erik316wttn

It's a dead horse, but as long as our team keeps playing at WRIGLEY Field, this type of complaining comes off a bit ridiculous. Pretty much since the beginning, baseball fields have been field with signs advertising commercial products. Baseball and advertising go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back. I actually think naming parts of the stadium or the innings, etc. is actually LESS intrusive than most of the advertising baseball has been a part of and invited in over the last 100+ years. Wrigley Field is named for the former owners of the franchise, not for the gum. It just happens that the former owners also owned the gum company. It's pretty hard to seperate Wrigley the man from Wrigley the gum/company, especially when the stadium was renamed. They can say all they want...old man Wrigley was no dummy. If he didn't know that name on the stadium wouldn't be a huge source of advertising, he wouldn't have been as rich as he was. Officially, it's named after the man. Unofficially, well, the guy also named his gum after himself, too. The Wrigley name was a huge product in and of itself back then. It's not like he was dead at that point and they were naming it in his honor. Hell, the place was known as "Cubs Park" before Wrigley slapped his brand on it...what was wrong with that? Or transferring over the old "West Side Park" name? It's a bit of a cheat to let companies that use a family name off the hook just because it is a family name. Besides, I'll still stick with the rest of my post, too. Baseball and advertising all over the fields and stadiums have gone together practically since when professional baseball was first started. I simply don't understand how sponsoring a section or inning or stadium is somehow more intrusive than the ads in the stadium and around the field, something that has been around almost from the beginning! I don't like it, but I can accept stadium naming and section of stadium naming and ads on the walls (as much as I hate them). But advertising is a forever escalating game. Everyone has to be the next trendsetter. I will bet EVERY penny I will ever make in my lifetime that within the next 20 years ads will show up on uniforms. I know they rejected that idea several years ago, but it'll be back. And I stick by my franchise naming idea. I could very easily see a massive corporation buying a struggling franchise like the Royals or Devil Rays and naming them after themselves or one of their subsidiaries. It'll happen one day. My prior question about nothing being sacred anymore was rhetorical. Nothing is sacred anymore, and the very few things that are won't be for long. The bottom line is, as long as there is money to be made, it'll be done.

But if you overpay too much, you run the risk of the contract becoming an albatross and then you're in an even deeper hole. Detroit had to overpay grossly because they were coming off a 119-loss season. The Cubs weren't quite that bad.

Think we could get him for 5/60 if we promised him 2nd base? Why in the world would he take less money just to play 2B over OF? I figured because he hated the OF so much and has made it well known he wants to go back to 2B.

Think we could get him for 5/60 if we promised him 2nd base?

I, for one, am getting quite sick and tired of "subtle and new" ways of promoting. Is nothing sacred anymore? You have stadiums named after corporations, parts of stadiums named after corporations, naming rights for highlights, innings (the Fifth Third bank sponsors every 5th inning on WGN radio), and countless other things. Enough is enough. I would not be shocked to see team naming rights sold off in my lifetime. I could take my furture children to a game to see the Cubs play the Pittsburgh Pepsi's. Would that be ok then? Would people say "Oh, well they're just trying to make some money, so it's ok in the long run." There are some things you just don't do.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2621231 The White Sox are going to start weeknight home games at 7:11 as part of a sponsorship deal with 7-11. Very bush league, IMO.

Sorry, I wasn't alive in 1969...the last time the Mets cost the Cubs anything. 2004? Victor Diaz... I prefer to think of LaTroy giving up that game with the assist to Mercker. Bingo. To me, the Mets are just another team. I hold no grudge or ill will toward them.

Tragic. My heart goes out to his family. Some are speculating suicide. Now, with that in mind, let me preface this question by saying I mean NO disrespect. I am only curious. Was he the pitcher that was reported earlier this year who hit his wife? Again, I mean absolutely no disrespect to Lidle himself or his family. I am only curious.

Is Bochy any good? Would we want him?

Still suffering from the effects of his arm injury, or not that good in the first place?

And ESPN. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2618837 Hendry also intends to interview AAA manager Mike Quade, and AA manager Pat Listach.

Jenkins is too injury prone to be an option. He's had 3 relatively healthy years, but with as jinxed as we are, I'm sure he'll be on the DL quite a bit with us. Not my first choice, or even my second. I'm with goony on this one.

Dangit.

Guh. That's just absurd. That's DiMaggio-esque right there. Don't believe me? Career, Joe DiMaggio had 361 HR and 369 K's.

So Dusty 2.0?

It always seems like we get killed by the backup catcher or the utility infielder, not the big bopper.

Which means you can put money on him being the next manager.

A-Rod slumped, but the hate for him is way off-base methinks. The guy is human. He's not going to hit .450 with 65 homers and 200 RBI. Listening to most Yankee fans, it seems EVERYTHING is somehow A-Rod's fault. Poor guy can't catch a break. Ship him to us. We'll give Bynum and Rusch for him.

Did he attempt a sissy slap?

Apparently from about 8-11 it wasn't raining or was hardly raining, so they may have been able to get the game in.

Agreed. Thom Brennaman and Steve Stone would make a great combination in the broadcast booth. Been there, done that. Let's not do it again. Why not? Maybe I'm nostalgic because Thom and Steve would take the middle innings back in the days when I was a kid and WGN showed every game and Harry was still alive, but I always liked them together.

I would be too.

Anyone interested in talking about this game in the chat room?

That would have disaster written all over it. Since McDonough is the interim president, and he's the one apparantly enamored with Stone, my guess is he's in-line for a job under president, but I doubt the Trib would put the entire organization under Stone's control, given his complete lack of any business success. I can't imagine the Cubs would be that stupid. Remember. This is the Cubs.

I'm on it.