Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Sammy Sofa

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    98,026
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    206

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Sammy Sofa

  1. I think we're talking about two different ideas. I'm just saying that when the Cubs suck for a sustained period of time their attendance and ticket sales go down. You're saying that they go down but they're still better off than most other teams. Both things are true.
  2. Since you need it spelled out for you, the theory has long been that Wrigley insulates the Cubs from the sort of performance-based attendance cycles you're describing. If that's not so true anymore, it's a story. But that theory doesn't really hold up to close scrutiny. Again, look at long stretches of the 90's, the 80's and the 70's: when the team sucked they didn't sell nearly as many tickets as when they didn't suck. You'd need to compare the impact of performance on attendance relative to every other club in MLB for this theory to hold any water. How the hell did you come to that conclusion? You don't have to look at other teams to know that the Cubs aren't "insulated" from poorer ticket sales and attendance due sustained periods of mediocrity or worse. It's just common sense.
  3. That's something I think will definitely have an impact down the line once they're off of WGN altogether.
  4. Since you need it spelled out for you, the theory has long been that Wrigley insulates the Cubs from the sort of performance-based attendance cycles you're describing. If that's not so true anymore, it's a story. It's a story. I don't know where the obstinance originates. I don't think one data point early in the season means a whole lot, but I suspect if the Cubs are sub .500 come May there will be plenty of games like yesterday. That's why it's not a story. Who here honestly thought that the Cubs would been drawing near-capacity crowds if they had or with the promise of another mediocre (or worse) year? it's a story because the Cubs coasted through several terrible seasons in the 00's without a noticeable drop in ticket sales. the story is that the sales are finally catching up to the quality of the product Right, but you saw the drop off in attendance in 2006 and 2010 (different than sales, I know).
  5. Something tells me that davearm is the type of person who would scoff at anything Soriano does or says in regards to baseball except at times like this.
  6. Since you need it spelled out for you, the theory has long been that Wrigley insulates the Cubs from the sort of performance-based attendance cycles you're describing. If that's not so true anymore, it's a story. It's a story. I don't know where the obstinance originates. I don't think one data point early in the season means a whole lot, but I suspect if the Cubs are sub .500 come May there will be plenty of games like yesterday. That's why it's not a story. Who here honestly thought that the Cubs would been drawing near-capacity crowds if they had or with the promise of another mediocre (or worse) year?
  7. Deux? More like Part One Million. Hm. Wonder who got it going this time... Kevin Millar Don't deflect, Outlier.
  8. Deux? More like Part One Million. Hm. Wonder who got it going this time...
  9. Oh boy, Barney and Hill back to back and then the pitcher. That's [expletive] brutal.
  10. Since you need it spelled out for you, the theory has long been that Wrigley insulates the Cubs from the sort of performance-based attendance cycles you're describing. If that's not so true anymore, it's a story. But that theory doesn't really hold up to close scrutiny. Again, look at long stretches of the 90's, the 80's and the 70's: when the team sucked they didn't sell nearly as many tickets as when they didn't suck.
  11. Nobody struck out or dropped a popup because the lineup wasn't posted early enough, therefore none of this intangible team chemistry crap matters in baseball. Agree or disagree? Those are separate points, silly.
  12. That's a weird and incorrect thing to say.
  13. It seems like you're being sarcastic, but then I'm not sure since your second sentence is 110% true.
  14. Why wouldn't they if the team wasn't winning? Man Passes Out After Holding Breath For Too Long Swimming In Pool Gets A Person Wet Baseball Team Sells Fewer Tickets When It Is Bad Such tales to tell!
  15. Beltran? That is some Backtobanks-type isht right there.
  16. It's pretty obviously a language issue.
  17. Pretty much. You couple that with the generally uninspiring nature of the team as it stands and I don't see why anyone would be surprised that attendance would be down significantly for a cold Monday afternoon game against the Diamondbacks.
  18. What a weird article. Why center it around Millar when Millar himself says this: Why not make the headline around Soriano, who is also critical of Lou in the article, actually played under the guy for several seasons and is still on the Cubs?
  19. This may sound nitpicky but the BoSox moved Crawford down temporarily, hoping to get him to calm down and relax at the plate. It's not like they decided after 2 days that the guy they gave $140M actually isn't cut out for the role they had in mind for him. Conversely most folks here want Byrd moved down permanently. Of course. Because there are better hitters on the team.
  20. Maybe compared to Harry, otherwise he didn't have much besides "slider: low and away."
  21. erik wishes he could go out on a limb.
  22. Only at night? Those flapjacks are available 24-7.
×
×
  • Create New...