply actions

Blyleven is on the top of my H of F ballot

Blyleven--60 ShOs, 3700 Ks, 287 Ws
Raines--800 SBs, .385 OBP, 3900 Hs + Ws
Dawson--400 HRs, 300 SBs, 8 GGs, despite the low OBP
Gossage--dominant closer for a generation
Lee Smith--478 Svs; although Gossage was more versatile, it's not clear he was better (Smith's ERA+ = 131; Gossage's = 126)
Morris--254 Ws; best big-game P of his generation
Trammell--in top dozen of SSs, all-time; 3200 Hs + Ws
Parker--2-time batting champ; better all-around player than Rice
Rice--overrated b/c played in Boston, 1-dimensional, but a dominant hitter for a half-dozen years

You can vote at http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/ballot?event_id=3262

No one has 3/4s of the fan vote: Gossage leads with 72%, followed by Rice, Dawson, Blyleven, and Smith, the only 5 with over 50%. Raines has only 35%. Shows what playing in Montreal will do for you.

by bleacher on Dec 28, 2007 11:18 AM CST reply actions

One thing about Dawson

that Hall voters are perhaps overlooking: he played over 1000 games in CF (1027 games, compared to 1284 in RF). Won 4 of his 8 GGs in CF. He was a starting CF for only 7 years, but won 4 GGs. Also, he started only 2 games in CF in '87 and '88--both times in the all-star game. And he might have been the best all-around player in the game in '81, which was cut short due to a strike.

by bleacher on Dec 28, 2007 12:02 PM CST up reply actions

The Hawk was my first favorite player...

but sentimentality aside, his terrible OBP's should keep him out of the Hall. Frankly, I get tired of always having to read about how Dawson won an MVP he didn't deserve. I'd hate to see his name also become associated with a Hall induction that should not have been. I will always cherish memories of watching Dawson on WGN and hearing the "Hawk, Hawk..." chants. When I read and think about Andre Dawson, it's those thoughts I want.

by snley @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 28, 2007 3:57 PM CST up reply actions

Typo, tipo, tpo

"are represented in a couple of instances - but a very small relative percentage"

Wait 'til next year. And the next. And the Next. And the next after that too.

by TheEman on Dec 28, 2007 11:18 AM CST reply actions

Wrigley

I do like one thing Morrissey says and its something I agree with. Sell the naming rights for a ton of cash, tear down everything except the bleachers and make the whole concourse new. You could add 10,000 seats this way.

You could make it look similiar but much improved.

One last request, continue to sell Italian Sausage, they are AWESOME

"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry "I strongly dislike Steve Stone." ---Hammer

by Hammer on Dec 28, 2007 11:32 AM CST reply actions

it's all about

the italian beef/sausage combo. if you haven't tried it I strongly encourage you to have one next time you are at Wrigley.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 28, 2007 11:36 AM CST up reply actions

When the time does come....

for a major renovation a la Soldier Field, I think that is exactly what will happen. The concourse will be knocked down and rebuilt with all new amenities, skyboxes, a restaurant or two, etc. and the new finished product will have a seating capacity somewhere between 45,000 and 50,000. This may mean playing home games for at least one season, if not two, at The Cell, like the Bears did in Champaign. And you know what? This is exactly what I think should be done. It would keep the Cubs at Clark and Addison long term.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 28, 2007 11:47 AM CST up reply actions

agreed

my love for wrigley is in the brick, the ivy, the scoreboard, what the place actually looks like once you're in your seat. id love it if they could renevate the inside of the stadium, the cell really does whoop wrigley's ass when it comes to food.

Bill James Felix Pie 2008 Projection: .283/.333/.456 16 HR 21 SB

by kylejo on Dec 28, 2007 12:44 PM CST up reply actions

About seating capacity...

... no, it won't be increased. All that would accomplish would be adding 5,000-10,000 really bad seats, which would not add more revenue.

It has been determined that the optimal capacity for baseball is between 40,000 and 42,000 and most new parks are built with that number. Wrigley Field's official seating capacity is now 41,160 (more with standing room).

