CubColtPacer

Without Wrigley, the Cubs are just another team that perpetually sucks. The Cubs already outdraw a bunch of bigger stadiums of better ball clubs because of Wrigley. I'd just keep jacking up the ticket prices rather than rolling the dice that you can recreate the magic of Wrigley somewhere else. You'd have to hope that 3+ million people are driving out to bumble-f to see one of the worst teams in baseball. No, the Cubs are different because they have one of the largest fanbases in the country, and that is due in a large part to WGN. Wrigley is a side benefit (and an awesome experience) but people still travel up there to watch their team play, not necessarily for the ballpark that it is in. If the new ballpark is one of the better new ballparks, plenty of people would show up unless the Cubs are way out of the race (which out of the last 7 years I'd only count 2 years as those years where attendance would suffer-2002 and 2006). Many other years though the Cubs could get 45-50K there per game, and even if they don't average that as vance said the extra luxuries that they would put in would make them more money then Wrigley ever could.

well, no, no it isn't. because, see, when you step into Wrigley, it's still actually 2007, not 1933. It's not a museum. The truth is, the Cubs have been extremely great about not simply tearing it down and building a luxury-suit riddled throwback park in Naperville, as that would actually keep them up with the other teams (as far as park revenue). let's not act like the cubs are doing us any big favors. these ads are embarrassing. our pristine ballpark is becoming a parody of its former self, and people like you are stepping up and telling others the cubs are being nice to us. as soon as the cubs figure out a way to swing it so that people won't get mad and they won't lose money, they'll start working on a new ballpark. I guess you haven't noticed how just about every other team in baseball has built a new ballpark, including the recently announced plans for a new yankee stadium. The Cubs are indeed doing us a favor by only putting Under Armor logos on the doors and not building Tribune Park out in Batavia As soon as they figure out how to move without losing the Lincoln Park beergarden crowd and pissing off half their fanbase , they will. These ads are just little steps towards that day. That's going to be pretty tough to figure out. They've already laid the groundwork with their contentious relationship with the neighborhood. The city isn't helping much either by declaring Wrigley a land mark, making any renovations more burdensome. The Cubs have had a contentious relationship with the city and neighborhood for years. This is nothing new. How are you going to turn Cubs fans against Wrigley? People are saying "as soon as they can figure out how to not piss off the fans." How exactly are they going to do this? The fact is, if you put last year's team in some new ballpark in the burbs, the Cubs probably cut their attendance by a third. The Tribune company knows this. They put an ad on the outfield doors. Let's not lose are mind about how the park is now a parody and this is the first step in moving the Cubs. True, the attendance would have been down last year-the attendance would probably be up overall if they went to a new ballpark though. I'm not advocating them going to a new ballpark whatsoever, but it probably would improve average attendance numbers. I don't think it would. The Cubs are perennially 6th in total attendance. It's not because they are good. If they built a larger stadium in the burbs and have teams as bad as they recently have had, I doubt they would match Wrigley's attendance numbers. I think it would even out with a little edge to the new ballpark-many people still want to go up and see a Cubs game, and if they built a nice new ballpark they still would go to a game. For seasons like 2006, the attendance would be down, but those years would be balanced with years like 03 or 04, where the attendance would be up from Wrigley.

well, no, no it isn't. because, see, when you step into Wrigley, it's still actually 2007, not 1933. It's not a museum. The truth is, the Cubs have been extremely great about not simply tearing it down and building a luxury-suit riddled throwback park in Naperville, as that would actually keep them up with the other teams (as far as park revenue). let's not act like the cubs are doing us any big favors. these ads are embarrassing. our pristine ballpark is becoming a parody of its former self, and people like you are stepping up and telling others the cubs are being nice to us. as soon as the cubs figure out a way to swing it so that people won't get mad and they won't lose money, they'll start working on a new ballpark. I guess you haven't noticed how just about every other team in baseball has built a new ballpark, including the recently announced plans for a new yankee stadium. The Cubs are indeed doing us a favor by only putting Under Armor logos on the doors and not building Tribune Park out in Batavia As soon as they figure out how to move without losing the Lincoln Park beergarden crowd and pissing off half their fanbase , they will. These ads are just little steps towards that day. That's going to be pretty tough to figure out. They've already laid the groundwork with their contentious relationship with the neighborhood. The city isn't helping much either by declaring Wrigley a land mark, making any renovations more burdensome. The Cubs have had a contentious relationship with the city and neighborhood for years. This is nothing new. How are you going to turn Cubs fans against Wrigley? People are saying "as soon as they can figure out how to not piss off the fans." How exactly are they going to do this? The fact is, if you put last year's team in some new ballpark in the burbs, the Cubs probably cut their attendance by a third. The Tribune company knows this. They put an ad on the outfield doors. Let's not lose are mind about how the park is now a parody and this is the first step in moving the Cubs. True, the attendance would have been down last year-the attendance would probably be up overall if they went to a new ballpark though. I'm not advocating them going to a new ballpark whatsoever, but it probably would improve average attendance numbers.

