It's one of those times during the baseball season when we feel it's forever until the next game (a Sunday day game, a day off, a Tuesday night game -- 48 hours between games), so I thought I'd start discussion today with some of my personal thoughts about what Tom Ricketts should do when he and his family (it's not just Tom, though I suspect he'll be the Ricketts family face of the franchise) officially take over the Cubs sometime in November.
Joining the crowd, I notice that everyone else seems to be doing lists like this one, so why not me?
My suggestions are going to run the gamut from baseball operations to broadcasting to the fan experience at Wrigley Field. Before I get into my own thoughts, what do we know already about Tom Ricketts and his family?
The Ricketts family, originally from Omaha, made their initial fortune through starting a discount brokerage firm called First National Brokerage Services; it later was renamed Accutrade and then became the online trading firm known as Ameritrade; it is now TD Ameritrade. Joe Ricketts is the family patriarch; Tom, his son, who will likely become chairman of the Cubs, has lived in Chicago for over 20 years, and, according to various sources, once lived across the street from Wrigley Field and met his future wife in the bleachers. About ten years ago Tom Ricketts started the investment banking firm InCapital, based in downtown Chicago. Personally, I think the Ricketts are the perfect choice -- Cubs fans who are locally based.
Now, on to my suggestions (warning: long!). Since baseball is a nine-inning game, I'm going to make nine suggestions -- that doesn't mean there are only nine things to do, but I think these are the most important ones, and though I'm putting them in numerical order, they don't necessarily have to happen exactly this way chronologically.
1. Announce that ticket prices are being rolled back by a small amount for 2010. Or at the very least, that prices will remain the same. Prices went up about 10-15% (depending on what kind of seat) for 2009, and that was done just about the same time as the economy was tanking last fall. Granted, the Cubs are a big-market team and do need ticket revenue (as well as other sources, which I'll get into later) to keep up the payroll. But doing this would be a real goodwill gesture saying to fans, "We want you here." At the same time, the Cubs could ask for a small amount per year -- say, $50 -- for the 100,000 people on the season ticket waiting list to remain on the list, and give these people the right to buy a small number of tickets before the main on-sale. You'd get some attrition from people who didn't want to pay, but even if half the 100,000 paid, that's $2.5 million in the team's pockets without having to spend a single dollar.
2. Retain Crane Kenney. Kenney took over as chairman of the Cubs when John McDonough left as team president in November 2007; before that he was a member of the team's board of directors. Since taking over as, essentially, the CEO, Kenney has brought in new advertising deals (the Under Armour deal the most visible), opened up management to fans by having meetings with season ticket holders, and, at least until the Tribune Co. bankruptcy this year made it impossible to do so, gave Jim Hendry the green light on high-priced in-season acquisitions (such as Rich Harden) to improve the team. Kenney's vision is to take the model that John Henry's Red Sox have made over the last seven years and make the Cubs into that team -- a perennial contender. Kenney has done a good job -- keep him.
3. Build the Triangle Building long-planned adjacent to Wrigley Field. This may not seem important, but it is, and as soon as possible. All of these things could go into such a building: team offices, parking for several hundred cars, batting cages and workout facilities for the team, restaurants and bars that could be open year-round, a Cubs Hall of Fame and museum that would be open year-round, and meeting and convention space that could even host the Cubs Convention in future years. The key points for competitiveness are the workout facilities and batting cages, something every other team has available to players during games. A tunnel could be constructed so bench players could walk over to a batting cage and stay loose, something they cannot do now. Also, moving the team offices out of Wrigley Field would clear that space for possible premium seating and a stadium club that would have views of the field, something that doesn't exist now. The Cubs don't need more seating -- most of the new ballparks being built have capacities close to Wrigley Field's 41,160 -- they need better seating that they can sell at premium prices, and this would help provide it.
4. Give Jim Hendry one more year and enough money to improve the team. Hendry signed a contract extension last off-season through 2012 and it's extremely unlikely that any new ownership would simply eat all those contract years. That said, this year has, at least to date, been a serious disappointment and Hendry has been unable to add any help midseason as he did last year with Harden. We have discussed the backloaded contracts that may hamper Hendry in the future at length on this site; the Ricketts group has to open the purse strings so that Hendry can make at least some short-term fixes. With two division titles and a contending year for a third, I think Hendry deserves at least one more shot.
5. Commit money to expanding the baseball operations staff. This goes along with the point above. The Cubs have the second-smallest front-office staff in baseball (only the Marlins have fewer full-time, year-round employees). This flies in the face of the stated desire to be like the Red Sox, and also doesn't make sense in a city the size of Chicago. The Cubs need more scouts and more baseball personnel at all levels of the organization. I've ranked this point #4, but only in chronological order. This may be the most important thing of all to do, because by doing this, the Cubs can lay a firm foundation at all levels of the organization. This would also include creating a "Cubs way" so that when a young player does come into the organization, he would be taught the same things at all levels as he moves up toward Chicago.
6. Beef up security at Wrigley Field and make it more fan-friendly. This isn't necessarily even about the beer-tossing incident earlier this month, although more security would have avoided the problem. The Cubs don't have enough security people in the bleachers; they need to hire more and further, they need to change the policy that rotates security in and out of the same location every day. If they assigned double the number of security people in the bleachers and kept them there every day, the security folks would get familiar with their locations, get to know the regulars and it would be much easier to avoid trouble. It wouldn't hurt to have a few uniformed Chicago police officers, too. And also -- please tell the elderly ushers in the box seats that if someone wants to go down there and just say hello to a friend sitting there, it should be OK to do so! Not only do these people think it's their life's work to prevent someone from walking down a couple rows into the field or club boxes to say hi to a someone, they're invariably nasty and rude about it. There are many fine employees at Wrigley Field, but some need some brush-ups in "how to treat the paying customer".
7. Talk to the city of Chicago and neighborhood groups about more night games. The major-league average for home night games is 54 -- about 2/3 of the season. The Cubs are permitted 30, by city ordinance, and none on Friday or Saturday nights. There should be a way to arrive at a compromise between all these conflicting interests. There really isn't much of a need to play Saturday night games, as the Cubs often have several 3 pm starts on Saturdays due to Fox-TV, and TV ratings on Saturday nights are the lowest of the week. On the other hand, Friday day games can be an issue on occasion because of late-night returns from road trips that end on Thursdays, even if they are playing a road afternoon game on Thursday (as it turns out, there were no such scheduling problems in 2009). The Cubs should ask for an increase in the number of night dates to 40, and to have the right up to three times a year, to play at home on Friday night if they are coming back from a road trip. This increase would allow the Cubs to keep much of the tradition of day games, while still allowing them to be competitive with other teams.
8. Renovate the rest of Wrigley Field. The bleachers were completely rebuilt before the 2006 season and the job was well-done. But the rest of the park seriously needs upgrading. The lower deck was gutted and rebuilt in 1968, so it's only 40 years old. But the upper deck hasn't had any serious work done since it was built in the late 1920's, and we are all familiar with the incidents where chunks of concrete fell from it about five years ago. It may be necessary to close Wrigley for a year and play at the Cell (thoughts of playing in Milwaukee are not realistic -- there's no way you could schedule the Cubs and Brewers so that only one team is home at the same time), although Kenney has suggested in the past that this kind of work could begin right after one season ends, get mostly done by Opening Day, and then be finished over road trips the following year. This renovation would include rebuilding the now-20-year-old cramped press box, and rehabbing the suites, also 20 years old. It could also include building a Jumbotron -- perhaps in conjunction with the rooftop clubs across Waveland and Sheffield, likely the only location you could put such a structure -- and/or a ribbon board on the upper deck facade. These things can provide a large amount of additional revenue.
9. Begin the process of starting a national Cubs TV channel. Such a channel, patterned on the Yankees' YES Network, which generated $340 million in revenue to the Yankees in 2007, could put multiple hundreds of millions of dollars into the Cubs' pockets. What management has to be sensitive to is the fact that the Cubs have a national fan base that has been created over the last 30 years due to the televising of hundreds of games on WGN. Not only has this helped out expatriate Chicagoans who have moved away to follow their team, but it has created Cubs fans who have never lived in Chicago. A TV channel like this could be a true financial boon to new Cubs ownership, but I wouldn't do it until and unless they could be guaranteed national coverage via satellite and digital cable (even if people had to pay extra for it on a premium sports tier).
There's more I could write, but I said I'd post the nine most important things to do, and in my opinion, that's what they are. Doing all these things would put the Cubs where they belong, in the top tier of major league franchises, emulate what the Red Sox have done, and hopefully allow the Cubs to do on the field what the Red Sox have done -- over the last 11 seasons (not counting this year yet) they have had a winning record every year, made the playoffs seven of those 11 years (and five of the last six), and won two World Series.
It's a great dream, Tom Ricketts. Make it so.
2 recs | 688 comments
Forget it
BLou. The Sandy Alderson crap aint going to work. Sorry to start the comments this way but the thought it here to railroad the typical crap we read from this individual. By the way Al #5 might be #1 like you said!!
Slamdog - August 24, 2009
Right on #5 really being the most important.
But obviously, that can’t be done overnight. Some of the other stuff can.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
While #5 can't be completed overnight, allocating budget room
and imposing the will of new ownership to make this a priority can occur immediately.
This is the time of year front offices revamp and development and scouting guys can become available.
N Oakley - August 24, 2009
Correct...
…but the key is hiring the right scouts and instilling a philosophy you want them to follow. You can’t just go out there and hire guys and give them a stop watch, radar gun and lap top and say go out there and scout.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Exactly. The current process should be to set money aside,
make sure the right guy is in place to oversee the lower minor leagues, scouting, development and drafting.
That guy should be responsible for finding the guys to fill out the organization.
I guess my point is it has to start with budget and priority. Then they can start finding the right people.
N Oakley - August 24, 2009
I agree...
…and am still baffled Hendry couldn’t coax a million bucks out of the Trib to get this done by now. Clearly, I don’t think he fought for it, because they have wasted bundles of money elswhere.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
These are all good suggestions
I definitely note that I never lived in Chicago, but became a Cubs fan through WGN. I don’t think Philip Wrigley ever envisioned such a thing in his wildest dreams. I like the idea of a national Cubs network.
Ace Venom - August 24, 2009
IIRC
Wrigley was against the games being broadcast, until he saw the results
Cubbie-Tim - August 24, 2009
Actually...
… the Cubs were among the first teams to televise all their home games, in 1948, and kept doing so because PK Wrigley believed it would create interest in being a fan and eventually bring fans to the park.
He was right.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
who was against it in the Cubs org at the time then?
or am I confusing multiple documentaries into one
Cubbie-Tim - August 24, 2009
I think you're confusing multiple documentaries.
The Cubs may have been backward in a lot of things in the 1940s and 1950s, but TV coverage wasn’t one of them.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I know there were owners in MLB against the games being televised
as it was in a documentary, I thought PK was on of them, oops…..I guess it is the short term suffering causing my mind to draw a blank at the moment.
Cubbie-Tim - August 24, 2009
I think it was RADIO
broadcasts that owners were against. In the 1930s the two-team cities of Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Chicago had reached an agreement not to broadcast away games. In other words, if the Braves were at home, listeners could hear that game on the radio, but could not listen to the Red Sox away game. In 1932, the New York owners went one step further: they agreed to ban all radio broadcasting-even of visitors’ re-creations-from their parks. This stemmed from the concept that if people could follow the games at home via the radio, that would be less likely to buy tickets.
Of course, time proved that exactly the opposite is the case and eventually, radio became an important part of every team’s marketing, and remains so to this day.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
The Dodgers, I believe
were one of the few teams that never televised home games — in reality, you’d only get about 40-50 road games a year. That didn’t change until the advent of regional sports networks.
It was radio-only for home games at least the first 25 years the Dodgers were in LA. Walter O’Malley, like Bill Wirtz did not believe in giving the product away.
It only worked because the Dodgers were competitive almost every year, so people went to the games…and Vin Scully’s storytelling probably lured them into the Ravine.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - August 24, 2009
Right.
The Dodgers did only about 10 home games a year until the 1990’s, and few road games.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Organizations that were against TV or radio look silly now.
