SouthSideRyan

And why does it matter that they're "small-market?" It's not baseball.

"fact." How many small market teams have had the success the Pacers have had since the 90's started? The brawl destroyed their reputation but people are glossing over plenty of years before that. From the 89-90 season they went to the playoffs 16/17 times. And had 9 consecutive appearances before the brawl. How many big franchises can even claim doing that? Any? In the NBA land of get your superstar and win your title they were successful without it. That's called building a great team. Maybe you want to argue 'great'. Which I'll pass on. I'd love to know what the Pacers of the 90s have to do with the "fact" that an entirely new management team "knows" how to build a great team. And Portland had even more consecutive appearances. When your standard for great is making the playoffs and more than half the teams make the playoffs, color me unimpressed.

Your friends do sound like blowhards

The NBA has also experienced a precipitous dropoff in popularity, only recently gaining traction, which they will likely give back due to a lost/abbreviated season. I just can't fathom a fan giving up on his team because he didn't like the meanies that were on it 5 years ago. It's ridiculous.

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?

The Pacers in the post-Reggie era have averaged just over 36 wins per season. Last year they won 37. They're probably the most boring team in the league.

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. If the Pacers get another Reggie Miller to be the face of the franchise, the fans won't give a [expletive] about Ron Artest. People aren't coming out to support a losing team starring Roy Hibbert and Mike Dunleavy.

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. Where have you seen fans turn on a team and never come back due to character issues? The Pacers? You don't think those people have stayed away because the Pacers have been terrible since the Malice? If the Cubs bring Z back and are contending in 2012, people will show up. If the Cubs bring Z back and are losing in 2012, people won't. You think those people won't be right back out there in 2013 if the Cubs are good?

You could use that exact quote to talk about Z and his emotions. He has passed the point of his emotions outweighing his work performance. If this was 2005 Z, I'd be inclined to still defend his presence on the team, but at this point, its kind of like "whatever". That 18M might as well be a sunk cost for next year. Anyways I'm fine with any trade that doesn't extend financial commitment past 2012 or increase cost for 2012. My hope would basically just to be expense nuetral. If Hardee's had a burger flipper making 18M, I'm guessing they'd look to make amends.

So everyone better than Lloyd Waner automatically gets in? Can't wait for Bernard Gilkey's HOF induction

Why would we be lucky to do that?

Oh that was sarcasm?? That makes a lot more sense! Good jokes guys!!

Listening to the fans would be just about the worst thing the Cubs could do.

YEAH!!

You aren't going to find high ceiling guys with a small likelihood of flopping outside of the 1st round.

FAITH IN HAITH

He didn't kiss LaRussa's ring.

Oh well, the guy we got to play 1B instead of Thome outperformed Thome from 04-09. That and Thome was physically incapable of playing 1B about 4 days after he signed that contract.

That argument was completely incoherent. It made absolutely no sense. He knew it, too, which is why he devolved into simply pandering to the fanbase, telling them how great they are and how they deserve a title more than anything. What a [expletive] joke. The problem is you know it worked for 85% of the fanbase. Well, that 85% probably was already on his side, this just reinforced their support.

Worked for Ed Lynch

I question how much that loyalty would hold up when push came to shove. It's easy to say this is my guy and I'm out if he is, but when you're staring at looking for a new job (and obviously none of those jobs would be to go work for Hendry), I'd predict a whole lot of backing down.

Who are the 3 team presidents he's survived btw? The guy was a general counsel and senior VP with the Trib, he's had little to nothing to do with the team on the field, I just don't understand the vitriol.

While I suppose the goat could be considered to have cash value, not sure how that would be measured, but I'm relatively sure trading a human being that isn't under contract to your team wouldn't be allowed.

The Marlins already have a very good GM, I'm not sure what use they would have for Hendry. And I reiterate, Z has a no trade clause and a big salary the Marlins likely cannot afford. I'm not sure Mike Quade is an in demand manager either.

So you want Crane Kenney and Gillick working side by side in the front office? I mean I'm not completely against that but I'd assume that they don't want to pay 2 people for pretty much the same position, even if Gillick is a pure baseball guy and Kenney is a purse business guy. I think he was referring to the insistence on calling Kenney a cockroach. He's survived 3 team presidents and 2 owners so I'd say he has cockroach-like qualities. So being employed by the same company for awhile (In different positions, working your way up through the years) makes one a cockroach? You want a cockroach in the organization, look at Fleita.