CubColtPacer

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.

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.

I would bet that if you had a who would you want to leave first poll between those 3 Z would win for better or for worse. Personally, I hope that they mend fences but I can understand why they might want to trade him for the business reasons I mentioned. As for the Pacers, it was just an example of how fans can be turned off when things go too far. Of course, the Pacers situation was a lot worse than anything that has ever happened with Z as well. The Pacers were getting into legal trouble left and right while Z's questionable decisions haven't really hurt anyone. The Pacers keep losing, quit pretending that isn't the main problem. I've said repeatedly that losing was the biggest cause of the Pacers losing fans during the last few years. 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 Pacers will likely get back more than half of the fans they lost when they start winning. But they'll miss the ones they did lose.

I would bet that if you had a who would you want to leave first poll between those 3 Z would win for better or for worse. Personally, I hope that they mend fences but I can understand why they might want to trade him for the business reasons I mentioned. As for the Pacers, it was just an example of how fans can be turned off when things go too far. Of course, the Pacers situation was a lot worse than anything that has ever happened with Z as well. The Pacers were getting into legal trouble left and right while Z's questionable decisions haven't really hurt anyone.

Yup, they really cut the WGN games. I think it's just under 50 this year. While owning 20% of CSN Chicago helps their bottom line, it is killing interest for Cub fans outside of the Chicagoland area. I'm all for them to put the CSN games back on WGN America and having this silly local blackout rule lifted for the out of towners. If I'm in LA and don't want to watch the Dodgers or Angels, I should be able to watch the Cubs. By the way, tv ratings for the Cubs are down 14% from last year and down 47% from 2008. It looks to be 64 this year. It just made too much sense financially for them to switch. MLB was forcing them to pay for games shown on WGN, and they receive money from their partnership for CSN. If one of those were removed, maybe they consider it. But there's no way they pay money when they could be receiving money instead.

Maybe so (although this next year they almost certainly won't be anywhere near boring with their core+immense cap space...of course the NBA might not have a season this year). I'm just basing this off of conversations I've had with people. Some of them I believe and some of them I don't. I believe it is possible for something other than losing to turn off a fan though. I don't think people are automatically fans for life, especially the casual side of the fanbase (which is probably 70% of most fanbases). I believe you are taking out of your behind. People aren't going to stay away from a winning Cubs team. The Oakland A's may struggle to draw support regardless of record because their stadium is horrible and it's in a horrible place. The Atlanta Braves may struggle to sell playoff tickets because Atlanta is quite possibly the worst major sports town in America. Southern cities may struggle to draw support for winning hockey teams because hockey in the South is still very much a new idea with no built in support. But the Chicago freaking Cubs are not going to suffer a net loss of revenue because they continue to employ a player with personality problems. If they continue to suck, they will continue to suffer financially. If they continue to focus on finding scapegoats insteady of stocking their roster with high quality players, they will probably continue to suck. But dumping Zambrano solves nothing and only opens up more short-to-intermediate-term holes. Do I think Wrigley will sell out with a winning Cubs team no matter who is on the team? Yes. The Cubs fanbase is too large for that not to happen. Could this affect attendance of the mediocre Cubs teams and/or merchandise and TV ratings? Yes....not nearly as much as winning or losing does, but somewhat.

Artest wasn't the big problem (although the Pacers didn't give up on him immediately-it was only after he demanded to be traded that they sent him home and then out). It was Stephen Jackson, Shawne Williams, and especially Jamaal Tinsley that eventually brought it all tumbling down. They eventually got rid of all those guys (and told Tinsley to stay home for years without trading him or buying him out) but it was too late by that point. Do you think if they had a team full of malcontents and jagoffs the past 5 years but won 50 games a year (think the Jailblazers era) that they'd have sold less tickets? Nope, they would have sold more tickets because the part of the fanbase who cares about winning is bigger than the character part. Besides, by then the character damage was already done. Now, if you had asked me which would be better for ticket sales in 2011-2020...that the Brawl had never happened and the Pacers won 35 games for the last 7 years, or that the Pacers just kept getting into legal trouble and won 50 games a year over the past 7, I think more people would buy tickets in the first scenario. Once the Pacers become good again, the fanbase would have been larger if the only reason they went away in the first place was because of losing.

Artest wasn't the big problem (although the Pacers didn't give up on him immediately-it was only after he demanded to be traded that they sent him home and then out). It was Stephen Jackson, Shawne Williams, and especially Jamaal Tinsley that eventually brought it all tumbling down. They eventually got rid of all those guys (and told Tinsley to stay home for years without trading him or buying him out) but it was too late by that point.

Maybe so (although this next year they almost certainly won't be anywhere near boring with their core+immense cap space...of course the NBA might not have a season this year). I'm just basing this off of conversations I've had with people. Some of them I believe and some of them I don't. I believe it is possible for something other than losing to turn off a fan though. I don't think people are automatically fans for life, especially the casual side of the fanbase (which is probably 70% of most fanbases).

