WrigleyField 22
-
Posts
19,041 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by WrigleyField 22
-
A slightly obstructed view is one thing, but it looks like about two of those buildings are set to get a view of the back of an electronic scoreboard. At that point you're just a rooftop bar. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yes and no. He could have done more with some talent, but he was also pretty rigid in what he wanted, underutilizing a good TE and seeing him shipped off because of it. And he seems to prefer smaller/quicker WRs so I'm not sure I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if he had been given the talent that's here now. He needed something specific that he wasn't given and part of his failure is his inability to adapt. Granted a properly utilized Olsen wouldn't have brought back the Greatest Show on Turf type results, but it may have let him reach Turner level results. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think the scenario is a S&T for both so the Bulls always operate over the cap. Only need to worry about the apron. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Minor League Discussion & Boxes 5-27-14
WrigleyField 22 replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
Whiffing 28% of the time Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Yea if you got Love and Melo you should expect to lose everything except Rose and Noah. But I'd be down with that. It won't happen though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
NFL coaching carousel/NFL Offseason thread
WrigleyField 22 replied to dew1679666265's topic in Other Sports
And then dragged. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Well I'd certainly wonder how he got his hands on Clowneys dong photo, but Manziel being an ultra perv seems somewhere on the bell curve of possible outcomes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I hope we "reach" on some HSer and everyone complains, but then he just tears it up to Trout-ian levels and we praise Theo in 2 years. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I mean it has to be fake, but if it was real I wouldn't be like totally utterly shocked Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't get it. I watch a lot of shitty reality television because of my wife and they mostly manipulate people's emotional reactions with copious amounts of booze, or by placing people in totally not real and unfamiliar social settings. ESPN does it by sticking you on live tv on the second most nerve racking day of your life (first for most athletes, second for Sam) and in this case, at the very least, an odd social setting. I can't see how Sam is able and/or more willing to coax some emotional reaction out of himself if OWN is there verse a ESPN camera crew. If it's an ability thing, he should be at least a day time actor and not a football player. If it's a willingness thing, a prima donna as you called him is willing to ham it up to any camera. Editing remains your only true refuting point still. So OWN edits and ESPN put the pressure of live tv with also the expectation that if it's good it will be edited and played over and over that day as well as for future uses in their wide array of original programming. It's clear ESPN covered this as a human story first and a sports story second, so that's not even an out. OWN and ESPN are cut from the same cloth and Sam's willingness to 'work' with each is driven from the same level of narcissism. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
My co worker just met B Marsh after running in the JP Morgan corporate challenge tonight. This is what I miss for not hanging out with my co workers afterwards. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I don't disagree with what OWN did or didn't do since I wasn't there, but it's almost as if you're holding ESPN to a higher journalistic pedigree which isn't necessarily true. They're just as much about drama as Bravo, OWN, and most other cable networks. Now it is possible for ESPN to capture more organic drama in the form of live sporting events, but the draft is not a sporting event but a big production not dissimilar to a reality show. The cynical reasoning first offered I viewed as a weird back track. And I think you still have a weird view of what the draft is in it's nature, which is primarily an event driven by drama. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
See the last part of the quote. What you haven't conveyed is why ESPN cameras aren't there to manufacture drama and also just as much of an indicator of narcissism. All you've offered is editing as the primary difference while ignoring the live tv aspect of ESPN cameras. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If you don't want to defend your view I totally understand because these conversations get exhausting. I don't have any good reason to believe you're holding back on anything. Re: cake scene I know you didn't bring it up, but seemed to agree with it. Though honestly you'd have a better argument if you stick more to the cake thing and how they playfully smashed it like it was a wedding. But if I had one last question to ask it would be why inviting/allowing ESPN cameras into your home on draft day makes you any less attention seeking and narcissistic? And while I understand it's pretty common, I think all those guys who do, do so from a narcissistic place. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
By the way you seem to think I'm jumping down your throat, but I made one snarky comment after you insinuated that maybe the OWN tv producers were responsible for cake at a party. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
ESPN cameras are there to capture a live moment. The OWN production crew was there to tape, take it back to the studio and make into the most entertaining show they can. Can you not even grant that there is a difference there? And even if you can't, will you acknowledge that I actually think people would react differently? I really wish you would sack up and actually tell me what it is I am supposedly leading to here. I'm not sure you're intentionally leading anywhere, but you've walked yourself in some weird loop where suddenly ESPN cameras were just there to capture live moments and OWN cameras were there to manufacture drama. You know what's a great way to manufacture drama? Put someone in front of a tv crew on live TV. There wasn't some journalistic /reporting need for ESPN to film there or in the manner they did. They were there because it had good odds of drama. I'll grant people do act differently though in front of a live tv crew verse a documentary. In a non-live setting they usually need booze to get an emotional effect like that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
"painting him as attention seeking": Also this: Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You don't have to defend why you thought it was cheapened but some people are just pointing out that it was a little silly for the stance to change because of the presence of OWN cameras. If you want to defend that flip, that's okay, but there really isn't much defense unless you live in the delusional world of purity of sports. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It can't possibly make you cynical because a cynical person believes ESPN cameras cheapen the moment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Unless it's a home video a camera is a camera and it's a manufactured moment, so I don't understand the cynical thing. A cynical person would be cynical about the ESPN cameras. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I thought about this...but if they are looking for an agreement from them all not to sue, how can they stop the one guy from doing so? I guess I'm just not really sure about the ownership structure here. If the association as an entity would agree to not sue, hypothetically on a 10-1 vote, any dissenters would only have a claim against the association and not the cubs. But I guess that's why the association wouldn't want to override any dissenters and agree? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I am a little surprised that one owner is enough to stop an otherwise unanimous opinion though. What kind of agreement did these guys sign? Taking other ownership agreements for instance, it doesn't take all 30 MLB owners to vote yes to a new media deal. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yea but most people that stubborn are easily identified early on in my experience. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You were trying to paint him as attention seeking and only backtracked to the "I didn't realize it was staged before" argument before realizing how silly that stance was, which we are happy to point out, since it was always staged. I suppose the gay thing never really came from you but otherwise we're all just leading you down the path you're setting up. I mean the cake thing, really. Trying to connect it to a tv producer... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yea I mean, how long does this court case last? Longer than it took to change course on the plans why they patiently waited? And you're still going to court and possibly facing an injunction. Sounds like it should have been clear very early on that the non litigation route was never realistic and pursuing it was blind hope and not a smart business move. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
