Is it wrong to root for the Cubs to tank?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Yes, it's wrong. You're a Cubs fan and you're rooting for them to lose? That's absurd.

 

This question seems to be making the rounds of the Cubs blogosphere. It find it sad.

 

Cheer for you team to win or go home.

 

What if we're already at home? Look, I want the Cubs to win every game for the rest of my life, but it's not happening. The odds of them winning the majority of them look to be slim with the current regime. Mediocrity already brought Hendry an extension, and it is likely to bring Dusty one. The sensible fan in me knows the Cubs will not compete this season, therefore I want them to be better for next year and years beyond. If they win 75 games this year, the same cast of misfits and bad coaches are likely to be back next year for another run at 500. If they win 65, maybe Dusty isn't extended. Maybe Clines, Sarge, and Larry are sent packing. Maybe MacPhail wises up and fires Hendry. Players will be disposed of. I'd rather the season go in the toilet and have changes made to put us in a position to compete next year than to wallow in mediocrity and have the same bunch back next year for a repeat performance. That's not sad or absurd, it's wanting what's best for the team.

[Mizzou]

I'm just trying to understand the mentality here. When Barrett hit that grand slam the other night, did you get pissed off? When Marmol was filthy and making the Reds hitters look like minor leaguers, were you mad? Were you rooting for Dunn to hit a bomb every time he stepped up to the plate?

 

If you go to a game at Wrigley, are you going to root against them then? Will you cheer when the opposing teams scores? Somehow, I doubt it. But if you're rooting for them to fail overall, you should loudly do it at Wrigley. But for fear of what other Cubs fans might say to you, you don't/wont. Is that pretty accurate?

[macuser1]

I'm just trying to understand the mentality here. When Barrett hit that grand slam the other night, did you get pissed off? When Marmol was filthy and making the Reds hitters look like minor leaguers, were you mad? Were you rooting for Dunn to hit a bomb every time he stepped up to the plate?

 

If you go to a game at Wrigley, are you going to root against them then? Will you cheer when the opposing teams scores? Somehow, I doubt it. But if you're rooting for them to fail overall, you should loudly do it at Wrigley. But for fear of what other Cubs fans might say to you, you don't/wont. Is that pretty accurate?

 

What he said.

[Banedon]

I'm just trying to understand the mentality here. When Barrett hit that grand slam the other night, did you get pissed off? When Marmol was filthy and making the Reds hitters look like minor leaguers, were you mad? Were you rooting for Dunn to hit a bomb every time he stepped up to the plate?

 

If you go to a game at Wrigley, are you going to root against them then? Will you cheer when the opposing teams scores? Somehow, I doubt it. But if you're rooting for them to fail overall, you should loudly do it at Wrigley. But for fear of what other Cubs fans might say to you, you don't/wont. Is that pretty accurate?

 

I can't stop being happy when guys I like do something well, but I'm also not upset when they lose. It's not a state I enjoy being in, and I'm pissed as hell at Hendry/Dusty for putting me in this state. But it's where I am. I laugh at our failure, and I shrug at our success.

 

For what it's worth, I was at the "Neifi Perez 2 error to lose it" game against Atlanta. By the end of the game, everyone in the area knew that I expected the Cubs to lose, that I thought losing was the best way to affect change in the organization, and I laughed loudly after the Cubs got behind. It was surreal.

[Bruno7481]

I don't get this. I know the team is struggling, but I can't bring myself to actively root against the team. There isn't much point in following the team or watching on TV if you would rather see them lose.

 

Some changes need to be made, not debating that at all. Look at the history of this franchise though, its not like losing has ever influenced the Tribune, management, etc to field a winner.

 

I root for them to win, at all times. Losing won't bring about a dramatic change for this franchise, it never has in the past.

[Banedon]

I root for them to win, at all times. Losing won't bring about a dramatic change for this franchise, it never has in the past.

 

It's brought about more change than mediocrity has. Ask Jim Riggleman and Don Baylor.

[macuser1]

Look at the history of this franchise though, its not like losing has ever influenced the Tribune, management, etc to field a winner.