I wonder if organizations that are now trying to ban tweeting and blogging from the stands will look silly in the future? It seems every time there is a new communication technology, some teams and leagues try to dismiss it and in this case outright ban it.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
Agreed.
The NHL has been at the forefront of accepting bloggers. They’ll be ahead of the media curve.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
who
is trying to ban tweeting from the stands?
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
the NBA i think
“people cant type fast enough to keep up with the game” is their main argument
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
I don't follow
basketball in any way shape or form, so I wouldn’t have known. :D thanks.
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
The SEC for football games, briefly...
… but the backlash changed their minds.
http://socialmediaseo.net/2009/08/18/sec-twitter-facebook-ban-update/
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
The Dodgers
were somewhat in the forefront of televising home games on a “pay per view” basis. They offered a package of games to subscribers of “ON-TV” and then the late lamented “Z Channel”.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
The White Sox tried a Chicago version of ON-TV...
… right after Reinsdorf bought the club.
For a fanbase and city used to all games on free TV (as they had been for both the Cubs and Sox since 1968), that was a real turnoff to Sox fans.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
The ON-TV and Z Channel
Dodgers package was for 35 home games a year. I believe the ON-TV package was from 1982-87 and Z Channel 1988-89. ON-TV eventually became Sports Channel which begat Prime Ticket which begat Fox Sports West.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
No
KTTV was the local outlet for Dodger baseball games from 1958-1992. By that time, KTTV had become the flagship affiliate for the Fox Network, and conflicts between Dodgers games and Fox Prime Time shows became unworkable.
Throughout that time, KTTV typically broadcast about 45 Dodgers games a year.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
45 games, yes...
… but almost none of those were home games.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Only road games on KTTV. No home games at all.
Only the folks inside Chavez Ravine saw Sandy Koufax’s 1965 perfect game against the Cubs. (And Bob Hendley’s 1-hitter for the Cubs that same night.)
I have no memory if WGN televised the game, but I doubt it. In fact, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen any footage of the last out.
I’ve heard Vin Scully’s radio call of the K of Harvey Kuenn hundreds of times. No film to go with it.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - August 24, 2009
WGN did not televise that game.
They did only a handful of road games before 1968, and none from the West Coast.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
The Cardinals, too
My southern Illinois baseball fan loyalties may have been a lot different if Augie Busch III allowed TV broadcasts of home games. Aside from the occasional national game of the week, the Cards were never shown at home under his reign.
The Cubs’ home games of course came on every day, usually at 1:20, on WGN thus an addiction was born…
STLCubFan - August 24, 2009
Expanding baseball operations is #1
we need to compete yearly and this has to do with a minor league full of promising stars. We should have an equal baseball force with the top one or two teams in baseball. Hire knowledgeable people and put them to work. This has to be the #1 goal so we don’t rely on trade and FA’s to shoulder the load of not being able to develop our own talent.
mrcubsfan - August 24, 2009
I'd like to think...
…. that ownership & management would like to have Wrigley completely renovated by the time it turns 100 years old in 2014. I think that’s a realistic goal.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
And hopefully get the All-Star Game
Ace Venom - August 24, 2009
Very possible.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
#2 is renovation.... didn't come out right (sorry)
mrcubsfan - August 24, 2009
i've only been to wrigley once
The Field is beautiful, but the rest of it is IMO outdated and kinda ugly. I understand that wrigley’s MO is Tradition, but I’ve been to Miller and i love all the amenities like the concessions on every level, not just the bottom, etc. My wishes would be for them to keep the field and even bleacher, but gut the rest and rebuild it. Modernize it. I also like the idea of that complex being built next to Wrigley. Don’t get me wrong, i love wrigley, but itcould be better
Rhymenocerous - August 24, 2009
or,
Build a whole new park somewhere else (don’t know where) and leave the current one for like a museum or sumthing
Rhymenocerous - August 24, 2009
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
What should happen is what happened at Lambeau Field a few years ago
Fix the structure around the field, but keep the field as is. Everybody wins this way.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
Yeah
I have not been there, but I have heard that the new Lambeau is awesome.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
Its great, everything is new but they were able to keep all the
mystique or whatever you want to call it.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
I disagree
They made Lambeau more attractive for big-money fans who want private suites, but regular fans are still sitting on cold metal bleachers, and paying more for the privilege. I grew up going to games in GB.
Blue Heron - August 24, 2009
Big money fans is the name of the game now anyway
Its really hard to be a regular fan at Lambeau anyway since they are all season tickets.
Granted I’m not a regular attendee of games there (wish I was) but I still felt like New Lambeau was a mecca of football. Sure they cater to the rich, but if you don’t then that’s money left on the table.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
Lambeau is the perfect example
they carried on football throughout the rennovation. I was there for the first time when it started and for the next 3 years. Unbelievable is how to describe how they left the 60 rows of seating and built a whole new building around the old facility. That’s what I meant to do Wrigley in phases. New upper deck, maybe left field side one year and right the next. Put a whole new upper deck that is free of the lower bowl. It can even make the seating better along with luxury boxes and press boxes and concessions. I would connect this to the triangle building via sky walk. The last phase would be to overhaul everything on the lower concourse and expand outward. I’m no designer but after seeing how they did Lambeau this is very possible in phases. Add a couple thousand seats would not be difficult. Wrigley for the next 100 years should seat around 44,000 easily.
mrcubsfan - August 24, 2009
Easier to carry on football....
… when you play only one game a week, and the off-season is the spring and summer when you can easily do construction.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
ya gotta admit
its kinda nice to be able to duck inside the atrium when its freezing out. The few games I’ve been to its been freezing cold and my brother and I would book it to the atrium to warm up for a bit before going back out into the cold.
mjk83 - August 24, 2009
the atrium is exactly what the triangle area should be used for
i’ve heard that one of the unexpected revnues sources is wedding receptions – i bet there would be quite a demand if it was possible to do at wrigley
doofus cubs guy - August 24, 2009
Had my wedding reception at Wrigley last year
We were in the Stadium Club. Everyone got mini-tours of the park, wedding party got to go on the field for pictures, had our own message on the marquee, great food, ice cream sundaes in the plastic mini-batting helmets. It was very very cool.
Of course, if it had been in a brand new spiffy Stadium Club, behind home plate with views of the field and who knows what other kind of fancy accoutrements, well that obviously would be the cat’s meow, but no way was I going to be able to push off the wedding for another 3-4 years… ;-)
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
thats what i'm saying
the new park is an offhanded remark that wasnt all too serious.
Rhymenocerous - August 24, 2009
the Cuba Cubs?
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
You must be joking
eths - August 24, 2009
That kind of sums up my feelings
The ballpark has some charm, but it also has a lot of negatives. To me, one of the big ones is all those obstructed view seats. I know there probably isn’t anything that can be done about that, but that is an example of how old is not automatically better.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
New parks are now built
with seats that have worse obstructions than Wrigley, so that’s no big deal.
The Sports bar in the Yankee bleachers is a big problem for those sitting by it.
The Western Metals Building at Petco blocks a view of LF in almost 3 sections in the top deck down the LF line, from the last row, all the way down to the very first row.
Watch the LF upper deck the next Petco game, you’ll note that there are literally no spectators there — those seats are only snapped up for highly-attended games.
And speaking of video boards, that’s why you see a tiny, tiny one on Petco’s l right-center field wall. The scoreboard is also not visable from the sets. The tiny board was added in the second year of the park due to fan complaints. (Those were the days they drew 30K per game)
But, revenue from the club seating, etc within the building probably triples the income from those obstructed view seats.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - August 24, 2009
Again
Don’t assume that what you have at Petco is typical. There are no obstructed seats at Coors, Chase Field, AT&T, Safeco, Minute Maid or Turner Field. I know because I have walked around those parks.
Furthermore, whatever obstructed view seats there are at Petco are well identified as such when you purtchase a ticket, and priced accordingly. The problem at Wrigley is you pay full price for a ticket, and you think you are in a prime viewing location and BAM, you can’t see the pitcher because there is a pole in the way.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
i know what you mean
the game i went to i was under the first tier. i couldnt see the ump cuz of a column
Rhymenocerous - August 24, 2009
Interesting that the Cubs
are one of the few teams left that don’t have a “seat view” seating chart that shows your actual view before you purchase a ticket. Hmmmm. Wonder why?
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
Good thoughts Al...
…and they are all important.
I’ll only comment on the baseball operations side, which will drive short term and long term success on the field.
My recomendation is simple, find the best head of baseball operations man you can find and task him with bringing the Cubs up to a premiere level on all fronts (player development, scouting, organizational philosophy etc, etc, etc.).
Empower this man to do whatever he feels are the right moves to start the improvement process from day one he is on the job and provide a reasonable budget to accomplish what needs to be done.
Once this is in place, I will feel much better about where this organization is going in the years to come.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Your point about ushers relaxing a little is dead on.
I’m fortunate enough to be a young guy who has the money to spend on high priced seats. It never fails that I feel disrespected by some usher in the process of getting to my seat.
cubswynn - August 24, 2009 via mobile
Exactly...
This is so right on. Occasionally I go for batting practice and am disgusted at how many ushers around my section don’t even let fans walk down to the wall to take a photo 2 hours before the game when there are only about 50 people in the whole damn park.
The lady in section 25 is just the worst. Once I was there for bp 2 hours before the game and she ran down to me- no one in her section or mine, which is the next section over- and demanded to see my ticket. When I smiled at her and said “it’s ok, I’m a season ticket holder and my seats right there (10 ft away, just across the aisle). I’m just taking a photo from a different angle” she said :I don’t care" and wouldn’t let me! My friendly section usher Tom, who is the best, had to set her straight. Even then, after I spent about 20 seconds taking a few shots she told me to go back to my seat! Ridiculous.
smash! - August 24, 2009
Chances are, in both (cubswynn and smash!) of your cases...
… this isn’t an issue of overzealous ushers, but instead, instruction from above.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
Which is what has to change.
More ushers and security and better training. All of which costs $, which hopefully new ownership will spend.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Oh, i agree wholeheartedly .
I was just trying to take some of the blame off the poor ushers, who are no doubt instructed to keep people out of their sections without tickets for those sections. I understand the “make an exception, i won’t be any trouble” argument, but that starts a domino effect that soon becomes overwhelming even IF everyone has the best of intentions. Somebody gets excited, sits in some seats that aren’t theirs, the real ticket holders show up and complain, you have to go down to that row to sort it out, 10 more people sneak in to your section while you are dealing with it, on and on…
I’ve worked a few games at Wrigley as security (part of a subcontracted company brought in for bigger games like STL and the Sox, and events like the concerts as well) and i can tell you that everything they do there in terms of ushers and security is very well thought out… it isn’t by accident that these ushers are so determined to keep people out of their sections.
The fact that i only get called for bigger and / or more contentious games also proves that they feel that they can and are handling it fine most of the time without more staff, which i’m not sure i agree with from a fan perspective… i’d say you are dead on in the need to invest more in to it.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
I completely understand that they have a job to do, but...
…but it’s the way they go about it that annoys me. I understand that I may not look like someone who should be sitting in the seats that I sit in, but a little respect would be nice.
cubswynn - August 24, 2009
No, she's off the charts nuts with this.
my seats are in the better section, one section over from hers, there are only 50 people in the stadium so far for a day game and it’s 2 hours before the game. no one in my section, no one in hers. yet she won’t let me cross the aisle from my section into the hers- 10-15 ft max- to take a photo without the net in it. My $100 ticket (or anyone’s for that matter) should allow me to take a few photos in and around my section at this point and time. and frankly, anyone else who isn’t in that section should be allowed to get some shots 2 hours before a game. she treats paying customers like shit and it reflects poorly on the organization.
smash! - August 24, 2009
You may indeed be suffering at the hands of one overzealous or rude employee...
… but she’s not just defending her turf undirected. Trust me. She’s been told “only those with tickets to this section enter this section” and although her tactics may suck, she is likely just following orders.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
I think the "only those with tickets to this section enter this section" policy is a valid one...
but 2 hours before the game starts isn’t the right time to enforce it. Common sense could also be taught to some of these people too, and if they don’t or can’t be taught that….perhaps they need to work in the concession stand instead.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
hey!
you can’t have more then four beers at once!
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
Agreed.
And that goes back to investing more $ in security and ushering in general.
