The Cubs were 3rd in "prospect points," according to mlb.com. 1st was the Astros, 2nd was the Red Sox. How good do you feel?
Javier Baez – 7 (No. 2 SS)
Kris Bryant – 9 (No. 2 3B)
Albert Almora – 18 (No. 4 OF)
C.J. Edwards – 42 (No. 20 P)
Jorge Soler – 49 (No. 11 OF)
Arismendy Alcantara – 89 (No. 4 2B)
Pierce Johnson – 100 (No. 58 P)
Something that really becomes apparently is how poor our pitching prospects really are. Even though we had 2 make the list, there are 58 pitchers on the Top 100 – an average team would expect to have 2. Furthermore, our 2 are worse than the average spot (the 20th instead of the 15th, and the 58th instead of the 45th). That all being said, we still have dynamic positional prospects, including a Top 4 entry at every infield slot (Vogelbach did not make the Top 100, but only one 1B did. Vogelbach is the No. 4 1B prospect.)
Whether or not these minor league accolades will translate into major league wins remains to seen. However, it's undeniable that the farm system is immeasurably better than it was the day Hoyer took office.
Comments
Moving to the suburbs is a complete non-starter. People from the suburbs will come into the city to see the Cubs, but people from the city won’t head out to the suburbs. Hell, I don’t even see my friends more than once a year once they move to the suburbs. At this point, unless they are our best friends, we just go ahead and write them off once they leave the city. It’s just a pain in the ass to get out there.
The issue with moving away from where they are now to another area of the city is that you lose the party infrastructure that’s already been built up around Wrigley. That’s half of what gets you the steady attendance is the fact that there’s so much to do before and after the game. You get a beer before, head into the ballpark, and then get a couple afterwards. It’s a huge draw.
They don’t need a new ballpark, they just need to fix the one they have. Even if it costs almost as much as a new park, in the end the location is more important than the amenities offered inside the park. Remember, the three most important things in real estate: Location, Location, Jumbotron.
JasonQuote Reply
Jason wrote:
It’s true. Our first house didn’t sell for as much as we were hoping for, but this house is praised at more. Must be the jumbotron out back.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
Jason wrote:
Again, I never said they should move to the suburbs. I never said they should move at all. I’m saying it is a fallacy to believe it can NEVER happen. If the current location is unviable (and I believe it is nearing that point), THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.
Of course, they would lose fans. Of course they would lose the built in brand of partying with the Cubs. But a winning team solves a lot of that problem and they are getting closer to being a draw on their own merits, It is a mistake to assume they can never move and the rooftops acting under that assumption will result in mutual assured destruction of the Wrigleyville neighborhood. The difference is the Cubs CAN exist outside of Wrigleyville. The rooftop owners can not. They are the ones (fairly or unfairly) that need to bend on this.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
I’ve been insistent that the Cubs move for probably as long or longer than I’ve been at this blogging thingy. I know little about the city and don’t believe that the Cubs can’t make it work elsewhere, whether it’s in the suburbs. However, it would obviously be better if it was in the city and there’s almost no chance there isn’t some land available with which they could build a stadium and all the the bars will follow. In 100 years people will have a debate about whether or not they can move from that location. Maybe if they’re lucky they could open a new ballpark when they’re gearing up to celebrate 200 years without a championship.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
To paraphrase Marilyn Monroe, increased revenue streams don’t buy championships but my goodness doesn’t it help?
Berselius, Cubs #12 prospectQuote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
I should have made it more clear that I wasn’t talking about you, but about others who are saying they wouldn’t care if they moved to the suburbs.
It *could* happen. They could move elsewhere in the city. I’m just saying it would be a mistake. Their location (not the building, the location) is perfect for a ballpark. It turns the game into an event and I think that’ll always lead to better attendance than a fancy ballpark.
JasonQuote Reply
@ Jason:
I dont know much about it because I’ve never been to Wrigley; but you’re telling me the Al Yellon’s of the world won’t go to the burbs? I just don’t believe that. This team has 100,000 person waiting list for season tickets. I absolutely don’t believe that a good/contending Cubs team won’t pack a stadium no matter where it’s located. A brand new stadium could be really nice as well. It could have its own amenities.
NateQuote Reply
@ Nate:
I mean, there are 7 million people in the suburbs and they do love parking, which a suburban stadium could offer. So maybe I’m wrong. But I bought season tickets this year and I’m 100% sure I wouldn’t have done that if they weren’t in the city. But I really hate going out to the suburbs, so maybe I’m not a good judge.
As someone else said, they’re the Chicago Cubs, not the Schaumburg or Rosemont Cubs. They suburbs aren’t the city.
JasonQuote Reply
Move to the burbs
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
@ Jason:
I tend to agree with Nate here. I just don’t see what it matters where they play. If you were to move them to a different state, I stilt think they’re one of the most profitable teams in baseball. Most of the world’s Chicago Cubs fans aren’t front Chicago. Obviously they’d lose that huge base, but Cubs fans fly from all over to attend games. Clearly it would be better if they were to stay in the city/suburbs of Chicago where that base already exists, but new ballpark, new amenities, new everything is going to create profits all by itself.
The Cubs probably won’t move. They’ll probably buy off the rooftops in some way, but the idea they can’t move just can’t be true. If Cubs fans are as loyal to the team as everyone says, then it shouldn’t matter.
The best thing that could have happened was if the Tribune moved the team the day they bought them.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
Travis Wood ————-> $3.9 million
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
Couldn’t we use the NFL or NBA as examples? Those teams seem to move to a different city every 3 years and do alright.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
I don’t know, what can I say, I enjoy the Chicago Cubs being in Chicago and I’m hoping they don’t move (I think I’m pretty safe as a move seems pretty unlikely).
That being said, I’d really appreciate it if they didn’t suck quite so much.
