Knot hole a good idea gone bad

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

What does winning a WS have to do with this topic?

 

Because MacPhail also used "competition" as another reason for the expansion. If we can just get these new bleachers, that will help us win. Charge 60 bucks for a bleacher seat, close off the knothole, keep on jacking ticket prices up, scalp your own tickets.....just don't lie about why you're doing it and don't cry poor when free agent time rolls around.

 

If the Cubs would have actually won something in my life, I wouldn't care. It's crap like this that made me say "bon voyage" to Wrigley 4 years ago.

 

And judging from attendance figures, they haven't missed you.

[Bgbird68]

And again, my point being the Cubs shouldn't use "competition" as the reason for bleacher expansion or raising ticket prices and then not signing a single top-of the-line free agent since oh, somebody help me with this one. Just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

I could stomach all this if they had actually won something. And great, there are five people ready to take my spot at Wrigley.....it still a crappy thing to lie to the fanbase of the most inept baseball team in history. They're not getting my money and I don't care how many people are in line to take my seat.

 

And guess what Vance, I don't miss them either.

[Radar3454]

Don't they get credit for signing their own players to extensions? They do have one of the highest payrolls in the NL.

 

I expect to be lied to or at least not be told the whole truth by sports teams and players so it does not bother me when it happens.

 

What does bother me is the fact that the Cubs have one of the highest payrolls in the NL but much of it could have been spent better.

[SouthSideRyan]

This is probably my biggest complaint with Cubs fans as a whole. They piss and moan about how cheap the Trib is, and say they don't care about winning , only making a buck. After all, they're the big evil corporation, so it's easy to blame them.

 

The Cubs haven't lost the years that the Trib has owned the team because the Trib wouldn't spend enough. The cubs have lost all these years because they've had some of the most G-Damn incompetent people in charge of running the club for the past 25 years.

[stitchface]

This is probably my biggest complaint with Cubs fans as a whole. They piss and moan about how cheap the Trib is, and say they don't care about winning , only making a buck. After all, they're the big evil corporation, so it's easy to blame them.

 

The Cubs haven't lost the years that the Trib has owned the team because the Trib wouldn't spend enough. The cubs have lost all these years because they've had some of the most G-Damn incompetent people in charge of running the club for the past 25 years.

 

and these people would be fired if the team wasn't making a profit. since they are making a profit, they get to keep their jobs. no doubt hendry MacPhail want to win - lets not confuse tribune corporation with the cubs management though.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This is probably my biggest complaint with Cubs fans as a whole. They piss and moan about how cheap the Trib is, and say they don't care about winning , only making a buck. After all, they're the big evil corporation, so it's easy to blame them.

 

The Cubs haven't lost the years that the Trib has owned the team because the Trib wouldn't spend enough. The cubs have lost all these years because they've had some of the most G-Damn incompetent people in charge of running the club for the past 25 years.

 

Winner.

[SouthSideRyan]

This is probably my biggest complaint with Cubs fans as a whole. They piss and moan about how cheap the Trib is, and say they don't care about winning , only making a buck. After all, they're the big evil corporation, so it's easy to blame them.

 

The Cubs haven't lost the years that the Trib has owned the team because the Trib wouldn't spend enough. The cubs have lost all these years because they've had some of the most G-Damn incompetent people in charge of running the club for the past 25 years.

 

and these people would be fired if the team wasn't making a profit. since they are making a profit, they get to keep their jobs. no doubt hendry MacPhail want to win - lets not confuse tribune corporation with the cubs management though.

 

It's a pet peeve of mine when people say they could be as good a GM as somebody that's currently a GM(except Bowden), but I could make a profit as the Cubs GM. There's no need for the Trib to shell out big bucks to a (then) proven winner in MacPhail, when any [expletive] could turn a profit.

[stitchface]

I think I follow what you are saying. my point is just that the cubs management is not being judged on wins but on profit. if they were as incompetent in a more typical business, they likely wouldn't be profitable. We are doomed to mediocrity because there is no one demanding excellence.