Chances are these people aren’t being paid enough to be inspired to care a great deal, unfortunately.
At bears games there are generally 100 more ushers scheduled than needed for each game, just because its assumed that number will either no-show or will be sent home for uniform infractions, tardiness, or general laziness.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
It seems as if they usher in question cares a GREAT deal to me.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
About keeping those who are unticketed out of his or her section, sure...
… not about providing a good customer experience though.
The ability to stick to the rules while providing good service (or knowing when to bend them to make life a little easier) isn’t always easy, and is something people are often highly paid for.
Just blindly following the rules as laid out can be done by anybody.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
Work with a woman who used to usher in Arlington
More than once, people not using their tickets would see someone on TV sitting in their seats behind home plate, and call the Rangers to complain about it.
Unreal!
Ryan D - August 24, 2009
WOW, that is crazy.
Here in Detroit, the ushers never hassle fans who come early to see BP.
When the Cubs where in town back in June, My son and I went early every day for BP and walked right down to the visitors dugout to watch the whole session. Never bothered once by any ushers!
CubFanSince1970 - August 24, 2009
that's the way it should be.
when I was a kid, I’d come to Wrigley, or any other ballpark for that matter, and as long as it was early during BP I could always walk down to the wall and try to get autographs… and I was usually successful which really made my day. that doesn’t happen anymore at Wrigley and it’s sad…
smash! - August 24, 2009
+1
Last year, I made it to my one annual game, and sprung for an expensive ticket 9 rows up from the Cubs dugout. There were some Red Sox fans visiting, sitting near me, and commenting that this was a pretty cool ballpark, like Fenway.
The Cubs got blown out that day however (Z throwing batting practice vs. the Cards — don’t make me relive it), and by the ninth inning, there were some vacant seats around us. A couple of the Red Sox fans friends tried to join them at this point, but were kept out by the overzealous ushers — who this served, I don’t know. A couple of the Sox fans got ugly about this, and were uncool in their reaction, but the whole thing seemed needless.
vonde6 - August 24, 2009
Jumbotron in Wrigley Field? Rather not.
I hope reposting a comment (see below) I’ve made elsewhere is not a big no-no. While most of what Al says makes alot of sense, I beg to disagree about the Jumbotron and various other “flashy” electronic displays:
As an expat, who has been away from Chicago for more than 3 decades, I suppose I’m not really entitled to have an opinion about this. However, one of things I loved as a child was the feeling of tradition in the ball park: No lights, Games called due to darkness, the ivy, the scoreboard, the organ music, the smell of hot dogs, etc. When I heard that lights were being installed and night games would be played on the North Side, it felt sacrilegious. Yes I know, understand and agree with many of the arguments why lights are better for the team, but still it just doesn’t feel right. I now get the same feeling when I read about the discussion of installing a jumbotron in or across the street from the stadium.
Obviously, a ball park nearing its centenary will over the years require changes, improvements and repairs, but I would appeal to the powers that be, please be very sensitive about changing the atmosphere in the park. I believe most Cubs fans do not need loud pop music, instant replays and the like to enjoy a (hopefully) good baseball game on the North Side.
eths - August 24, 2009
A jumbotron on a rooftop would generate millions of dollars of advertising revenue to put back into the payroll.
And… it would be on a rooftop (in a shared revenue capacity with the building ownership), not part of the ballpark’s structure.
If you’re a traditionalist, then you never had a problem with the Torco billboard or Millier Lite billboard. Well… the Jumboton is just a digital billboard.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
Exactly.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Exactly right
For those who want expanded payroll, or even maintained payroll there will need to be more revenue generating things in and around Wrigley. A JumboTron is one of the easy ones.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
well said
Cubbie-Tim - August 24, 2009
Not exactly the same as a billboard
A traditional billboard does not have any movement, changes of brightness, does not include audio, etc. and therefore a “video” billboard is potentially much more invasive. I’ve seen Jumbtrons in old stadiums here in Europe which were a real eyesore and I’ve seen Jumbotrons which fit into the old stadiums very nicely. This had to do with physical installation of the Jumbotron but also (and this is important) with the kind of information (the television programming, if you will) the display was used for.
I’m not totally against anything new, but whatever is done should be done with care, so the atmosphere in Wrigley not impacted negatively. If done properly, a Jumbotron might even be a real enhancement, though I personally tend to doubt it. I would hate to see the park be turned in a kind of three ring circus.
But seeing as I am c. 4518 miles and c. 32 years from Wrigley Field, I suppose my opinion is not nearly as important as those of the fans, who can actually go to Wrigleyville.
eths - August 24, 2009
If you put the Jumbotron in/above the bleachers
It wouldn’t ruin the experience that much anyway, since you wouldn’t be able to see it!
berselius - August 24, 2009
Uh, uh.
The sound would be a HUGE distraction. I have sat in Spartan Stadium when they run their Jumbotron, and frankly, it’s awful. WAY overdriven and just too much. I can deal with it in football, but not in baseball.
On this one, I guess I’ll be in the minority, but I’d vote no.
Ribbonboards on the facing of the upper deck, OK. Jumbotron no.
Zeke - August 24, 2009
i am on the fence personally
I like seeing the replays of close or amazing plays, I like seeing the stats the jumbotron offers.
I like WF being nostalgic, and a timewarp to years of old as well
Cubbie-Tim - August 24, 2009
I think the problem with jumbotrons
is they’ve gotten totally out of control. For some reason, organizations have decided they HAVE to have the biggest jumbotron in the world. This whole “keep up with the Jone’s” mentality has gotten out of control.
Teams have ended up with some of the ugliest monstrosities that totally overwhelm their facility. A scoreboard should be a compliment to the enviornment and not overwhelm it.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
Hmm... I wonder who Jerry Jones keeps up with?
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
LOL!
CaughtInTheVines - August 24, 2009
For Surgery? Joan Rivers
N Oakley - August 25, 2009
craptastic, blew the joke
Joans Rivers
N Oakley - August 25, 2009
no sound.
that solves the problem. Show the replays, show the stats, don’t have any sound.
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
+1
chilango2 - August 24, 2009
Are You Serious?
Do you really think they would install a huge, expensive, squawk box just to show the stats and replays, with no sound?
Jumbotrons are advertising machines, designed to sell corporate crap to the captive audience while pretending to ‘entertain’ and ‘inform’.
JP
jpalaska - August 24, 2009
That may seem against what is to be expected...
… but isn’t it not to be expected that a MLB team would HAVE a jumbotron in 2009?
Kind of like its not the norm to not have lights and play only day games until when the Cubs did?
Its a feasible and unique solution Drew suggested… and there have been more than a few unique solutions to the situation that is a 100 year old ballpark in the middle of a neighborhood like Wrigley is.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
sure
why not? The advertising is still good.
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
You don't
even have to go with no sound. Just tone it down a bit. There is no reason why it has to be blaring all the time. One of the things that contributed to that at Chase Field was that the place has terrible acoustics and originally, a piss poor sound system. The sound system was upgraded and it has helped the blare factor considerably. Wrigley Field would not have that issue – the sound system is good and so are the acoustics.
I remember after I visited Wrigley in 2007, I said how is it this place has better sound than a ballpark that is only ten years old? Perplexing, but it is true.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
I don't think the surrounding community would be very pleased by advertising audio.
Wrigley Field is in a residential neighbourhood. I would think good neighbourly relations would be fairly important for the Cubs organisation. This would speak against “blaring out” advertising jingles between innings as well as before and after games, especially when they are during the evening hours.
eths - August 24, 2009
They managed to stage
rock concerts there.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
I dunno
that’s different. I’m sure the concerts are louder then most games, but they’re scheduled long in advance and you know when it’s going to be over. That’s not nearly the same as having a giant TV on top of your building that plays commercials all day.
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
Agreed. The worst seats at US Cellular are the ones
near a speaker. They pipe in all sorts of crap between innings.
Went to a game earlier in the year on a dreary midweek game, not many fans, but the noise was tooth rattling.
N Oakley - August 24, 2009
The "tooth rattling" comment is going to bring on a Crawdad Attack!
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
I doubt it. He's a baseball fan.
Rooting for the White Sox and liking US Cellular as a park are one thing, liking the make some noise PA stuff is a different game altogether.
I’m sure there’s a toothless joke in there, but I guess I’ll let it go.
N Oakley - August 24, 2009
How does Cradad attack not have a SWL signature image?
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
Please - the PA at Wrigley has 20 minutes of nonstop ads
starting maybe 50 minutes before the first pitch. The PA guy just reads ad, after ad, after ad, ad nauseum.
ChipSet - August 24, 2009
How 'bout between pitches?!
Was in the 30th row or so in 121 for a cross town game. I couldn’t handle it. 4th inning I went to stand behind the bleachers in L/CF.
U.S. Commiscular (Jurko-ism) is nearly as bad as Chase with all the BS-noise.
blackhawk24 - August 25, 2009
agreed, it seemed constant.
There couldn’t have been 8,000 people there (though announced was 20k+).
N Oakley - August 25, 2009
The average person...
… can see the value of the sound coming from a rock concert.
The same can’t be said for the Duncan Doughnuts doughnut race.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
But not 80 or so times a year.
eths - August 24, 2009
Worth considering
I would like to avoid turning Wrigley into Chase Field in Phoenix, which has all of the ambience of sitting inside of a video game. The endless droning of the thing. The video commands to make some noise. Ugh.
vonde6 - August 24, 2009
There's no way Wrigley turns into Chase Field.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Maybe not right away,
But once a blaring idiot box is installed, Wrigley forever loses one more unique and charming aspect….the focus on the game with the minimum of corporate bling-bling.
Maybe you say it’s inevitable. I say it’s regrettable. And despicable.
JP
jpalaska - August 24, 2009
Remember the exact day and time you said that Al.
Oh, with a time stamp, I guess you already know!
I’ve found often when I say “No WAY that happens”, it does…
Zeke - August 24, 2009
A video game may be an improvement for Chase...
My friends who were there earlier this season compared it to an aircraft hangar.
Chris Dobbertean - August 24, 2009
Well, I have gone to about 20
games a year at Chase since it opened, and it has many advantages over Wrigley Field as a place to watch a ball game. I could list them, but nobody here wants to hear it anyway, so I won’t.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
And the advantages are?
eths - August 24, 2009
OK, remember you asked
better sight lines
more comfortable seats
better food
better parking
more pleasant atmosphere
more pleasant ballpark staff
less drunkeness
wider concourses
more bathrooms
more seats in lower level
much better seating in second level
more information available to spectator
protection from weather
easier to get to seats
more legroom to get past people
much better press facilities
more amenities besides those already mentioned
better crowd control
actual bull pens
I could go on, but these are just a few off the top of my head.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
I've been to Chase Field several times.
I don’t care for the constant bombardment of advertising and noise. There are a lot of good seats, but also a lot of bad ones.
And can we get rid of that faux-traditional dirt path to the mound? That’s just silly.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I'm not trying to convince anyone
but I happen to like Chase Field. And there are very few really bad seats and NONE that are obstructed.
that dirt path is a throw-back – was common in older ballparks. That was Buck Showalter’s idea. But, it likely will stay as it has significance in DBacks history. There are those that think that the ball rolling on the path threw off Mariano Rivera on Jay Bell’s bunt in the 9th inning of Game 7 of the 2001 World Series, which set up Arizona’s come from behind win.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
The throw-back...
… dirt path was common in the 1930’s and maybe into the 1940’s, not since WWII. I don’t really care for affectations like that in new parks — seems phony to me. They have one in Detroit too. Now, they DIDN’T have one at Tiger Stadium (at least not in recent years) but DO have one at a new park? Phony.
I’ve walked up to the top row in the upper deck at Chase Field. Those are really bad seats (and it’s really hot up there, too).
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
well, the top row
of the upper deck almost never gets used except for a playoff game, in which case people will sit there just to see the game. And, they are not that bad.
Besides, during the season, they only charge $8 for those seats ($5 if it is in the corners). So, if you are on a budget, and want to take in a ball game…
Those seats are still way better than an obstructed view seat.
I am agnostic about the dirt path. It is nowhere near as stupid as the hill in the outfield at Minute Maid.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
100% agreed on the hill in Houston.