I thought that they actually showed them pulling out the ping pong balls, just not which team was on which ball-I do agree that it would be great to watch all of the representatives anxiously waiting as the ball is pulled out. The only problem I could see is that the team who gets the first pick all their ping pong balls have to be pulled out in order that they don't get picked again, and that would take time that wouldn't be conducive to a live telecast.

I agree. I'd never heard him do a Cub game (not from Chicago area) and before I knew who he was, I was really impressed with the depth of analysis that he provided. I actually learned from him, whereas most commentators try to "dumb down" their material too much, so that all they're spouting is trite crap that 90% of baseball fans already know. He struck me as very thorough in his knowledge of the teams he was discussing. When they came back from a commercial break and he was identified as Steve Stone, I was amazed that the Cubs fired him. He's the best that I've seen in the color role. Wait a minute-what year was this? You weren't watching Cubs games in 04? I have no idea what year it was. I didn't watch Cubs games in '04 because I don't live in or near Chicago and don't have WGN. I did watch nationally televised games that year, I'm sure. OK-just surprised that you became a Cubs fan without even the WGN games to watch.

I wouldn't-there is bad defense, and then there is that defense (that would possibly be one of the worst everyday defensive outfields that I have ever seen, and of course Soriano isn't exactly even ok at 2B). Plus, Floyd would get hurt quicker playing everyday, and the upgrade from taking DeRosa out of the lineup wouldn't be enough to justify all of that.

I agree. I'd never heard him do a Cub game (not from Chicago area) and before I knew who he was, I was really impressed with the depth of analysis that he provided. I actually learned from him, whereas most commentators try to "dumb down" their material too much, so that all they're spouting is trite crap that 90% of baseball fans already know. He struck me as very thorough in his knowledge of the teams he was discussing. When they came back from a commercial break and he was identified as Steve Stone, I was amazed that the Cubs fired him. He's the best that I've seen in the color role. Wait a minute-what year was this? You weren't watching Cubs games in 04?

I don't think there was any overreaction at all. I think people were logically debating what should be done, but that is just me. It is true that the Z thread was nothing like the Ramirez thread-much more toned down. There was some overreaction (like there is to just about every piece of news) but not near the level of Ramirez, and most of the conversation was discussing options as CubinNY pointed out.

I don't think they are counting any re-signings but only players who changed teams (although they did stick Wood as an aside in there).

dream on... don't care what he or his parents are saying, he's going to the nba. Normally I'm all for guys staying all four years in college. I usually don't like when they go pro early, but for guys like Oden and Durant, they need to go as soon as they are allowed. He has a shot to be the #1 pick, or at worst, the #2 pick. If he stays in college, he could only jeopardize that ala Matt Leinart. Plus, if he gets hurt next year playing college ball, he's out of luck. If he gets hurt playing NBA ball, he'll have his millions to fall back on. The reason most people go to college is to get a good job. Some guys find a way to do that without graduating by going pro in their sports. I wonder which one the Celtics will get? The NBA usually has the major market teams get the premi #1 pick unless they happen to be from Ohio. Well, that's a conspiracy theory that doesn't seem to make sense-how about Milwaukee or Toronto? They both had number 1 picks lately along with Cleveland as you mentioned. I have a feeling Boston is going to get the 3rd or 4th pick and miss out on Oden or Durant-statistically, they have the best chance at the #1, and so this will not likely happen, but I just have a feeling this is going to be the case. Was either guy a premi 1 pick though? Oden and Durant are and the Celtics will get a top 2 pick if both these guys are available. Ok-Houston's a pretty big city, but would you call them a huge market? They had a premier player come out to them.