 

I root for them to win, at all times. Losing won't bring about a dramatic change for this franchise, it never has in the past.

 

What is more likely to bringe a change is a change in ownership. That looks to be more possible every day. :D

[Banedon]

I guess I'm not actively rooting for them to lose. I'm just ambivalent about the losses, because I realize that it could bring about a needed change.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I can't stop being happy when guys I like do something well, but I'm also not upset when they lose. It's not a state I enjoy being in, and I'm pissed as hell at Hendry/Dusty for putting me in this state. But it's where I am. I laugh at our failure, and I shrug at our success.

 

For what it's worth, I was at the "Neifi Perez 2 error to lose it" game against Atlanta. By the end of the game, everyone in the area knew that I expected the Cubs to lose, that I thought losing was the best way to affect change in the organization, and I laughed loudly after the Cubs got behind. It was surreal.

 

What he said. I don't actively root for the team to fail, but I do realize that failure is better for the future of this team than playing close to 500. If the Cubs can't compete for titles, they may as well go 0-162 and try again next year with a different combination.

[Bruno7481]

I root for them to win, at all times. Losing won't bring about a dramatic change for this franchise, it never has in the past.

 

It's brought about more change than mediocrity has. Ask Jim Riggleman and Don Baylor.

 

Well Riggleman was in charge in 98 when the Cubs sneaked into the Wild Card. Perfect example though, he was fired 2 years later and Baylor was brought in. What did that do? Nothing. Baylor gets fired and Baker is brought in the following year. Besides 2003, what has that done? Nothing.

 

 

I'm not arguing some changes need to be made, some do. But the Cubs could lose every game the rest of the year, it still woudln't bring a winning team any faster. If anything it would drive potential players away from wanting to come here.

 

It isn't going to be an overnight thing, 2003 was a fluke. They will have to start from the bottom and instill the philosophies and qualities of a winning organization.

[Banedon]

It isn't going to be an overnight thing, 2003 was a fluke. They will have to start from the bottom and instill the philosophies and qualities of a winning organization.

 

If they finish .500, do you think that philosophy will be instated? I don't.

 

I'm not asking for overnight change. I don't expect overnight change. But as has been proven by both the instances you mention, losing can bring about a change. Yes, that still means the right replacements have to be brought in, and in both the instances we're talking about above, they weren't.

 

I just want a change to be made so we can begin that transition to the philosophies and qualities of a winning organization that you mentioned. I firmly believe that won't happen with the current regime. Therefore how can I back them?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I root for them to win, at all times. Losing won't bring about a dramatic change for this franchise, it never has in the past.

 

It's brought about more change than mediocrity has. Ask Jim Riggleman and Don Baylor.

 

Well Riggleman was in charge in 98 when the Cubs sneaked into the Wild Card. Perfect example though, he was fired 2 years later and Baylor was brought in. What did that do? Nothing. Baylor gets fired and Baker is brought in the following year. Besides 2003, what has that done? Nothing.

 

 

I'm not arguing some changes need to be made, some do. But the Cubs could lose every game the rest of the year, it still woudln't bring a winning team any faster. If anything it would drive potential players away from wanting to come here.

 

It isn't going to be an overnight thing, 2003 was a fluke. They will have to start from the bottom and instill the philosophies and qualities of a winning organization.

 

Losing the rest of our games will not deter players from coming here. They are motiviated by money. How else can you explain Mike Hampton going to the Rockies?

 

We cannot instill philosophies and qualities of a winning organization with the regime we have in place. Why? Our record and recent trends speak for themselves. To start from the bottom requires dramatic changes.

[cubfan1955]

Looking at it from the Tribs perspective:

 

The Cubs are one of the most profitable teams in all of MLB. Why make a change? There is nothing wrong. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

Not that I agree with that philosophy...it's just what it is.

[Banedon]

Looking at it from the Tribs perspective:

 

The Cubs are one of the most profitable teams in all of MLB. Why make a change? There is nothing wrong. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

Not that I agree with that philosophy...it's just what it is.

 

I don't buy this. If this is how the Trib is run, it's run terribly.