JasonQuote Reply
Some excellent points made in this comment at the end of last thread: http://obstructedview.net/commentary-and-analysis/why-i-dont-support-the-wrigleyville-rooftop-owners.html#comment-206900
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ Jason:
Yeah, I don’t know either. I’m not going to go to any games at Wrigley because they suck (and I live in Kansas) and I wouldn’t go to any games in a new park, suburb or city, since they suck. I’d also appreciate it if they didn’t suck so much.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
I have attended one game at one of the RF rooftops. It was a bus trip with my brother’s work (me and a bunch of accountants..) The rooftop was packed, but there were two of us total, actually trying to watch the game in Wrigley. Everyone else was drinking, eating, and socializing, occasionally glancing up at one of the 10 TVs there, half of which had other things on other than the baseball game. Even with an impaired view, I very much doubt the rooftops will lose a ton of business.
As far as the suburbs move question, I don’t know a ton about Chicago. Most of my Wrigley trips have been bus trips over from Iowa, where we’re dropped off in front of Wrigley. The few times I’ve driven to a game, we drop the car in a burb and ride the train in. I would assume that the same trains could take people from Chicago to the burbs for a game, yes?
Selfishly, it would be easier for me to get to a Cubs game if it were in a burb, but I understand the allure of staying at Wrigley. I agree 100% with Aisely and everyone else saying that something has to change in the relationship between the rooftop owners and the Cubs, but with both sides being dicks about it, I don’t know how that’s actually going to happen.
On a side note, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. I’ve sat through 30+ years of shitty baseball and hung with this team. They’ve done a lot of stupid shit, but this renovation shit is hands down the one thing that’s pissed me off the most about this franchise..and that’s saying a lot.
/rant
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
Consider how terrible the team has always been. Probably one of the worst franchises, yet they still have one of the biggest followings. Is that following due to being the Cubs? I think that following is due to being the Chicago Cubs. The vast majority of people like the team because of where they play and the fact that unlike a lot of other stadiums, it is fun before, during, and after the game regardless of how the team is doing. Wrigley field is one of the top tourist destinations in the city, why do we assume that any stadium the cubs play in will be anything like it in terms of attractiveness? Because the team is just that good that people have to go to see them wherever they play? Add in all the awesomeness that Wrigley provides during the postseason. People out on the streets during games for possible fly balls. No, you can’t replace Wrigley and expect the team to be in a better position.
AndrewQuote Reply
Cardinals fans reacting to LaRussa having a blank cap for his HOF plaque. (dying laughing)
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BewoYFuCYAE0omb.png[/img]
Aisle424Quote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
That is a good post. I think one of the biggest problem with the Ricketts’ ownership is that he / they made it clear he really wanted to own the Cubs vs strictly a business decision. There weren’t a ton of people lining up to make those first round bids and the bids made by local groups were pretty low. I would guess that this is due to the Tribune insistence on structuring the deal to minimize capital gains which is now hamstringing Ricketts’ in several areas.
Even Ricketts was able to knock $50M+ or so off the sale price when they were allowed to do further due diligence after being approved. IIRC, this was due to the TV and radio contracts and the accounting patty-cake the various Tribune divisions were doing in valuing these properties. I remember Cuban making comments that the more he heard about the eventual deal the happier he was he was rejected (this could certainly be sour grapes on his part though).
cwolf, older than dirtQuote Reply
Andrew wrote:
Again, tell me where I said it would be a better position. I said it would be the ONLY position left. IT IS FALLING APART. LITERALLY.
Aisle424Quote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
A great post. Well worth the read.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Well, even if the stadium did actually fall apart, moving wouldn’t be the only position. They could raze the existing structure and rebuild a brand new brick-for-brick replica on the grounds of the old one, complete with whatever renovations they wanted (except outfield signage).
Actually, if a tornado knocked down the existing building tomorrow, I’m not sure that would be such a bad idea. The savings and new revenue streams from a new location would have to be big enough to make up for the fact that your attendance might start to resemble the White Sox’s (even when you win), and I think it’d at least be a close call.
fang2415Quote Reply
Myles wrote:
Really a great post. I clicked over to his blog and upon brief skimming so far, it looks really quality. I definitely need to take more time to read more of it.
http://www.thestealthgm.blogspot.com/
Aisle424Quote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
Why do you keep insisting that the Cubs move to Iowa?
JasonQuote Reply
@ fang2415:
The Cubs seem dead set on doing the renovations over a couple of years to keep the park open, but why not just do it all at once? It would suck to have to play at the Cell (or wherever) for a year, but no Cubs baseball for a year would clearly put most of the rooftops out of business.
Berselius, Cubs #12 prospectQuote Reply
Let’s not boycott the rooftops. We just need to go there and sneak some goats in in our backpacks.
[img]https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1601062_656666467705794_1366986644_n.jpg[/img]
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Berselius, Cubs #12 prospect wrote:
I’m sure they (the rooftop businesses) could hold on with their banks knowing that it was only temporary.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Yeah. Aisley pointed out on twitter that they can cut pretty much all of their overhead and probably do okay for a year.
Berselius, Cubs #12 prospectQuote Reply
The problem with moving to Schaumburg isn’t so much that the city slickers won’t travel there, although that is probably true (and Yellon would just move to Schaumburg). It’s that the suburbanites at the other end of suburbia will be even farther away. Locating things centrally is a thing. If I lived in Evanston or Deerfield and the Cubs played in Tinley Park, I’d go to way less games than if they were still in the city.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Andrew:
29 other teams don’t have everything that Wrigley has to offer yet most of them do pretty well. The entire idea that the Cubs financial success now and in the future hinges on Wrigley is quite sad to me. If this is accurate, the Cubs have zero incentive to ever build a good baseball team. And fans in general have zero interest in them doing so. That’s pretty fucking pathetic and it’s not the team that should be called losers. It’s the fans, myself included.