That park looks like a committee got together and said, “Think of every single ballpark quirk you can and we’ll put it in our new stadium!”
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Well, I liked Minute Maid
except for the hill.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
But Cherishing tradition is a good thing right?
They are a young tradition so they don’t have the glorious tradition of dead ball era and pre-war era baseball. Their golden age of baseball was after the color barrier and after the beginning of the steroid era. They should remember it as they see fit.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
Sorry
A young ball club.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
About the D-backs and the path from home to the mound.
Not the ridiculous Tal’s hill
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
yep, because nothing says tradition like a dirt path back to the mound
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
To turn that around.
Nothing says tradition like a virulent weed growing on the outfield fence. Too each there own I suppose.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
Eye see what you did their...
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
...
…
drewishdrewid - August 25, 2009
I sat in the very top row of the upper deck
at Chase Field when the Cubs played there in the season opener in 2005. They are VERY high up. Luckily my seats were directly behind the plate, so they weren’t absolutely awful. But at that level down the lines, they would really suck.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 24, 2009
And
you paid $8, right?
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
It was opening day
so I think it was more expensive than that. But normally, about $8 would sound right. I’m not sure people realize how big a stadium that is.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 25, 2009
No!
I like Wrigley’s use of sound (or lack thereof) just fine.
See #11 at this link:
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/ballparks/wrigley.html
I just love that article! Caple pretty much nails it, 100%
blackhawk24 - August 25, 2009
I can easily envision a Comcast or branded JumboTron on the rooftop at 1010 Waveland
Last season, they built what appears to be the largest rooftop seating structure of them all. And, everytime I glance at it, it’s bleachers are very vacant. With the size of that building (the first one to the left of the CF scoreboard), it could accommodate a larger JumboTron than any other building, and I bet the shared advertising revenue (or commission paid by Ricketts to use the space, in whichever deal they work out) would generate more profit for the building than the vacant seating. They could even leave a couple rows of seating beneath it.
Having Comcast involved is an obvious tie-in… since the Ricketts deal included a share in the broadcasting, and they would be running the video replays. The Comcast brand would stand a lot to gain from the naming rights in their effort to grow nationally. Then, you’d sell other digital ad space on the board.
The possibility of a rooftop JumboTron was discussed in the season ticket holders luncheon this year, and I believe (Al, correct me if I’m wrong) that Crane Kenney said it has indeed been discussed as a strong possibility.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
Yes, it was mentioned.
I don’t know if they have any mockups or deals in the works, but I know they’re thinking about it.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I'd be interested to hear the rules for the board outside of gametime hours.
When the park is open, it should be on obviously. But there ARE still people that live on the street… i’d hope the temptation wouldn’t be to keep it on at all hours of the day, like the smaller video board above the Jamba Juice at the intersection of Clark, Diversey and Broadway a little south of Wrigley.
That thing is obnoxious at night, and even worse when it is or has been raining. Its too bright and overwhelms the intersection for drivers, and can be seen illuminating the street obnoxiously from area apartments.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
The one above the Wild Hare is pretty bright and annoying as well
but the one I have to laugh at is on Ashland, somewhere around Division I think. It’s not that big, but it’s very bright and what cracks me up is the advertising on it – some sort of personal injury lawyer, most likely getting his business from the car accidents caused by that thing.
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
This the old Bud-bldg, now Horseshoe?
blackhawk24 - August 25, 2009
no, the one Sackman's referring is on the NW corner of Waveland & Sheffield.
It’s a huge building – takes up half the block. Goes all the way from Sheffield to the alley along Waveland. Then comes the Budweiser/Horseshoe lot and then Kenmore.
ballhawk - August 25, 2009
Please, no Jumbotron for Wrigley Field!
I have been attending the Cubs/Rockies series for the past several years at Coors Field. It’s a beautiful ballpark with one blaring exception….the Jumbotron. It’s a huge annoyance and distraction from the experience of the baseball game.
It’s constantly flashing obnoxious advertising, stupid games/quizzes, and other loud nonsense at ‘the fans’. In between innings, when it could be showing the current game’s stats, it is, instead, filling the stadium with a lot of distracting noise and video pollution.
And at Coors Field they never show a ‘controversial’ replay on the Jumbotron, so you don’t even get that benefit from the giant idiot box.
I would hate to see the baseball-oriented atmosphere of Wrigley destroyed by a sqawking, moronic, ‘elephant in the room’ that’s impossible to ignore.
JP
jpalaska - August 24, 2009
+1
As someone noted earlier, it’s not the screen per se so much as what they decide to put on it. Once the option of video and animation is there, people seem incapable of not using it, and the next thing you know you have dot races and between-innings commercials with slammin’ high-energy rockin’ soundtracks. Unpleasant, and not part of the real Wrigley experience.
CaughtInTheVines - August 24, 2009
Exactly
The Jumbotron (even the name is obnoxious) becomes its own ‘show’, competing with and even dominating the baseball game. It’s a huge distraction, a brightly colored object designed to sell crap and idiotic ‘entertainment’ to the ‘consumers in the seats’. That’s not why I want to attend a baseball game.
JP
jpalaska - August 24, 2009
Agreed.
I hate the fake animated Duncan Doughnut races at Soldier Field (although the only digital races during the preseason game on Saturday were for Pizzas and hot dogs) and i feel bad for everyone who sits an entire quarter of NFL football and then only rises from their seat to cheer on the bratwurst in a predetermined and animated race during a time out.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
+100
Agree with all of Al’s suggestions, except the ribbon and the Jumbotron, wherever it gets located. The sound is worst part, but the TV studio effect on the ball park is almost just as bad. Go to Miller Park once to see where this takes the atmosphere. The primitive crap they do between innings at Wrigley on the existing scoreboard is bad enough. Whatever money it would generate is not worth it.
santo4hof - August 24, 2009
Yeah...
A lot of stadiums have really stupid stuff going on during every half-inning…
PurpleLineToWrigley - August 24, 2009
While I agree with you
I have to say that an awful lot of people seem to really enjoy that stuff.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
Which is lame...
… and i hope is never encouraged at Wrigley.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
Once you get a giant boob tube in a baseball stadium,
You are going to get boob advertising and boob circuses on top of your baseball. And I don’t mean the kind of boobs you may fancy.
jpalaska - August 24, 2009
Doesn't have to be that way, man.
What is being suggested – a screen across the street on a rooftop – is unique in and of itself. Just because they are obnoxious elsewhere doesn’t mean the Cubs have to do it the same. They are already different in that they don’t have one.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
IIRC, you're in the marketing business, so...
do you really think you could trust yourself not to be obnoxious if being obnoxious meant generating millions of dollars of much needed revenue and made you look good in the eyes of your higher-ups?
I’m sorry but I just don’t believe anyone – not even Ted – could resist the temptation.
I feel confident WF will eventually get some sort of jumbotron, and while it probably won’t be as bad as I envision it, it will be closer to the obnoxious end of the fan experience scale than the tasteful end. Much closer.
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
I would trust myself...
… but then again, i buy media, not sell it. Its hard to say what the Cubs would do, but it is possible to do it tastefully.
I haven’t been to fenway for a game, only a concert… does anybody know how its used there. Fenway is the only place that can touch Wrigley for history and mystique now that Yankee Stadium is gone…
Fenway’s jumbotron.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
Good point about Fenway.
If you’re in the Chicago area, you can check out Fenway right now – White Sox are playing there this week. Tonight’s game is on WCIU – The U. I’ll try to see if they have any camera shots of jumbotron.
btw, Red is beating on White – 9-4 in the 5th inning.
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
IIRC, Fenway does it right.
No shell games or anything like that. At least with their old Jumbotron, they basically had Voice Overs during any ads on the board, as the Cubs already do.
With the new one, they do more Sound on Tape-type productions, with commercials or player introductions, but they do things in a way where it’s not intrusive or a crutch for the fans to watch.
Bill Potter - August 25, 2009
I'd be fine with voice only.
An ad image for subway that included the announcer saying “stop by your local subway for a $5 footlong” is far less obnoxious than the canned “$5… $5… $5 dollar footloooooooong” commercial playing.
Aaaand, now that is in all of our heads. Sorry, friends.
AndrewJStone - August 25, 2009
That's how I feel, too.
If the Cubs stuck with the current voice-over format, then I could live with it. Nothing really changes except the location and size of the board used for the advertisements.
Bill Potter - August 25, 2009
true, but sometimes people just have to be saved from themselves.
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
This year Wrigley has had really stupd stuff going on during the bottom of most innings.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
Such as? I've been away so long, I wouldn't know.
eths - August 24, 2009
shuffling cups
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
Me no understand
eths - August 24, 2009
Its dumb.
3 digital cubs on the screen, turned upside down. A digital ball is placed under one. They are shuffled quickly for 30 seconds, and then numbers appear on them. Everyone triumphantly shouts out “Two! TWWWOOOO!” as if they’d discovered a cure for polio or something. 2nd cup is lifted, revealing the ball. High fives and shoulder patting all around.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
>> fighting the urge to puke <<
eths - August 24, 2009
In general, real life games don't translate well...
… when turned in to digital versions of themselves.
Chances are there are three versions of the numbered cup with ball sequence that they just rotate every game. The doughnut race i’ve been harping on is especially tacky.
If you (the team or the advertisers themselves) are going to invest in the advertising time and production of the video, at least do something cool. Cubs trivia with a text in to answer option, a poll, something somehow related to the game at hand.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
In Oakland...
…we play three-card monte with those ice-cream drumstick things. It works pretty much the same way.
But then, we also have “Trumpet Time”
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
Our lineup taking their ABs.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
+1
See my post above about the Chase Field jumbotron experience.
“When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” As soon as you get a big toy like this, the temptation to use it for big, ugly video gamesmanship seems to be irresistable.
vonde6 - August 24, 2009
You want to see the future of Jumbotroms?
Rent the excellent, prescient, 1982 sci-fi movie, Blade Runner.
jpalaska - August 24, 2009
Agreed
To me, there’s less of a need for a Jumbotron in a baseball stadium, as you can’t show action as it’s ongoing, like in the other four major sports. With that use eliminated, sure you can show highlights, but teams tend to put absolute dreck up there during stoppages in play and in between innings.
No thanks.
Chris Dobbertean - August 24, 2009
I don't get
the hatred of Jumbotrons. I find them easy to ignore when I want to. But, at the same time I love the info (and replays). I really like being able to see a pitchers WHIP, a batter’s OPS, the fact that he was traded for a PTBNL in 2003, etc etc.
The really only do the loud, abnoxious games and stuff between innings and that is when I talk to whoever I came with, go to the concession stands, restroom, check my scorecard or whatever.
They are fun to have when you need them and easy to ignore when you don’t.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
100% agreed.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I think peoples' gripe about these
is the distraction of ads and the flashing/noise that comes with it when it’s not showing pure baseball stuff.
For Wrigley – inside Wrigley – its just a paradigm shift many (myself included) cannot handle.
blackhawk24 - August 25, 2009
You assume that Ricketts will use...
…the revenue and put it back on the field;that’s poppy cock. If he’s as a shrewd a businessman that everybody thinks he is, he’ll be lining his pockets with the extra revenue; sure, he’ll put one-dollar for every two he makes onto the field, but don’t expect some altruistic vision of having an additional $30-million to throw at a player.
Maintaining payroll is a strawman argument. The Cubs are in this basket because they’ve managed to be quite cavalier about how they spend their funds, and have managed to bloat the payroll. A savvy FO can field a highly competitive team for around $80-to-$100-million, instead of throwing money at aging All Stars and see what sticks.
I’ll give Hendry another year, but not a blank checkbook. At least not with the major-league roster.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
You're thinking with past thinking.
Ricketts wants to win. Lining his pockets with the extra $ won’t accomplish that goal.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
We go back to my previous point, then.
He should be willing to accept a wash on the early part of his investment, and even a small loss.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
Generating revenue doesn't mean it'll be spent...
…on the team. Correct you are. However, having the ability to generate revenue and then using it wisely is what all of us are looking for from the Ricketts.
blackhawk24 - August 25, 2009
How much more revenue do you think...
…the Cubs really need? According to the article we’ve been arguing over in the Jumbotron FanShot, the Cubs net $45-million in profit after everything is said and done. If nothing absolutely changes, the Cubs still generate an ’ish load of money. That revenue has not been spent wisely.