Where they would make more money is by adding more suites (there are now 63 suites, and they could easily double that amount), and building a Stadium Club that actually faces the field, as they have at the Cell and Miller Park, among others. That's where the real big dollars are.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 2:07 PM CST up reply actions

Where did Coors Field

get off with 60,000+?

And, btw, I'm assuming you got your refund?

Wait 'til next year. And the next. And the Next. And the next after that too.

by TheEman on Dec 28, 2007 2:29 PM CST up reply actions

Coors Field...

... has 48,000 seats, not 60,000. (You're thinking about the Rockies' time in Mile High Stadium, a football stadium that could seat 73,000 for baseball).

And of those 48,000, about 3-4,000 of them are in the Rockpile, really, really bad seats in dead center field.

Yes, I finally did get my refund, last week.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 11:39 PM CST up reply actions

Ha, I would

but I dont like Italian beef. If I can I always get my sausage from the same place, it is near where you come in off of Clark and Sheffield, add a little hot giardiera and Im set for the game.

"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry "I strongly dislike Steve Stone." ---Hammer

by Hammer on Dec 28, 2007 11:44 AM CST reply actions

You don't like italian beef?

Are you crazy?

C'mon Cubbies!!!

by McRipper on Dec 28, 2007 11:46 AM CST up reply actions

Look out for this ONE.....

......I dont eat steak either. Think of how much money I have already saved in my life but not eating steak/beef. I guess I make up for it in beer.

"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry "I strongly dislike Steve Stone." ---Hammer

by Hammer on Dec 28, 2007 11:56 AM CST up reply actions

I'd give anything

to have a beef and sausage everyday but I live in Maryland and they have no clue.

"You rub snot on the ball?" Ricky Vaughn

by McRipper on Dec 28, 2007 2:32 PM CST up reply actions

Ha

I bet they put ketchup on their hotdogs too. Dont scold me or tell anyone but I like ketchup.

"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry "I strongly dislike Steve Stone." ---Hammer

by Hammer on Dec 28, 2007 2:33 PM CST up reply actions

The beef and sausage

on the Upper Deck patio is some of the better food in the whole park, imo.

Levy does a very mediocre job on the food front, unfortunatelty. It is however, better than the offerings at Dodgers Stadium.

Some of you are too young to remember this, but beefs used to be a vendor items, as were sausage or cheese pizzas (Ron Santo's "The Pros Pizza").

And, "Malt Cups" were ALWAYS called "Frosty Malts".

Wait 'til next year. And the next. And the Next. And the next after that too.

by TheEman on Dec 28, 2007 11:58 AM CST up reply actions

Pro's Pizza.....

...I asked Santo once whatever happened to his pizza venture. His answer- "It gave me heartburn."

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Dec 28, 2007 12:25 PM CST up reply actions

Ron Santo's "The Pros Pizza"

They were good to put inside your jacket on cold days to stay warm. As pizza, not so much.

by MN exile on Dec 28, 2007 6:44 PM CST up reply actions

And if you KEPT any of those 'Pro's Pizza' boxes

and they are in 'mint' shape, (no tomato sauce and cheese stuck to the box, I guess) a new magazine of prices of Baseball Cards and 'other' stuff says those boxes are worth hundreds of dollars.

I knew I shouldn't have left that box under my 1.50 grandstand seat in 1968.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Dec 29, 2007 12:35 AM CST up reply actions

On Wrigley

It strikes me that every step along the way there has been outrage with changes that were done at Wrigley. The lights, the bleacher expansion, the added row of seats. Yet with each change that has come, Cubs brass has done it right. Expansions have blended well into the existing structure. The ballpark has been made better.

I enjoy Wrigley Field because its Wrigley Field but there are several aspects of that ballpark that need to be brought into the 21st century. The concourses are narrow, dark and dirty. The bathrooms are simply inadequate. There are many elements of the ballpark exterior that are ugly(chain link fencing for one). Netting preventing concrete chunks from falling is ridiculous. Go to any newer ballpark, even US Cellular, and the experience is simply easier and more fan friendly. Having been to several new ballparks it strikes me how many elements Wrigley is missing.