If what some of you are saying is accurate, there is only one thing I can say about it: Cubs fans are easily the worst fans in all of sports. Not professional sports, but just sports. Even the local pinball team that nobody knew has better fans.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
Loser
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Andrew:
The Cubs have such a huge following for several reasons, but to me none of them is bigger then WGN. They were on national television several times a week. They now have a national fan base. I’m from North Carolina. The Cubs have the 2nd largest fanbase in NC after the Braves because of WGN. I’ve been to Chicago 2 times in my life, and neither was to see the Cubs. The Cubs have one of the top 2 or 3 road fan attendances at visiting parks, after probably BOS and NYY. Ive seen the Cubs in ATL, WASH, PHI (5x), and the amount of Cubs fans is anywhere from 30-60% of attendance. Sure, Wrigley is a great part of the Cubs, but I’m telling you as someone who’s been a Cub fan since childhood, and rarely set foot in the state of Illinois, let alone Chicago, this team has a ton of fucking fans. If they will field a decent team regularly, they will have NO PROBLEM selling tickets anywhere they are. They fucking filled up Miller park in 08 because the team was badass. If they’ll drive 90 miles to watch the Cubs in a 90+ win season, I think they’ll manage to get to the suburbs.
NateQuote Reply
Hey, the Silver Ballsacks got 3rd in the Mid-Ohio Flipoff last winter, so I’d say our fans are pretty quality.
MylesQuote Reply
Nate wrote:
Great points. I’d go to fucking Bourbonnais if the Cubs were good.
MylesQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
I think you’re right dmick. I think living in Chicago causes some fans to not realize what a national team this is, and (for very good reasons) they always associate seeing the Cubs with Wrigley (well obviously). As someone not from the midwest, and who’s never seen the Cubs at Wrigley, I realize they’re alot bigger than that. I’ve met fucking Cubs fans everywhere, including Greece and Scotland (they were americans but not Chicagoans).
I’m not even in the “move to the suburbs absolutely” crowd per se. I’m just saying the fans of this team will watch them anywhere. They’ve followed a miserable, shitty team and organization for decades, mindlessly following and “hoping”. They’re not rational. They will not stop because the team decides its a good business and competitive advantage to get a new ballpark. Eventually, EVERY SINGLE TEAM gets a new park. The Cubs probably should too.
NateQuote Reply
The more I think about it, the more I think Donald –> CHI makes a lot of sense. Interior pressure is important right now, and there are enough 4-3 OLBs with top-notch pass-rushing ability in this draft that they could get their edge rusher on Day 2.
For CHI, Aaron Donald and whichever of Kyle Van Noy, Dee Ford and Ryan Shazier slips to Day 2 might be better than Ealy and Will Sutton, imo.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Yes we would all go wherever to see the cubs, but were on a blog talking about the cubs in january, so we clearly are not the average fans. Wrigley is a HUGE advantage. It is a tourist destination. It is a guaranteed 30,000 plus fans a game even when the team is terrible. Yes there are 29 other teams in baseball but the ones that have big revenues also either in the largest markets, LA and NY, and/or have had big success recently like Boston (who also benefits from a historic ballpark). Personally if the cubs played in the Cell and the Sox played at Wrigley I would have been a sox fan. Wrigley is actually a really beautiful stadium and I don’t really care about the cement falling or troughs or crap like that. It is enjoyable to watch a game there no matter how good the team is. The cubs would be so much more boring to watch if they played in a cookie-cutter generic stadium without any of the cool stuff at wrigley.
AndrewQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
The way I see it, Wrigley and several decades of nationwide WGN coverage don’t need to replace the team being good as a source of value; they just add to it.
Most MLB teams lose a ton of money (relatively, anyway) if their team sucks. The Tribune, to its credit, found ways to make money even when the team sucked. To its debit, it then used those revenue streams as an excuse to let the team suck. But it’s mostly those revenue streams that make the Cubs business successful despite the Cubs baseball team sucking.
In my mind, adding a regularly decent baseball team to the existing sources of value is what will make the Cubs a financial powerhouse. A good team alone can probably stay financially competitive, but a good team + (viable) Wrigley + nationwide fanbase has an Unfair Financial Advantage. That sounds good to me.
I think the Ricketts’ real choice is between fielding a shitty team and making a little money like the Trib did, or fielding a good team and making a shit-ton of money like the Red Sox do. If that’s not enough of an incentive for them to win then they’re a lot stupider than even people here think they are (dying laughing).
fang2415Quote Reply
We must remember that the Tribune changed the way ownership viewed the Cubs. To the Tribune, it was just another entertainment program, just like shows their CW network. It would yield 648 hours of relatively cheap, fixed cost TV programming per year. The marketing strategy was sign a marquee player to draw in the casual fan and turn on the cameras. It was when the 20 somethings found that they could sit in the sun and drink beach in the bleachers instead of North Avenue Beach, Wrigley Field became the largest outdoor beer garden in the city. Those new ball park profits were put into the main Trib bank account along with its other divisions’ incomes.
Fan expectations and ownership expectations are not necessarily the same. One must be wary of the disconnect that happened during the Trib ownership and that continues on today. Just prior to GM’s bankruptcy, that company was merely a pension and health insurance benefits firm that built cars on the side. The Tribune viewed the Cubs as an entertainment product, not a baseball franchise. In the case of current Cub ownership, the Ricketts are really a real estate development and property management firm that owns a baseball tenant on the side.
TheStealthGMQuote Reply
Lots of interesting stuff here to consider on the non-baseball side of things. I’d like to throw a question out to folks on a related note: regardless of what the motivations of the current ownership group might be (and I certainly don’t know too much about them), do folks generally think that the Rickettses have an obligation to spend beyond the team’s budget to improve the ballpark or, for that matter, the team?
I’m really not sure what my opinion is. In other arenas, I feel like the majority of business owners probably fail the test when it comes to anything other than the bottom line (e.g. supporting their community at large, taking care of their employees and customers, environmental stewardship, etc.), and of course, YMMV. I also feel like baseball owners generally have greater responsibility to the communities that they are a part of, though not necessarily due to any sort of civic obligation. Instead, I feel like most owners fall well short because they take public money by the metric fuckton and deliver very little in return.