See my above point.
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
Even I can go for that
Now to even it out, perhaps one to share the roof of the $8.5M bldg currently advertising Horseshoe.
blackhawk24 - August 24, 2009
Billboards don't have noise meters.
Or rally monkeys.
Please, leave the gauche for the South Side.
Ryan D - August 24, 2009
I think you are way off with Crane Kenney
He has become a clown. The priest crap last season, the constantly being in the media, always being around the player when it isn’t his place to do so. He needs to go.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
Your complaints are minor.
Let’s look at them.
He’s done a good job and has the right vision for this team. Keep him.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I don't care...
…what Rickett’s does with Kenney as long as it does not interfere with bringing in someone to head the baseball operations. I’m sure he has done some fine things on the business side, but in no way should Kenney be making any type of decisions that guide the baseball operations.
I have heard that Kenney does like to frequent areas that are typically thought of as the player’s domain (clubhouse, etc). He is the chairman and certainly has the right to go where he pleases, but it is something that has raised some eyebrows.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
I agree with those points.
Kenney’s strengths have been in making a vision for the financial future of the team (triangle building, concerts, other revenue sources). He seems good at that and knows the territory.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I'm fine with keeping Crane with the Cubs
as long as he no longer makes appearances on TV or radio. He has made some dumb comments and I have concluded this the best use of his talents. I do believe he has been an asset to the organization but I would just remove any public speaking from his role.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
I assume Kenney has a say in the size of the front office staff as well?
If so, and I agree that the miniscule size of the staff is a major problem, then Kenney is actually part of that problem. Anyone in advertising could look around Wrigley Field and find ways to squeeze more money out of it. I don’t think that Kenney is particularly brilliant in this regard.
As for the jumbotron – NO! They suck. If they want to sell more crap let people wearing sandwich boards with ads parade around the field between innings. Has an old-timey feel in keeping with the park and fits right into the current economic situation.
And Al – My dad was an insurance inspector in the 60s and he took me to Wriigley Field one fall while he inspected construction there. At that point, the cement had been entirely removed from a large portion of the upper deck. I know the lower deck was redone around the same time – when they covered the open area then used to store the batting cage down the right field line, turned some seats in the corners toward home plate etc. But the cement in the upper deck is not 80 years old. If my memory is right – and it was one of the most exciting days of my life up till then so I think it is – the upper deck cement isn’t any older than the lower deck’s. Maybe is was set improperly in cold weather or something and that’s why it’s collapsing.
the nth - August 24, 2009
Actually, it was the winter.
The Bears season had just ended because they were taking down the bleachers in right field.
the nth - August 24, 2009
So, you think anyone could squeeze more money out of Wrigley
but you don’t want a Jumbotron?
To me, a Jumbotron appears to be the easiest (and one of the more logical) ways to increase the advertising revenue of the team.
Bill Potter - August 24, 2009
I'm all for it...
…just win a freaking WS.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Yeah.
I do think anyone could squeeze money out of Wrigley Field just as well as Crane Kenney and every one of them would have the idea of a Jumbotron. Doesn’t mean I have to like the idea.
the nth - August 24, 2009
I can understand not liking the idea of jumbotron
Frankly, I’m not sold on it myself, but I understand how much it could help reinforce the bottom line.
Bill Potter - August 24, 2009
What about when Kenney was part of management day
at the convention? That is being an attention whore.
He did flat about apologize for the priest thing, he lied about it and blamed the priest, and then in the same moment at the convention, decided to start crapping on Dusty Baker’s grave. Something that isn’t acceptable for a team chairman to be doing to a former employee.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
Well, he's management.
That would be included in “management day”, wouldn’t it?
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I'm talking about the session where Lou and Jim Hendry are the two that talk
not the Chairman of the team. Not sure if that’s a day or whatever they call that. The media was confused why he was there, and all he did was say stupid things during that time.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
I disagree with all of your contentions.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Crane commited
a real bad taste in my mouth when he raised prices in the middle of a recession, which affected me as well losing my best client. that was completely poorly timed and purely greed induced. Couple that with his support of Hendry’s ill-fated 2008 off-season, and he can take a walk asfar as I’m concerned.
Maybe he could work for Theo Epstein?
The E-Man - August 24, 2009 via mobile
If your GM isn't rock solid...
…having people like Kenney oversee them is a recipe for disaster. The same can be said for the time McDonough had his short tenure and I hope McDonough keeps his opinions to himself regarding Hockey decisions with the Blackhawks.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
I guess I missed the priest crap...
can you explain?
smash! - August 24, 2009
Kenney brought in a greek orthodox priest to spread holy water in the dugout
…before game 1 of the playoffs last year. Lou and the players were pretty much aghast at this. it turned out to be a huge embarrassment for the team once the media got old of it. Kenney then tried to weasel out of taking responsibility by blaming the priest.
bluekoolaide - August 24, 2009
Basically Kenney said he was sorry for allowing the priest to do his thing at Wrigley last year
Said the priest asked to do it, was a big Cubs fan so Kenney said ok.
Then Paul Sullivan asked the priest about it and he said that Kenney came and found him to do it, basically showing that Kenney is a liar.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
because priests NEVER lie
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
I'll believe the priest before I believe Kenney
Another example of his lies.
Kenney is a liar, call them petty things, but he makes himself and the organization look like buffoons.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
Our players and manager make the organization look like buffoons much more often than Crane Kenny ever has.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
So that means he should get a free pass?
nji232 - August 24, 2009
free pass? We're going to "hold his feet to the fire" over this NOW?
it’s over, and I’m over it.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
His job is on the line with a new owner
All past events should be reviewed. I doubt Ricketts wants a habitual liar running his new asset.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
Well I ,for one, hope that ALL employees will be properly vetted and have complete background checks done...
to make sure none of them are habitual liars. I doubt Ricketts wants habitual liars throwing, catching or hitting any baseballs for this team.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
Except being the chairman of the team
and being a player are two different things.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
Yeah, and your point is?
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
Yeah... lying would arguably be a bad trait in a player...
… and a necessary one for somebody like Kenny who is regularly negotiating and dealing with agents and advertising people and the like.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
Wait it's okay for him to lie because he has to negotiate deals?
How does that make sense?
nji232 - August 24, 2009
You have obviously never participated in negotiating something.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
no job for you?
sorry swl… you can’t be the minister of propaganda
tootle - August 24, 2009
I think it's been...
…a real team effort, and I would add the GM to the list.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
How does that story make Kenney a liar?
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Saying to Dusty he didn't say something
When people have him on tape doing it.
That is the very definition of a liar.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
I think
they were both dopey to do it.
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
No
Because at that point, there is no real incentive for him to lie. If he had indeed asked to do it, as Kenney said, he could have just confirmed that to Sullivan and then the whole issue would have gone away.
By taking a stand, and saying, no that isn’t how it happened, shows the priest is a man of integrity and was not going to be steamrolled on this.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
uh-huh.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
Good Response
You’ve convinced me with your logic. Thanks, I now agree with you. The priest was lying.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
You're simply stating that Kenny is lying because you think the preist doesn't have a reason to lie.
What reason does Kenny have to lie? This argument is pointless.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
No, it isn't
Kenney’s reason to lie is simple; once the story got out and he realized how bad it made him look, he started to backtrack because he didn’t want to take the heat.
bluekoolaide - August 24, 2009
I don't really care about this issue, one way or another, but...
…couldn’t you say the same thing about the priest as well?
And given his occupation, I’m guessing he wouldn’t want to take the “heat” as well…
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
#4
Really… you want to give Hendry more money to improve the team? He’s already wasted the budget he had by spending poorly. If you want to improve… then do so by adding better staff in the scouting departments at all levels (MLB, MiLB, and amateur), and force Hendry to make smarter moves.
The Cardinals played this past off-season perfectly… standing pat, knowing they could stay competitive until the trading deadline, where they really took advantage of the economic situation in baseball.
The Cubs, on the other hand, messed with a 97 win team, just to “get more left-handed.” And, added another bad long-term contract in the process.
Don’t give Hendry more money. Make him work smarter to fix his mistakes. Signing more guys on the wrong side of 30 in the post-steroid era isn’t gonna fix anything… it’s just gonna waste more money. As it stands right now, we’ve got a young guy (Fox) who can out produce our $136 million left fielder for the league minimum.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
If Hendry survives for one more year...
…the guy needs someone to watch over him, and that guy is not Kenney.
For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone could rationalize Hendry being the key decision maker in any of the following:
Hiring the next manager
improving player development on the farm
hiring the right scouts and improving their scouting philosophy
Making decisions on who’s contract to eat
BUILDING THE ROSTER FOR 2010
If Hendry is around in 2010, he will need a babysitter, plain and simple.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Looks
Like he got number 3 right, just needs to add to that stable!!!
Slamdog - August 24, 2009
Well, in retrospect
The Cardinals didn’t improve to the team they are now until the Cubs poor play and injuries this season gave them the window to do it. Taking a wait and see approach and hoping that the team above you screws up is generally not something you plan to do
berselius - August 24, 2009
They have the best manager and pitching coach in the league...
And, they have the best hitter in baseball… along with the best catcher in the league. I’m pretty sure they were confident in their decision to sit out this off-season and see what opportunities were available near the deadline. They knew they would be in the thick of things regardless.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
The best catcher?
Brian McCann would love to have a word with you
berselius - August 24, 2009
Molina...
…can’t hit much, but I think SackMan was referring to his skills behind the plate (which are 2nd to none).
Duncan has proven himself time and time again, but having a stellar defensive catcher certainly doesn’t hurt their position, because he does have influence over how well the pitchers operate.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Sure, it doesn't hurt.
Just think McCann is very underappreciated
berselius - August 24, 2009
he is under-appreciated but he's a lousy defender, which you just can't have at catcher
cubsforever - August 24, 2009
Mike Piazza disagrees
berselius - August 24, 2009
molinas a jackass
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
Doesn't hurt it is true...
But Dunc has been reviving pitchers long before Yadi started playing for him. He did have some solid defensive catchers, but was showing great results without having the stellar defensive play Yadi has (and I do hate his arrogance!). I think when you have a supposed offensive catcher that’s offensive in hitting you have to cut bait sooner or later…and getting a better one is needed, especially when it’s one that has a contract you can handle trading as opposed to many of the other positions on the field. If you shore up the catcher position and make a trade for a better 2B, the others are easier to take and bide your time for the right moment to handle waiving or trading a big contract.
Sandberg's evil twin - August 24, 2009
As would Russell Martin
Invalid User - August 24, 2009
Also
How did the Cardinals “take advantage of the economic situation”? They traded away 4 of their top 5 prospects. Taking advantage of the economic situation would have entailed signing players to bargain contracts, which they did not do with Lohse
berselius - August 24, 2009
That should be pretty clear to you.
They obtained 3 new starting players in their line-up in mid-season (DeRosa, Holliday, and Lugo), because other teams needed to dump the salary. And, they just obtained a 5th starter (Smoltz) for nothing. They’re paying the minimum for Smoltz and Lugo. And prospects… well… they’re just prospects Many of them don’t pan out (see Chicago Cubs history for the last 20 years as a reference).
SackMan - August 24, 2009
This is the way things always work with midseason trades
that had nothing to do with salary dumping so much as it had to do with getting value for players on losing teams
berselius - August 24, 2009
The Cards got Smoltz for free because he was horrible with the Red Sox
They’re still paying him his contract, he just pitched terribly for them. The Cubs already likely have 6 better pitchers than smoltz in the rotation
berselius - August 24, 2009
Smoltz
struck out a team record 7 in a row yesterday and pitched 5 shutout innings.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
yeah
striking out the padres is a difficult thing
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
Didn't
see anybody on the Cubs do that.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
I also noticed
you were wrong when you said the Padres would light up Smoltz the second time thru the order. That’s when he had his 7 straight Ks.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
i didnt say they would
i just said he tends to implode on the second time through the lineup
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
Nice try
Here is what you said in direct quotes:
(in the 2nd inning)
“dont worry smoltz will implode in a few innings”
“he implodes on the second go around of the lineup”
This second one was not said in the context of “he tends”, but rather as a declarative statement of fact. Just own up to it, you were dead wrong.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
It was a good start
but the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’. Let’s give him a few more starts before we declare his signing a coup for the Redbirds.
madcow256 - August 24, 2009
Yeah
same argument used with Holliday. Good a scoop for you, Biff, these both are already good moves by the Cardinals.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
Wait, so because the Holliday deal worked out
. . . every other decision the Cardinals make this year is automatically a good one? Right now it looks like he’s going to solidify the atrocious back end of their rotation, but if he puts up an ERA of 8+ again, nobody is going to be praising them. Why don’t we wait and see?
madcow256 - August 24, 2009
He has already given
them 1 quality start. My point was not that every decision the Cardinals make is a good one, but their track record is pretty solid (remember Jeff Weaver)?
