Cubs on Dan Patrick (ESPN radio)

[radarluv1]

interviews with lou, wood, grace. if anyone can listen in and post if anything interesting comes up.

[crazycooter]

I'm new here, so if this is in the wrong place or has already been posted feel free to move or delete.

 

Anyway, I was listening to Dan Patrick a minute ago and he said that Lou is scheduled to be on his show today (1-4 pm ET). I will keep listening to see if he gives a certain time. I just thought some of you might want to listen.

 

EDIT: He is on right now.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

Go to espn's pod center. You will be able to listen to his show whenever.

[RichHillIsABeast]

What did Da Man say?

[crazycooter]

Talked a lot about changing the culture of the Cubs. Really wants to change the attitude. Said that the fans are great for supporting the team win or lose, but that can cause some players to be complacent. Has to make sure that players take it on themselves to win.

 

Talked about Wood and Prior. DP asked which was the bigger question mark. He said Prior, but basically only because Wood is looking so good. Didn't sound like he was really concerned about Prior at all.

 

Talked about Soriano. Said he was a great player and that they had discussed his role as CF and lead-off when the Cubs first started talking to Soriano. Said Soriano was on board with the ideas from the start and that they are building a strong relationship.

 

DP asked about A-Rod. He said that he and A-Rod remain close and they still talk often, but not as much as some folks seem to think. DP asked if he would like to manage A-Rod again. Lou said that Chicago would be his last job in baseball and that while he would always like the chance to manage a guy like A-Rod, he didn't see that happening.

[crazycooter]

Wood on now. Grace next hour.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Thanks, crazycooter.

[Jerry Mumphrey]

Wood tells a funny story about Grace sharting his pants at 1B and then having to lead off the next inning.

 

Wood then talks about having no interest in starting any time soon because his sore arm troubles were hurting the team. Adds that his weight loss has improved stamina.

 

Couldn't get the rest.

[Soul]

Talked a lot about changing the culture of the Cubs. Really wants to change the attitude. Said that the fans are great for supporting the team win or lose, but that can cause some players to be complacent. Has to make sure that players take it on themselves to win.

 

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact.

[goonys evil twin]

Talked a lot about changing the culture of the Cubs. Really wants to change the attitude. Said that the fans are great for supporting the team win or lose, but that can cause some players to be complacent. Has to make sure that players take it on themselves to win.

 

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact.

 

If the Cubs had good players that played poorly, maybe that would make sense. But the Cubs have sucked because their personel decisions have sucked, not because overly supportive fans brought about complacency.

[Soul]

Talked a lot about changing the culture of the Cubs. Really wants to change the attitude. Said that the fans are great for supporting the team win or lose, but that can cause some players to be complacent. Has to make sure that players take it on themselves to win.

 

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact.

 

If the Cubs had good players that played poorly, maybe that would make sense. But the Cubs have sucked because their personel decisions have sucked, not because overly supportive fans brought about complacency.

 

Why bother making great personnel decisions when it doesn't really matter?

[goonys evil twin]

Talked a lot about changing the culture of the Cubs. Really wants to change the attitude. Said that the fans are great for supporting the team win or lose, but that can cause some players to be complacent. Has to make sure that players take it on themselves to win.

 

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact.

 

If the Cubs had good players that played poorly, maybe that would make sense. But the Cubs have sucked because their personel decisions have sucked, not because overly supportive fans brought about complacency.

 

Why bother making great personnel decisions when it doesn't really matter?

 

What doesn't matter? Are you arguing Wrigley sells out regardless of the record? Because that's not true. It was an easy ticket up until 1998. But in 2000 and 2001 it went back to being easy to get. It wasn't until the nearly unprecedented (for the Cubs) success of 2003 that Wrigley regularly sold out again. Management noticed all the empty seats late in 2006 and realized they weren't going to sell-out in 2007 without improving a lot.

 

This is a tired old argument that doesn't hold up. The Cubs suck because management has sucked. Not because the fans show up.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

Talked a lot about changing the culture of the Cubs. Really wants to change the attitude. Said that the fans are great for supporting the team win or lose, but that can cause some players to be complacent. Has to make sure that players take it on themselves to win.