Even though I’d rather use a shotgun as a dentist than offer any sort of support or affirmation to the Ricketts family (primarily for personal and political reasons), I’m inclined to offer that their obligation to the community is less than pretty much any other ownership group precisely because they have taken very little in that regard, relatively speaking. With the exception of Oakland (which remodeled the Coliseum about 15-20 years ago, but to the detriment of baseball operations there), every other ballpark in the majors has received nine-figure support from local and state government. That includes Fenway, which was gifted massively valuable street frontage that has allowed them to capture a lot of gameday revenue that would otherwise have gone to outside businesses, and Pac Bell, which didn’t take much in the form of direct subsidy but got significant gifts in the form of infrastructure.
I’m inclined to say that they don’t have the obligation to go out of pocket to fix Wrigley as anything other than an investment, and that they don’t have the obligation to go out of pocket to improve the product on the field without the expectation that it will ultimately improve their bottom line. I’m not dead set on this, though, and would be interested to hear what other folks think about it.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
I agree Ryno. I thought Donald was a late 1st rounder before the Senior Bowl and hearing that he’s making the Senior Bowl his bitch might get him drafted in the Top 15. If the Bears draft Donald, there’s no need to re-sign Melton and they can use that money to get a DE.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
What Donald did at the Senior Bowl is basically what he’s been doing all year. I’m just proud the NFL is catching up, because he wouldn’t even have sniffed the first round five years ago.
Honestly, I’d re-sign Melton and still draft Donald. Other than jumbo packages, you could play both of those guys between the guards. You can get a serviceable DE Day 2.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
I wouldn’t say they have an OBLIGATION. I don’t think any sports owner has an obligation, whether they’ve taken public funds or not. Their obligation is to support the economy by paying the taxes they pay and employing the people they do to run it.
Where sports teams get complicated is that they are built on competition, so profitable teams that aren’t successful (whether propped up by a myhology around deteriorating stadium or via revenue sharing from other teams) have no natural inclination to get better.
This is why it’s hard when a corporation owns a team because individual egos get diluted in a management group whose first goal is profit. The Yankees aren’t successful just because they have more money than anyone else, they had an owner who fucking hated to lose. That drove them sometimes foolishly and other times successfully, but it drove them and that desire backed with cash is hard to beat over the long run.
This is why so many fans wish Mark Cuban had won the bid.
Ricketts has made many mistakes, which makes me dubious about the bright and shiny future they are selling because even though I think his desires are truly about fielding a perpetual winning team, he doesn’t seem to have the tools to execute that plan, nor does he seem to have surrounded himself with people who can execute that plan on the business side.
So the question I am left with is: Are Theo/Jed/Superfriends good enough to overcome a CBA weighted against successful teams, in an atmosphere where most other teams’ front offices are using at least the basics of their own methodologies, and with a business side that is struggling to provide them with funding beyond a mid-market team?
My answer isn’t rainbows and sunshine, but do I expect them to dig in their personal pockets to rectify the situation? Not really. I hope and pray that they will, but I can’t find myself able to argue that me, any other fans, or the city itself are entitled to that kind of out-of-pocket spending.
Aisle424Quote Reply
Just wanted to say GalBTS and I have been plowing through The Sopranos for the first time. We just met Johnny Cakes and I could not stop laughing because I remembered how MO used to call Brenly that.
GBTSQuote Reply
Andrew wrote:
Were there even 10,000 in the seats at home games in September? I know a few of the games i tuned into that I’d be surprised if there was more than that. Wrigley is a tourist destination. Wrigley does help attract some fans. The Cubs do have a huge following and some of that, a small percentage FWIW, are probably fans only because of these things. Most aren’t and the actual attendance numbers at Wrigley, a ballpark that has all these awesome thingy jobs we’re talking about, couldn’t actually fill half the stadium.
So yeah, all of what you said, but winning more importantly. I don’t think anything has made that more clear than the last couple years. Fans, even the ones who like Wrigley thingamabobs, don’t go when the team sucks. These dohickies just don’t pack the stadium like you’re saying.
Maybe if you say the team is good all of this and that and some more of it too, but you cannot possibly say “even when they lose.” It ain’t true. We have evidence of it.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
Normally I would agree with you but the Bears don’t have the money anymore to re-sign Melton. They are sitting at about $12 million from what I last saw of their available cap and after the money they need for the rookies($5 million?), I don’t think they can afford Melton. I think they let Melton walk, go DT in the first and sign Michael Bennett in FA.
MuckerQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
No. I don’t think they have any obligation to do anything other than make money. Even that isn’t an obligation, but it’s goal number 1. If goal number 2 (winning) comes at the expense of goal number 1, I’d need an awful good reason to do so. Curing cancer or something.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
I think we’ve forgotten the half-empty ballparks that were common prior to 1998. That season changed a lot of things and the Cubs have won just enough to keep the fans relatively happy and keep the optimism shining bright. 1998, good season in 2001, 2003, good season in 2004, 2007, 2008, even 2009 was competitive (first place in August). This is the longest Cubs fans have gone without a competitive team since before 1998.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ Mucker:
No one to restructure? I would think they’d have some dead weight somewhere.
Melton will be expensive, but Michael Bennett ought to be comparable in salary. At similar prices, I’d take Melton.
The good thing about their situation, though, is that there are a few good DLs available. Between Bennett, Orakpo, Michael Johnson, Melton and a few others, just take the cheapest and draft the other position.
Like You CareQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
I should rephrase I guess 30,000+ fans on average. And thats after being terrible for 3+ years and no rings for over 100 years. http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance
The Cubs draw more fans than Cincinatti, Pittsburgh, Atlanta who have shiny new ballparks and very good teams to go with them.