I'm going to give props to BigBadB on this one-last night on the other thread, he asked for them to come out in the papers and say that they are working on a long-term deal, and here it is :D

dream on... don't care what he or his parents are saying, he's going to the nba. Normally I'm all for guys staying all four years in college. I usually don't like when they go pro early, but for guys like Oden and Durant, they need to go as soon as they are allowed. He has a shot to be the #1 pick, or at worst, the #2 pick. If he stays in college, he could only jeopardize that ala Matt Leinart. Plus, if he gets hurt next year playing college ball, he's out of luck. If he gets hurt playing NBA ball, he'll have his millions to fall back on. The reason most people go to college is to get a good job. Some guys find a way to do that without graduating by going pro in their sports. I wonder which one the Celtics will get? The NBA usually has the major market teams get the premi #1 pick unless they happen to be from Ohio. Well, that's a conspiracy theory that doesn't seem to make sense-how about Milwaukee or Toronto? They both had number 1 picks lately along with Cleveland as you mentioned. I have a feeling Boston is going to get the 3rd or 4th pick and miss out on Oden or Durant-statistically, they have the best chance at the #1, and so this will not likely happen, but I just have a feeling this is going to be the case.

i don't have much respect for the voters if the best signing was daisuke. I think they're only factoring his contract in and not the posting fee-when you do that, he is the best signing IMO. I think it is still too premature to say that. Potential or not, fact stil remains that he has never thrown a pitch in the major leagues. He may be great, but I still think it is risky. True, but he's getting paid less than 9 million a year-in this pitching market, that is bargain basement for somebody with his potential. He may not all be that great, but right now I still think he's the best if you ignore the posting fee. If you include the posting fee, then several people pass him for that honor because then the risk is magnified.

i don't have much respect for the voters if the best signing was daisuke. I think they're only factoring his contract in and not the posting fee-when you do that, he is the best signing IMO.

So Soul, do you think Skiles may be a Tom Coughlin/Bobby Knight type of coach? Coaches who get good things out of their team for a while (even overachieve sometimes) but work them so hard that they are inconsistent at times and wear down by playoff time (Knight for the players of the last 20 years, before that was a little different of a situation). Those coaches also had a little trouble with "star" players. I can definitely see a little bit of that from afar, and the rules do wear on a player (see what Tiki had to say about Coughlin earlier in the week about how tired he was). I don't know enough to say that he should be fired or not, but I was just wondering if that was the way you were going.

Wowza. 5th round pick for Carr? Wouldn't just about every team jump into those trade talks? I think that's low. Carr's failures have clearly been partially due to an inept franchise. It's true, but it may take a long time to uncondition him from what he is now-he definitely looks like now that he's always feeling the pressure where it is there or not. Playing behind a good line will help that, but it will take time for him to re-learn how to stay in the pocket and throw the ball downfield a little more in order for him to be consistently effective as an NFL QB.

some article (Daily Herald?) said Prior was ahead of Miller, who is in the long-toss phase of his rehab. didnt say where prior was, though. Well, at the very least, we've known Prior has been on the "throwing off the mound" phase since mid-January. That's definitely an improvement from past years. Prior even standing on the mound is an improvement over the past few years. I really hope those three can all come back and come close to their old form. One, it would be the best thing that could happen to the Cubs, and two, it would make all the people who said their careers are over eat crow. One good thing about the spending spree is that the entire focus in ST is not on the injured pitchers, which should help them because they probably won't press quite as hard.

I'm not sure it's quite that long, but that's probably Jeff Samardzija, the pitching prospect from ND. I just watched a video on the trib's website, it was Dan Roan's report on WGN, and yes, Samardzija's hair was definitely shoulder length. He had that goofy mop top pulled back and behind his hat, so it hung low. Now that I think about, it makes sense. "long" hair almost has to be down to the shoulder to be classified that way (I think it starts just a little before shoulder length) and Samardzija's hair is long, although you can't really tell that much when he will have the baseball cap on.

