Sammy Sofa

Read my post above. I did that quite clearly. They have had 3 futility records just in the past week that haven't been matched in years by anyone in baseball (consecutive hits by the Rockies, the 2-3-4 guys on the Brewers, and the AB allowed with RISP) or by the franchise in the case of the 26 hits . Also being outscored by 46 runs over the past 6 games, the cycle, and the losing streak are not unique to the Cubs as there have been many cases of that hapening every single season, but if you pile it on top of everything else what more proof do you need? I'm not saying the Cubs are the worst team in the Majors this season, or ever. All I'm saying is that I can't recall the Cubs or any other team having as bad of a week as the Cubs have had on the field in recent memory. Don't read any further into it than that. Except that's not all you're saying since you pull the "only the Cubs" shtick time and time again. And why the hell are you acting like a "futility record" is some horrible, unique thing? Again, baseball is filled these kinds of meaningless streaks and records. They're matched and beaten and created all of the time, every season. I mean, they way you're putting it seems to imply that if the Cubs had managed to just barely avoid those horrible "futility records" then it wouldn't be an "only the Cubs" week. You keep demanding that people prove you wrong, but you haven't even proven yourself to be right. You've in no way shown how this stretch of games is unique to the Cubs in terms of futility or failure.

Anyone who's been a fan of baseball for any sustained period of time knows the game is filled with a nearly infinite amount of meaningless records and streaks, both "good" and "bad," that are matched or broken numerous times every season. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that even this most recent stretch of games is somehow unique to them in terms of failure or futility for the "only the Cubs" garbage to have any meaning.

Get back on topic.

Harry couldn't name two guys (correctly) on the team.

And? I still don't understand why you think that it is somehow binding in the sense that the Ricketts can't or won't decide to fire him instead.

I've said it before, but the inteviews in the bottom of the seventh are far worse than the actual singing. Oh man, I love those, especially when the inning drags and Len basically has to give them the boot. I mean, really, if they're going to let Reagan in to the booth then everyone else is automatically an upgrade.

I don't understand how they're "God awful." Compared to who? Harry couldn't sing. Santo can't sing. Len and Bob can't sing. And hell, it's hilarious when you get someone up there who is even worse than usual or, even better, screws it up. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about; shouldn't it be about fun? The crowd can still sing, and we're entertained by someone who sings it poorly or messes it up. Expecting more is turning it into something bigger than it actually is.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

How so? Because it's bordering on delusional. It's not "the Cubs' song," it doesn't belong to the fans and it's not a privilege.

Yup, there's no middle ground; either one thinks that the Cubs are the worst team ever sloppily farted onto a baseball field or they're deluded into thinking they've always got a shot! It's impossible to look at a bad team realistically without delving into "ONLY THE COBS" histrionics.

Forget how he crowds the plate and how big he is; Fielder gets "hit" plenty of times just from how baggy his uniform is.

Well, that's just silly.

Well, they're obviously not "worse than anyone" right now. That's not even up for debate.

I remember my dad teaching me the words to "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" and how we had fun singing it together at the games as a kid. It was a great moment. Hell, we sang it together 3 times in May when the Cubs came to Arlington and he is 79 and I am 37. Neither of us fit your supposed stereotype. That's a personal tradition not beholden to the Cubs. They weren't the first team to sing "Take Me Out...", they're not the only team to do so, and they're not the last. Harry wasn't the first announcer to do so and and he didn't even start it with the Cubs, so again I ask: what the hell is so "sacred" about it that he needs to be saved from the disrespect of celebrities showing up to sing it? He'll, you're making my point for me; so long as the crowd is singing it, who cares is conducting it? It's not some classic or exclusive tradition to the Cubs.

I'm thinking media members, not fans. And it's not so much being upset about firing Hendry, but more finding out why he gave the vote of confidence and then fired him. This happens virtually every year across every sport, and you never hear a peep about it from the media. Nobody cares Maybe not. Can you think of or find an example for local or national media has criticized a team for firing a manager or GM for putting together or running a bad team after giving them a vote of confidence earlier in the season?

Was there a slew of drunken posts that I made raving about him that were erased and I don't remember at all after the fact? Because as it stands I'm trying to figure out how "I don't think it's a big deal if a guy says he wants to be a starter when he still has to earn the spot" is coming out as "OH MY GOD, I HOPE THE BULLS SIGN T-MAC BECAUSE HE IS AWESOME AND GREAT AND CAN START!!!!!!"' Help me out, gumshoes.

Why would they saddle their next long term managerial hire with a team this bad? That makes absolutely no sense.

And the stretch singing? Talk about the epitome of the stereotype of the Cubs fan that doesn't care about the game and just wants to get hammered at Wrigley.

I'm still trying to figure out where I was all gung-ho over the idea of the Bulls signing him.

But why should only Santo sing it? This wasn't a tradition started by a long time Cubs broadcaster or a player or manager or anything like that. It was something that a gun for hire broadcaster brought with him, and it wasn't even something unique that he did. Caray's legacy with the Cubs is ridiculous.

Firing Hendry after saying that would be a bad PR move, but a collapse in the second half would remedy that. If the Cubs are awful in the second half, Ricketts could easily say that recent occurences changed the situation and he is acting accordingly. At that point, it's not reneging on his word (even if it was just lip service), it's being pro-active in a changing situation. Purely PR, but you'd like to avoid PR hits if you can. Right. The statements in regards to Hendry in no way lock the Ricketts in to keeping him. No, but they do seem to indicate he's leaning towards it, which is bad enough on it's own. Obviously, but the point is that nobody is locked into any kind of course of action. I could easily see things changing if they keep plummeting towards the bottom. They made that statement when it looked like the Cubs were going to rebound (relatively) and have a decent shot at finishing at a level where it would be easier to sell the "things didn't go our way" shtick.

Firing Hendry after saying that would be a bad PR move, but a collapse in the second half would remedy that. If the Cubs are awful in the second half, Ricketts could easily say that recent occurences changed the situation and he is acting accordingly. At that point, it's not reneging on his word (even if it was just lip service), it's being pro-active in a changing situation. Purely PR, but you'd like to avoid PR hits if you can. Right. The statements in regards to Hendry in no way lock the Ricketts in to keeping him.

It's a tradition started by a sloppy drunk who was terrible at his job by the time he got to the Cubs, and it's not even a tradition he started with the Cubs. Is it REALLY some kind of sacred "Cubs' moment?" I'm seriously asking this: why does this need to be treated with any kind off reverence? It's hardly unique to the Cubs and Harry just dragged it uptown from his time with the Sox. Why is it a big deal if it's a rotating series of guests who sing it?

Because he changes his mind? Because it was just lip service to begin with?

I don't understand why you seem to think that the Ricketts wouldn't be able to fire Hendry whenever they wanted regardless of what's been said. It's not like their comments have some kind of no-fire clause.