[SouthSideRyan]

I think I follow what you are saying. my point is just that the cubs management is not being judged on wins but on profit. if they were as incompetent in a more typical business, they likely wouldn't be profitable. We are doomed to mediocrity because there is no one demanding excellence.

 

The way the payroll has risen considerably over the past 5 years makes me think there's a lot more involved from the Trib side other than maximizing profits. They could have easily held steady on the payroll heading into '04 and still sold the place out just about every game. Same with '05.

[Mark_R]

Who's the last big free agent n their prime the Cubs signed? I think that is where some animosity lies. The Cubs have had a chance at signing big time free agents (and to reasonable deals) but have always signed the lesser tier guys to shorter contracts. Maybe there is something coming from the top to not give long term contracts to incoming FA's. I'm not sure. It sure seems like it though.

 

Even with our own guys, only Ramirez got a four year deal (where he could get out after two years anyway).

[stitchface]

I think I follow what you are saying. my point is just that the cubs management is not being judged on wins but on profit. if they were as incompetent in a more typical business, they likely wouldn't be profitable. We are doomed to mediocrity because there is no one demanding excellence.

 

The way the payroll has risen considerably over the past 5 years makes me think there's a lot more involved from the Trib side other than maximizing profits. They could have easily held steady on the payroll heading into '04 and still sold the place out just about every game. Same with '05.

 

 

the payroll is an investment in future profits. I'm not really arguing that point though. my point is that they are not demanding a return on their investment in terms of WS championships. there is no Boss getting enraged by not winning.

[SouthSideRyan]

Who's the last big free agent n their prime the Cubs signed? I think that is where some animosity lies. The Cubs have had a chance at signing big time free agents (and to reasonable deals) but have always signed the lesser tier guys to shorter contracts. Maybe there is something coming from the top to not give long term contracts to incoming FA's. I'm not sure. It sure seems like it though.

 

Even with our own guys, only Ramirez got a four year deal (where he could get out after two years anyway).

 

But it's not that these guys weren't signed due to lack of funds. They weren't signed due to lack of intelligence. How many scenarios have you seen drawn up in the Transactions forum that involve a superstar FA being signed/traded for fitting well within the confines of our budget. It's just standard Cub procedure to sign 3 mediocrities instead of 1 real live ball-player.

[Mark_R]

Who's the last big free agent n their prime the Cubs signed? I think that is where some animosity lies. The Cubs have had a chance at signing big time free agents (and to reasonable deals) but have always signed the lesser tier guys to shorter contracts. Maybe there is something coming from the top to not give long term contracts to incoming FA's. I'm not sure. It sure seems like it though.

 

Even with our own guys, only Ramirez got a four year deal (where he could get out after two years anyway).

 

But it's not that these guys weren't signed due to lack of funds. They weren't signed due to lack of intelligence. How many scenarios have you seen drawn up in the Transactions forum that involve a superstar FA being signed/traded for fitting well within the confines of our budget. It's just standard Cub procedure to sign 3 mediocrities instead of 1 real live ball-player.

 

I agree with you to an extent. I'm just not sure I believe that there isn't something coming from above keeping this franchise from signing top tier FA's to the long term deals they command on the open market.

 

They then sign the mediocre players to say, "well, we've got a 100 million dollar payroll, what more do you want?"

[stitchface]

Who's the last big free agent n their prime the Cubs signed? I think that is where some animosity lies. The Cubs have had a chance at signing big time free agents (and to reasonable deals) but have always signed the lesser tier guys to shorter contracts. Maybe there is something coming from the top to not give long term contracts to incoming FA's. I'm not sure. It sure seems like it though.

 

Even with our own guys, only Ramirez got a four year deal (where he could get out after two years anyway).

 

its not always clear the big names are good signings though. beltran's deal was probably not a great deal for instance. You'd like them to pursue Vlad or someone like that for certain. Particularly now when a top FA like that could put them over the top.

 

I don't know the answer to this, but what team has signed a top free agent in the last five years and won the world series? Schilling I guess could be an argument (or was that a trade?). The Angels won before they signed Vlad didn't they?

