Zambrano says he is retiring

[CubColtPacer]

The problem with losing fans to character issues is that you don't often get those fans back like you do the fans who just leave because you're losing. Those fans who left because of character issues are often the fans who would have stuck with a franchise even when they're losing (winning isn't everything to them) and so provide key ticket sales during downturns. The

 

You are still talking out of your butt. You have no freaking idea if they have been lost forever. You are making this nonsense up based on a team that has stunk for five years in a bad pro sports market to begin with.

 

Maybe you have some blowhard 65 year old tea party type who cannot fathom ever liking that team again. He will be dead soon and is meaningless in the net gain/loss of fans. And

 

I don't think there is anywhere else to go with this discussion. I have brought up an argument that I believe has a strong possibility of being true, but also has a possibility of not being true (or more likely just be negligible enough to not matter). You have said it is not possible. Even if I provided you testimonies from many people, you would say they are lying. So there is no way to prove the argument to your satisfaction.

 

Remember though, it doesn't actually have to be proven true to be a factor in the Cubs decision. All it has to be is possibly true to make it a concern they have to factor in.

[SouthSideRyan]

Remember though, it doesn't actually have to be proven true to be a factor in the Cubs decision. All it has to be is possibly true to make it a concern they have to factor in.

 

In just the past decade the Cubs have suffered through Todd Hundley, Moises Alou, Milton Bradley, and whoever you want to blame for the Steve Stone stuff. The effect on attendance has been zero. There is no reason to think Carlos Zambrano is the tipping point for fans.

 

ETA: Forgot about the demonization of Sosa

 

ETA: Do Latroy Hawkins and Jacque Jones count?

[CubColtPacer]

Remember though, it doesn't actually have to be proven true to be a factor in the Cubs decision. All it has to be is possibly true to make it a concern they have to factor in.

 

In just the past decade the Cubs have suffered through Todd Hundley, Moises Alou, Milton Bradley, and whoever you want to blame for the Steve Stone stuff. The effect on attendance has been zero. There is no reason to think Carlos Zambrano is the tipping point for fans.

 

ETA: Forgot about the demonization of Sosa

 

ETA: Do Latroy Hawkins and Jacque Jones count?

 

That's an interesting point. The only two that were nearly as high profile as Z is though are Bradley and Sosa and the Cubs quickly got rid of each one. I also think discontent is pretty high right now among Cubs fans without the Z situation and that is just exacerbating it.

[dew1679666265]

Working a trade for another [expletive] contract or getting as much relief as possible on the remaining deal is the best we can expect at this point.

 

This is exactly the reason why we should keep Z at this point. His value is probably right around 0 at this point, so the trade won't be made to make the team/organization better. It's a bad idea to give away an average starter with no real compensation in return, get no salary relief for him, and then try to fill his spot with options who likely will be worse than he is.

 

Suspend him for the rest of the year if you want, but don't cut him - it's a bad business decision.

 

There's just no way he's coming back, unless the new FO rolls the dice on him again, which I doubt.

 

It might make sense to some of us to keep him, but we don't have to deal with his BS everyday. The team wouldn't have pushed this as far as they have if they thought things could be reconciled.

 

I'd be perfectly fine with voiding Z's deal or watching him retire (though neither is going to happen) so that we could free up $18 million and go get 1-2 players who will be better in the clubhouse and on the field. However, since that's almost certainly not going to happen, it's a better decision for the Cubs to discipline Z this year, keep him around for next year and hope he pitches well enough to either help us win or trade him at the deadline (if we're out of it). The Cubs may well have decided he has to go no matter what, but that doesn't make it a good decision.

 

And my original response was to you saying: "If you're continually insubordinate to management, if you're on probation and violate it, you'll be canned, at Hardees or wherever." The reason companies do this is because it's in the best interest of the organization to do it. However, in most of those companies, the employer can fire the employee with cause and not have to continue to pay the employee for not working. In the Cubs' case, however, cutting Z wouldn't be a disciplinary action because it's not discipline to tell a guy you're going to pay him for not working. Especially when Z can then turn around and make even more money than what the Cubs are paying him by signing a small deal with someone else. It's not in the best interest of the Cubs to cut Z, so it doesn't make sense to do it.

[Tarver]

Working a trade for another [expletive] contract or getting as much relief as possible on the remaining deal is the best we can expect at this point.

 

This is exactly the reason why we should keep Z at this point. His value is probably right around 0 at this point, so the trade won't be made to make the team/organization better. It's a bad idea to give away an average starter with no real compensation in return, get no salary relief for him, and then try to fill his spot with options who likely will be worse than he is.