If I had my choice, ya, I'd rather have Wrigley Field not take a corporate name. But that desire pales in comparison to the need to upgrade Wrigley Field. Various strategies like naming rights could actually help not only save Wrigley Field but make it a world class facility which right now it most definitely is not.

DmL

by dmlichte on Dec 28, 2007 12:41 PM CST reply actions

Agreed

Well said DmL. Wrigley is Wrigley, always will be, no matter what it's called. If Zell gets the money that's another story but I won't complain if the money goes to the team and it's used appropirately, ie payroll and/or improvements to the ballpark. I could even live through playing a year at the Cell if it meant Wrigley was going to remain, stronger and friendlier. The bleachers appear to be well done, if that type improvement could be accomplished with the rest of the park then go for it. I see a huge opportunity in adding suites, clubs, skyboxes, whatever. Plenty of well to do Cub fans would pony up for that kind of luxury, probably as much or more so than most other teams. Wrigley could be a cashcow well into the future with some needed improvements.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Dec 28, 2007 6:28 PM CST up reply actions

Well said DML

....I agree when the game is close and everyone sticks around it is a pain to exit the stadium. Heres a tip to all cut through the seats to get to the nearest exit, the concourse is the least quickest way.

The bathrooms are pretty nasty but its tough when you add beer and lots of people, they need more bathrooms. I was down by the stadium on Wed. night and showing the stadium to a friend and the outside is kind of ugggh I kept telling her to wait until you see the marquis.

Please, if they tear down the concourse and improve that it would be great and like DML said-----they couldnt have blended those bleachers any better it has been a great improvement, the walkway behind the bleachers is a great addition as well. (although they should add some TVs with the game on for those standing.)

"Hey.....Cubs win!!!" ---Harry "I strongly dislike Steve Stone." ---Hammer

by Hammer on Dec 28, 2007 2:22 PM CST reply actions

Remember...

"more bathrooms" really means longer lines. If you tear out the....old tanks in the current bathrooms, they have to be replaced with individual urinals. (Those also exist at Dodger Stadium, FYI -- who knew?) That means LESS 'facilities' and more of a wait.....

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Dec 29, 2007 12:32 AM CST up reply actions

Wrigleys Future...

There are too many comments to read through here, but I for one would be sad if they slapped some corporate name on the stadium. Sad, but not outraged....I mean we're all CUBS FANS right? Not Wrigley Fans? Who Cares, its just a stadium that will one day no longer be in use-I follow many sports, as Im sure many of you do as well, and I dont have an attachment to any particular building.

I understand the ambiance contributed to the Cubs popularity, which in turn gave them more money to spend on the club, but in this era of free agency, we've learned not to become attached to the names on the backs, only the logo on the front. The same should go for the stadium, if they actually sell the rights, would that make you cheer for the Cubs any less?

If and when the Cubs build a new stadium, is that necessarily a bad thing? Thank your lucky stars they didnt do it in the 70s, the age of cookie cutter circular stadiums (three rivers, The Vet, riverfront). I personally like a lot of the modern retro stadiums like PNC or Seattle's.

Sure you can make the argument why build a modern retro stadium when you already have a retro stadium to begin with.

But it would seem to me that selling the naming rights is the first step to an entire new park, or at least a massive remodeling. If Zell or whomever can stand to profit off of a name, imagine what he could make with a brand new building full of modern amenities, more seats, luxury boxes etc.

So these issues are really out of fans hands, any corportion who buys the naming rights, surely has a stranglehold on their respective market, and theres very little a boycott would do anyway, besides the fact we modern americans are too lazy to boycott anything.

Toby Flenderson represents all that is wrong with the paper business.

by bren on Dec 28, 2007 3:45 PM CST reply actions

Another take on that...

heres a link to a similar story from the Daily Herald's website.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=101028

pretty much what I echoed above, though his seems a bit more angry..ha

Toby Flenderson represents all that is wrong with the paper business.

by bren on Dec 28, 2007 4:16 PM CST up reply actions

I can somewhat

stomach the thought of Wrigley being named Butterball Field or Quilted Northern Park ,but the thought of not going to a game at Wrigley makes me ill.

