David

Now that we're getting ever closer to the start of the season, I wanted to revisit something that was being discussed early in the offseason. The Cubs, obviously, hired a whole new coaching staff (for the most part) this offseason. Among them was the new hitting coach, Gerald Perry. Perry is a guy who is known to preach a patient but aggressive style at the plate. If I remember correctly, he teaches guys to wait, not just for strikes, but for pitches in the areas of the zone where they feel they can hit them and hit them hard. To me, this is the ideal approach. For the most part, don't even attempt to make contact unless you can drive the ball hard somewhere. His teams have historically been pretty good in terms of OBP. Whether this is a function of the personell he had dealt with or his coaching is open to debate. I'd imagine that it's some combination of the two. Anyway, this is a refreshingly different approach from what the Cubs' coaching staffs have been preaching for the last few years. What kind of impact do you guys think he might have on the team? Will it be noticeable from the start? Will it take a while for his impact to be felt? Will there be no effect at all? Just something I thought would be interesting to discuss. I think, for the most part, we have some hitters who are willing to be pretty patient (Lee, Barrett, & Murton most notably) and some other good hitters who haven't been that patient but are just good, powerful hitters and might become even better with the right approach (Aramis, Soriano). That being the case, I think we might see more of an improvement offensively than any of us are expecting if the new philosophy really takes.

IMHO, all bets are off with a healthy Mark Prior (assuming we get reasonable health and expected performance from the rest of the team). I think they could jump into the 90's, if that one big 'X' factor comes through.

No!!!! I don't care what you say. In the good old days, they didn't have ads!!!11!

I suspect you're in the minority. Probably. But I've always considered myself a fan of the Cubs, not really of Wrigley Field. It's the team and it's history that I love. Yes, Wrigley is a part of the history, but times change and you have to let the past go.

I wonder if there's a correlation between the number of games attended at the park and dislike of this move. I've attended 35+ games a season since 2000 and I hate it. Some of the strongest proponents of the change in this thread live hundreds of miles away from the park. Maybe, maybe not. I live in the suburbs and go to 20-25 games a year.

Sadly, I wouldn't say "no chance." I've read in more than one article that the only gimmes in the rotation are Zambrano, Lilly and Marquis, and then Miller, Prior, Marshall and Hill fight it out for the other two spots. It's ridiculous that the Cubs' best player from the second half of last year isn't guaranteed a spot. But this is the Cubs we're talking about, and you don't go 100 years without winning a world series by making wise personnel decisions. I've read those things, too. I just attribute that more to media stupidity than Cubs stupidity (which there's plenty to go around of, as you pointed out, as well).

Maybe I'm naive, but I really think there is no chance that Rich Hill will not be in the Cubs rotation. I'll be willing to eat major crow if I'm wrong. I'm saying there is no chance at all, barring injury, or some ridiculously terrible spring performances (which really shouldn't come into play, but they are the Cubs) by Hill coinciding with some ridiculously good performances by a potential replacement. By ridiculously bad, I mean worse than 2003 Shawn Estes.

In that regard, you're definitely not wrong. It would be different, no doubt. I'm just not so sure it would be worse (for fans of the actual team and for the team itself).

No, I'm not saying that at all. I have been arguing that the Cubs aren't a mortal lock to draw more fans if they build a big stadium out in the suburbs. I'm not saying that Wrigley is helping the Cubs win or anything like that. I'm saying that a lot of fans go to Wrigley because of the park and not as much because of the baseball because the baseball has historically sucked. I think it's easy to say, "Hire a new GM and the team will be better and then you can move it because people like good baseball." than it is to actually do it. OK, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. My fault. But I wasn't saying that you were saying that Wrigley is helping them win. I'm just saying that, financially, the team wouldn't need the added draw of the park if they'd just field a better team. A major market team spending this much money shouldn't have so much trouble contending. As for it being easier said than done to hire a competent GM...it is, and it isn't. A team spending $100+ mil on payroll should be doing better than the Cubs have for the last few years. To me, that's more than just a sign of not having a good GM. It's a sign of having a bad, even terrible, GM, and possibly some bad luck. Anyone who is remotely competent should have no trouble putting a competitive team on the field with the resources the Tribune (even before this offseason) has been putting out. My point is just that they don't need (hell, they don't even really take advantage of it) that draw that is Wrigley itself. They're spending enough to win, why not actually do the job by having the money spent properly? That's the missing piece. Someone who will know how to allocate the resources to make this top payroll team a top winning team. If the Cubs, as a business looking to make a profit, had that, they wouldn't need the ability to draw big crowds on bad high-payroll teams (which is basically what they have now). The need or place for those Wrigley-only fans would be greatly lessened.

Sori's got some Neifi legs.