You’re opinion of who constitutes the majority of the Cubs fanbase is also skewed by not actually being from chicago so most of the fans you know probably don’t care about wrigley as much as fans from chicago do.
AndrewQuote Reply
@ Like You Care:
Well, yeah they can try to restructure Peppers again but they’ve already done that twice and if I’m Peppers I’d tell them to fuck off. Peppers will probably be cut so that should free up about $8 million but then it creates another huge hole. The Bears have a lot of free agents on the defensive side of the ball.
MuckerQuote Reply
@ Andrew:
Paid attendance is somewhat misleading since the Cubs have so many season ticket holders and most of the tickets purchased for games late in the season were purchased early or before the season. The actual attendance in September games the last year, maybe two has been significantly worse and was discussed many times here and elsewhere. It’s become an issue. The Cubs don’t want to be broadcasting games with a bunch of empty seats in June or July and a half-full ballpark in August and September.
Are you saying that if they moved elsewhere there would be noticeably fewer season ticket holders? A large percentage would just drop off the list and give them up entirely? If so, that’s kind of sad. If not, those same paid attendance numbers could be expected late in the season.
My view of Wrigley and their ability to move is no doubt skewed due to me not being from Chicago, but again, most fans aren’t. Most fans in this country don’t really give a shit about Wrigley Field. It’s the people in Chicago and I understand that. I’d just like someone to explain to me how all these other teams do fairly well, how teams in the NFL, NBA and NHL relocate and have success and how the Cubs, in one of the largest markets in the country, would fail to produce profits of similar size if they moved a few feet. I’m not even talking about moving cross-country, though in all honesty I don’t think that would make a bit of difference either. But no one is really suggesting they need to do that. No one is really suggesting they even need to move to a suburb.
Every time this discussion comes up, all I hear is Wrigley, Wrigley, Wrigley. Lots of teams don’t have Wrigley. The Cubs actual attendance when they suck is not good, like other teams who suck. The Cubs actual attendance when they are good is also quite good, like most other teams who are good. Despite a larger market than Cincy, Wrigley isn’t so much fuller than GAB when the teams have similar records in August and September. I know. I’ve been to games in Cincy many times and even when the Reds suck, they still get 8-10K to show up. Not a whole lot less than Wrigley.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
Not based on any facts, but off the top of my head I’d say Wrigley itself is important for out of town fans after seeing it on TV etc and maybe doing yearly visits. The location of Wrigley is important for people in Chicago. It’s pretty quick and easy to get to Wrigley by public transportation or cab from downtown / near north where a lot of the corporate season ticketholders are located and where a lot of the fans live. That changes if they move to the suburbs. I think their marketing and target audience would have to shift in that case and that’s why I see moving to the suburbs as a pretty big risk.
cwolf, older than dirtQuote Reply
As an individual who became a Cubs fan long before moving to Chicago and going to Wrigley Field on a regular basis, I have the following brief thoughts:
1. I’d rather the Cubs be a winning baseball club than be trapped at Wrigley Field.
2. Aside from the view of the field and the manual scoreboard, plus the familiar marquee on Clark & Addison, Wrigley Field kinda sucks.
3. I can relate to the opinions that Wrigley Field is a tourist attraction and there’s a lot of stuff to do around the ballpark so there is an economic benefit to sticking around.
4. At the same time, there’s not much for my kid to do in the area so after the ballgame we just go home. I’m no longer young enough to enjoy getting plastered-ass drunk before/during/after a ball game so that doesn’t appeal to me.
#shrug
After the stuff Kaplan posted today I’m really interested in seeing the contract and also having a lawyer of GBTS-caliber or above analyze it.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I agree, esp. with Point #2. Unless you are sitting in one of the too many shitty seats. (dying laughing). Personally, my choice would be to tear the place down (as much as possible with the bullshit landmark status) and re-build right there. I only go 10-12 games a year so they (rightfully) don’t really care about my opinion. I would go to roughly the same number of games if they moved to the suburbs unless they did something ridiculous like moving to Gurnee.
cwolf, older than dirtQuote Reply
Wrigley has benefits in bringing in the casual fan. Their lows are never as low as they should be, and the highs are hit when the team is even kind of good. But a lot of that is because of the season ticket base that MB talked about.
That sort of skewing is extremely beneficial for them and is what is allowing them to pull off this rebuild the way they are. They’re going to punt their 3rd season in a row (after 2 horrible seasons where they actually tried to win) and they’ll still have 2.5 million tickets sold at the end of the year – maybe even a little more if the kids do come up late in the year and there is a little boost to sales as a result.
Personally, I think the bulk of the season ticket holders would move to a new stadium as long as the team was good to start out. The fans will want a good team and once they are buying, they’ll stay because that’s what Cubs fans do. The corporate seats will move almost without thinking about it. I don’t know the percentages of corporate vs. personal owned seats in the season ticket base, but I know a good portion of the lower bowl is corporate at this point.
I also think more corporation swill line up to buy packages at a new park because it will have the amenities they demand and the rooftops that they’ve been patronizing now will no longer be an option. There’s no loyalty there.
It will be a big PR blow and some fans may check out, but most will get sucked in because they can’t help themselves. What is Al going to do, just sit at home by himself as the Cubs win playoff games? Bullshit. And that’s the thousands of people who go to Cubs Convention. They’ll cry about it and talk about how great it used to be, but when the Cubs win things, all of the beer and sunshine and losing will quickly get swept under the rug.
Nobody wanted to see the old Chicago Stadium get torn down and have a big corporate money machine replace it, but the Bulls were winning championships so nobody cared during basketball season. Now that the Blackhawks are awesome, I don’t hear about the old stadium anymore at all. It’s like it never existed.
