Dayn Perry @ FOXSports.com

[Big Fergie J]

Perry writes, "Lowly Cubs need to make sweeping changes."

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5713564

 

Writes Hendry and Baker must go.

 

Wants to see new ownership.

 

Takes a shot at Cubs faithful.

 

Not a lot new here but its a "new" article nonetheless.

[J.R.]

I love these "Sox taking the city" bits that we see from time to time. Never mind the fact that the Sox still don't draw like a Chicago world champion should, or that the Sox' TV ratings are far behind what the Cubs see in good seasons.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

Earlier this month, the Cubs executed perhaps the weakest 2006 draft in all of baseball, and recently they compounded those sins by signing middling pitching prospect — and fifth-rounder — Jeff Samardzija (better known as the Notre Dame receiver with the flowing locks) to a record $7.25-million contract, provided Samardzija gives up football following his senior campaign.

 

Wasn't this contract turned down for a less intricate contract which happens to be less lucrative contract?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-0606250354jun25,1,5364759.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

 

 

There's also the fact that the cross-town White Sox are slowly catching up with the Cubs in the ongoing battle for Windy City hearts and minds.

 

The sad fact is that World Series winner still has less of a fan base than a lowly team teetering on last place.

 

Of course, the Cubs rank second only to the Red Sox in percentage of seats sold this season. So if you're CEO Andy MacPhail or some even loftier honcho, why reinvest in the product if the fans will show up no matter what?

 

Wait a sec! I thought prior to stating this, he said the interest and allegiance to the Cubs is waning and starting to migrate to the south side. I'm confused.

 

The Cubs' lemming-like faithful continue to flock to the ballyard in robust numbers, regardless of the product on the field.

 

So are they Cubs fans attending games at Wrigley while fighting the urge to become Sox fans?

[Blueheart05]

I've never seen him write anything positive about the Cubs. IIRC, Perry is a Cardinals fan.

[Big Fergie J]

Earlier this month, the Cubs executed perhaps the weakest 2006 draft in all of baseball, and recently they compounded those sins by signing middling pitching prospect — and fifth-rounder — Jeff Samardzija (better known as the Notre Dame receiver with the flowing locks) to a record $7.25-million contract, provided Samardzija gives up football following his senior campaign.

 

Wasn't this contract turned down for a less intricate contract which happens to be less lucrative contract?

 

There's also the fact that the cross-town White Sox are slowly catching up with the Cubs in the ongoing battle for Windy City hearts and minds.

 

The sad fact is that World Series winner still has less of a fan base than a lowly team teetering on last place.

 

Of course, the Cubs rank second only to the Red Sox in percentage of seats sold this season. So if you're CEO Andy MacPhail or some even loftier honcho, why reinvest in the product if the fans will show up no matter what?

 

Wait a sec! I thought prior to stating this, he said the interest and allegiance to the Cubs is waning and starting to migrate to the south side. I'm confused.

 

The Cubs' lemming-like faithful continue to flock to the ballyard in robust numbers, regardless of the product on the field.

 

So are they Cubs fans attending games at Wrigley while fighting the urge to become Sox fans?

 

I believe you are correct but I don't know the details of Samardzija's contract. From what I understand it is pretty minimal.

 

For the record, I'm not a fan of Dayn Perry but I was bored and saw a "new" Cubs "gotta change" artcile and thought I would post it as an FYI.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

Earlier this month, the Cubs executed perhaps the weakest 2006 draft in all of baseball, and recently they compounded those sins by signing middling pitching prospect — and fifth-rounder — Jeff Samardzija (better known as the Notre Dame receiver with the flowing locks) to a record $7.25-million contract, provided Samardzija gives up football following his senior campaign.

 

Wasn't this contract turned down for a less intricate contract which happens to be less lucrative contract?

 

I believe you are correct but I don't know the details of Samardzija's contract. From what I understand it is pretty minimal.

 

Here it is....

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-0606250354jun25,1,5364759.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

 

" Samardzija should get about eight starts for the Cubs' farm team before returning to South Bend, Ind., for football practice the first week of August. He will get a $250,000 signing bonus, which is about normal for a fifth-round draft pick.

 

Baseball America reported Samardzija and the Cubs had agreed to a $7.25 million bonus spread over five years, with the bulk of the money backloaded toward the end of the contract. But the complicated deal never was completed, and the Cubs and Samardzija's agent apparently opted for a simpler contract at less money and years."

[Caryatid]

I love these "Sox taking the city" bits that we see from time to time. Never mind the fact that the Sox still don't draw like a Chicago world champion should, or that the Sox' TV ratings are far behind what the Cubs see in good seasons.

 

Its a long-term thing. Of course, one year is not going to make a huge difference in the collective allegiances to teams in the city. But if the Cubs continue to show no ability to put together a talented team or show accountability for those in positions of authority who make decisions (the re-signing of Baker would be an example) and the Sox continue to show success not only on the field but throughout the system, young people who are getting their first exposure to baseball are going to gravitate towards them. Its not going to happen overnight, but it will happen. The Cubs have not always been the favorites in Chicago-that title has ebbed and flowed over the years. The Cubs don't have a monopoly here.

[J.R.]

I love these "Sox taking the city" bits that we see from time to time. Never mind the fact that the Sox still don't draw like a Chicago world champion should, or that the Sox' TV ratings are far behind what the Cubs see in good seasons.

 

Its a long-term thing. Of course, one year is not going to make a huge difference in the collective allegiances to teams in the city. But if the Cubs continue to show no ability to put together a talented team or show accountability for those in positions of authority who make decisions (the re-signing of Baker would be an example) and the Sox continue to show success not only on the field but throughout the system, young people who are getting their first exposure to baseball are going to gravitate towards them. Its not going to happen overnight, but it will happen. The Cubs have not always been the favorites in Chicago-that title has ebbed and flowed over the years. The Cubs don't have a monopoly here.

 

Of course; Dusty has done more to harm the organization in his brief tenure than all the clowns that came before him combined. If he is re-signed, we're going to see a revolt of unrivaled proportions.

 

As you said, though, it's a long-term thing, but the media types love to act as if the shift is just around the corner. It suits their sensationalistic purposes to do so.