I'm really not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that the Cubs are going to be inept no matter what, so ownership is best off leaving themselves the safety net of drawing big crowds no matter the product by keeping the team in Wrigley? Why would they even bother attempting to win then? Why not cut payroll by 25-40% and make even more money? The need for the, so to speak, "safety net," of crowds no matter the product would be greatly reduced if they simply hired more competent individuals (really, a competent GM) to determine the product on the field. Hell, if they hired a competent enough individual, they could probably cut payroll 25-30% AND win consistently. What benefit is the draw of Wrigley really bringing other than allowing them to continually hire inept people into player personell positions without losing money? The 100 million is being spent, win or lose. Spend it wisely on good players and the team will win consistently. There's no curse or magical mysterious force keeping the Cubs from winning. You're saying that the Cubs organization is better off in Wrigley because they'll draw a big crowd even if they continue to lose as they have historically. Correct? I'm saying that simply making a good hire at GM would eliminate the need for that benefit brought by Wrigley, and, if accompanied by a new stadium, would make the team more profitable by filling up a bigger park with a winner (theoretically even with a lower payroll).

Without Wrigley, the Cubs are just another team that perpetually sucks. The Cubs already outdraw a bunch of bigger stadiums of better ball clubs because of Wrigley. I'd just keep jacking up the ticket prices rather than rolling the dice that you can recreate the magic of Wrigley somewhere else. You'd have to hope that 3+ million people are driving out to bumble-f to see one of the worst teams in baseball. But who cares about those people who just go there to see Wrigley? I'd rather not have them around anyway. Easier for me to get a ticket. And, let's be serious, if the Cubs managed their resources better, they could field a winning team consistently enough in any stadium that they could consistently draw sellouts in this market. They're still spending with the big guys. It's not like they've got a low payroll here to take advantage of the fact that the Wrigley fans will flock to the park to see any product. They'd still sell out a new park, and sell it out consistently. Player personnel decision making would just have to improve. Instead of spending 100 million on a last place team, they'd actually have to spend that same amount of money and have people who know how to build a winning team running it. People want to talk like the Cubs are making out like bandits, having this fanbase that will flock to the park regardless of what's out on the field and somehow taking advantage of that fact. In reality, they're just running in place. The Cubs are spending enough that they should be winning and winning every year. The problem is incompetence in management.

"Hmm.. I need a word here.. HHHHEYY! That's good!" http://youtube.com/watch?v=i7kP35jI7Go Eddie doing James Brown on Delirious. Don't click if offensive language offends you.

i think we have a pretty good idea of what wrigley used to look like. And there weren't ads? Maybe, maybe not. But there definitely weren't lights. Or luxury suites. Or electronic scoreboards. Or TV's in the grandstands. I guess Wrigley has been ruined for decades now. the "good old days" had a bunch of games with 8,000 people in attendance with games being called due to darkness Oh, how I wish I could go back and live in those days.

i think we have a pretty good idea of what wrigley used to look like. And there weren't ads? Maybe, maybe not. But there definitely weren't lights. Or luxury suites. Or electronic scoreboards. Or TV's in the grandstands. I guess Wrigley has been ruined for decades now.

Quiet, you!

LOL. Whatever. It's 4-6 days. Considering they've probably already checked him out and one would assume nothing is broken, he'll be back early next week.

Agreed. Plus, don't forget the initial 3-4 year curiosity period where attendance would be high just due to people wanting to check out the new park. A new park, if done properly, could be just as much of a cash cow as Wrigley. Let's not kid ourselves. I've always wondered what a cash cow looks like. How awesome would it be to have one?

Agreed. Plus, don't forget the initial 3-4 year curiosity period where attendance would be high just due to people wanting to check out the new park. A new park, if done properly, could be just as much of a cash cow as Wrigley. Let's not kid ourselves.

Why are people so caught up in the past, anyway? What is so pleasant about the past? The present is much, much better.

They also list JD Drew as the worst move. Will the mainstream media ever "get it?" The funny thing is, Jason Marquis doesn't even make their top 5 worst. But JD Drew is #1. Right.

I doubt that's new, since they usually wait until all the position players are there to take those types of pictures, but it's still pretty cool to see. Maybe it's a promotional shot for Under Armour.

well, no, no it isn't. because, see, when you step into Wrigley, it's still actually 2007, not 1933. It's not a museum. The truth is, the Cubs have been extremely great about not simply tearing it down and building a luxury-suit riddled throwback park in Naperville, as that would actually keep them up with the other teams (as far as park revenue). Thank you.

I was thinking of the Meigs Field/Northerly Island area. I probably should pay more attention, but what has been going on with that land?

AGREED! I would not want it by the lake though. Summer is summer, but in April and May I could use a few extra degrees. I always thought a ballpark off I-90 right before the O'Hare turnoff. Then you are right on the Jefferson Park-O'Hare Train, near the tollway as well. And you would actually have room for parking. Make it happen Trib! Let's not get crazy. Yea, I'm not a huge fan of stadiums in isolated locations with highways and huge airports nearby. Personally, I'd love a new stadium right on the lake shore, as long as the park was designed tastefully. I know it's not realistically feasible and it'll likely never happen, but I think the Chicago lakefront would be one of the coolest locations ever for a ballpark. It would suck a little more in April and (dare I say) October, though.