Soul

Well, Sweet Lou said it can cause complacency so perhaps you might take it up with him. baseball people never say foolish things based on conventional wisdom with no basis in reality. I'll take the comment of a salty vet like Piniella about what does and doesn't affect players over posters on this board. No offense.

You are simply wrong. 2004 spiked because of 2003 results. 2005 stayed high because of 2003/2004 results. Attendance spikes in the years following the playoffs. Additionally, tickets sales were in party driven by the huge profit margins on the secondary market. Fans had very high expectations in 2005 based on the relative youth of the core. By 2006 however, people started taking a bath on unused tickets. They sold out early, on higher expectations, but butts in the seats was clearly lower. And they would have stayed lower in 2007 had it not been for huge offseason investment. Explain the '87 - '93 flap then.

This isn't true. Fans didn't suddenly changed. Fans have ditched Wrigley everytime the team sustained crappiness. They come back in droves when the team succeeds. The Cubs have been spending more than 80% of the teams in the league for over a decade. The myth of a complacent team with no incentive to win has no basis in reality. Not during the Sammy years, they didn't. Especially when you look at years like 1999 & 2004. of course during those 2 years they were also coming off a season where they made the playoffs. They reached 2 million for the first time in 1987. Record: 76-85 They maintained the 2 million mark all the way through their playoff year in '89 and up until 1992. Clearly no relation to playoff appearances. They reached 3 million in attendance for the first time in 2004. Then they maintained it throughout 2005 and 2006, despite, as goony said, "sustained crappiness." The idea that Cub fans leave when the team sucks is, quite simply, incorrect. The only thing that has helped change the paradigm is the World Series on the other side of town, and the resultant no-shows which appeared last year. For decades, Cub fans were known for not booing, and continuing to show up no matter what. This has changed.

Well, Sweet Lou said it can cause complacency so perhaps you might take it up with him.

I wonder if Rob Neyer will do a piece about how Joe Kennedy's career is over.

Baseclogger! 8-)

This isn't true. Fans didn't suddenly changed. Fans have ditched Wrigley everytime the team sustained crappiness. They come back in droves when the team succeeds. The Cubs have been spending more than 80% of the teams in the league for over a decade. The myth of a complacent team with no incentive to win has no basis in reality. Not during the Sammy years, they didn't. Especially when you look at years like 1999 & 2004.

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact. If the Cubs had good players that played poorly, maybe that would make sense. But the Cubs have sucked because their personel decisions have sucked, not because overly supportive fans brought about complacency. Why bother making great personnel decisions when it doesn't really matter? What doesn't matter? Are you arguing Wrigley sells out regardless of the record? Because that's not true. It was an easy ticket up until 1998. But in 2000 and 2001 it went back to being easy to get. It wasn't until the nearly unprecedented (for the Cubs) success of 2003 that Wrigley regularly sold out again. Management noticed all the empty seats late in 2006 and realized they weren't going to sell-out in 2007 without improving a lot. This is a tired old argument that doesn't hold up. The Cubs suck because management has sucked. Not because the fans show up. I know they suck because management has sucked. That's not even the argument. It's about incentive to win. You're right, last year really showed that the fans will leave if they stink it up. At long last, the fans started booing.......then they flat-out left. The Cubs' spending this offseason in the face of dwindling attendance and the success of the White Sox proves the point. Now that fans have changed their tune, the Cubs have *FINALLY* been forced to react. I'm not saying it's going to pay immediate dividends, but it's a refreshing development IMO.

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact. If the Cubs had good players that played poorly, maybe that would make sense. But the Cubs have sucked because their personel decisions have sucked, not because overly supportive fans brought about complacency. Why bother making great personnel decisions when it doesn't really matter?

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact.

Wow..just wow. LOL. The Vikings apparently were impressed while watching Bobby drop punts & passes against them. *cues Twilight Zone theme music*

I'm on board for Murton hitting 2nd.

I'm just waiting to see what his next couple ST starts show, that's all. Certainly doesn't make sense to write the guy off because of his first couple innings in ST since forever.

Bwahahahah Knicks lose.

I heard that conference call on the radio last night. There's one big, gaping hole in Briggs' argument. He says he's been quietly waiting for a long term deal that never came. That's just not true. There's a long term deal on the table. He just won't take it. We don't know all the inside details, but I'm thinking this stand Briggs is taking has alot to do with Rosenhaus. Briggs should be careful: Drew isn't going to care about him if this whole thing falls through and he doesn't get his cut of a huge signing bonus.

I will say what I have said about Angel for the last 4 years. If he is physically able to pitch, he will do it well. Easily the most talented arm to come thru the Cubs system since Zambrano. I agree. Why is he hurt so often? I hope it isn't because his arm motion sucks, like Woody...

For the last time, the reports after the game said that Prior hit 89, not the 83-85 that the Seattle announcers were talking about. You can't expect his velocity to be 100% in his first ST start. I'm not worried about his velocity at all. If there is anything to worry about, it would be his command, since that was his big problem last year. Hence the qualification in my statement. *IF* he's really only in the mid-80's.

I agree. If he can't hit the 90's with his FB, he's done for. I think we can all agree that if his velocity stays in the 80's we won't be expecting much from him this year or maybe ever. I might feel differently if he was a multi-pitch guy. But it's basically 2 pitches. If a pitcher is going to succeed as a starter in the majors with 2 pitches, then both need to be "plus." Or so I've been told ;)

Hairston was part of a double-blind study, and he received the placebo. Either that or he has the natural baseball talent of my dog.

If there is a better draft GM in rounds 2-5 than Angelo, then that guy better have signed an extension through 2020.

UGH. WHO THINKS THE bEARS WILL LET HIM GO IF HE GOES TO JAIL? I HOPE NOT. I THINK THIS WHOLE EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT HIM A LESSON, AT LEAST I HOPE SO, AND TANK IS A GOOD DT. I think they decided to stick with him on a "next strike and you're out" basis. They could use the excuse of jail time to cut him, but I'm guessing they won't. It's all guesswork what they will do, but I would be suprised if the Bears didn't already know some jail time was likely when they dealt with this situation earlier.

That's a good point. Maybe I am undervaluing what we got in return. I do think this is a good opportunity for Angelo to look for 1st round talent at a 2nd round price (albeit likely late 1st round talent, but there's always a couple guys who slip).

Prior, Lee, and Wood all look like they've lost weight to me. Especially Wood, of course. Maybe I just heard completely wrong about Prior. I could have sworn someone said he looked alright in practice, and that the velocity was O.K., though not great. If that's all he really has -- mid-80's -- then yeah, we're in trouble. You can work on strength all you want, it's not going to suddenly add 10 MPH to a fastball in 1 month. Prior needs to hit 93/94 with that fastball to be effective, IMO.

I'd be very suprised if Wood's not closing by June. Of course, if he isn't, that probably means we're getting good production from Dempster or someone else, so that's not a bad thing. I've just got it in my head Wood is going to storm the league as a closer.

Laura, IIRC, Sullivan did mention that he thought Prior was holding back. If he's been throwing faster than that in practice then I'm not worried. I thought -- though I'm certainly not sure -- that I had heard Prior was popping the gun for 92-ish in practice.