Where would the new Quilted Northern Park be built anyways? If a name change means keep Wrigley and improve upon it, then I guess that's the right thing to do compared to the alternative.

Anxiously awaiting the arrival of Opening Day '08

by love the ivy on Dec 29, 2007 12:30 PM CST up reply actions

Morrissey

I cant stand him, he's worse then Mariotti In my honest opinion.

"I guess you had some lean years, and didnt have to beat it hard" - Craig Sager

by Galvan316 on Dec 28, 2007 5:38 PM CST reply actions

First Pete Rose and now OJ?

Come on Al. What Pete did or didn't do and what OJ did or didn't do has nothing to do with Roger Clemens. You're really stooping here. If this is the best you got them perhaps Roger has a case. Sure, lots of guilty people claim to be innocent, but so do a lot of innocent people. I'm not saying Roger didn't do it (I personally think he did) but let's stick to facts that relate to his case.

by lohroffc on Dec 28, 2007 5:42 PM CST reply actions

Roger IS innocent!

At least that's what the PI's are going to say. Really, has there ever been an ongoing investigation of this magnitude where the outcome was already known? What a sham.

Anyway, it's not that much different than OJ is it? OJ promised to find the real killers and Rogers investigation is going to find him innocent, and we knew the outcomes of both the moment we heard it.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Dec 28, 2007 6:49 PM CST up reply actions

I'm not saying Roger is innocent

... my point is that OJ and Pete are irrelevant. Here we go... Michael Vick killed some dogs so Roger must be doing steroids. Rae Carruth killed his girlfriend so Roger must be guilty. It's absurd.

by lohroffc on Dec 28, 2007 9:20 PM CST up reply actions

The comparison I was making...

... was to the two of them "investigating" something that 99.9% of the public knows is already something else.

In OJ's case, he said he'd look for the "real killer". Hmmm. Hasn't found him yet, has he?

In Clemens' case, he's off to investigate McNamee. Why? Because McNamee told the truth? What's Clemens trying to hide?

That's the point.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 11:41 PM CST up reply actions

Homesick for good grub

Thanks to all that posted about the AMAZING food that I miss so much living here in Southern Cali. Dodger dogs are horrible... and Panda Express and sushi at a friggin baseball game?!?

Well it is 65 degrees right now so I guess I can't complain too much! Mmmm Wrigleyville dogs... you know I have order Giordano's and Portillo's online right now!

by socalicubsfan on Dec 28, 2007 6:05 PM CST reply actions

Why do you think the

Dodger Dogs are bad? I had a great one last May at a Cubs/Dodgers game...at least they are freshly grilled....

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Dec 29, 2007 12:27 AM CST up reply actions

And, FYI

Portillo's will open restaurants soon in Moreno Valley & Temecula, in addition to the 'flagship' in Buena Park near Knott's Berry Farm

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Dec 29, 2007 12:29 AM CST up reply actions

Naming rights

I haven't heard about renaming Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Is that because the owners know the fans would be outraged by the very thought of that or they actually respect the value of the name?

Currently naming rights are going for $2M or so. Given that the Cubs revenue is close to $300M, the added value is insignificant. While I respect everyone's right to believe it's no big deal, I strongly disagree. Who would accept the use of advertisements in school rooms? Why don't we have Pepsi ads in church?

The creeping commercialism adds nothing to the fans and merely justifies increased payroll which leads to overpriced tickets. If the owners aren't capable of managing their businesses, why do fans have to pay the price.

Finally, the Park was renamed in 1926, not 1932.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Dec 28, 2007 9:09 PM CST reply actions

Not to quibble...

... but the Mets seal to sell their new ballpark's naming rights to Citi will net them $20M a season.

DmL

by dmlichte on Dec 28, 2007 10:12 PM CST up reply actions

That stadium

isn't even built yet. Wrigley's name is over 80 years in the making. The differences are vast.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Dec 29, 2007 1:20 AM CST up reply actions

Please expand...