 

Suspend him for the rest of the year if you want, but don't cut him - it's a bad business decision.

 

There's just no way he's coming back, unless the new FO rolls the dice on him again, which I doubt.

 

It might make sense to some of us to keep him, but we don't have to deal with his BS everyday. The team wouldn't have pushed this as far as they have if they thought things could be reconciled.

 

I'd be perfectly fine with voiding Z's deal or watching him retire (though neither is going to happen) so that we could free up $18 million and go get 1-2 players who will be better in the clubhouse and on the field. However, since that's almost certainly not going to happen, it's a better decision for the Cubs to discipline Z this year, keep him around for next year and hope he pitches well enough to either help us win or trade him at the deadline (if we're out of it). The Cubs may well have decided he has to go no matter what, but that doesn't make it a good decision.

 

And my original response was to you saying: "If you're continually insubordinate to management, if you're on probation and violate it, you'll be canned, at Hardees or wherever." The reason companies do this is because it's in the best interest of the organization to do it. However, in most of those companies, the employer can fire the employee with cause and not have to continue to pay the employee for not working. In the Cubs' case, however, cutting Z wouldn't be a disciplinary action because it's not discipline to tell a guy you're going to pay him for not working. Especially when Z can then turn around and make even more money than what the Cubs are paying him by signing a small deal with someone else. It's not in the best interest of the Cubs to cut Z, so it doesn't make sense to do it.

 

Arguing the merits of retaining Z is a waste of time. All signs point to him leaving.

[dew1679666265]

Arguing the merits of retaining Z is a waste of time. All signs point to him leaving.

 

Technically, arguing the merits of anything on a message board is a waste of time. Doesn't stop all of us from doing that, though. And from your comments I took it that you were arguing in favor of getting rid of Z and I was questioning that reasoning.

[Tarver]

Arguing the merits of retaining Z is a waste of time. All signs point to him leaving.

 

Technically, arguing the merits of anything on a message board is a waste of time. Doesn't stop all of us from doing that, though. And from your comments I took it that you were arguing in favor of getting rid of Z and I was questioning that reasoning.

 

I've accepted that Z was a goner since saturday. My only argument has been that he left the FO in an untenable position, so as chic as it is blame them for every negative thing that's happened this year, this time they're in the clear.

 

There's not a team in the league that would bring him back given the history.

[dew1679666265]

I've accepted that Z was a goner since saturday. My only argument has been that he left the FO in an untenable position, so as chic as it is blame them for every negative thing that's happened this year, this time they're in the clear.

 

There's not a team in the league that would bring him back given the history.

 

Ah, I was misunderstanding your argument. I would prefer they bring him back, but I fully understand the suspension and get the reasoning behind cutting him. I just don't think simply cutting him is a good decision.

[DivineBovine]

I don't understand the silly notion that they are past the point of no return. There's no reason why they can't make up again. It was stupid to pay him to go away before and it's stupid now. The guy talked about retirement in private and changed his mind within hours. You can't force a guy to retire. You can't force him to take a buyout. The Cubs are on the hook.

 

I think the only question is the fanbase. The Cubs might decide that the hit to the fanbase from keeping Zambrano is worth more to them than the amount that Z can give you on the field. Otherwise there's no reason why they couldn't make up again.

 

 

Wow. That's some opinion. I'll join in the throngs of people who disagree 100% with this.

 

To quote Charlie Sheen, "winning".

 

That's what its about. San Francisco obviously had no fans when Barry was carrying the team. Nobody cares too much about character in team sports. They will forgive anything if the bad characters are producing. Sammy was beloved when he was good. And he was hated when he sucked.

 

To think that keeping Zambrano would lose fans is absolutely untrue. And to bring up the Pacers analogy is also wrong. The Pacers have sucked for a long time. Ron Artest had nothing to do with them losing fans. Sorry.

[CubColtPacer]

I don't understand the silly notion that they are past the point of no return. There's no reason why they can't make up again. It was stupid to pay him to go away before and it's stupid now. The guy talked about retirement in private and changed his mind within hours. You can't force a guy to retire. You can't force him to take a buyout. The Cubs are on the hook.

 

I think the only question is the fanbase. The Cubs might decide that the hit to the fanbase from keeping Zambrano is worth more to them than the amount that Z can give you on the field. Otherwise there's no reason why they couldn't make up again.

 

 

Wow. That's some opinion. I'll join in the throngs of people who disagree 100% with this.

 

To quote Charlie Sheen, "winning".

