Soul

Yeah, but those teams have won the World Series. Isn't that the goal?

So what exactly is your argument? That the Trib doesn't mind spending money on the team, but they just don't care if it wins? Isn't that completely backasswards logic? Considering they'd make more money by winning with competent management? That is if they're the money grubbing take advantage of lemmings owners you portray them as. Spending money isn't the same as a commitment to win. Not sure what it will take to get that through people's thick skulls, but hey----the record speaks for itself.

Soul's convoluted logic(correct me if I remember wrong) says that if we had a new ballpark, then we wouldn't have a guaranteed revenue through ticket prices. Then in order for ownership to make money, they'd have to make sure the product was good, which means firing front office people in addition to supplying a high payroll. We'll ignore the parts about Cub fans coming out no matter the stadium, and that new management(while I'm certainly not against getting rid of Hendry/Baker/etc.) is no guarantee of success. Even if fans stopped coming to the new stadium, then any owner ever is going to lower payroll, which will lead to a worse product, and so on... If the fans will still attend no matter what even in a new ballpark, then we're screwed. Lower payroll doesn't always equal a worse product, BTW. That's pretty interesting logic on your part. Did you miss the Marlins, Angels, and White Sox World Series recently? So if a team can't be successful with a high payroll, lowering it gives it a chance to succeed? I don't know why I'm even arguing this after "If the fans will still attend no matter what even in a new ballpark, then we're screwed.". I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you, either, to be honest. Some ballclubs win with a high payroll philosophy, some win with a lower payroll philosophy. Just because a team had to switch from one to the other doesn't mean they automatically lose. Marlins have won it both ways in handful of years, while we continued to lose. There's a ballclub that needs to win to put people in the seats. And so they do. You're a smart guy, so figure it out. I'm going to bed.

Soul's convoluted logic(correct me if I remember wrong) says that if we had a new ballpark, then we wouldn't have a guaranteed revenue through ticket prices. Then in order for ownership to make money, they'd have to make sure the product was good, which means firing front office people in addition to supplying a high payroll. We'll ignore the parts about Cub fans coming out no matter the stadium, and that new management(while I'm certainly not against getting rid of Hendry/Baker/etc.) is no guarantee of success. Even if fans stopped coming to the new stadium, then any owner ever is going to lower payroll, which will lead to a worse product, and so on... If the fans will still attend no matter what even in a new ballpark, then we're screwed. Lower payroll doesn't always equal a worse product, BTW. That's pretty interesting logic on your part. Did you miss the Marlins, Angels, and White Sox World Series recently?

You like Miller Park. That's fine, but the fact that you think it's a "great new ballpark" is all that really needs to be said to discredit your views on this matter. I actually never said that. But hey----why let what I really said stop you from twisting my words? What do you actually think of it? Parking: better than Wrigley. SightLines, % of seats with a good view: better than Wrigley Amenities, cleanliness: better than Wrigley Seats: better than Wrigley Atmosphere: much worse than Wrigley, obviously Area of town: worse than Wrigley, though there's no crime around Miller Park, there's not much of anything else, either. History: much worse than Wrigley I believe I said Miller Park is a more fun place to watch a ballgame than Wrigley. Which to me it is. Now----after the game, or as far as the entire experience of the neighborhood, the history, that's different.

I appreciate that's your opinion. I happen to disagree with it. We genuinely *TRIED* to win in 2004, after the Cubs had a taste of success in '03. Once '04 tanked, the desire and effort to win from this organization took a nose dive. The results speak for themselves. We need to ask ourselves why only one year? Why didn't they keep trying like they did in '04? No motivation. That's why. Why is there no motivation? Because that ballpark is filled no matter what. The sales stay pretty much constant no matter what--or at least more than almost every other team.

Is it the clothing you find horrifying, or Jeff Gordon's wry mug, or both? J/K It's going to get to that point no matter what. Is it going to stop you from watching the games though? That's the real question. My guess is, it will not.

You like Miller Park. That's fine, but the fact that you think it's a "great new ballpark" is all that really needs to be said to discredit your views on this matter. I actually never said that. But hey----why let what I really said stop you from twisting my words?

