XZero771679666304

Also, a lot of people were jumping on the Cubs bandwagon in 2003-04 who have since jumped back off.

It would absolutely lose a lot. There are no good domed stadiums, so you'd have to figure out a way to build one that isn't lame. You'd also have to figure out a way to pay for all those rebuilds when the rare instances where weather is a problem doesn't come close to justifying the investments. The Yankees and Red Sox play in just as much crap as the Cubs do every April and most Octobers and their fans find a way to actually enjoy being there regardless. Crappy 45 degree games in April suck when your team sucks, they suck a lot less when your team is good. Cold games suck regardless. I imagine they also affect walk up ticket sales pretty significantly as well. I don't care if the team looks like a contender or not, I plan my trips to Wrigley in the summer, regardless of the price/availability of tickets. Cold, gray April baseball sucks any way you slice it. How they put an open air stadium in a place like Minneapolis still boggles my mind. And there are good enclosed stadiums. Enclosed =/= domed. There aren't/weren't any good domes, but they are a becoming a relic of the past. Safeco is a nice place to see a game, not every enclosed stadium has to be Tropicana Field or Rogers Centre. I think down the road we'll see architectural innovations that make enclosed stadiums even better and more common. Target Field is gorgeous, my 2nd favorite behind PNC. It is gorgeous, but that's not the point. Alaska is gorgeous too, but I don't want to go there. Not that I wouldn't go to a summer game at Target, but that's about the only time you'd see me in the Twin Cities. Minnesota weather absolutely sucks for 70% of the year.

I think this is backwards. What I was younger had less time for baseball, with more friends, more girls, playing sports, a much more active social life. Now in my early 30s, I'm married with a child and in grad school, but I've got much less to do than I did in my teens and early 20s. My interests are fewer, but much more focused. And I have more means to indulge in my fandom now than ever. The reason this site, or more specifically this forum, seems to be flagging is because discussing the Cubs major league team feels like discussing an unfortunate medical condition.

It's actually a completely absurd idea. What I meant was building future stadiums enclosed, not modifying the existing ones. Which is a prudent and absolutely non-absurd idea.

It would absolutely lose a lot. There are no good domed stadiums, so you'd have to figure out a way to build one that isn't lame. You'd also have to figure out a way to pay for all those rebuilds when the rare instances where weather is a problem doesn't come close to justifying the investments. The Yankees and Red Sox play in just as much crap as the Cubs do every April and most Octobers and their fans find a way to actually enjoy being there regardless. Crappy 45 degree games in April suck when your team sucks, they suck a lot less when your team is good. Cold games suck regardless. I imagine they also affect walk up ticket sales pretty significantly as well. I don't care if the team looks like a contender or not, I plan my trips to Wrigley in the summer, regardless of the price/availability of tickets. Cold, gray April baseball sucks any way you slice it. How they put an open air stadium in a place like Minneapolis still boggles my mind. And there are good enclosed stadiums. Enclosed =/= domed. There aren't/weren't any good domes, but they are a becoming a relic of the past. Safeco is a nice place to see a game, not every enclosed stadium has to be Tropicana Field or Rogers Centre. I think down the road we'll see architectural innovations that make enclosed stadiums even better and more common.

Yeah, because implementing one aspect of it is like cloning it. Implementing a bunch of random aspects of several is just going to make a monstrosity. Baseball is played in some great stadiums. None of them have roofs. All of the really enjoyable ones are open air. A couple uncomfortable games in April does not change the need for stadium design. Yeah, because making a frankenstein stadium is also what I said. The point was that you can make an enclosed stadium without making it a hermetically sealed cave. And "A couple uncomfortable games in April" is understating things a bit. There are more than a few places where most of the games in April and early May are kind of miserable more often than not. Slapping a retractable roof on a few of them is hardly a shocking or offensive proposition.

I've got news for you, but baseball generally isn't played in the snow. If the conditions aren't playable, they wait for it to pass or play another day. And over the course of 6 months there's really very little negative affect to a couple schedule changes. That is all true, but the game would be losing nothing by adopting more enclosed stadiums, particularly in more problematic climates. It wouldn't drastically improve the game, but it would improve it. I'm not saying it should be done, but it wouldn't be some sort of affront to the game's history or spirit or any such nonsense.

Yeah, because implementing one aspect of it is like cloning it.

I don't think full climate control is necessary or even desirable, but I must admit some days I think every stadium (save maybe in SD) having a retractable roof would be a good idea (perhaps with open panels like Milwaukee). Unlike with football, inclement weather adds nothing to the baseball experience, save postponements, scheduling problems and disrupted games. Football in rain/snow/cold is fun, baseball in the same just flat out sucks. And just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it should always be. That's just stupid.