... on why the Cubs would receive so much less for the naming rights to one of this country's most historic stadiums? There are several stadiums that make much more than $2M a season off of naming rights. I realize that there likely are several elements that Citi will receive with the Mets new stadium that a potential Wrigley sponsor would not. However it goes both ways. The differences may be vast but I don't see the Cubs being unable to charge close to if not more than what the Mets are charging.

DmL

by dmlichte on Dec 29, 2007 10:09 AM CST up reply actions

Naming rights...

Imo, you're looking at $10MM, starting.

The name has remained the same since the Wrigleys bought the club. It is one of four or five sports properties in the US that have a brand which is this strong. Fenway, Yankee Stadium, Wrigley, Lambeau, and perhaps Madison Square Garden or Boston Gardens.

This means big money for naming rights. Not $2MM.

Purely a unique situation.

Wait 'til next year. And the next. And the Next. And the next after that too.

by TheEman on Dec 29, 2007 10:45 AM CST up reply actions

The Cubs

could very well get more than the typical going rate. But it still doesn't sooth my feelings that some things don't net to be sold out.

As said, the Yanks and Boston haven't yet. I respect that and wish that the Cubs would remain about the prostitution of an historical name.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Dec 29, 2007 6:42 PM CST up reply actions

True on the renaming date.

It was still named to honor the man, not the company, that's the point.

And trust me, if the Yankees could make big money (and they surely could) by selling naming rights to the new Yankee Stadium, don't think Hank Steinbrenner won't do it. Sure, there will be howls of outrage, but it very well could happen.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 28, 2007 11:42 PM CST up reply actions

Then why hasn't

George already done it? The plain truth is that neither of the two other storied baseball franchises has sold out. They've drawn a line in the sand. So should we.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Dec 29, 2007 1:17 AM CST up reply actions

Because...

... the "line in the sand" that you correctly say the Yankees have not yet crossed, may be crossed when the new stadium is built.

We'll see.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 29, 2007 11:23 AM CST up reply actions

Well Al

when they tear down Wrigley and rebuild it, I'll be happy to revisit the "naming rights" issue. Until then I remain unequivocally opposed to spray painting over 80 years of history.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Dec 29, 2007 6:47 PM CST up reply actions

I respect your position.

I hope you'll respect mine, which is that in the bigger picture, it really doesn't matter and I don't care.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 29, 2007 10:34 PM CST up reply actions

Of course

I respect your opinion. This is just one of those areas where differences of opinion give rise to passionate debate. It's good for the heart and soul of baseball. Too bad most politicians are unworthy of meaningful debate. Perhaps the issues facing our country would be solved if they were.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Dec 30, 2007 2:56 AM CST up reply actions

Absolutely!

The Yankees refuse to tarnish a piece of history by naming it after a giant, avaricious capitalist entity - unless of course you count being named after the New York Freaking Yankees. They just plan to raze the thing to the ground, is all.

Yeah, clearly the Yankees haven't sold out.

I would suggest you learn to truly interrupt all stats before using any selective stats. -- cubswin

by cwyers on Dec 29, 2007 1:21 PM CST up reply actions

LMAO^^

n/t

by Scott 9 on Dec 29, 2007 3:07 PM CST up reply actions

To date

they haven't. Nor has Boston.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Dec 29, 2007 6:49 PM CST up reply actions

So, lemme see if I understand.

You don't care if historic parks are leveled to the ground... just if they're renamed after corporations. Because unless that's the case, I don't know how you say that about the Yankees.

I would suggest you learn to truly interrupt all stats before using any selective stats. -- cubswin

by cwyers on Dec 30, 2007 11:01 AM CST up reply actions

Nope.

That's not it. Listen, I understand that eventually Wrigley will have to be replaced. My position is that then and only then would I consider the issue of renaming rights a topic for consideration.

While I would still prefer to maintain the name Wrigley Field, I'd be willing to discuss options. Until then, I adamantly am opposed to any change in the name.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Dec 30, 2007 2:21 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah, but the Yankees don't HAVE...