 

As an example, take McDonald's. They run an obviously very profitable business. By your theory, why should they change anything? Why should they make changes to their menu, change their advertising strategy, make adult happy meals and try to present a healthier option for food?

 

Profitable business stay profitable by constantly making changes and improvements. The Tribune obviously recognizes this to a certain extent, as they've made "improvements" to Wrigley. Fielding a winning team will only make the team more profitable. This should be a goal for the Tribune.

[Bruno7481]

Looking at it from the Tribs perspective:

 

The Cubs are one of the most profitable teams in all of MLB. Why make a change? There is nothing wrong. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

Not that I agree with that philosophy...it's just what it is.

 

I don't buy this. If this is how the Trib is run, it's run terribly.

 

As an example, take McDonald's. They run an obviously very profitable business. By your theory, why should they change anything? Why should they make changes to their menu, change their advertising strategy, make adult happy meals and try to present a healthier option for food?

 

Profitable business stay profitable by constantly making changes and improvements. The Tribune obviously recognizes this to a certain extent, as they've made "improvements" to Wrigley. Fielding a winning team will only make the team more profitable. This should be a goal for the Tribune.

 

There are Millions of Mcdonald's throughou the world, there is only one Wrigley Field, and only one Chicago Cubs.

 

The demand is always going to outweigh the supply when it comes to the Cubs. Just look at ticket sales the past few years. Wrigley is a destination for many "casual fans" as well. I see his point about the Tribune's perspective. People are always going to flock to Wrigley, regardless of the team's performance.

[Banedon]

There are Millions of Mcdonald's throughou the world, there is only one Wrigley Field, and only one Chicago Cubs.

 

The demand is always going to outweigh the supply when it comes to the Cubs. Just look at ticket sales the past few years. Wrigley is a destination for many "casual fans" as well. I see his point about the Tribune's perspective. People are always going to flock to Wrigley, regardless of the team's performance.

 

But won't winning sell more jerseys? More hats? More bumper stickers? More ad space? Winning = money.

[cubfan1955]

Looking at it from the Tribs perspective:

 

The Cubs are one of the most profitable teams in all of MLB. Why make a change? There is nothing wrong. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

Not that I agree with that philosophy...it's just what it is.

 

I don't buy this. If this is how the Trib is run, it's run terribly.

 

As an example, take McDonald's. They run an obviously very profitable business. By your theory, why should they change anything? Why should they make changes to their menu, change their advertising strategy, make adult happy meals and try to present a healthier option for food?

 

Profitable business stay profitable by constantly making changes and improvements. The Tribune obviously recognizes this to a certain extent, as they've made "improvements" to Wrigley. Fielding a winning team will only make the team more profitable. This should be a goal for the Tribune.

By your standards MacPhail, Hendry, and Dusty would already be gone then. MacPhail has been here 10 plus year and the team has made the playoffs twice. Hendry was given an extension after 2 very disappointing years in which the team under performed from what they were projected and Dusty is going to get his extension before the seasonm is over. The Cubs have made a profit during the time each man has been employed by the Trib. Why else are they still around. Certainly not for the championship trophys lying around.

[Banedon]

Looking at it from the Tribs perspective:

 

The Cubs are one of the most profitable teams in all of MLB. Why make a change? There is nothing wrong. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

Not that I agree with that philosophy...it's just what it is.

 

I don't buy this. If this is how the Trib is run, it's run terribly.

 

As an example, take McDonald's. They run an obviously very profitable business. By your theory, why should they change anything? Why should they make changes to their menu, change their advertising strategy, make adult happy meals and try to present a healthier option for food?

 

Profitable business stay profitable by constantly making changes and improvements. The Tribune obviously recognizes this to a certain extent, as they've made "improvements" to Wrigley. Fielding a winning team will only make the team more profitable. This should be a goal for the Tribune.

By your standards MacPhail, Hendry, and Dusty would already be gone then. MacPhail has been here 10 plus year and the team has made the playoffs twice. Hendry was given an extension after 2 very disappointing years in which the team under performed from what they were projected and Dusty is going to get his extension before the seasonm is over. The Cubs have made a profit during the time each man has been employed by the Trib. Why else are they still around. Certainly not for the championship trophys lying around.