 

That's what its about. San Francisco obviously had no fans when Barry was carrying the team. Nobody cares too much about character in team sports. They will forgive anything if the bad characters are producing. Sammy was beloved when he was good. And he was hated when he sucked.

 

To think that keeping Zambrano would lose fans is absolutely untrue. And to bring up the Pacers analogy is also wrong. The Pacers have sucked for a long time. Ron Artest had nothing to do with them losing fans. Sorry.

 

So the implication is they care about character in individual sports? Would Tiger Woods have as many fans today if he started dominating again? Especially among women?

 

Multiple people have given testimonies of people leaving because of character concerns some even while their team was still winning. To dismiss that would require calling all of them liars. Is there any proof that they are lying?

 

I've said and will continue to say that winning is by far the biggest factor in attendance in pro sports. That doesn't mean there are not other factors that contribute. To say there's no point of no return (to extend it out to the absurd, would people really support a team full of murderers) is hard for me to swallow. Now, the argument that what Z did is minor enough that it will not break that point for more than a negligible amount of fans, that argument I can buy.

[DivineBovine]

I don't understand the silly notion that they are past the point of no return. There's no reason why they can't make up again. It was stupid to pay him to go away before and it's stupid now. The guy talked about retirement in private and changed his mind within hours. You can't force a guy to retire. You can't force him to take a buyout. The Cubs are on the hook.

 

I think the only question is the fanbase. The Cubs might decide that the hit to the fanbase from keeping Zambrano is worth more to them than the amount that Z can give you on the field. Otherwise there's no reason why they couldn't make up again.

 

 

Wow. That's some opinion. I'll join in the throngs of people who disagree 100% with this.

 

To quote Charlie Sheen, "winning".

 

That's what its about. San Francisco obviously had no fans when Barry was carrying the team. Nobody cares too much about character in team sports. They will forgive anything if the bad characters are producing. Sammy was beloved when he was good. And he was hated when he sucked.

 

To think that keeping Zambrano would lose fans is absolutely untrue. And to bring up the Pacers analogy is also wrong. The Pacers have sucked for a long time. Ron Artest had nothing to do with them losing fans. Sorry.

 

So the implication is they care about character in individual sports? Would Tiger Woods have as many fans today if he started dominating again? Especially among women?

 

Multiple people have given testimonies of people leaving because of character concerns some even while their team was still winning. To dismiss that would require calling all of them liars. Is there any proof that they are lying?

 

I've said and will continue to say that winning is by far the biggest factor in attendance in pro sports. That doesn't mean there are not other factors that contribute. To say there's no point of no return (to extend it out to the absurd, would people really support a team full of murderers) is hard for me to swallow. Now, the argument that what Z did is minor enough that it will not break that point for more than a negligible amount of fans, that argument I can buy.

 

 

First off, golf is an individual sport. A golfer being an a$$ is a little more difficult to overlook. Second, look at the ratings when Tiger Woods plays golf. Even when he's not winning.

 

Multiple people leaving teams due to character issues? I've never met any person who's even claimed this. That's crazy. There are examples all over of athletes with "character" issues who are worshiped because they are good. Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Barry Bonds, ARod, Mike Vick. So a couple people claim they no longer like a team because of "character". If you say so. I've never seen it. But 99.9% don't.

 

As sports fans, we are loyal to teams. And as for the individual player who pisses us off, usually it's because they perform badly. Look at all the rants on this message board about Soriano, or any of the many players who suck. He dogs it every single day. Doesn't even look like he's trying. Nobody stops rooting for the team because of him or anyone else. And Soriano would be the biggest hero in the city if he hit a World Series winning home run.

 

If people want to view their athletes as role models and moral beings, then that's their prerogative. But most people don't.

[Pushfrog98]

I don't understand the silly notion that they are past the point of no return. There's no reason why they can't make up again. It was stupid to pay him to go away before and it's stupid now. The guy talked about retirement in private and changed his mind within hours. You can't force a guy to retire. You can't force him to take a buyout. The Cubs are on the hook.

 

I think the only question is the fanbase. The Cubs might decide that the hit to the fanbase from keeping Zambrano is worth more to them than the amount that Z can give you on the field. Otherwise there's no reason why they couldn't make up again.

 

 

Wow. That's some opinion. I'll join in the throngs of people who disagree 100% with this.

 

To quote Charlie Sheen, "winning".

 

That's what its about. San Francisco obviously had no fans when Barry was carrying the team. Nobody cares too much about character in team sports. They will forgive anything if the bad characters are producing. Sammy was beloved when he was good. And he was hated when he sucked.

