David

EDIT - Double Post

OK, so Tribune Field would be (or would have been, however you want to look at it) OK with you?

The Wrigleys are hardly a family baseball should pay tribute to.

you missed the point the examples you cite are instances of companies putting their most recognizable names on the parks, of all the entities within Turner Broadcasting the actual "Turner" part (a signboard company) is the least recognizable had Turner put up money for the name it would be dubbed "TNT/CNN/TBS Park" or somesuch You said, "Turner Broadcasting," not all that other crap. And since when is Turner not a recognizable name?

So, let me get this straight. If the Tribune had changed the name to Tribune Field, would that be OK? Or would it not be, because the name of that company isn't the name of said company's owner? Or is it because it wouldn't be the stadium's original name? Is that what makes it not ok? Because Wrigley isn't the original name of Wrigley Field, either.

What a ridiculous argument. So when the stadium is named the same as a company owned by the team's owner, it's OK, but when it isn't, it's not?

it isn't, they call it The Ted, not "Turner Broadcasting" park Not really sure how that changes anything. US Cellular Field is called "The Cell" by fans. What the fans call it doesn't mean anything. As for the "not Turner Broadcasting Park" part, Chase Field isn't called "JP Morgan and Chase Co. Field." Tropicana Field isn't called "Tropicana Products Field." What on Earth difference does it make if the company's full & proper name isn't on the stadium?

I don't think we'd ever see that. Barring injuries leading to it as an emergency plan in one game, at least.

No. It is named for Wrigley the man himself. In no way other than the commonality of the name "Wrigley" is there any effort to sell Wrigley's chewing gum products: no Wrigley logos, advertisements, &c. People fail to get this. "Durr, Wrigley's a corporate name too." No, it isn't. Yes. Yes it is. That's the advantage of naming a company after yourself. It's like saying Turner Field isn't a corporate name.

There's a link to a sweet gallery of old school pics of Wrigley in that story.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/e8/fullj.b55b294b7c80f2c64072236a222a7855/b55b294b7c80f2c64072236a222a7855-getty-78802335eg033_2008_los_ange.jpg

Weird. Our pythag goes down because we score fewer runs and give up more, yet we wind up with one more projected win.

lawl

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080223&content_id=2385866&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Honestly, I don't see that as one of the big issues with this deal. This team is obviously built to win now, and while, at 31, I wouldn't look at Roberts as much of a long term option, anyway (maybe the two additional years on his deal plus 2-3 more), I've never been one to really worry a whole lot about the Cubs keeping important players around (at least, not recently). They usually don't have much trouble getting guys re-signed when they want/need to (even in the middle of this uncertain ownership situation, thus far). I don't think we need to worry a whole lot about payroll at this point. Again, though, Roberts, like much of this team, is in the 30-31 range, like much of this team's core group. It's not like he's a player just entering his prime that we'll be looking to acquire and lock up for years and years. My concern (as is the concern of many others here) with this deal isn't so much mortgaging the future (or "constricting it," as you put it), but giving up all of our trade-able assets for Roberts, who is definitely a good player and an upgrade, when we could be using it to try solidify the rotation or the SS position, which are much bigger holes. It appears, though, that Hendry is happy with those two spots and isn't looking at upgrading them at all, unfortunately. It does bring up an interesting question, though. What will the Cubs be doing in the next 4-5 years as this team collectively ages it's way out of its prime years?

He's spent almost 600 million during his time in charge. The Cubs still have the longest professional sports streak with no championship. "We could be a lot worse off"? Is Hendry to blame for all 100 years? The amount of time since the last WS championship has little to do w/ Hendry's performance as GM. The only years that effect his grade as a GM are the ones when he actually held the job! I guess I didn't make my point clear. He's spent 600 million and they still don't have a World Series title. I wouldn't hold him to that standard, what with the volatile nature of playoffs and all that. But at least giving us a chance to win one with multiple 90+ win teams in a division that we should absolutely dominate with our payroll (not just hope to eek out a title with 85-89 wins). If this team was winning 90+ (if not 95-100) games consistently over his tenure and making the playoffs (as the type of team that would go in as favorites, not an also ran like we have been many times) just about every year, I'd have a hard time blaming the GM for any failures in the postseason. The problem is, Hendry isn't doing that.

Sometimes you just have to take that flat curve deep. I was bummed when the ivy turned brown when the Cubs were playing the Marlins as it normally looks so beautiful out there. Heh. You would've never guessed it was October for Game 3 last year.

Knew that was coming.

I think I bring this up every year, but I've always loved the idea of a potential lakefront stadium (maybe on Northerly Island), but it just wouldn't be practical with the wind/cold in April/October, I guess. Would be spectacular from about late May-Sept, though.

You do that. I couldn't care less where they play. Wrigley and Wrigleyville makes going to the games a bit more fun, but that's where it ends.

Don't know. Ask voice.

Derwood plays in a band? Who knew?

LOL By the trade deadline now. Wow. This is beyond ridiculous.

LOL He's right, though. The game threads are just beyond ridiculous. I can barely stand to read them sometimes. I think I'll be at the chat a lot more this year, if it's working.