What I was trying to say is that the same pin heads that said Holliday was a bad trade are now saying that Smoltz won’t work out. I’m all for seeing how he does in subsequent starts, but do you really believe the people who are spouting off now will own up to being wrong, should that turn out to be the case? Already jesus or whatever he calls himself is trying to rewrite what he said so he doesn’t have to admit he was wrong.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
good point, first quality start of the season. lets hand smoltz the cy young award right now while we’re at it
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
You are just
showing everyone how lame you are.
Yes, 1 quality start in the NL for the Cardinals. That’s one out of one. You can’t do any better than that. I might add he did it while pitching in a rotation slot that had been a problem for St. Louis this year, which gives it even more value. Somebody said in another post that a win was worth $4M (not sure I agree with that). Well, the Cardinals got a key win in a pennant race for the pro-rated league minimum.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
The Cardinals are in a pennant race?
vonde6 - August 24, 2009
i am quite possibly the lamest person on the planet
yes
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
Woah woah woah woah and WOAH....
…. we still live in a world with Aaron Miles. You can’t be any more than 2nd lamest.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
no dont try to cheer me up
im lame
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
Don't know about that
but lame is as lame posts.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
Your point was both were already good moves.
1 start is not enough to see if any move was a good one. There is nothing pin headed about waiting to see more than one start before declaring it a good move…I think you could call it a good try with little risk already given they are paying nothing for him, but saying it’s already anything is very premature.
I do think the Cards’ moves this year definitely shows the value of signing players that work out with your club, having the flexiblity to do so with minor league players to sign and a lot of your payroll not spent on underperforming players with long contracts.
Sandberg's evil twin - August 24, 2009
I might add... if you want to improve
And you can’t remove Soriano and Bradley from the picture… then you better whip their butts into shape all off-season and into next season. You’re investing a disgusting amount of millions of dollars into these players, and they’re not giving you their best efforts. They should be workout warriors and video study warriors in the off-season. And, that should continue during the season. That’s why Pujols is so damn good… he works his butt off to be that good.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
Do you know what they did last offseason?
These guys are in incredible shape. I don’t think it’s a good idea to cast aspersions on their workout ethics if you don’t know what they are. It’s not like they’ve been sitting around drinking beer in previous offseasons.
berselius - August 24, 2009
I tend to agree...
…any problems with Soriano and Bradley are not related to them being out of shape.
Soto, on the other hand……..
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
When I said "whip their butts into shape"
I was referring to: make them work their butts off to be the best players they can be.
In pure speculation, I strongly question the work ethics of Soriano and Bradley… and Zambrano for that matter. These are huge investments, and they’re not giving you their best efforts in return to help you win. Albert Pujols in comparison, is documented to be a film-study machine… he knows the pitchers he’s facing inside and out. That’s 1/2 of what makes him so damn good. Again, in my pure speculation, I highly doubt you can say the same for these players.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
These are huge investments, and they’re not giving you their best efforts in return to help you win.
How are you ascertaining this?
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
Like I said with my own disclaimer... it's my speculation. My own opinion.
You can have a different opinion. It doesn’t make either of us right or wrong. I don’t think that some of our very highly paid players have as strong of a work ethic as they should have.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
I understand that it's your opinion
but what do you base it on?
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
Personal dislike of the players in question
Wreckard - August 24, 2009
No.
I’m a big Zambrano fan. And, I’m admittedly up and down on Soriano. But, I believe that they are so naturally more talented than many of their peers… that, if they were putting forth their best efforts and working very hard at their craft, they would be playing at an MVP level. As for Bradley… well.. we’re not getting our money’s worth. Work harder sir.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
Milton Bradley:
2009 Salary: $5M
2009 $WAR: $4.5M
Bradley’s problem, by the way, has never been his work ethic. If anything it’s the opposite; it’s been speculated that his intense workout regiment creates additional injury risk.
No one comes back from an injury as devastating as Bradley had in 2007 as quickly as he did without working extremely hard.
It’s ridiculous to suggest that results in baseball, even for the most talented of players, is solely a function of effort. I’m sure your parents had the best of intentions when they told you you can be anything you want if you just apply yourself, but I think you’re taking it a bit too seriously.
Wreckard - August 24, 2009
I agree SackMan
Bradley, Soriano, and Z are lazy and utterly bad. They aren’t as good as they can be simply because they don’t want to be. Bradley needs to take less pitches and walk less, Soriano needs to take more pitches and walk more, Z needs to actually work. He admitted he was lazy about everything in baseball, DIRECT QUOTE!!!
Someone should follow them around this offseason to make sure they’re working. I mean come on us common folk would play this game for free and they have to whip them into shape? Reed Johnson and Ryan Theriot are hard working players why can’t Bradley, Z, and Soriano do the same?
BTW Reed Johnson and Jake Fox should start in the outfield last year. Those two are really good players. Milton Bradley is just terrible and awful, no team in baseball wants him, but for some reason the Cubs did. No one wants Soriano, but the Cubs keep him, trade him for a bag of ball. No one wants Carlos Zambrano, but I guarantee the Cubs keep him.
/end rant.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
last year what
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
He admitted he was lazy about everything in baseball, DIRECT QUOTE!!!
You are incorrect. He was specifically talking about exercising his abs.
drewishdrewid - August 25, 2009
Yep.
sue369 - August 25, 2009
Whatever the point is he's lazy and I'd rather keep Harden than Z.
Trade Z for minor leaguers who play the game the right way. Hopefully someone will eat his contract (Omar loves to compile latino patichers, I bet he would bite) and give him psychiatric counseling and we can use that money to invest in a better minor league system and good free agens this offseason.
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
You crack me up, Buzz....
Guess I didn’t have to read your “An prelude…” fanpost after all. I’m getting some real good hints on what you’re all about by your comments here.
Keep up the… um… work!
ballhawk - August 25, 2009
And what would it be that I'm all about?
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
Enlighten us all if you will.
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
I read it
but have come to the same conclusion.
drewishdrewid - August 25, 2009
I don't think
Z is going any where.
sue369 - August 25, 2009
Let's give the Cubs training staff their due
I think they’ve handled Milton’s health just fine, allowing him to play beyond what we expected in terms of number of games. Another year and better understanding of the pressures of playing in Chicago should help, so I’m optimistic that he’ll have better offensive numbers in 2010.
As for Soriano, if his knee is truly bugging him, he needs to get it cleaned out in the offseason. The Cubs training staff can get him back into good health. With good health hopefully comes the offensive rebound.
Bill Potter - August 24, 2009
Cubs trainers have gotten much better recently
They’ve worked wonders on Harden, and have Bradley playing most days too.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
The Cubs training staff is one of the best.
Harden and Bradley are great examples of why I’ve come to this conclusions. Virtually every article I read or interivew I heard about both players, the “expert” noted that neither player would be healthy for the 2009 season. Both players have played more games than any “expert” ever thought was possible.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
Mark O'Neal has done a whale of a job
particularly when compared with his immediate two predecessors.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 24, 2009
He is very good...
…and I will add this; I knew David Tumbas pretty well and I took a couple trips with him to Birmingham to visit Dr. Andrews. Tumbas was launched after the 04 season I believe and he got a bum rap to say the least.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
GOTTA AGREE 100%
Having Hendry return spells another disaster in 2010 . They needed to try and keep the 2008 team the best they could . Not tear it apart as they did . ( And then expect the fans to be happy about it ) .
cubs north - August 24, 2009
Tearing a team apart = what?
It’s not like they blew up the team. The only major pieces that left were DeRosa, Wood, and Edmonds and they brought in Bradley and Gregg. They resigned Dempster and Johnson.
We got just what we should have expected from Gregg, but Wood may have been even worse (and would certainly have been more expensive). Bradley has been disappointing but I think he’s still going to more than earn his contract. Releasing Edmonds was the right move (Gary Gaetti situation). I wish they hadn’t traded for Gregg and kept DeRosa, but Mark DeRosa is not the difference this year
berselius - August 24, 2009
I could have gone either way on Edmonds.
Just because it happened once (with Gaetti) doesn’t mean the identical situation would happen again with a completely different player.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
The fact that he still hasn't signed with anyone is pretty telling, in my opinion
berselius - August 24, 2009
Yeah, probably so.
And like I said, could have gone either way.
I’m one of the people who thinks Mark DeRosa could have made a big difference. 8 games worth? Probably not. But it would have been a huge difference in May when Ramirez went down.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
8 games is an MVP-level difference.
I agree that he would have been nice to have around too. I’m still not really against the trade though – he was the most tradeable guy when they needed to move someone, and I didn’t really like the idea of starting him (or Hoffpauir etc) in RF every day. No one could have predicted the massive vortex of injuries and ineffectiveness from the Cubs this year
berselius - August 24, 2009
We can get into the old argument again...
… I’d rather have had DeRosa as mostly 2B, partly elsewhere, and Adam Dunn in RF.
You’re right about the injuries and poor performances, though. Given that, it’s surprising that they are still over .500.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I think it shows just how well this team was constructed, and how good it would have been. Just about everything has gone wrong with the team and it still has a winning record. I’m not going to get into the fruitless Dunn-and-defense argument, but I will point out that Dunn would have cost just as much, if not more than Bradley for the Cubs to sign (and he was a type-A free agent too IIRC), so the Cubs would still have the salary issues. I’d rather they just didn’t sign Miles or trade for Gregg, that would have paid for DeRosa
berselius - August 24, 2009
Now there, we can agree.
Gregg has been OK at times, bad lately. Miles has been completely worthless.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
You know what?
This is pretty reasonable. I can get on board with that.
My main complaint about DeRosa has not necessarily been about his ability, although I have no problem with Hendry dealing him. It’s the out-of-proportion reaction to his departure, and his perceived impact on this year’s team.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 24, 2009
Wrong
If we had DeRosa we would be 32 games up in the division.
Mike Martin - August 24, 2009
DeRosa would have stopped us from slidding
When Ramirez went down. I don’t think it’s ridiculous to say DeRosa could have saved the season. You have to pay a premium for that kind of leadership and we just gave it away.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
Oh, please
Not Bruce Froemming - August 24, 2009
The Cubs wouldn't be close to 8 games back
and who knows, could even be right at the top. Hard to tell.
But no one can argue his best asset as a batter is what the Cubs sorely miss out this season; RISP hits….!
blackhawk24 - August 25, 2009
You really think
the Cubs “wouldn’t be close to 8 games back” if they had DeRosa? Seriously?
“Right at the top”? Seriously?
This is delusional. A perennial All-Star (like Ramirez) MIGHT make that much of a difference. A journeyman utility player won’t.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 25, 2009
I dunno, Miles is a journeyman utility player and his
presence in the lineup has made a measurable difference. j/k
N Oakley - August 25, 2009
You should check your facts
We got some pitchers for DeRo.
vonde6 - August 25, 2009
But noone of them are any good.
All crappy minor league relievers.
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
Buzz, I hate to rain on your parade here,
but check their stats. They’re pretty decent.
In reading your posts, I can’t tell if you’re goofing on us or if you really are this ignorant. I hope it’s the former.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 25, 2009
unfortunately,
I think it’s the latter
tootle - August 25, 2009
Some of my comments are a bit flippant
but to suggest that I’m doing this as a giant joke is ridiculous. I am a traditionalist, but the 3 realievers they got (yes Archer will eventually be one, he has the same control issues Gaub has, albie not as bad)
Archer has the potential to be good, Stevens as we saw still is very far away if he ever sticks, and Gaub’s walk rate is very close t Marmol’s minor league walk rate. Those are actually facts.