[SouthSideRyan]

Who's the last big free agent n their prime the Cubs signed? I think that is where some animosity lies. The Cubs have had a chance at signing big time free agents (and to reasonable deals) but have always signed the lesser tier guys to shorter contracts. Maybe there is something coming from the top to not give long term contracts to incoming FA's. I'm not sure. It sure seems like it though.

 

Even with our own guys, only Ramirez got a four year deal (where he could get out after two years anyway).

 

But it's not that these guys weren't signed due to lack of funds. They weren't signed due to lack of intelligence. How many scenarios have you seen drawn up in the Transactions forum that involve a superstar FA being signed/traded for fitting well within the confines of our budget. It's just standard Cub procedure to sign 3 mediocrities instead of 1 real live ball-player.

 

I agree with you to an extent. I'm just not sure I believe that there isn't something coming from above keeping this franchise from signing top tier FA's to the long term deals they command on the open market.

 

They then sign the mediocre players to say, "well, we've got a 100 million dollar payroll, what more do you want?"

 

But if they weren't friggin idiots and thought that signing 1 superstar instead of the mediocres would make the team better at the same price, why wouldn't they? Unless they forsee a huge decline in the value of MLB franchises with payrolls dropping across the board, there's no reason to be afraid of a long-term commitment when you have a payroll as high as we do.

[stitchface]

Who's the last big free agent n their prime the Cubs signed? I think that is where some animosity lies. The Cubs have had a chance at signing big time free agents (and to reasonable deals) but have always signed the lesser tier guys to shorter contracts. Maybe there is something coming from the top to not give long term contracts to incoming FA's. I'm not sure. It sure seems like it though.

 

Even with our own guys, only Ramirez got a four year deal (where he could get out after two years anyway).

 

But it's not that these guys weren't signed due to lack of funds. They weren't signed due to lack of intelligence. How many scenarios have you seen drawn up in the Transactions forum that involve a superstar FA being signed/traded for fitting well within the confines of our budget. It's just standard Cub procedure to sign 3 mediocrities instead of 1 real live ball-player.

 

I think until you establish a core this may not be that bad a strategy. I do believe this is the source of much angst on this forum though - the Cubs finally have the core together and they have failed to make the big move to get them over the top (aside from Nomar in 2004 which just didn't work out). This team does seem to be one stud short of a championship right now though so why not make the move? Go get Dunn. Go get Abreu or Burrell. Instead we get Pierre - sure he'll help but he isn't a difference maker.

[Mark_R]

Who's the last big free agent n their prime the Cubs signed? I think that is where some animosity lies. The Cubs have had a chance at signing big time free agents (and to reasonable deals) but have always signed the lesser tier guys to shorter contracts. Maybe there is something coming from the top to not give long term contracts to incoming FA's. I'm not sure. It sure seems like it though.

 

Even with our own guys, only Ramirez got a four year deal (where he could get out after two years anyway).

 

But it's not that these guys weren't signed due to lack of funds. They weren't signed due to lack of intelligence. How many scenarios have you seen drawn up in the Transactions forum that involve a superstar FA being signed/traded for fitting well within the confines of our budget. It's just standard Cub procedure to sign 3 mediocrities instead of 1 real live ball-player.

 

I agree with you to an extent. I'm just not sure I believe that there isn't something coming from above keeping this franchise from signing top tier FA's to the long term deals they command on the open market.

 

They then sign the mediocre players to say, "well, we've got a 100 million dollar payroll, what more do you want?"

 

But if they weren't friggin idiots and thought that signing 1 superstar instead of the mediocres would make the team better at the same price, why wouldn't they? Unless they forsee a huge decline in the value of MLB franchises with payrolls dropping across the board, there's no reason to be afraid of a long-term commitment when you have a payroll as high as we do.

 

I guess I'm just not as convinced as you that its just the Front Office's stupidity.

 

I will feel much better when they sign a prime guy in the offseason to put this team over the top.

 

One of these years.

 

Bear in mind they didn't sign any major FA's that I can recall pre-Hendry either, though you could argue that its all Andy MacPhail.