I really don't understand this kind of sentiment. Yes, I want the Ricketts to do what needs to be done, but it's not like they've let these stellar FA classes get by them in the time they've owned the team. Unless you were expecting them to command the FO to start trading the farm or blow even more bloated contracts on mid-level FA then there hasn't been much to do right now to dramatically change this team. And Wrigley is a dump that's literally falling apart. It's a huge part of the investment for anyone that owns the team and it needs a ton of upgrades and work sooner rather than later. I think this offseason will be the first real indicator of their level of commitment to the product on the field.

That would figure. Not too many explanations for Carlos getting knocked around by these jokers. marmol has been declared injured like 10 times in the last 3 years, basically every time he blows a save in horrific fashion. Yeah, I'm sure he's fine. It's just a little jarring when he gets hit.

This game shouldn't being about changes. It's one game. Now stinking up the first two months with a getting raped by the dregs of the division flourish deserves some attention. Might as well let the season play out at this point, though. Well, with a selling spree mixed in, anyway.

What can you say at this point?

That would figure. Not too many explanations for Carlos getting knocked around by these jokers.

I think that was determined before tonight. This is just ridiculous. Four hits in five batters off Marmol, by the Astros? This is just wrong.

Are you serious?

Gvilles hate for Dempster is far more bizarre and unwarranted. By far.

It would be really stupid of them to fire him. As if being stupid would be breaking new ground. At this point I have no idea how things in the FO and field management are going to play out between now and the the end of next year. And regardless of whether you think it would be a good idea, it's hard to argue that Quade hasn't been a severe disappointment.

There is the matter of his agent and his body. I'd be all for Prince if it were a 4-5 year contract, but the potential for physical breakdown gets scary beyond that. I think he has DH written all over him. The only player I would have no qualms about signing to a big, long term contract would have been Adrian Gonzalez, but the Sox beat us to that option.

who? Pujols. If Pujols doesn't start looking more like Pujols, he may price himself back down into your price range.

He hasn't done anything to have a lock on the job either. There is a certain humor to not benching Barney "in favor of an unproven rookie".

Harrelson also accused Bautista of corking his bat during a broadcast this weekend. I hope he falls out of the booth. It goes without saying, but Hawk is an insufferably unprofessional homer of a douche. The most appropriate place for him (other than out of the profession) is in the radio booth of some low A ball team.

This is a precarious situation, IMO. I don't think firing Hendry now would be a great idea, but firing him after the season could really compromise an important offseason. I think there are three viable options: 1. Identify a long term replacement now and fire Hendry in season, maybe around the break. 2. Have a replacement in waiting and replace him immediately after the season. 3. Let him finish his contract, risking him making ill-advised desperation moves. Really, I've just become even more disillusioned by the way this season has gone. Peculiar roster management and piss poor team management. Quade has been a massive disappointment, not the record (which is bad), but the way he has managed the team. I thought we had a more pragmatic manager in Q, but he has been anything but. And knowing how loyal Hendry is to his hires, I'm not sure we'll get rid of one without booting the other. What I think this organization really needs is a sharp baseball mind between Ricketts and Hendry.

I think a big part of this discussion is angst over bringing up guys with a future who should be getting ABs presumably to ride the pine. We saw it with Castillo and we're probably going to see it with DJ. Then you get in a position where, with the season going in the crapper, you start having to wonder what is in the best long term interest of the team. A strong argument could be made that giving LaMahieu some or most of Barney's ABs would be. But with Barney playing well, someone like Scales should have been brought up instead, sparing us this entire conversation.

3.5% 3.2% The top number is Darwin Barney's BB% this season. The bottom number is notably hacktastic and much-maligned Shawon Dunston's career average BB%. If Barney isn't capable of supporting that .331 BABIP he's sporting right now (and he probably isn't), his lack of walks and his lack of power are going to tank his offensive value in a hurry. And that's without even getting into the fact that RBI are a meaningless stat. Don't take this post to mean that I don't like Darwin Barney. Believe it or not, I see his potential as a valuable role player. But make no mistake... if he's going to have value, it'll be coming from his glove. Not his bat. To tie that in with the rest of the thread, that's about how I feel about Campana too. If we stick him at the bottom of the order and never let him bat in crucial situations, he could provide some real value as a fielder and runner. Not a star, obviously... but a decent enough reserve guy. For a guy who can't slug, AVG takes a back seat to OBP and like you said, RBI is a worthless, context dependent stat. He doesn't walk and he doesn't hit for any power, so he has to hit for high average to have any offensive value. That said, he hasn't hit .300 or better in any full pros season thus far. Combine that with his babip, it doesn't inspire confidence for his future. I like Darwin Barney, but every indication is that he won't be able to sustain what he has done so far, as he has been decidedly pedestrian for his entire pro career up until this point. It would be great if he does maintain, but it would be a grievous mistake to allow him to block a player with a higher ceiling if he doesn't. And it would be nice to actually sell high for a change, but I'm not holding my breath.