Winning solves everything and if they are truly building the base of a winner here they are poised to move to a domed stadium advertised up like a NASCAR vehicle with t-shirt guns, cheerleaders, and laser light shows and people will show up.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ GBTS:
Wow, yeah, he did look like Johnny Cakes (dying laughing)
fang2415Quote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
I don’t know. The Astros are the most profitable team in baseball and easily the worst. They also were terrible in attendance. I don’t think attendance matters that much anymore. It helps that the Astros weren’t paying anybody anything of course, but the Cubs could have done a better job at lowering their payroll (at the expense of getting less talent in return).
It’s something for people to remember. The Astros play without Wrigley Field, manual scoreboard, rainbows/sunshine and Clark the Cub. In fact, they play only the occasional game in some years at Wrigley Field now. They play in a newish stadium which was originally named Enron. That’s about like naming it Phillip Morris Stadium at R.J. Reynolds and NFL Ballpark. They were 13th in attendance out of 15 in the AL last year. They were the most profitable team in baseball.
I’d also bet that their home September games weren’t a lot less full than Wrigley. Not a lot.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ Aisle424:
Yeah, there are definitely some strange market dynamics at work with sports teams. Any sort of substitution effect is significantly altered by scarcity — in other words, if you want to see a ballgame, you typically don’t have many other options. I guess you could go see the Sox or Kane County or something, but even that isn’t really a true substitute due to the unusually strong brand loyalty that’s in play.
And you don’t just have a monopoly or cartel at work, either, but instead a cartel that rewards failure to a surprisingly high degree through drafts, salary caps, and even stuff like we’ve recently seen in Miami (“we can’t compete without a new ballpark, so give me a ton of money!”). That’s really what inclines me to feel like, to some extent, owners do have at least some responsibility to be custodians of their product on the field. I’m not the biggest fan of many mainstream economic theories anyway, but in a situation where you clearly don’t have a self-correcting market mechanism to rely on I think it’s a pretty good argument for injecting arguments about ethics and what not into the conversation.
As for what that means for the Cubs, I’m not sure. I’ve got a lot of faith in the front office, though that probably means less than it did 10 or 20 years ago. At least they’re trying to hire guys who know what they’re doing. But I’m not sure the Rickettses are the right folks to handle the business end of running the Cubs, either. They made their fortune in a business that’s notorious for harboring people who make money just because they have money. I’m not sure that’s too compatible with running a business in an industry where many of the normal rules and practices are out the window, and especially in a situation like running the Cubs, where a high level of innovation is needed to deal with further constraints (i.e. Wrigley Field) that they bought when they bought the club.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
I think Todd Ricketts is a good bet to cure cancer.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
I’m not sure how it ever came out, but I recall that there was some debate as to whether or not the numbers claiming the Astros as the most profitable team were accurate (perhaps even between staffers at Forbes). I’ve been thinking recently about how the Cubs should actually be considered in terms of revenue generation, and although that same list indicates that they do quite well on that front there are some areas where they’re definitely hampered.
The TV contract is the one that gets the most attention, but I’d also point out (like others have in the past couple of threads) that their premium seating options are quite limited. That’s a big part of the gameday revenue picture for any team, and it’s got to put some pressure on the Cubs, with the rooftops only making it worse. It’s something to think about when talking about whether or not the Cubs could thrive in a suburban location. Those dollars are almost exclusively corporate; across the league, ‘d say that nearly 100% of luxury boxes are corporate-leased, with the vast majority of other ‘club’ seats falling into that category as well.
You can look at the A’s situation and see how important they feel that is. The biggest obstacle they have to increasing revenue is the lack of corporate presence in the East Bay, which makes it almost impossible for them to fill premium seating in their current location. They’re never going to move to another ballpark in Oakland. There are maybe three major corporations in the East Bay — Clorox, Kaiser, and Oracle. That’s not enough to support a significant amount of premium seating even if they build a palace in downtown Oakland. Instead, they’ve proposed a 32,000-seat stadium in Fremont, which is a quick jaunt to Silicon Valley and more money than anyone would know what to do with. That’s very, very telling.
So would a move to the burbs be something that would help or harm the Cubs in that respect? I really don’t know enough about Chicago to have a good answer to that, though I suspect you’d definitely want to be on the northwest side, if not the north side proper. If they tried to build somewhere like Bridgeview, the CEOs of all of those companies who live up in Lake Forest might not be into buying boxes, and you’d be no better than you started. Not that Wrigley’s great in terms of access, but it’s conveniently between work and home for a lot of those folks.
uncle daveQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
I don’t really know the answer either and I think most of us are just talking out our asses. We don’t know. I just balk at the idea that the Cubs couldn’t succeed financially if they moved to the suburbs and really disbelieve the idea they’d not do so while moving within the city. To me, the second idea there is just preposterous. Suburbs? I bet they would do nearly as well, but I have no idea. I wouldn’t bet much on it. Within the city, I’d bet a large chunk of my savings. Fortunately for my marriage, that bet won’t have to be made in our lives. I’d hate to see her reaction to this: “honey, I bet half our savings that the Cubs will do at least nearly as well financially at their new ballpark.”
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
This is the Internet. Stuff like that never happens.
Yeah, I don’t know either. I think that the devil is in the details — they would likely be very successful in some locations, not so much in others. (Note that Comiskey is more proximate to downtown, or at least easier to get to, but doesn’t draw nearly as well as Wrigley due in large part to other location-specific reasons.)
I’d bet a large chunk of my savings as well, but I’m just not in the business of making five dollar bets these days.
uncle daveQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
I think I owe you something from a bet I lost, right? What do I owe you?
Just remembered something about that.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
I thought it was a case of Cookies BBQ Sauce, isn’t that the standard ACB/OV bet?
I think a lot of Chicagoans like the accessibility of Wrigley Field and Wrigleyville by public transit, there are something like 5 different bus lines I know of that swing by the park including the #22 Clark bus and of course the Red Line. I don’t really care where the Cubs end up moving to if they so chose as long as I can get there easily, but that’s just me being selfish.