...to have a new stadium. They just make more money that way. So it's hard to see how they haven't sold out.

I would suggest you learn to truly interrupt all stats before using any selective stats. -- cubswin

by cwyers on Dec 30, 2007 7:13 PM CST up reply actions

Correct.

I still don't see why tharr is so adamantly opposed to a name change. Where's the harm in this?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 30, 2007 7:25 PM CST up reply actions

I associate

the name Wrigley Field with the Cubs. It's been that way for 80 years. Would you accept changing the name of Chicago? Some things just need to stay the way they are. That's why we have historical societies and stubborn people like me.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Jan 1, 2008 12:08 PM CST up reply actions

This conversation began

on the subject of selling the naming rights of Wrigley. I stated that currently neither the Yanks or Red Sox have sold out in that area.

While the politics of the new Yankee Stadium is steeped in Tammany Hall type politics, I never intended to discuss that area. Steinbrenner Jr. has assured the city that the name will NOT be sold out.

Consequently, I see no evidence that my claim that the BIG three franchises in baseball have not entered into the rename game. I merely propose that it's unnecessary for the Cubs to break that honored tradition.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Dec 30, 2007 7:43 PM CST up reply actions

It's difficult

for me to equate making more profit to selling out. By that standard, the Cubs raising ticket prices is also selling out. Selling out to me is turning your back on what has been a generally accepted practice.

If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.

by tharr on Jan 1, 2008 12:01 PM CST up reply actions

A little bit of both?

"It was still named to honor the man, not the company, that's the point."

Don't you think it could have been a bit of both? Couldn't they have had the stated purpose of honoring the man but yet the unstated desire to get some pub for the corporation?

On Wrigley's outfield wall, is that a (kindly, humane and cuddly) "basket" or is it also perhaps (despite the public statement) a chainlink fan restraint system?

"...the Sox ... may be even more marginal after the Cubs win the 2007 World Series." - Cubbie fan "Joe Alberti" as posted in the White Sox NG on 9/21/2007.

by DrCrawdad on Dec 29, 2007 8:13 AM CST up reply actions

Well.....

.... if you choose to believe that unstated reason instead, enjoy your delusions.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Dec 29, 2007 10:07 AM CST up reply actions

Close your eyes and embrace the illusion...

So, is that a cute and cuddly "basket" on Wrigley's outfield walls? Or is it a fence to keep fans off the field that the powers that be decided to call a cute and cuddly "basket" 'cos that sounds better?

But if the owners and team spokesmen call it a "basket" then that's got to be what it is. I mean they call it a basket, so that's got to be what it is, right? It's not reasonable to suggest that it could go beyond what the spokesmen have said, right?

Teams spokesmen have said that "Wrigley" was named in honor of the former owner. So clearly it's "delusional" to suggest that it might go beyond what they've said.

"...the Sox ... may be even more marginal after the Cubs win the 2007 World Series." - Cubbie fan "Joe Alberti" as posted in the White Sox NG on 9/21/2007.

by DrCrawdad on Dec 29, 2007 1:00 PM CST up reply actions

This comparison...

... is really irrelevant, isn't it?

Teams didn't do corporate naming rights in the 1930's. The park was named to honor the man. Yes, the name of the company is the same as the name of the man. So what?

There's a basket on the outfield wall. No one questions that it's there to keep people off the field. What would YOU call it? It looks like a basket, that's shorthand.

I think you're trying to pick on something here that doesn't need to be picked on.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 29, 2007 1:06 PM CST up reply actions

The point is...

...you choose to rule out the possibility of a dual purpose of naming it Wrigley, as though it's not reasonable that they could have had more on their mind than honoring the man.

"Like his father, P.K. was a strong believer in maximizing media coverage." - wikipedia on P.K.

I'm sure it never entered William or P.K.'s mind that calling their ballpark "Wrigley" would help maximize name recognition of their corporation or their gum, WRIGLEY SPEARMINT, ETC.