I'm not sure it's quite that long, but that's probably Jeff Samardzija, the pitching prospect from ND.

given those numbers, I guess it does make a lick of sense. At least replacing Jones with Floyd against lefties. of course, then you might as well play Floyd every day since he is a better hitter against righties than Jones as well. Hopefully Lou can manage to get Jones on the bench frequently and against all LHP - perhaps each corner OF gets 450-500 PAs although I would prefer to see Murton and Floyd each get more than Jones. I'm actually not sure they want to get Floyd that many at-bats-the more at-bats he has in a short amount of time, the more likely it will be he will get hurt. I see Floyd taking a few of the left-handed at bats from Jones and a few of the right-handed bats from Murton-if neither Murton or Jones get hurt, I see Floyd getting 250-300 AB's overall. Besides, the big problem with playing Floyd and Murton everyday is the outfield defense-one of them could possibly play right field occasionally, but I wouldn't want that to happen on a routine basis.

What exactly is the hold up, then? The same holdup as Lee and Ramirez-negotiations. Hendry is trying to get the best deal he can, and sometimes that involves not locking up the player immediately. Plus, there are always a million details to work out. If Hendry had lowballed them, don't you think Z would have come out with that to get sympathy? They are probably a couple million and a year or two apart right now, and they are playing a little chicken and seeing which side breaks first. A) If thats the case, then how did Sori get done in like 0.2 nanoseconds B) Hendry has said that even on the arbi case they are significantly far apart and even thinks it might go before the arbitrator. If they arent even within a couple million on a one year deal, how can they be within a couple million on a 7 year deal? I would say you are taking about as extreme of an optimistic viewpoint you can take. Sori got done because the team was desperate-they knew if they didn't pay it, somebody would. Z might give them a slight hometown discount only because he doesn't know what the other offers for him might be (he can estimate, but not like Soriano could) and there is still over a month till opening day. I haven't seen those Hendry comments on the arbitration-it's possible the club may go to arbitration because if the club wins it, that will be a big point in their favor in contract negotiations. I have no idea if they are close or not-all I know is that Hendry did not just forget about Z-he has the money, it's just his decision if he is going to give Z what he asks or if he decides it is too much money and either trades him or lets him walk after the season.

Now that sounds great. I understand exactly-they waited to see if they were going to sell on Nintendo systems, and there is too much difference in the game for them to be able to quickly develop the game-it sounds like they are going to work though to make MLB 2K8 quality-that should be a great game for the Wii.

I know what you mean, but I disagree. When I think of motion controlled batting and pitching, I don't think of the most realistic representation of baseball at all, really. I think gimmicky (which I mean in the nicest way - it sounds fun). I've not played the wii, but I imagine it would use it's unique technology in a "fun" way, with "fun" being very subjective between me (a hardcore baseball simmer) and Nintendo (devloper of a console for kids, compared to the other companies). Nintendo is going to lose it's "kiddie" label very soon-there are some very mature games coming to the Wii. The Wii is really going to be a mix from games for everybody to the youngest to the most mature of games out there (even some criticized on other systems for being too mature)-they are really trying to give something for everybody. I think if somebody took the time to do the controls nicely for a baseball game on the Wii, it would be spectacular. There's so much you can do for the controller-it's just a matter of developing the code. I'll cross my fingers - that would truly be awesome. Yeah, I'm expecting a game like that to come out-unfortunately, I have a feeling that the first true great baseball game won't be seen till sometime in 08-developers one by one are jumping on the Wii bandwagon though (for example, Activision said it is going to double the number of games available for the Wii, and mentioned titles like Spiderman and Guitar Hero as coming to Wii-and another studio is bringing the violent Manhunt series to Wii, and might bring GTA as well (although I have no interest in buying either of those games)). Developers were really waiting to see if the Wii would take off or not-now that it has, you're starting to hear much better support for it, and that should continue to grow-and that should include a good, realistic baseball game eventually.

That's a mistake I didn't expect Callis to make. One would be a typo, but he didn't get his draft year or his age right in that sentence. Isn't he 19 now? People are going to read that and wonder what kind of player is in his 4th year in the minors at 22 years of age still playing rookie ball :D

Sorry, kids I taught were a little wild tonight. I just don't think this deal will be remembered at all in 3-5 years when Kearns and Lopez have probably moved on to other teams (as many average to good but not star major leaguers do)-we can definitely agree that it was a horrible trade from the get-go, and shows no sign of changing now :D.