Did anyone already consider that the Cubs-rooftop agreement may preclude a move though? I saw that idea floated around on the internets and that didn’t really make sense to me, but I also seem to recall that one of the stipulations of the Cubs sale was that Bud Selig wanted assurances that the Cubs would never move out of Wrigley.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
I think it was something to the effect of $100 to charity if the Cubs didn’t get public funds by the end of 2012. I’m willing to say that the statute of limitations has clearly run its course on that one, though…
uncle daveQuote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
I know I’m talking out my ass. None of us know what the true financial / political / baseball situation is. It is pretty interesting to see intelligent people throw their thoughts out.
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
(dying laughing)
EDIT : Now that I think about it, that’s probably why Tom Ricketts will never move to the suburbs:
“Dad, I bet a third of our two billion plus fortune that the Cubs will do at least nearly as well financially their new ballpark.”
cwolf, older than dirtQuote Reply
@ uncle dave:
I thought the statute of limitations was 7 years. I’ll make that donation within a couple weeks if you let me know which charity. Sorry about forgetting that.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
It’s very admirable that you are doing this, kudos.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
It’s been one week since my last cigarette. That feels like a ridiculous accomplishment, but as Dusty famously said, it is what it is.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
Thanks, but if Dave was a bookie, I’d owe about $2800. I’m lucky.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
I’ll let you know what she says after Dave tells what charity.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
Unscientific poll by Kap:
Aisle424Quote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
GBTSQuote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
That’s awesome.
Aisle424Quote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
Nice. I’m down to a few a day and it’s been tough as hell – more a mental thing for me so far.
Anything by Kap –> Hard to believe that old-time media outlets have any credibility. Kap = Yellon with a few slightly better sources.
cwolf, older than dirtQuote Reply
Aisle424 wrote:
do you think so? i don’t know…if i’m ar big shot at…accenture or whatever, and have some high-end clients coming to town who are staying at the four seasons or whatever, it’s a hell of a lot easier to take them to wrigleyville than out to schaumburg. if they had to go to schaumburg, i gotta think that they just end up just running a huge tab on steaks and wine at Morton’s (or wherever) instead.
not saying that this is universal, but in the few times that i’ve been in this situation, i think that my theory holds water. in fact, the first negative effect that comes to mind when discussing moving to the burbs is the loss of corporate clients. no doubt you could pick up plenty of new corporate clients in the burbs though. but can you charge them as much? i don’t think so.
EnricoPallazzo, Subliminal Assassin Guru, EsquireQuote Reply
uncle dave wrote:
even if the motivation is strictly profit, it may still make sense to spend out-of-pocket. let’s say that the cubs have a few winning seasons in a row and then win back-to-back world series in 2016/2017. that will raise the value of the franchise significantly. just for the fuck of it, say it brings the franchise value to $1.2b. that would be a $355m profit on a $845m investment over 10 years. they could be in the red by a significant amount each year and still get a nice return.
and yes, i realize that tye calcs neglect debt service and the impending tv rights bubble and a million other things. just trying to make a point.
EnricoPallazzo, Subliminal Assassin Guru, EsquireQuote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
That’s a great but precarious point in the timeline of successful quitting. For me (and I quit several times before it stuck), there were the following turning points:
3 hours
3 days
3 weeks
6 months
You are vulnerable to cracking and throwing away what you have accomplished to varying degrees up to these points on the timeline, after which you graduate to another level of smoke-freeness. After a week you still feel anxious and like something major is missing in your reality and you’d really like to fix that shit, but that feeling starts to go away a little bit more as the days add up. After three weeks, you’ll feel that way a lot less – indeed you’ll almost feel normal but you’ll still be vulnerable to “I’ll just have one” syndrome. Just having one at this point will probably collapse the whole deal, and will continue to be a possibility up until the 6 months mark. After that point, just having one won’t automatically turn you back into an addict – in fact hopefully it will make you kind of sick and the aversion will help cement your new status as independent of the tobacco monster. Unless there are drinks involved.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
It’s been surprisingly easy to this point. I decided about 6 months ago that I’d slowly work at quitting. Like every smoker, I’d failed enough times that I wasn’t about to set a date or try to do it after my last pack or whatever. I’d start by trying to change my habits and I had no goals. That was the key thing for me. I was setting no goals. I wanted to be nowhere by a certain point. I couldn’t fail and then feel like shit for doing so.
I started by trying to cut out the cigarette after lunch and soon enough I had no inclination to go smoke. Then I began cutting out additional times that I usually smoked up until about a month ago when I figured I’d try to not have one after I got up in the morning. After a few weeks, I realized that moment alone had cut my smoking down by half and I figured what the hell.
Considering the physical problems I’ve had over the last 15 months I thought it was time to quit. This is the longest I’ve ever quit before by about 7 days so I’m pretty thrilled.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
SK, did you eat a lot more? I’d put on some weight over the last year since I hadn’t been able to exercise and now all I want to do is eat. It’s not so much in between meals that’s been the problem, but I’m just so damned hungry at lunch and dinner time. I swear, I put about 6 ounces of turkey on a sandwich the other day and was still hungry. For now I figure fuck it. I’ll lose that weight this summer. I just feel like I could put on about 90 pounds before then.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
GBTSQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
Well eating is a great substitute for that fidgety empty feeling in the early stages, so yes, but that only lasted two or three weeks.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
Makes a lot of sense. I might be able to do it this way now (and I have cut down on my coffee consumption in a similar way), but back then I could not “cut down” and the only way I could do it was cold turkey.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
It’s kind of weird because I was expecting to want to snack a lot, but I’m not. It’s just at lunch and dinner time. I don’t know, but I’ve craved a pizza over the last week and I don’t really like pizza.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
Fun fact of the day: The Dodgers have more money committed to their 2018 payroll than the Cubs do to this year’s. About $40 million more, actually.
JordanQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
If you’re ok with it, how about IAVA? They have a good rep.
uncle dave in line for theatre ticketsQuote Reply
@ uncle dave in line for theatre tickets:
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Affairs. I’d love to give it to them. I will get that donated in the next 2-3 weeks. Want me to post an image of the receipt on here to prove it?