I’m just saying that if DeRosa were here the whole season they could have surivived the Aramis injury a lot better with DeRo. That was the point IMO where we could ahve put difference between the us and the Cards.
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
*if DeRosa were here.
the whole season part sounds like I didn’t know that he was traded int he offseason.
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
And he'll walk on water
and turn it into wine, too.
Seriously, he might have made the difference in one game. Maybe, maybe two. Not enough to make a difference overall, I’m afraid.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 25, 2009
Al is right as usual
It was worth the risk with Edmonds. After a great year it was at least worth a shot to continue the Johnson/Edmonds platoon.
All your fancy stats couldn’t have predicted Jim Edmonds 2008 year. The competitive nature and solid hitting and veteran savvy he brought to the club was a real boost. I think he had one year maybe. It would have been a cheap contract anyways.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
Again, for whom
is Edmonds playing this season? Remind me, please?
Not Bruce Froemming - August 24, 2009
Would have been worth a league minimum contract IMO.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
Then why isn't he playing for any of the 30 MLB teams?
Maybe Edmonds wasn’t willing to play for the minimum and no team was willing to meet his asking price? Or maybe he was just ready to retire?
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
Do you ever disagree with Al?
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 25, 2009
I'm not sure I haven't been here long.
So far I tend to agree with Al’s view point. That could change very quickly though.
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
Ok, just wondering if the newbie was kissing up.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 25, 2009
Well at least in my limited experience
I’ve disagreed no more or less with Al than dtpolit, sue369, or that Santo’s Wooden Leg guy
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
Great minds think alike, I suppose.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 25, 2009
Hendry SUCKS!!!
Find a young GM to fill the role. He’ll get more players like Reed Johnson and Ryan Theriot. That’ll make this team so much better.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
Real good teams....
…only have so many Reed Johnsons and Ryan Theriots. They are dependable players, but not the type you want to build around.
The key is creating balance (especially with your lineup). Greater balance = fewer long scoring droubts and more ways you can beat the other team. I have said for a long time, your good offenses are usually solid in the one and two holes, and that puts pressure on opposing pitchers and then they make mistakes. 1984 and 2003 (2nd half) are the only Cub teams I can remember that were rock solid in those spots and they also happen to be the two teams that got closest to the WS. I know the 08 team scored a bunch of runs in the regular season, but that was also a club that was at risk of being shut down by the higher end scouting reports in the post season and pitchers that could excute those plans.
I hope beyond hope, this sinks in with some of the new folks that will be coming in at Clark and Addison.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
You might need some power hitters and middle of the order guys
But they should all have that desire to go through walls or dive at everything and put everything on the line like the afor mentioned Theriot and Johnson. DeRosa was like that, maybe we can get him back. He is a free agent.
Balance is crucial a well balanced lineup with a castillo/pierre (in their primes) at the top and boppers in the middle would do well. Unfortunately, the cubs don’t have that kind of speed. Speed and good baserunning could improve the team as well.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
vBut they should all have that desire to go through walls or dive at everything and put everything on the line
You mean like Zambrano?
drewishdrewid - August 25, 2009
Why exactly are these things mutually exclusive? We’re not a small market team. We can spend money and improve from within. Just look at the Red Sox.
A team which couldn’t have possibly repeated the success of the previous year, something Hendry and anyone else looking at the team objectively understood. Wood was gone, Edmonds wasn’t going to repeat his contributions, and Fukudome was a giant question mark. Soriano, Soto, and Fontenot all looked like they could be counted on to make major contributions.
This “Hendry blew up the team for no reason!” meme is silly and disingenuous, and basically boils down to people being upset with one departure – mancrush recipient, golden boy, and holy icon Mark Derosa.
No. Make him do both. We’re not a small market team, and I’m not sure where this idea comes from that this would make us better. The only thing I can think is that fans like you would find the team more likeable if it were home-grown.
Wreckard - August 24, 2009
Hmm.
I would find the team more likeable if it weren’t underperforming with guys making enormous sums of money. Work smarter to build a team and spend wisely. Use your farm system when applicable, create competition with-in (which is good thing), and let your scouting department identify breakout-year major league talent as trade targets.
We’ve seen guys like Carlos Quinten (prospect given up on and traded), Dan Uggla (Rule 5’d), Shane Victorino (Rule 5’d), Jason Bartlett (traded), Carlos Pena (on his 6th team), Ryan Ludwick (long-time farm hand) etc. They’re all having big impacts on their current teams on payroll friendly contracts.
Do a better job scouting, and find some pieces to your puzzle that way, instead of spending $214M on your starting outfield ($136M for Soriano, $48M for Fukudome, and $30M for Bradley).
SackMan - August 24, 2009
I guess I see your point.
It may be easier to accept a contending team cratering in August if it’s a team with fewer big ticket players and more league minimum types.
If a guy making $500K is playing left field, fans don’t expect 30 HRs and 120 RBI’s.
N Oakley - August 24, 2009
Not exactly my point.
We have a guy making $500K, who his racking up an RBI every 4.4 ABs… he could be playing LF for us instead of the guy making $136M, and racking up an RBI every 8.8 ABs.
It’s player evaluation…
SackMan - August 24, 2009
See Sackman gets it.
He’s doing what Bradley and Soriano can’t. Drive in runs consistently. Can’t get much more consistent than Fox this year.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
So if both expectations and payroll were lower
…but ticket prices, beer prices, etc were all the same…. and the team were performing at the same level it is now, you’d feel more positively about the team?
You seem to be advocating Hendry spending less money simply because millionaire athletes make you uncomforatable.
Wreckard - August 24, 2009
Like Randy Wells this year?
We do get a few nuggets out of our system. I agree that more would be better.
vonde6 - August 24, 2009
+100
Agreed — Sick and tired of this.
And you did not even mention the bigger issue, that in spite of the 97 wins, the fans wanted changes after seeing two major playoff failures in two years.
vonde6 - August 24, 2009
+100 more
I am driven to the point of insanity by people
- not just here, but professional journalists, too, as Chris DeLuca of the Sun-Times wrote last week -who keep insisting the 2008 team was “blown up” or “torn apart” or “dismantled.”Virtually every key player who was with the Cubs last season still is with them. Remember how the Cubs accomplished some of those 97 victories last season? Odds are pretty good a lot of those “miracle” finishes weren’t going to be repeated, regardless of who was on the team.
Wreckard is absolutely correct. This meme has more to do with the departure of St. DeRo than anything else.
I get offended when people accuse Cubs fans of racism. But sometimes, you just have to wonder if they just might have a point.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 24, 2009
Whoops
Don’t know why the DeLuca part is underlined, but it shouldn’t be. Sorry about that.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 24, 2009
I think it's the dash you used.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
Define "Virtually every key player"
Take your blinders off for a second and ignore the halo… You don’t think DeRosa was a key player on last year’s team?
Same question for Wood, Edmonds, Blanco, and Marquis. That’s five. Not the five best players mind you, but most folks would agree that they played key roles last year.
I sympathize with the pain and frustration you feel after reading the likes of DeLuca and the rants and ramblings of some folks here, but if you can’t acknowledge DeRosa played a key role on last year’s team, then that sympathy dries up pretty fast.
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
"Virtually" every key player
Not Bruce Froemming - August 24, 2009
Ok, I listed 5 key (IMO) players.
Assuming we’lre just talking about the 25 man roster, that’s 20%.
So an 80% (at best) retention rate qualifies as keeping “virtually” every key player?
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
I don't think
Marquis and Blanco can be considered “key” players. And Edmonds wasn’t in the plan this year at all, most likely of his own doing.
So that leaves DeRosa and Wood.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 25, 2009
I would agree with that list of key players
vonde6 - August 25, 2009
Yep
If you’re going to say Marquis and Blanco were key players last season, then you’re basically saying EVERY player on the roster was a “key” player. No. 5 starters and backup catchers are not “key.”
Not Bruce Froemming - August 25, 2009
Depends on the player, not their roster 'designation'
don’t know if the stats will back me up or not, but it’s my impression that compared to other teams in the league, Marquis was a pretty good #5 starter. He took the ball every 5th day and went out and did his job. Cubs didn’t have to worry about a revolving door for the #5 spot or trot out some unproven rookie to get lit up. Not having to worry about 20% of your rotation, relative to the rest of the league, sounds pretty key to me.
As for Blanco, I’d say his production was above average for a backup catcher, but even more important was the influence and assistance he provided to Soto. Given Soto’s performance last year, I’d say that was a pretty key role as well.
ballhawk - August 25, 2009
The Triangle Building
Can you really fit all that stuff Al mentioned there? Wouldn’t it have to be like 10 stories tall? I’m all for such a building but it just seems like a lot to cram into that space.
tony412 - August 24, 2009
You could put a level or two in the ground, depending on building codes.
Maybe the bar could go down there, with a window into the batting cages, so you could watch the players taking BP while sitting at the bar. I’d be up for that.
Bill Potter - August 24, 2009
The building is supposed to be almost as high as the ballpark itself.
You can fit a LOT of stuff in there.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Definitely, if it's that tall.
Just from my own marketing interests, here’s what I’d do:
Put the permanent bar in the ground and call it The Dugout. Install a clear wall next to the batting cages in which patrons can watch players warming up prior to the game. I’d think people would be willing to go there and might not even be as concerned that their beer was overpriced.
That would leave plenty of floors left for a museum, administrative offices, etc. above ground.
Bill Potter - August 24, 2009
Very intersting idea...
I just don’t know how “intrusive” that is to the players pre-game routine.
Sure, we can watch them warm up when the gates open, and the other team takes BP… and our guys run and stretch, and throw. But, we’re not right up in their face when they do so.
At any rate, the triangle building needs to be built: we need better player facilities to prepare to win games.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
I have no idea, either.
But I’m sure it could be constructed in a way that would eliminate sound, thereby taking away one possible distraction. I just think it’d be another feature to add to it that would “enhance” the game day experience – plus it’d be something no other bar in Wrigleyville could compete with.
That building does need to go up, and soon. Do the Cubs own the land to develop it yet?
Bill Potter - August 24, 2009
Yes.
That was settled a couple of years ago. The land belongs to the Cubs, and the only buildings left on it are the old donut shop, and a couple of trailers where the media relations dept. has its offices.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Good to know.
So would the Cubs have to go through the neighborhood to get plans approved, or are those basically done, too?
Bill Potter - August 24, 2009
I'n not even sure that's an issue, other than obvious building permits from the city.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
That works for me.
Let’s break ground sooner rather than later.
Bill Potter - August 24, 2009
Yum Yum
Donuts?
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
yep, the old Yum Yum Donuts place...
Homer sad. Very sad.
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
I forget which side it is...
…but you can watch either the Mets or the visiting team’s bullpen from the concourse at new Citi Field; that, I think, is far more intrusive than allowing people to watch BP.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
Maybe it could be that two-way mirror glass like they have in police interrogation rooms on tv.
Nah… players union would never go for it.
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
What if the clear wall was one way, People in the bar can see out but the players just see a tinted window
Rhymenocerous - August 24, 2009
At Nationals Park, the Presidents Club bar has a window
overlooking the Nats’ batting cage and post-game interview room.
If the Cubs were to do that, I’m sure it would be a premium-priced option. A Presidents Club ticket comes with access to a buffet and a seat behind the plate for $325.
va cubsfan - August 24, 2009
Al......
I love your passion but…..
1. Ticket Prices Lowered: After paying $800 million for the team do you really think this is feasible? If you want them to expand payroll he will have to raise ticket prices. Hendry’s contracts have put this team in a horrible spot. You can’t expect him to lower prices and go out and spend. IMHO, Cubs fans (including myself) will not complain about ticket prices if they win. Hire new people, have a plan and win!
2. NO, NO, NO!!!!!!! Mr. Kenny has made one to many mistakes for my liking. He is TV moth. His stunts (the blessing of the field by the Greek Orthodox Priest, lies, ect) have left me wanting new blood. I am not sure why you support him. BTW, he had NOTHING to do with the spending of Sam Zell’s money. It was 100% Sam.
3. Agree 100%.
4. NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!! Jim has spent like a drunken sailor. the contracts signed on his watch will hurt the club in the coming years. Sometimes I think you are too willing to give second chances (see Dusty Baker….).