 

To think that keeping Zambrano would lose fans is absolutely untrue. And to bring up the Pacers analogy is also wrong. The Pacers have sucked for a long time. Ron Artest had nothing to do with them losing fans. Sorry.

 

So the implication is they care about character in individual sports? Would Tiger Woods have as many fans today if he started dominating again? Especially among women?

 

Multiple people have given testimonies of people leaving because of character concerns some even while their team was still winning. To dismiss that would require calling all of them liars. Is there any proof that they are lying?

 

I've said and will continue to say that winning is by far the biggest factor in attendance in pro sports. That doesn't mean there are not other factors that contribute. To say there's no point of no return (to extend it out to the absurd, would people really support a team full of murderers) is hard for me to swallow. Now, the argument that what Z did is minor enough that it will not break that point for more than a negligible amount of fans, that argument I can buy.

 

 

First off, golf is an individual sport. A golfer being an a$$ is a little more difficult to overlook. Second, look at the ratings when Tiger Woods plays golf. Even when he's not winning.

 

Multiple people leaving teams due to character issues? I've never met any person who's even claimed this. That's crazy. There are examples all over of athletes with "character" issues who are worshiped because they are good. Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Barry Bonds, ARod, Mike Vick. So a couple people claim they no longer like a team because of "character". If you say so. I've never seen it. But 99.9% don't.

 

As sports fans, we are loyal to teams. And as for the individual player who pisses us off, usually it's because they perform badly. Look at all the rants on this message board about Soriano, or any of the many players who suck. He dogs it every single day. Doesn't even look like he's trying. Nobody stops rooting for the team because of him or anyone else. And Soriano would be the biggest hero in the city if he hit a World Series winning home run.

 

If people want to view their athletes as role models and moral beings, then that's their prerogative. But most people don't.

Ron Mexico is a bad example.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't understand why Vick is a bad example, unless you're disqualifying all NFL players because of how hilariously dumb NFL fans are.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Vick is a terrific example. Jay Cutler was beating Vick in "who do you hate more" polls after the NFC championship, and all he did was tear a knee ligament. Vick was drowning dogs.

[davearm2]

I guess the question I keep coming back to is, how many times can this cycle be repeated?

 

Z blows up.

Team disciplines him.

Everybody makes up and moves on.

 

Can they keep doing that forever? Or does there come a point where a guy has used up all of his chances?

 

And if it's the latter, are they not at that point now?

[Exile on Waveland]

hey cool falling into the same trap one is defending oneself against as if it weren't the case

 

I live in downtown Indy and I run into absolutely zero racist rednecks. Been to Conseco Fieldhouse many times - never talked to any. It's dumb and naive to say the fans of Indy stopped supporting their team because they're racist rednecks. There's no basis to it other than the ignorant view of an entire state. People who say dumb things can be corrected once in a while, it won't hurt them. Moving on.

 

I live in downtown Indy and run into racist rednecks quite often. Been to Conseco Fieldhouse many times -- run into many racist rednecks there too. And this isn't discussing the rest of the state, where a lot of support for the Pacers would be derived. Indy is by no means the total podunk town some have portrayed it -- and it's easy to steer clear of the rednecks as there are plenty of non-rednecks -- but its citizens are mainly derived from elsewhere Indiana.

 

On the other hand, it seems odd that one can dismiss Pacers fans/Indiana as racist rednecks, yet not believe that the legal troubles/brawl (i.e., rich lawless out-of-control black athletes) had no affect on fan support from the racist white rednecks. I'm not sure how one can logically hold/rationalize both those thoughts in their head (not to say losing played no part, it obviously did).

 

I'm not sure any of this is relevant to the Cubs, with their huge and diverse fanbase.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

I'm not sure any of this is relevant to the Cubs, with their huge and diverse fanbase.

 

lol

[SouthSideRyan]

On the other hand, it seems odd that one can dismiss Pacers fans/Indiana as racist rednecks, yet not believe that the legal troubles/brawl (i.e., rich lawless out-of-control black athletes) had no affect on fan support from the racist white rednecks. I'm not sure how one can logically hold/rationalize both those thoughts in their head (not to say losing played no part, it obviously did).

 

I think people were saying the only people who would actually hold to that "I ain't watching those tattooed thugs anymore!" are the racist rednecks, in which case who cares? What's the solution to keeping the racist redneck crowd? (Besides drafting guys like Tyler Hansborough and acquiring guys like Mike Dunleavy and Josh McRoberts on purpose)

[Exile on Waveland]

On the other hand, it seems odd that one can dismiss Pacers fans/Indiana as racist rednecks, yet not believe that the legal troubles/brawl (i.e., rich lawless out-of-control black athletes) had no affect on fan support from the racist white rednecks. I'm not sure how one can logically hold/rationalize both those thoughts in their head (not to say losing played no part, it obviously did).