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
I think most of you are underestimating the difference in population density between Chicago and the suburbs. Wrigley is at the heart of a young, affluent, densely populated part of Chicago. No suburb offers the access to anywhere near as many of the types of people you want to be your fans. All of those tall buildings downtown are full of people with jobs and they are currently 25 minutes away from the park and a neighborhood full of things to do. Then they can take a train or cab or bus home. You lose all that with any other location.
Let’s look at where other MLB teams have chosen to build new stadiums. Other than the Braves, who are moving from black Atlanta to white Atlanta, teams like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Detroit (!), St. Louis, Minnesota, Cleveland, and more build in the city. I’m sure they did market research and decided being in the city center was the most profitable choice.
I’m sure the dollars do not bear out that being in the suburbs is a better choice. The only one I think they could possibly consider is Rosemont because that still has CTA access. As mentioned earlier, a suburban choice is often worse for many people who are in a different part of the suburbs. People from Naperville won’t want to go to Arlington Heights. If you’re in Evanston, Schaumburg would suck to get to. People in the city will not go to games in the suburbs, unless it’s Rosemont and they can still get drunk. Train access by Metra is rigidly scheduled and doesn’t run late at night. It’s a really poor choice and travel nightmare for the 21-34 year old fans the team wants. If the team is bad, no one is going to go out to the burbs for cold April or May games, or to see scrubs in September. It would be White Sox level attendance.
JQuote Reply
J wrote:
Wrigley’s actual attendance wasn’t much greater than the White Sox last September. That’s actually pretty sad when you think about it since there are probably at least 5 to 10 times as many Cubs fans in Chicago and about 200 times as many elsewhere.
Wrigley is not the draw that some people think it is. Is it a draw? Sure, but people go to watch a good baseball team and when the Cubs don’t have one, people don’t go.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
I think it’s pretty clear that Dave was referring to the Iranian Anti-Vivisection Association. But whatever, if you’d rather waste resources on the wellbeing of Iraq and Afghan War vets instead of Iranian lab mice, well hey, it’s your money.
fang2415Quote Reply
This has been an exciting offseason for the Cubs. So much to talk about and not enough time.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
Jessica Hecht revealed the real reason Walt and Gretchen broke up: http://blogs.amctv.com/breaking-bad/2009/05/jessica-hecht-interview/
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
speaking of Breaking Bad, this is something I either missed or did not know.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
If for some reason I was going to do a list of the least exciting Cubs offseasons, 2013/2014 would easily be at the top. It would be followed by the 2012/2013.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
Obviously Walt had serious social and personality issues.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
Yeah, Brett must be loving it this year.
MylesQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
That’s putting it mildly.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ Myles:
I don’t know how he does it. There have been about 3 things to talk about this offseason and that’s being generous.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
I loved the show but Walt kept making such ridiculous facepalm-worthy decisions. But if he just made metg and STFU the show wouldn’t be as good, so…I dealt.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ J:
Agreed. Add San Francisco, Washington, Miami, and the Yankees to the list too. There’s a reason almost all of the new stadiums built over the last 20 years have been built in city centers. Because that’s where the money is, and because that’s where the people are. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, in the extremely unlikely event that the Cubs move from Clark and Addison, they’ll move to the lakefront. Either Montrose or Addison, just south of the Golf Course. Knowing this team, they’ll probably get Cubs fans to volunteer to move the bricks in an assembly line – sandbag style – down Addison to the new site. And then hire Northwestern horticulturists to uproot the ivy and replant it. You’ll have to pay for the privilege of carrying the trough though. And they’ll ask Yellon to move the misting station, so he can finally figure out what the fuck it is.
26.2cubfanQuote Reply
@ dmick89, Sweatpants Guru:
He’s a master of taking rumors or signings by other teams and relating it to what we think/hope/know about what the Cubs are doing.
For instance, every time a pitcher signs, he’ll pivot it back to how this could impact a potential Samardzija trade or extension.
Aisle424Quote Reply
@ J:
In fact, has anyone other than Atlanta built a suburban stadium? I guess the Mets, but they were always in Queens. San Diego moved from the suburbs to the city center (and out of a multi-purpose stadium).
26.2cubfanQuote Reply
Misting station. (dying laughing) forgot about that one.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
Let’s not ignore one huge reason why teams have built downtown: cities have demanded they do so if they are going to provide a large chunk of the money to the team. Downtowns aren’t what they once were and large cities have used sports teams as a way to improve the city center. They’ve essentially bribed the owners with large checks at the expense of the taxpayer.
If most of your business is walk-ins, obviously the ideal spot is to be where x people are if y people are over there and x is greater than y. This is true of almost any business that relies heavily on walk-ins. Do sports teams have a lot of walk-in customers? The Cubs have to be awfully low on that list. orts teams certainly have fewer walk-ins than a TGI Fridays.
People have made other good points here about why moving to the suburbs is not ideal. Unfortunately, the bribes the city have given the owners isn’t really one of them.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
Aisley , I did not realize you lived in Ireland. Good ideas though.
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2013/10/16/girlfriend-wont-hear-my-toilet-flatulance-if-i-turn-on-sink-taps-thinks-waterford-man/
Suburban kidQuote Reply
dmick89, Sweatpants Guru wrote:
And one of those things is Don Adams. (Did you know he died 8 years ago? At the age of 82?)
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
One of the others was the Cubs infinitely small chances of moving to a suburb. The other was Wesley Wright and Justin Ruggiano.
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/minor-leagues/baseball-prospectus-cubs-top-10-prospects.html
dmick89, Sweatpants GuruQuote Reply
Once your readers know that you update frequently, they will return to
your site on a regular basis. Creating such a list increases your blog’s value to
readers, as they may be able to find content that
they couldn’t find on your blog.
AveryQuote Reply