[2242005CY]

Is "Cubs_apologist" taken as a handle on this here board yet? If not, 90% here should think about acquiring it.

 

And whoever said the Cubs are like the Red Sox and the Yankees and comparing their ticket prices and yada yada yada please stop, you're killing me. The difference between the Cubs and the Red Sox is that, yes the Red Sox ticket prices are high, but the Red Sox will do what it takes to put a World Series roster on the field and to be competive. They aren't afraid to put that money back into the team, unlike our loveable losers.

 

Just don't compare the 2, please and most of all, don't try to justify it. It's futile, everyone here knows that Cubs management is guilty of Felony assault on their fans. EVERYONE knows it, don't try to explain otherwise cuz 1) no one is listening and 2) You'll look foolish doing so.

[Bgbird68]

Is "Cubs_apologist" taken as a handle on this here board yet? If not, 90% here should think about acquiring it.

 

And whoever said the Cubs are like the Red Sox and the Yankees and comparing their ticket prices and yada yada yada please stop, you're killing me. The difference between the Cubs and the Red Sox is that, yes the Red Sox ticket prices are high, but the Red Sox will do what it takes to put a World Series roster on the field and to be competive. They aren't afraid to put that money back into the team, unlike our loveable losers.

 

Just don't compare the 2, please and most of all, don't try to justify it. It's futile, everyone here knows that Cubs management is guilty of Felony assault on their fans. EVERYONE knows it, don't try to explain otherwise cuz 1) no one is listening and 2) You'll look foolish doing so.

 

=D>

[goonys evil twin]

Is "Cubs_apologist" taken as a handle on this here board yet? If not, 90% here should think about acquiring it.

 

And whoever said the Cubs are like the Red Sox and the Yankees and comparing their ticket prices and yada yada yada please stop, you're killing me. The difference between the Cubs and the Red Sox is that, yes the Red Sox ticket prices are high, but the Red Sox will do what it takes to put a World Series roster on the field and to be competive. They aren't afraid to put that money back into the team, unlike our loveable losers.

 

Just don't compare the 2, please and most of all, don't try to justify it. It's futile, everyone here knows that Cubs management is guilty of Felony assault on their fans. EVERYONE knows it, don't try to explain otherwise cuz 1) no one is listening and 2) You'll look foolish doing so.

 

Book 'em Danno.

[stitchface]

Is "Cubs_apologist" taken as a handle on this here board yet? If not, 90% here should think about acquiring it.

 

And whoever said the Cubs are like the Red Sox and the Yankees and comparing their ticket prices and yada yada yada please stop, you're killing me. The difference between the Cubs and the Red Sox is that, yes the Red Sox ticket prices are high, but the Red Sox will do what it takes to put a World Series roster on the field and to be competive. They aren't afraid to put that money back into the team, unlike our loveable losers.

 

Just don't compare the 2, please and most of all, don't try to justify it. It's futile, everyone here knows that Cubs management is guilty of Felony assault on their fans. EVERYONE knows it, don't try to explain otherwise cuz 1) no one is listening and 2) You'll look foolish doing so.

 

 

so, since the Red Sox have won 1 world series in 87 years, they are a much better franchise and can justify raising ticket prices? What is felony assault on their fans? I would think EVERYONE would stop cheering for a team if they were assaulted by management. I think you are a bit hysterical in your interpretation. No, the cubs aren't run for their fans. No, the cubs management is not going out of their way to screw the fans. oh wait, you're not listening anyway.

[Jehrico]

I'm sure the Cubs could figure out a way to manage the crowds. I can't imagine people camping out for the entire game.

 

It's kind of like telling kids them can come inside to the pool, but they can't go swimming. What's the point?

 

When you have millions of fans like we do, you're going to get a few nuts for fans like Ronny Woo Woo. I'm sure there's a small percentage of those that would camp out to catch the game for free.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Is "Cubs_apologist" taken as a handle on this here board yet? If not, 90% here should think about acquiring it.