 

I think people were saying the only people who would actually hold to that "I ain't watching those tattooed thugs anymore!" are the racist rednecks, in which case who cares? What's the solution to keeping the racist redneck crowd? (Besides drafting guys like Tyler Hansborough and acquiring guys like Mike Dunleavy and Josh McRoberts on purpose)

 

Well, I certainly don't think think the Cubs should dump Zambrano based on some meatball fans. The solution wouldn't have to be so drastic, though, it could be something like having Theriot-esque players (Barney now? or who?) appear in promo ads and stuff like that. Sure, that sort of thing is implicitly racist in appealing to the meatballs, but it's rather innocuous.

 

By ignoring or alienating the meatballs, the Cubs would have a "better" (as in smarter) fan base, but the fanbase would be much smaller. I would guess that management would sooner live with a large, ignorant fan base than a smaller, more intelligent one. In fact, the former, and more ignorant, might be better for business.

[SouthSideRyan]

There's a difference between meatballs and racist rednecks. Racist rednecks send hate mail to Milton Bradley dropping N bombs. Meatballs think Ramirez needs to hustle more and that Steve Stone is a genius. The meatballs are something you have to put up with if you want to make any money (as long as I don't have to talk to them) The racist rednecks, who cares?

[Exile on Waveland]

There's a difference between meatballs and racist rednecks. Racist rednecks send hate mail to Milton Bradley dropping N bombs. Meatballs think Ramirez needs to hustle more and that Steve Stone is a genius. The meatballs are something you have to put up with if you want to make any money (as long as I don't have to talk to them) The racist rednecks, who cares?

 

OK then, fair enough. I figure the meatballs have racist tendencies to the extent of thinking the Hispanic players are lazy or whatnot, but definitely not to the extent of writing racist hate mail.* For the latter group, you're correct, we shouldn't care at all.

 

 

 

 

*For the record, the Pacers fans would fit in the former category.

[Benchwarmer]

On the other hand, it seems odd that one can dismiss Pacers fans/Indiana as racist rednecks, yet not believe that the legal troubles/brawl (i.e., rich lawless out-of-control black athletes) had no affect on fan support from the racist white rednecks. I'm not sure how one can logically hold/rationalize both those thoughts in their head (not to say losing played no part, it obviously did).

 

I think people were saying the only people who would actually hold to that "I ain't watching those tattooed thugs anymore!" are the racist rednecks, in which case who cares? What's the solution to keeping the racist redneck crowd? (Besides drafting guys like Tyler Hansborough and acquiring guys like Mike Dunleavy and Josh McRoberts on purpose)

 

Well, I certainly don't think think the Cubs should dump Zambrano based on some meatball fans. The solution wouldn't have to be so drastic, though, it could be something like having Theriot-esque players (Barney now? or who?) appear in promo ads and stuff like that. Sure, that sort of thing is implicitly racist in appealing to the meatballs, but it's rather innocuous.

 

By ignoring or alienating the meatballs, the Cubs would have a "better" (as in smarter) fan base, but the fanbase would be much smaller. I would guess that management would sooner live with a large, ignorant fan base than a smaller, more intelligent one. In fact, the former, and more ignorant, might be better for business.

 

Zambrano will be gone because of his on-the-field antics. The enablers will be sad.

 

As far as Indiana basketball, there's nothing better than a filled 'Hatchet House' in Washington. Besides, Reggie wasn't even the best player in his family.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Zambrano will be gone because of his on-the-field antics. The enablers will be sad.

 

 

Are you refering to the people who don't want to see the team stuck paying 18 mil while he pitches for someone else and we get nothing in return as the enablers?

[davell]

If we surround Z with an influx of talent next year then I think he is probably worth keeping around. If we are winning then I think he would be on his best behavior. Also its a contract year for him and he could conceivably have a year where he's back to his almost dominant self. The key would then be to resist the notion of resigning him at that stage. On the other hand though is the possibility we decide to go with a semi youth movement geared more to the following season. If this winds up being the case then cutting ties with him makes more sense if you are worried about him becoming a bad influence on some of the youngsters.

[Pushfrog98]

Vick is a terrific example. Jay Cutler was beating Vick in "who do you hate more" polls after the NFC championship, and all he did was tear a knee ligament. Vick was drowning dogs.

Vick has done a lot to improve his personal image since the whole thing went down and has regained a lot of fans, but there are still quite a few people who despise him and will not root for any team he plays on.