AHcreative Posted April 4, 2007 Author Share Posted April 4, 2007 So if someone did buy the Cubs, would they move and/or get a new identity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 So if someone did buy the Cubs, would they move and/or get a new identity?You know how they always told you that there are "no stupid questions"? Well they were wrong.A simple "No" does not even begin to illustrate how unlikely either thing you are suggesting will happen. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 So if someone did buy the Cubs, would they move and/or get a new identity?Yes, the most popular team in the National League would move. Double-bullseye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Just to play Devil's advocate....the "Yankees" approach has sunk over a billion dollars in payroll (I'm pretty sure its that cumulatively) for nada in the championship department since 2000. Also, its not like the Cubs weren't spending money before.I don't know the numbers, but championships aren't everything. I'm sure that the investments made in the on-the-field products of the Cubs and Yankees in the past decade haven't gone for naught. Both teams have been mostly competitive in that time, continue to draw, and continue to rank in the top half of merchandise sold.The economics of baseball aren't fun, but not every team exists to win championships. In fact, I'd say few do. Can you imagine the mission statement of the Kansas City Royals? It clearly isn't winning championships. Seems like it's mostly ensuring continued survival. 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Financially, there's no doubt that the Cubs have been a resounding success under Chicago Tribune ownership. Attendance surpasses 3 million in a low-capacity ballpark, the fanbase has continued to grow, and a club that cost the paper about $20 million in 1980 is about to be sold for a billion. Problem is, the team hasn't won a damned thing. This bugs me, of course, but like you said, championships aren't everything. As painful as it can be to be a fan of the Cubs, I'd never want to be a fan of any other baseball team. It's just a really special experience. I'd rather keep suffering and coming up short on the road to winning it all and taking the whole rollercoaster ride to its completion than just fair-weathering it up in 2005 and ranting about how "only winning matters." It's just a six-month diversion. I have to enjoy it somehow, because I love baseball. Winning matters, but so does enjoying a nice summer day at the park, or in your yard with the game on the radio. Disappearing into a bunker when times get rough because you "demand a winner" is being a crappy baseball fan, and railing on people who do want to enjoy the team day-in-day-out is being a miserable human. I'm not going to shy away from criticizing the team when they suck up the joint, but I'm not giving up on them either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDR Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Financially, there's no doubt that the Cubs have been a resounding success under Chicago Tribune ownership. Attendance surpasses 3 million in a low-capacity ballpark, the fanbase has continued to grow, and a club that cost the paper about $20 million in 1980 is about to be sold for a billion. Problem is, the team hasn't won a damned thing. This bugs me, of course, but like you said, championships aren't everything. As painful as it can be to be a fan of the Cubs, I'd never want to be a fan of any other baseball team. It's just a really special experience. I'd rather keep suffering and coming up short on the road to winning it all and taking the whole rollercoaster ride to its completion than just fair-weathering it up in 2005.Good for you for sticking with your team and the special community of Cubs fans, because I know a lot who switched over to the "dark side" in '05. And that may sound sarcastic, but it's not. You have to hand it to a legion of fans that supports a 72-90 club just as much as a 90-72 one. And just to touch on the last line of your post, there were a few Sox fans who were fans before 2005. We knew each other by name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Just to play Devil's advocate....the "Yankees" approach has sunk over a billion dollars in payroll (I'm pretty sure its that cumulatively) for nada in the championship department since 2000. Also, its not like the Cubs weren't spending money before.I don't know the numbers, but championships aren't everything. I'm sure that the investments made in the on-the-field products of the Cubs and Yankees in the past decade haven't gone for naught. Both teams have been mostly competitive in that time, continue to draw, and continue to rank in the top half of merchandise sold.The economics of baseball aren't fun, but not every team exists to win championships. In fact, I'd say few do. Can you imagine the mission statement of the Kansas City Royals? It clearly isn't winning championships. Seems like it's mostly ensuring continued survival.But when the stated goal of your franchise IS to win a championship *cough*Yankees*cough*, then yes, the billion dollars is considered wasted. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Wasted indeed. It's just stupid and reactive spending. Other clubs achieve the same or more with less. There's a right way to do this ballclub thing, and this isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koizim Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I bid $7.83 and a World Series ring (thanks eBay). Engine, Engine, Number Nine, on the New York transit line, If my train goes off the track, pick it up! Pick it up! Pick it up! Back on the scene, crispy and clean, You can try, but then why, 'cause you can't intervene. We be the outcast, down for the settle. Won't play the rock, won't play the pebble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.