When? You may think that could theoretically happen, but there is absolutely no reason to pretend it's at all likely with the Cubs. The minute this team looks like a contender everybody will be on the bandwagon with or without a malcontent. Some blowhards may talk about giving up on the Cubs because Zambrano is still there, but they are liars and/or idiots, and easily replacable with the next round of success. The Pacers. Most people I talk to about the team don't want anything to do with them. They went to games previously, but they just have no interest right now even with the Pacers getting better. Some of the Pacers fans will come back as they get closer and closer to contention, but the town will never be Pacers crazy again like they were during the 90's. Obviously the Cubs are still going to be really high in attendance no matter what because their fanbase is so huge that losing a small percentage of them isn't going to make a huge difference. But if keeping Z doesn't provide much extra value either, then losing those fans might be considered the worse choice.

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. You think keeping Z will drive away fans en masse? En masse? No. But it will probably reinforce the belief that seems to have developed that the Cubs don't have any standards for their players. That belief is probably not true, but perception means so much for marketing. With Z gone, they can say they're going with a fresh start and sell some more tickets. I've seen a fanbase finally turn on a team because of character issues, and it's not pretty. Once those fans leave, you will never get some of them back. That is different from fans leaving because of perpretually losing, because they will usually come back when the team starts winning again.

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.

It would be like if Ryno had stayed on and become bench coach. I think everyone is staying. I think we're going to hear some awful stuff about the team having come together and starting to play up to its capability now that people are back from injuries, we're going to hear about how great the draft was (and it was), and that it's going to be Hendry/Quade for 2012. Actually, Ryno as bench coach made sense, and so does Hendry as scout. Olders GMs move into scouting all the time. He's not an up and comer who has been earning promotions. He's been in his position for a decade, he's older, has had health problems and is under contract. If he wants the money he is owed, he will stay on in whatever capacity they want him. Nobody is going to be banging down his down to lead their team. I don't think that part about the money is true. The Cubs can try to reassign him, but Hendry is within his rights to say no and collect his paycheck instead. The contract he signed almost certainly comes with the title of GM and the club would be breaking the contract if the tried to make him something else. The contract says he has to be the GM? It probably doesn't allow for him to get demoted, but I'm sure the contract isn't voided if the Cubs "promote" him. It doesn't seem like it would be difficult for the Cubs to spin a a new title for him as a promotion. Like jersey said, its not like he has another GM job waiting for him as soon as he leaves the Cubs. While he wouldnt be happy about being moved to another position, it would make sense for him to accept the move and jump ship if that opportunity ever comes up again. Or he could say 'screw the Cubs' and look for a similar position (as the one the cubs try to offer him) on a different club. But the chances of him making the same amount of money the Cubs are playing him for a lesser role is slim to none. Edit: Of course this is all based on the premise that the cubs are really planning on doing something like this, which I don't believe is likely. It probably isn't voided with a promotion, but Hendry likely has the right to refuse any promotion as well without penalty. But you're right, it's not likely that the Cubs would ever go down that road.

It would be like if Ryno had stayed on and become bench coach. I think everyone is staying. I think we're going to hear some awful stuff about the team having come together and starting to play up to its capability now that people are back from injuries, we're going to hear about how great the draft was (and it was), and that it's going to be Hendry/Quade for 2012. Actually, Ryno as bench coach made sense, and so does Hendry as scout. Olders GMs move into scouting all the time. He's not an up and comer who has been earning promotions. He's been in his position for a decade, he's older, has had health problems and is under contract. If he wants the money he is owed, he will stay on in whatever capacity they want him. Nobody is going to be banging down his down to lead their team. I don't think that part about the money is true. The Cubs can try to reassign him, but Hendry is within his rights to say no and collect his paycheck instead. The contract he signed almost certainly comes with the title of GM and the club would be breaking the contract if the tried to make him something else.

i really would not count on him leaving philly. they have a $165m payroll this year, and oswalt and blanton will be off their books by 2012 offseason. I agree the Phillies will make him too much of a priority for him to get away. I don't know how they will redo their offense if they sign him though. They have 60 million tied up to the starting rotation this year. If they sign Hamels to a 20 million a year deal, they'll have 65 million in the rotation for 3 pitchers (Worley should end up being a decent option for cheap, but they'll still have to find a 5th starter). But they'll have to deal with that because they have to pay Hamels-he's too important for their future to get away.

If he's so ashamed he should drop his appeal to the players union and accept the ~$3 million loss of income during the next 30 days. For the more statistical inclined, how much is the value of a win? I always forget how that works. $4.5 mil per win? Zambrano is has a 1.0 WAR this year, so in reality he's pitching like a $4.5 million pitcher It depends on who is calculating it and the year. Fangraphs seems to be using a number for this year that is somewhere around 4.5. But remember that WAR is a counting stat. So if Z was pitching the rest of the year and stayed on his current pace, having earned 4.5 million already he'd likely be a 6 million pitcher at the end of the season.

Most of the speculation seemed to assume that he would be a first round pick in 3 years if he went to college, but they figured nobody would want to sign him to that sort of deal until they saw him develop a little more.