 

If you're arguing that the Trib is run poorly, and that they don't see that a winning team is more profitable than a losing one, then you might be right.

[cubfan1955]

If you're arguing that the Trib is run poorly, and that they don't see that a winning team is more profitable than a losing one, then you might be right.

Yes, that is my point and I agree they could be more profitable with a winning team. It's just that with the Cubs, winning is not a must to be profitable. And personally I believe that is what is wrong with corporate ownership. Winning is not always a priority. I can guarantee you that if the Cubs had not been making money the last 10 years changing would have been made.

[beowulf28]

Looking at it from the Tribs perspective:

 

The Cubs are one of the most profitable teams in all of MLB. Why make a change? There is nothing wrong. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

Not that I agree with that philosophy...it's just what it is.

 

I don't buy this. If this is how the Trib is run, it's run terribly.

 

As an example, take McDonald's. They run an obviously very profitable business. By your theory, why should they change anything? Why should they make changes to their menu, change their advertising strategy, make adult happy meals and try to present a healthier option for food?

 

Profitable business stay profitable by constantly making changes and improvements. The Tribune obviously recognizes this to a certain extent, as they've made "improvements" to Wrigley. Fielding a winning team will only make the team more profitable. This should be a goal for the Tribune.

By your standards MacPhail, Hendry, and Dusty would already be gone then. MacPhail has been here 10 plus year and the team has made the playoffs twice. Hendry was given an extension after 2 very disappointing years in which the team under performed from what they were projected and Dusty is going to get his extension before the seasonm is over. The Cubs have made a profit during the time each man has been employed by the Trib. Why else are they still around. Certainly not for the championship trophys lying around.

 

Actually, as has already been said, the whole regime needs to change. McHenDust :lol: needs to be changed. Ownership needs to go; and despite the Tribune saying that the team is not for sale, it may not matter.

 

Besides, we all know, as Banedon has said that a winning team is good business. It just makes sense. But we all know that the Tribsters don't want to change anything because of what was said before about changing what isn't broke. They may have no choice in the future. I just hope whoever buys the team when/if that does happen really wants to win.

 

About the original question...I try to root against the Cubs, but I still get excited by home runs hit by the Cubs, and I was very excited when we beat the Cardinals 2 out of 3 and the very hot Reds 3 out of 4. But I do know that failure now should provide change in the future...just not enough change.

[beowulf28]

If you're arguing that the Trib is run poorly, and that they don't see that a winning team is more profitable than a losing one, then you might be right.

Yes, that is my point and I agree they could be more profitable with a winning team. It's just that with the Cubs, winning is not a must to be profitable. And personally I believe that is what is wrong with corporate ownership. Winning is not always a priority. I can guarantee you that if the Cubs had not been making money the last 10 years changing would have been made.

 

I don't agree with corporate ownership, either. It's better for the team if one owner, or a consortium of ownership occurs. As long as the owner(s) really love the sport, and aren't afraid of making changes when needed.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

They'd make more money if Hendry had traded Hill for Dunn. I've been dying to buy an Adam Dunn Cubs jersey, and then one for my wife, my daughter.....

 

The possibilities are endless.

[cubfan1955]

They'd make more money if Hendry had traded Hill for Dunn. I've been dying to buy an Adam Dunn Cubs jersey, and then one for my wife, my daughter.....

 

The possibilities are endless.

I could go for an ARod jersey too. :lol:

[EastonBlues22]

Are you guys really reading what you are writing! You are saying that you don't mind the team losing! This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. No matter any sort of silver lining no one wants their favorite team to lose. EVER.

I'm a diehard Blues fan...but I was rooting for them to lose this year. Play hard, yes, but still lose.

 

It hurt a lot...but deep down I knew that losing meant a better shot at the #1 draft pick, which was probably the best thing that could come out of the season for the Blues.

 

Especially after management traded away Pronger, and let go or traded away any even remotely skilled forward we had.

 

 

Sometimes what's best for the team in the long run isn't what's best for it right now. You just have to figure out which one is more important to the team and root for that.