 

And whoever said the Cubs are like the Red Sox and the Yankees and comparing their ticket prices and yada yada yada please stop, you're killing me. The difference between the Cubs and the Red Sox is that, yes the Red Sox ticket prices are high, but the Red Sox will do what it takes to put a World Series roster on the field and to be competive. They aren't afraid to put that money back into the team, unlike our loveable losers.

 

Just don't compare the 2, please and most of all, don't try to justify it. It's futile, everyone here knows that Cubs management is guilty of Felony assault on their fans. EVERYONE knows it, don't try to explain otherwise cuz 1) no one is listening and 2) You'll look foolish doing so.

 

The two teams are completely comparable. Both play in small old ballparks. Both have a huge waiting list for tickets. Both have an enormous demand for tickets. The Red Sox ticket prices are nearly double the Cubs, so right now the Cubs still are a bargain compared to them. The Cubs payroll was among the top third in the league. As much as you try to spin it, the Tribune has put the resources out there. The Cubs are more victims of inept management than they are of some giant corporate scheme to rip off the fans.

 

And don't tell me what to do. And I don't think "Everyone" knows any of the crap you're spewing. You're wonderful attempts of hyperbole are nice, but not accurate. And I don't really care if you are listening and I think with your wonderful use of hyperbole, it is you who looks quite ridiculous.

[Bgbird68]

Is "Cubs_apologist" taken as a handle on this here board yet? If not, 90% here should think about acquiring it.

 

And whoever said the Cubs are like the Red Sox and the Yankees and comparing their ticket prices and yada yada yada please stop, you're killing me. The difference between the Cubs and the Red Sox is that, yes the Red Sox ticket prices are high, but the Red Sox will do what it takes to put a World Series roster on the field and to be competive. They aren't afraid to put that money back into the team, unlike our loveable losers.

 

Just don't compare the 2, please and most of all, don't try to justify it. It's futile, everyone here knows that Cubs management is guilty of Felony assault on their fans. EVERYONE knows it, don't try to explain otherwise cuz 1) no one is listening and 2) You'll look foolish doing so.

 

 

so, since the Red Sox have won 1 world series in 87 years, they are a much better franchise and can justify raising ticket prices? What is felony assault on their fans? I would think EVERYONE would stop cheering for a team if they were assaulted by management. I think you are a bit hysterical in your interpretation. No, the cubs aren't run for their fans. No, the cubs management is not going out of their way to screw the fans. oh wait, you're not listening anyway.

 

Yes, they are a better franchise. See the difference between the Cubs and Red Sox is that the Sox actually APPEARED in the World Series in 75 and 86 and won it all in 2004. . The Sox actually went out and spent what they thought necessary to win, while the Cubs have refused to sign a top-of-the-line free agent and teamed that up with the inability to produce one suceessful everyday player.

 

Let's be honest, the Cubs are in a league of their own when it comes to failure.

[goonys evil twin]

Yes, they are a better franchise. See the difference between the Cubs and Red Sox is that the Sox actually APPEARED in the World Series in 75 and 86 and won it all in 2004. . The Sox actually went out and spent what they thought necessary to win, while the Cubs have refused to sign a top-of-the-line free agent and teamed that up with the inability to produce one suceessful everyday player.

 

Let's be honest, the Cubs are in a league of their own when it comes to failure.

 

The money has been made available to sign those big name guys, management has decided to spend excessively on mediocre 3rd and 4th tier guys who could be easily replaced with cheaper players. Philly is a team that has gone out and signed that one big free agent, Thome, and it didn't do them any good. They spend a similar amount as the Cubs overall, and have had massive amounts of disappointment. Some teams spend significantly less than both the Cubs and Phillies and have enjoyed much more success. The difference is management, not ownership.

 

The Cubs are in a league of their own when it comes to failure, but the Tribune is in a league with several others when it comes to the decision to not just continue to throw money at the problem and grow their payroll to 3-4 times the league average. They are in fact in a very small group of teams that have increased their payroll every year this decade, while many others (Braves, Dodgers, Orioles, etc) have had times when they were forced to cut back in salary.