"...the Sox ... may be even more marginal after the Cubs win the 2007 World Series." - Cubbie fan "Joe Alberti" as posted in the White Sox NG on 9/21/2007.

by DrCrawdad on Dec 29, 2007 1:26 PM CST up reply actions

If I grant your point...

... will you acknowledge that your "basket" comparison was a little over the top, not to mention irrelevant?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 29, 2007 4:29 PM CST up reply actions

Basket ball...

"If I grant your point..."

Thank you.

"...will you acknowledge that your "basket" comparison was a little over the top, not to mention irrelevant?"

Why isn't it called a fence? There is the outfield wall and what sits atop is the fence.

How about calling it a barrier?

I believe it was a clever choice of words calling it the "basket." Kudos to the Cubbies on that one!

You and perhaps some others know why the "basket" is there. But IMHO a lot of people thinks it's a kindly "basket" and have no clue why it was put in place. This has come up in numerous conversations I've had with Cubs fans. It's usually where a Cubs fan says something about Sox fans running on the field and how that NEVER happens at Wrigley. I've asked, "Why do you think Wrigley has "the basket?" Most say it is a HR basket and have no clue why it's really there. IMHO people believe that because that's what they've heard.

As to the relevancy of the point, I did address that earlier. If it was a miss, fine. I accept that.

"...the Sox ... may be even more marginal after the Cubs win the 2007 World Series." - Cubbie fan "Joe Alberti" as posted in the White Sox NG on 9/21/2007.

by DrCrawdad on Dec 29, 2007 5:14 PM CST up reply actions

'Basket' related question

If the basket also serves as a people restraint system, why is there a basket in front of the center field batter's eye area?

No people are sitting there, just the ones behind the glass of that restaurant/bar area - and there's no way they're getting on the field. Before the restaurant, it was all juniper bushes, and before that I think it was just empty and painted dark green.

I'm guessing if you go back far enough, there was a time when there was seating all around the outfield, i.e. no batter's eye backdrop. I just don't know how that time coincides with whenever the basket was first installed. Regardless, there are no fans there now, yet the basket is still in place.

I could care less about conspiracy theories and/or making a point. But I have often wondered about all those home runs to center that just make the basket, thinking that if there had been no basket, they would have just been doubles off the wall (or singles for the Wards, Mitchells and Kruks of the NL). Then further wondering if the net (no pun intended) result has helped or hurt the Cubs over the years.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Dec 29, 2007 7:57 PM CST up reply actions

Summer of '69

I believe the "basket" was put in sometime after '69. I'm not sure when that fits as to CF being designated a batters eye with no one allowed to sit there.

Exactly why the "basket" was put in CF if no one was allowed to sit there does not change the fact that the "basket" was put in to restrain fans.

FWIW "bleacher bum" Mike Murphy often says on the SCORE that the "basket" was put in to keep bleacher denizens from jumping onto the field.

"...the Sox ... may be even more marginal after the Cubs win the 2007 World Series." - Cubbie fan "Joe Alberti" as posted in the White Sox NG on 9/21/2007.

by DrCrawdad on Dec 29, 2007 8:17 PM CST up reply actions

Yes, all of this is true.

Why do you keep harping on it like it's some big scandal?

FYI, the basket was put in sometime in April 1970 after several incidents of fans running and dancing on top of the wall. To my knowledge no one actually jumped onto the field; they just wanted to prevent it.

Well, no one jumped onto the field until about four or five years ago -- some idiot jumped OVER the basket and onto the field. Broke both his ankles.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 29, 2007 10:37 PM CST up reply actions

Beaten to the punch

As much as I love baseball and at one time wished to play MLB I don't understand the the desire to interrupt a game and run on the field. Cheer, boo & yell (minus curse words and the word "suck") that's all fine, but don't interfere with the game.

On another matter...

Thanks for your interesting comments and observations! Thanks too for suffering me.

I wish you all the best next year.

"...the Sox ... may be even more marginal after the Cubs win the 2007 World Series." - Cubbie fan "Joe Alberti" as posted in the White Sox NG on 9/21/2007.

by DrCrawdad on Dec 30, 2007 8:09 AM CST up reply actions

The same to you.