 

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact.

 

If the Cubs had good players that played poorly, maybe that would make sense. But the Cubs have sucked because their personel decisions have sucked, not because overly supportive fans brought about complacency.

 

 

Why bother making great personnel decisions when it doesn't really matter?

 

Soul you make a very good point.

 

To me it just makes the bad personel worse because of the fan support.

[Jerry Mumphrey]

goony's evil twin wrote:

Soul wrote:

crazycooter wrote:

Talked a lot about changing the culture of the Cubs. Really wants to change the attitude. Said that the fans are great for supporting the team win or lose, but that can cause some players to be complacent. Has to make sure that players take it on themselves to win.

 

 

 

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact.

 

 

If the Cubs had good players that played poorly, maybe that would make sense. But the Cubs have sucked because their personel decisions have sucked, not because overly supportive fans brought about complacency.

 

 

Why bother making great personnel decisions when it doesn't really matter?

 

 

I think you can combine these two views to determine that management continues to suck because of the lack of incentive to succeed in the face of unwavering fan support, thereby enabling a good ol' boy mentality among the decisionmakers at the top.

[Soul]

Talked a lot about changing the culture of the Cubs. Really wants to change the attitude. Said that the fans are great for supporting the team win or lose, but that can cause some players to be complacent. Has to make sure that players take it on themselves to win.

 

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact.

 

If the Cubs had good players that played poorly, maybe that would make sense. But the Cubs have sucked because their personel decisions have sucked, not because overly supportive fans brought about complacency.

 

Why bother making great personnel decisions when it doesn't really matter?

 

What doesn't matter? Are you arguing Wrigley sells out regardless of the record? Because that's not true. It was an easy ticket up until 1998. But in 2000 and 2001 it went back to being easy to get. It wasn't until the nearly unprecedented (for the Cubs) success of 2003 that Wrigley regularly sold out again. Management noticed all the empty seats late in 2006 and realized they weren't going to sell-out in 2007 without improving a lot.

 

This is a tired old argument that doesn't hold up. The Cubs suck because management has sucked. Not because the fans show up.

 

I know they suck because management has sucked. That's not even the argument. It's about incentive to win. You're right, last year really showed that the fans will leave if they stink it up. At long last, the fans started booing.......then they flat-out left.

 

The Cubs' spending this offseason in the face of dwindling attendance and the success of the White Sox proves the point. Now that fans have changed their tune, the Cubs have *FINALLY* been forced to react. I'm not saying it's going to pay immediate dividends, but it's a refreshing development IMO.

[goonys evil twin]

management continues to suck because of the lack of incentive to succeed in the face of unwavering fan support,

 

I don't think you can. Management sucks because of flawed theories about how to put together a good baseball team, not a lack of incentive to succeed. The incentive is tremendous. Aside from achieving legend status as an individual (the pres, GM, manager, etc), ownership would reap tremendous profits from a winning team. The revenue skyrockets when the team is good. Why do you think ownership approved the huge investments this offseason? They knew they were on the verge of wasting the insane upswing in demand caused by the success of 2003.

[crazycooter]

As for the comment about complacency: To be fair, I didn't take it as Piniella thinking that was a really big deal. DP specifically asked him about the lovable losers mentality. I took his response as trying to pay a compliment to Cubs fans while pointing out that such support may look a little bit differently when it comes to a Manager's perspective. I didn't take it to mean that he felt that was a serious problem with lots of Cub players in the past. It was really just a small part of his overall discussion of changing the culture around the Cubs.

[goonys evil twin]

The Cubs' spending this offseason in the face of dwindling attendance and the success of the White Sox proves the point. Now that fans have changed their tune, the Cubs have *FINALLY* been forced to react.

 

This isn't true. Fans didn't suddenly changed. Fans have ditched Wrigley everytime the team sustained crappiness. They come back in droves when the team succeeds. The Cubs have been spending more than 80% of the teams in the league for over a decade. The myth of a complacent team with no incentive to win has no basis in reality.