Has there been much talk about how much this can reduce scoring? With no kickoff return TDs, and very little chance for decent field position after a kickoff, teams are going to be forced to move 80 yards for touchdowns. Not much since the rule was actually implemented. That was the reason why they considered moving it to the 25 with a touchback (which is something I bet that will be brought up again). It really shouldn't reduce scoring that much though. It will hurt field position after a kickoff, but that means it will improve the opponents field position after a 3 and out. So it might reduce the number of 38-31 games with lots of kickoffs, but in most normal games with a mixture of kickoffs and punts the field position will balance out. But the 20 provides a nice cushion against the types of punts that set up real good field position. I don't remember the change, is everybody on the kickoff moved up 5 yards? Just the kicker? Everybody can be at the 35 yard line. But the other guys have to start with at least one foot on the 30...no more 15 yard running starts before the ball is kicked. I would agree that the 20 is good for punts, and I don't necessarily think that would need to change even if the kickoff touchback was changed. There are all sorts of different rules for kickoffs and punts anyway.

Has there been much talk about how much this can reduce scoring? With no kickoff return TDs, and very little chance for decent field position after a kickoff, teams are going to be forced to move 80 yards for touchdowns. Not much since the rule was actually implemented. That was the reason why they considered moving it to the 25 with a touchback (which is something I bet that will be brought up again). It really shouldn't reduce scoring that much though. It will hurt field position after a kickoff, but that means it will improve the opponents field position after a 3 and out. So it might reduce the number of 38-31 games with lots of kickoffs, but in most normal games with a mixture of kickoffs and punts the field position will balance out.

I definitely hope the Cubs don't even consider something like that, but I do hope they pencil in Campana for the roster. Even if he has a .550 OPS next season (it's .654 so far this year but that might be a little inflated), he's one of the few players in the league who can be valuable on a bench for his defense/speed alone.

I don't know who in their right mind would want Koyie Hill back, besides Jim Hendry. So, if Hendry is back again next year, this could be a moot point. Regardless, wouldn't you rather Clevenger playing every day down in the minors than backing up Soto? Unless, they traded Soto and had Clevenger and Wellington Castillo battle for the starting job in ST and brought in a better veteran catcher than Koyie to be the backup. The only reason to have him playing in the minors is to improve his trade stock. It's not like Soto is going anywhere for a year or two. Clevenger will be 26 at the start of next season so putting up big minor league numbers isn't going to make him much more of an asset to another team. A backup might be his ceiling anyway, but even if it isn't having him backup in the majors is the best way to make sure to get some value out of him (and the same argument holds true for Castillo as well).

yeah he gets lost in the excitement about jackson and szczur, but to do what he's done as a 20 year old is pretty nice. the boy needs to learn how to steal bases though (9 sb/12 cs). Where do you think Ha will rank in the Top 10 for the end of the year/start of next season? Is it possible he's a top 5? or more of a 7-10 guy? i don't think he'd be top 5 because jackson and szczur will be ahead of him, baez (assuming he signs) will be ahead, mcnutt should probably still be ahead unless his stuff has collapsed, and i'd expect that a guy like vogelbach (again, assuming he signs) would fall ahead. probably back part of the top 10. could even see him being outside the top 10 (behind guys like vitters, lemahieu, flaherty, etc) depending on how much projection the scouts see in him. I'm surprised more people aren't higher on Ha. He plays all 3 OF positions and seems to be good defensively (with an elite arm). His strikeout rate has always been very good which keeps his average pretty high. He hits for a decent amount of power (.151 ISOP in 2010 and .147 this year). He's playing at AA and hasn't even reached his 21st birthday yet. The only thing he doesn't do well at all is walk. He got a pretty decent size bonus to sign so it isn't like he's a no tools type of guy. I don't see any way how he could not make the top 10 and could very well make the top 5.

There's plenty of other sports that fit this category though. Nascar, tennis, boxing... I agree with your first paragraph though. Golf is probably the most wide open of any of those though. In Nascar, your driver is in every race and there's so much variation in the standings that even if your drive struggles throughout the entire race he could still come up with a good finish. Tennis is always dominated by a few so you can pick a favorite and root for them against the other favorites. Boxing is much the same way where people only tend to watch when people they know are on. In golf, you have so many people who could be in contention at the end who you've never heard of, and your particular favorite is not statistically likely to be in contention at the end of a tournament.

My guess is that it has to be some of both to get a 31.6% strikeout rate this season. If that's mostly from going deep into the count then he's being too patient. My guess is he has pretty good strike zone recognition but swings through a decent amount of strikes.

Was Abreu anything special at any point? There must be some reason they chose him in the Kosuke trade. They picked Abreu IMO because of his athleticism. He was rated to have the best outfield arm in the Indians organization last year. He has 6 triples and 19 SB already this year so his speed must be plus. He has some pop in his bat (13 HR this year). He's got some tools-the problem is that he either has to improve his strikeout rate or improve his power significantly to be successful at higher levels (and it will probably have to be the strikeout rate first).