And I agree -- these idiots who run on the field, no matter where they do it, I just don't understand it. Most of them have to either be on something or have been dared by someone else (that was the story given by the guy who charged Randy Myers years ago).

It's still stupid.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 30, 2007 11:32 AM CST up reply actions

Yeah, well...

...at least we never named our stadium after a bloodsucking tyrant.

I would suggest you learn to truly interrupt all stats before using any selective stats. -- cubswin

by cwyers on Dec 29, 2007 10:35 AM CST up reply actions

Just an FYI

Along the lines of names for stadiums, when the Cardinals opened the original Busch Stadium, they were owned by the Busch family, makers of fine cold, carbonated piss water aka Budweiser. Their original plans were to name the stadium Budweiser Field or something like that. The commissioner at the time said they could not use the stadium name for advertising. Instead, they named it Busch after the family. Soon thereafter, a new beer, called Busch, began to be sold locally. I'm sure it was pure coincidence. I wish I had a link to document this story, but I believe I originally read it in the book Veeck as in Wreck. I highly recommend that book to any baseball fan. As Bill Veeck's father was president of the Cubs and Bill himself was responsible for the ivy and scoreboard in Wrigley, it's a great read for Cubs fans.

by snley @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 29, 2007 12:32 PM CST reply actions

Correction

It was when the Busch family bought the Cardinals, they wanted to rename Sportsman's Park Budweiser Stadium.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/sports.htm

by snley @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Dec 29, 2007 12:38 PM CST up reply actions

Not much of a debate...

...The Goose was perhaps the most dominant "closer" in history. He deserves to be in the HOF as does Santo, the fact that both are not in is an injustice. (Okay, and M. Miller deserves it as well.)

by DudeVf11 on Dec 29, 2007 12:45 PM CST reply actions

Agreed on all three, but especially M. Miller

As much as I feel Goose, Santo, Rose and Blyleven deserve to be elected, I have to say Miller now occupies the top spot on my list of HOF injustices. Marvin Miller not getting in was a travesty and just moves the Hall of Fame even that much closer to total irrelevancy.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Dec 29, 2007 8:03 PM CST up reply actions

You can definitely make a case....

for Miller being the most influential baseball figure of the twentieth century, along with Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who was the first to establish a strong authority presence in the Comissioner's office, and who is also in the HOF, by the way. To say that Miller changed the league forever would be an understatement.

"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004

by ctcoff99 on Dec 30, 2007 11:14 AM CST up reply actions

Fukudome in morning news show on Friday

Dome made appearance in Nagoya-TV morning news show on Friday. Nothing new info in his interview, but talked about his impression on Chicago - "The weather was so cold, but the Cubs fans were so hot."
Also said "It's so cool if the addition of myself help Cubs win World Champ since 1908".
Re: his new baby "He's so handsome as my boy"
http://dragonfanatic.hp.infoseek.co.jp/Dragons2007/img/20071228Dome.jpg

by dragonsfanatic on Dec 29, 2007 2:21 PM CST reply actions

Thanks for the picture!

Nice pic including the Cubs logo. Incidentally, if you have something this newsworthy, I would encourage you to post a diary about it. (See the Diary/Comment Posting Tips on the right sidebar for good hints on how to post a diary.)

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Dec 29, 2007 4:31 PM CST up reply actions

Posting diaries

Oh, any members can post diaries here? I didn't know that.
I will do that when I find something new, maybe when he starts training in Hawaii next month.

by dragonsfanatic on Dec 29, 2007 5:07 PM CST up reply actions

Arigato

Gozaimus, dragonfanatic!

Wait 'til next year. And the next. And the Next. And the next after that too.

by TheEman on Dec 29, 2007 7:12 PM CST up reply actions

I was at Wrigley...

...the day of Fukudome's press conference and I can 100% wholeheartedly totally guaran-damn-tee you he was NOT talking about me when he said the Cubs fans were so hot.

Not sure if Al was there, though... ;-)

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Dec 29, 2007 8:08 PM CST up reply actions