Tim doesn't really like Clark. He's not alone.
I like the move, but that's me. I like the thought of appealing to kids because they're too young to know any better than to cheer for the Cubs.
The rest of us have no excuse.
The Cubs have no excuse not to spend more money than what they're spending.
If the front office could improve the team by one win by overspending, they should do it. As many wins as possible. I think that's really the general idea in competitive sports.
Or not.
I don't really care about the 2014 Cubs.
The 2015 Cubs might be interesting.
If Cubs seasons were characters on Lost, 2013 and 2014 would be Nikki and Paulo.
We shouldn't be watching the Cubs right now. Going to a Cubs game right now is like showing up to a concert at the time on the ticket. It's going to be awhile before the real show starts.
Maybe 3 years.
But if you like animated bears, and I do, now is a great time to have your kids start watching.
Next season might turn out to be the Justin Timberlake episode of SNL, but this year is . . . not JT.
I'm intent not to list players on the current roster in this post. I don't have time to Google that shit.
Ok. There's dog poop on the floor. I gotta go.
EDIT: One last less random observation, from the comments.
The fact is, anything the Cubs did apart from improving the team was going to make everyone angry because the team sucks so profoundly and because the fans are paying for a decent team while the owners pay for a crappy one.
All the people in charge of non-baseball activities still have to do their jobs, and this isn’t a bad move at all. It’s actually a good one, possibly great. And the negative reaction? It’s so huge that it does much more to help the effort than to hurt it. People are talking about it. Everyone’s aware of it. The story is taking press away from the NFL conference championships for the love of bear balls.
Who cares if it’s bad press? The Cubs are bad. The enemy of the Cubs business model isn’t angry fans, it’s apathetic fans (me).
That said, I think people should vent their anger about it. I love Tim’s rant about it. I don’t share the anger, but I don’t blame anyone for being angry. But objectively, I think that anger is a sign that the Cubs are doing just enough to stoke the fires of our emotions, and emotion is what keeps us coming back when our senses tell us to do otherwise.
facepalm (dying laughing)
[img]https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/q71/1549509_10202290858967151_861663844_n.jpg[/img]
SVBQuote Reply
I do like that this is filed under commentary and analysis.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Gal-BTS is of the mind that Clark looks weird without pants because he is “fit.” She argues that mascots that are goofy looking with exaggerated chubby bellies do not look like they should have genitals, citing the Iowa Cubs’ “Cubby Bear” as an example. But because Clark has more of a human physique, one expects to find a penis.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Why are we assuming Clark is a boy bear? Lots of formerly male names are now intersexual (Leslie, Jordan, Chris, Alex, Beverly, Addison, etc. etc.). And women wear baseball caps…
I find this whole assumption to be incredibly sexist.
SVBQuote Reply
If the Cubs want to get clever with their marketing, they should steal the Daniel Bryan “Yes!” chant.
JQuote Reply
People expect to see genitals on Clark because somebody drew genitals on him.
The fact is, anything the Cubs did apart from improving the team was going to make everyone angry because the team sucks so profoundly and because the fans are paying for a decent team while the owners pay for a crappy one.
All the people in charge of non-baseball activities still have to do their jobs, and this isn’t a bad move at all. It’s actually a good one, possibly great. And the negative reaction? It’s so huge that it does much more to help the effort than to hurt it. People are talking about it. Everyone’s aware of it. The story is taking press away from the NFL conference championships for the love of bear balls.
Who cares if it’s bad press? The Cubs are bad. The enemy of the Cubs business model isn’t angry fans, it’s apathetic fans (me).
That said, I think people should vent their anger about it. I love Tim’s rant about it. I don’t share the anger, but I don’t blame anyone for being angry. But objectively, I think that anger is a sign that the Cubs are doing just enough to stoke the fires of our emotions, and emotion is what keeps us coming back when our senses tell us to do otherwise.
AndCountingQuote Reply
@ SVB:
There are no lady bears, a lady bear is a sheep.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ AndCounting:
People are actually talking about the Cubs. I agree with you for the most part about it not being bad for the team. I still hate the thing, but I loved your article.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ SVB:
Well, almost all mascots are male. Furthermore, find 100 people wearing baseball hats and I don’t know what the percentage of males will be, but it will be really really high. It’s not sexist to assume it’s male when every other mascot is and far more men wear hats than women. Add in the name and it’s a slam dunk. It’s not sexist.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Mascot Sex Determination Guru:
I don’t know, according to this article, ladies can wear baseball hats if they are leather or if they are backwards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/hats-girls_n_3937086.html
But they can only be backwards if you wear a leather jacket. So penis aside because those can be added in a doctor’s office, since Clark isn’t wearing a leather jacket or a leather hat, he is male. Q.E.D.
WaLiQuote Reply
By the way:
(dying laughing)
GBTSQuote Reply
I don’t really get the no pants thing. It’s a fucking cartoon. Where have the Concern Trolls of America been on the whole Donald Duck issue?
BerseliusQuote Reply
Nuevo Shit
http://obstructedview.net/projections/marc-hulets-top-10-prospects.html
MylesQuote Reply