[Soul]

The Cubs' spending this offseason in the face of dwindling attendance and the success of the White Sox proves the point. Now that fans have changed their tune, the Cubs have *FINALLY* been forced to react.

 

This isn't true. Fans didn't suddenly changed. Fans have ditched Wrigley everytime the team sustained crappiness. They come back in droves when the team succeeds. The Cubs have been spending more than 80% of the teams in the league for over a decade. The myth of a complacent team with no incentive to win has no basis in reality.

 

Not during the Sammy years, they didn't. Especially when you look at years like 1999 & 2004.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

What doesn't matter? Are you arguing Wrigley sells out regardless of the record? Because that's not true. It was an easy ticket up until 1998. But in 2000 and 2001 it went back to being easy to get. It wasn't until the nearly unprecedented (for the Cubs) success of 2003 that Wrigley regularly sold out again. Management noticed all the empty seats late in 2006 and realized they weren't going to sell-out in 2007 without improving a lot.

 

This is a tired old argument that doesn't hold up. The Cubs suck because management has sucked. Not because the fans show up.

 

I couldnt agree more.

[Drew Doughty]

The Cubs suck because the fans show up...that reminds me of that CubsBearsnBulls guy.

[rocket]

The Cubs' spending this offseason in the face of dwindling attendance and the success of the White Sox proves the point. Now that fans have changed their tune, the Cubs have *FINALLY* been forced to react.

 

This isn't true. Fans didn't suddenly changed. Fans have ditched Wrigley everytime the team sustained crappiness. They come back in droves when the team succeeds. The Cubs have been spending more than 80% of the teams in the league for over a decade. The myth of a complacent team with no incentive to win has no basis in reality.

 

Not during the Sammy years, they didn't. Especially when you look at years like 1999 & 2004.

 

of course during those 2 years they were also coming off a season where they made the playoffs.

[Soul]

The Cubs suck because the fans show up...that reminds me of that CubsBearsnBulls guy.

 

Well, Sweet Lou said it can cause complacency so perhaps you might take it up with him.

[Soul]

The Cubs' spending this offseason in the face of dwindling attendance and the success of the White Sox proves the point. Now that fans have changed their tune, the Cubs have *FINALLY* been forced to react.

 

This isn't true. Fans didn't suddenly changed. Fans have ditched Wrigley everytime the team sustained crappiness. They come back in droves when the team succeeds. The Cubs have been spending more than 80% of the teams in the league for over a decade. The myth of a complacent team with no incentive to win has no basis in reality.

 

Not during the Sammy years, they didn't. Especially when you look at years like 1999 & 2004.

 

of course during those 2 years they were also coming off a season where they made the playoffs.

 

They reached 2 million for the first time in 1987. Record: 76-85

They maintained the 2 million mark all the way through their playoff year in '89 and up until 1992. Clearly no relation to playoff appearances.

 

They reached 3 million in attendance for the first time in 2004. Then they maintained it throughout 2005 and 2006, despite, as goony said, "sustained crappiness."

 

The idea that Cub fans leave when the team sucks is, quite simply, incorrect. The only thing that has helped change the paradigm is the World Series on the other side of town, and the resultant no-shows which appeared last year. For decades, Cub fans were known for not booing, and continuing to show up no matter what. This has changed.

[goonys evil twin]

They reached 3 million in attendance for the first time in 2004. Then they maintained it throughout 2005 and 2006, despite, as goony said, "sustained crappiness."

 

The idea that Cub fans leave when the team sucks is, quite simply, incorrect. The only thing that has helped change the paradigm is the World Series on the other side of town, and the resultant no-shows which appeared last year. For decades, Cub fans were known for not booing, and continuing to show up no matter what. This has changed.

 

 

You are simply wrong.

 

2004 spiked because of 2003 results. 2005 stayed high because of 2003/2004 results. Attendance spikes in the years following the playoffs. Additionally, tickets sales were in party driven by the huge profit margins on the secondary market. Fans had very high expectations in 2005 based on the relative youth of the core. By 2006 however, people started taking a bath on unused tickets. They sold out early, on higher expectations, but butts in the seats was clearly lower. And they would have stayed lower in 2007 had it not been for huge offseason investment.