Why Wrigley will be standing forever is in bold print. Ok. Why the Cubs will never win a World Series is in bold print. I sense a circular arguement coming.... Seriously, though, Wrigley isn't the problem. Look at 2003. Assuming they won Game 6 or 7, are you saying it would have been impossible for them to beat the Yankees simply because of Wrigley? I find it quite difficult to assume we won games that the standings say we didn't. Don't you? Seriously though. If we couldn't get to the World Series at Wrigley in 2003 with all the advantages we had going for us, it's not going to happen. Change the ballpark. Become an actual baseball team with an active fans:winning percentage ratio that makes logical sense. That's the way to a World Series. It's one thing to sit at Clark and Addison, step into the booth with Len with your cool sunglasses on, and proclaim how hard you are trying to win all the while knowing the fans will be there no matter what. It's an entriely different story to need to win or the ballpark is empty. I want a Championship before I die, man. I've seen Wrigley. Now I want the ring (figuratively speaking, of course). Wrigley is a ball and chain around every Cub fan's ankle at this point, whether they realize it or not. No incentive to win equals, not suprisingly, no winning. Add to that the fact that Wrigley *is* old and somewhat decrepit at this point, and newer ballparks *do* provide more & better amenities, and there you have it. Must get new ballpark.

Doesn't seem to hurt ticket sales, as most of you are so fond of saying. It's not going to stop anyone from handing more cash to our Cubs to watch them lose yet again, so I find the complaints about it somewhat disingenuous. Naming rights are a reality in sports. It's not going to stop until it impacts ticket sales. Since it isn't, it will not stop. Simple logic.

Really? Cub supporters are well-traveled fans, and discounting that, there are three modern stadiums within the Chicago city limits. Wrigley thrives because it's great ... not because its patrons are deprived folks who've never seen a game anywhere else and don't know any better. You will all see, when Wrigley finally rots away as it eventually will, most Cub fans will be saying "I loved Wrigley and all, but it *is* nice to finally have a great new ballpark." This is how I feel right now---except the new ballpark hasn't been built yet. I'm about 15 years ahead of the curve.

The attendance figures tell a different story. Apparently, most folks don't go to the ballpark to sniff the pavement, ogle vendors and hang out amongst the chamberpots. More likely, most Cub fans just have no clue what they're missing with a modern ballpark.

Good to see he's working at it.

Mr. Mazeroski tops the all-time list, eh? Bet they failed to mention that during his Hall of Fame induction :roll:

:( He was off the market :lol:

Why Wrigley will be standing forever is in bold print. Ok. Why the Cubs will never win a World Series is in bold print.

Maybe it's because I've already been to Wrigley like 200 times in my life, but uh..... ***SACRILEGE ALERT*** Miller Park is just a more fun place to watch a ballgame than Wrigley now. No horrible smells from someone's 50-year old bodily fluids, no bathrooms that you would normally expect to find in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, seats that you can make it through a game in without needing back surgery, vendors who look like they actually shower every once in awhile (sorry guys----but a few of you need to reintroduce yourselves to Mr. Daily Hygiene), and staff who seem genuinely glad to have you there, even if you are a Cub fan. It's not that I have sworn off Wrigley. Not at all. I have tix to the May 12th game, and I love Chicago to death. I usually try to make it once or even twice a year back to Chicago. But this ballclub needs a suitable MODERN ballpark in the absolute worst way. What's that you say? They wouldn't be able to fill a new ballpark unless the team won? GOOD! Welcome to major league baseball :!:

Why not just consider all numbers from all sources? Why exclude anything? It all amounts to an educated guess at the end of the day. I see no reason to favor anything or disfavor anything.

Yes, but you'll excuse me if I wait until Woody has a few successful regular season starts before declaring Will's original source was wrong. Sorry, but there have been way too many "setbacks" to believe anything other than on-the-field performance.

You mean like Tank Johnson? ...usually 8)

Hmmm. I'm definitely still thinking Pope works as a late 1st rounder, although I've heard character questions arise and Angelo usually steers clear of those. Very few linebackers would have a chance at covering a 6'7" TE who runs a 4.6

How's the weather down there? I'm really starting to feel the winter blues (usually happens this time of year) :(

I need to get out of this winter nightmare. Spring can't come soon enough.

Sounds good. Now go out and prove it young man.