5. Agree 100%
6. Agree 100%
7. Agree, but it will never happen. There is a very vocal opposition group in the neighborhood. Personally, I would love for their to be more PM games. It would make street parking easier.
8. Agree 100%.
9. Agree 100%. One question: Would the ownership in Comcast allow them to move forward with this?
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
Good point about Comcast
It might take a few years for that contract to run out.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
There's no "contract".
The Cubs own a share of CSN. They could easily sell it.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
To whom?
They are the “star” of the network. I would bet they pull the highest ratings.
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
Probably, but...
… I’ll bet the 25% share could be sold off to the three other partners.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Curious.....
Why do you think it is important to roll back ticket prices?
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
Goodwill gesture.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
You want a goodwill gesture.
Clean house. Hire competent people to run the club. Win, win, win. I would bet the Red Sox ownership group did not roll back prices when they took over. Hell, I bet they raised them. They won and no one complained.
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
I'm sure every owner who buys a team would love to start winning.
It’s easy to say “win
”, it’s a lot harder to do it off the bat. The Cubs still have a good core and have fantastic revenues. They’ll be in contention for the next few years at least
berselius - August 24, 2009
I disagree...
…I believe it’s more likely the Cubs may end up being in a position not to contend in the next 2-3 years. I’m not saying they will be out of it by June, but the arrow is not pointing up in the short term.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Agree.....
IMHO bringing in competent people will help with the transition.
I do not have faith in Kenny or Hendry.
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
Yes, but
This team isn’t what you will be seeing in 2-3 years. A lot of money is coming off the books (except for Soriano), and the Cubs have huge revenues
berselius - August 24, 2009
For the next two years...
…you have to hope Soriano, Soto and Bradley produce as expected and Zambrano and Ramirez can stay healthy. Beyond that, it won’t be easy to shore up other areas unless Rickett’s approves a payroll of well over 150 mil.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Money is coming off the books though
Lilly, Lee, Harden, Fukudome will all be gone
berselius - August 24, 2009
Unless Harden is re-signed.
I’d be in favor of retaining Lilly, also.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Sure, that could be nice
It all depends on the FA market that year though – would not be surprised if there aren’t some younger guys available
berselius - August 24, 2009
Possibly so.
Harden, though, is a FA now..
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Yeah, I'd be happy with re-signing Harden
He’s really good at throwing baseballs. I don’t know if the Cubs can pony up enough to get it done though – I wonder how the market will value him. I can easily see the Mets throwing ridiculous money at him in the offseason, and I don’t want the Cubs chasing one of those deals when they already have some SP depth.
If they sign Harden they’ll probably try to structure a trade around Wells or Gorzelanny, I think
berselius - August 24, 2009
Possibly.
If the Mets do throw “ridiculous money” at Harden, I’d bid him a fond farewell. That kind of money can be better used elsewhere.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
And...
…3 of those 4 have been pretty productive. How do you replace them, and how much will it cost?
This is where having the occasional position player come through your farm (that can be a solid major league player) pays big dividends, because you get them cheap for several years.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Fukudome...
…has two more years on his deal.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
why wouldn't they sign
Fukudome? Or Lilly? I can see letting Lee go. And I bet Harden gets a deal in the off-season.
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
Lilly is the one...
…I wouldn’t hesitate to sign. He is lefty, reliable and probably has a few more good years in him.
Fukudome would be determined on how much money he would want, and what his role would be with the club.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Reliable lefty and the best pitcher on the team.
He’s cool under pressure and keeps his composure unlike Z. God I wish they would just trade Z. It bothers me he can’t live up to his potential.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
i wasnt aware a persons personality now judged how a person performs on the field
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
It does
It’s common knowledge. Even Brenly, Kasper, Stone, and the BBTN guys talk about it. He could be so much better.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
arods an asshole
but he does just fine on the field
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
Overpaid too.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
I think we are past...
…that point with Z. The guy is who he is and I don’t see him changing this late in his career. In fact, he may be a guy who frequents the DL more often as he ages.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Maybe
but I think he could regain a bit of his form if he wasn’t so lazy, angry, and insane. Just my two cents.
You don’t need to be a psychologist to see he’s crazy.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
Emotional != Crazy
At least, not in my family.
Clutch16 - August 24, 2009
...
…
drewishdrewid - August 25, 2009
they could re-sign them, sure
but as far as I’m concerned once their contract runs out they’re a part of that nebulous FA pool anyway. The Cubs have little leverage to keep a guy with the team who can test the market
berselius - August 24, 2009
nevermind
I mistook what you meant by ‘beyond that’
berselius - August 24, 2009
HA HA HA HA HA
The Cubs next goodwill gesture towards their fans will be their first.
That was good. But now I have to clean up the coffee I just spit all over my computer.
Tim M - August 24, 2009
That's exactly what new ownership SHOULD do, then.
To say to fans like you, “We DO care.”
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Delusional......
Cubs fans (IMHO) care about winning.
I will pay more if the team wins! The new ownership owes us (the fans) NOTHING. Their slate is clean. Just win!
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
If the 'Hawks can do it so can the Cubs
No owner has pissed off their fan base more than the Blackhawks (Arthur and Bill Wirtz) the past 40 years; no owner! Sorry Cubs fans, not even close!
…And the new owner still has the same name! Rocky Wirtz! Believe me if it were his brother, Peter taking over, it’d be business as usual and a 3rd straight generation of ridiculous priorities.
I know this is a Cubs blog but if you folks here that don’t know hockey can imagine the Cubs situation 10 times worse, that would be the Blackhawks. And now my team has turned the corner and on their way back up!
blackhawk24 - August 24, 2009
I'm sure the ticket brokers will appreciate the increase in their margin
Mike Martin - August 24, 2009
If it's as easy as just selling it
I’d bet the White Sox would like to buy it and make it more of their own channel. Or the Bulls or Blackhawks might want to do the same.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
Money....
is made by advertising. How much of the advertising dollars are based on the Cubs. I would love to see the ratings for the Sox, Cubs, Bulls……….
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
exactly why the Cubs need their own network
Mark Cuban said when he wanted to buy the team he would negotiate TV deals and ad deals as if the Cubs are more of a draw than the White Sox. Right now the Cubs don’t do that.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
Oh if its that easy then I guess that isn't an issue
a YES network for the Cubs would be awesome. That thing supports the Yankee payroll each year by itself.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
Contract?
Al – Besides being the Crane Apologist that you are….
How do you know there is no contract? There probably has to be a broadcasting rights holder deal between the team and the broadcaster. Otherwise all the revenue created would be subject to revenue sharing.
tallCubbie - August 24, 2009
Well...
… part of the thing holding up the sale was the perceived value of WGN rights going forward. Before, that didn’t matter as the team and WGN were owned by the same entity. Now, that part of the deal has to be negotiated, and presumably has been.
For CSN, since the team owns 25% of the network, presumably there DOESN’T have to be a rights deal.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I'm not sure that you are on the mark here.
It was my understanding that the WGN contracts were already locked in at well-below market value to the Cubs and that Ricketts was trying to negotiate out of them. It’s been reported that Ricketts was able to lower his offer because he wasn’t getting fair market value from WGN on their broadcasting deal and TribCo would not void the agreements. I’m pretty sure the broadcast deals with WGN are locked in for sometime to come and Ricketts can’t get out of them.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 25, 2009
Yeah it was one of the TribCo Shenanigans I believe.
Same thing with the Cubs/Sox agreement where the Cubs agreed not to run the Sox out of the market.
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
Be prepared to be very disappointed
1. Ticket prices aren’t going anywhere but up and we should all get prepared for the introduction of Personal Seat Licenses as soon as the economy becomes strong enough to make that announcement without taking an irreparable PR hit.
Lastly, back to #5 – Hendry needs to go. He was brought in to build up the farm system and he failed. So they gave him a truckload of money to build through free agency and he has not only failed, he has screwed the team for at least 2 more years with all of the horrible contracts. I like his attitude, I like that he is always “working the phones” to get better, but he’s not good at actually doing so.
Tim M - August 24, 2009
Not sure what happened to the formatting
Second paragraph is about #3, 4, 5, 6, & 8.
Third is about #2
Fourth is about #7 & 9
Tim M - August 24, 2009
What do you mean by "Cubs Way", Al?
The Cubs have really had a terrible time developing position players. I would love to see them stress OBP and baserunning certainly.
berselius - August 24, 2009
Which is why they need new people in place to develop this "Cubs way".
Obviously, the existing staff hasn’t been able to do it.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Yes, but is this what you meant?
berselius - August 24, 2009
Yes, of course it's what I meant.
What else would I have meant?
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I'm thinking of the "Yankee Way" BS that's run through that franchise for decades
Doesn’t really have anything to do with play on the field so much as it does with how players present themselves etc
berselius - August 24, 2009
No, that's different than what I'm thinking of.
I’m thinking of, say, the way the Twins do things through their organization. Look at the fundamentally solid players they have developed.
Now imagine that sort of thing with money behind it.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I wish the Cubs could develop players like the twins.
Hit to all fields, drop down sac bunts, play solid defense. The twins are a great example of how a team should be run. They are a much better story than the great “moneyball” team in Oakland.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
Nine World Series Banners...
…15-AL Pennants, and 14 AL West titles beg to differ.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
Since
Zero World Series Banners and Zero Pennants have occurred in the Moneyball era, that list is a tad OT, don’t you think? Heck, most of the pennants and WS titles weren’t even in Oakland!
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
I was never sold on Moneyball...
…and am the last person to know it was about Billy B. and the A’s, ’cause I never read it.
Four WS were won in Oakland; that’s exactly one fewer than were won in Philly. Division titles in 2000, 2002, ‘03, and ’06 when they fell in the ALCS to the Tigers who would eventually lose to the Cards. Anything can happen in a short series, but I think the A’s would’ve beat the Dead Birds.
It may be slightly OT, but overall the overall success of the franchise cannot be disputed. Billy B. has still fielded fundamentally solid teams throughout the Moneyball era.
’94 still remains an unsolved dilemma.
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
The last A's WS won in Oakland was in 1989.
That’s quite a long time ago and long before Billy Beane.
Al Yellon - August 25, 2009
Beane was actually a player on that 89 team
Not that it has anything to do with how the team was run
berselius - August 25, 2009
Interesting.
I had forgotten that. He got zero postseason AB.
Al Yellon - August 25, 2009
Not surprising.
Hard to believe a career stat line like that would value walks and OPS.
Billy Ball
N Oakley - August 25, 2009
1989 is still the modern-era.
It wouldn’t be as nice as, say, 2006, but it’s modern.
Billy B., who is now a minority owner, still fields fundamentally solid teams.
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
While I am not sold on Moneyball either
mainly because it clearly did not correctly evaluate defense as well as it needed to. The philosophy of moneyball (assuming it was adapted to more current times which Billy definitely would do) is just finding inequities in teh market and using it his advantage.
That and steroids likely had a large part of the offensive success of players like Giambi and Tejada so I think the philosophy is overhyped as the right way to do things, when in fact it is just a valid philosophy that requires good players who have the ability to work together and pull on the same side of the metaphorical rope.
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
Al probably means...
…ingraining the fundementals of the game early on in a players development (similar to the Twins, Cards and others) so a player does not need baseball 101 when the major league manager gets a hold of them.
The Cubs have been infatuated with 5 tool ratings of young players and have placed little to no value to other qualities that can make a player a good major leaguer.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Surely they currently do *something* in the minors other than fill out lineup cards
I wonder what it is, and why it isn’t working
berselius - August 24, 2009
That's a very good question.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
This is one of my major issues...
…with Jim Hendry. He has had an influence on the farm since 1994, and we know what the track record has been. We have seen highly touted (5 tool prospects) fall on their face, poor baserunning skills, guys can’t bunt (even guys with great speed???), and no one knows what the cut-off man is for.
Hendry’s philosophy is extremely flawed when it comes to what to value in scouting, and how to develop a player once you have him. Hendry also has a tendancy to take care of his buddies, and this can get in the way of navigating the ship in the right direction. It’s simply broken and needs a complete overall.
This is why Hendry either needs to go the day Ricketts takes over or a new head of baseball operations needs to hold Hendry by the hand for the next year.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
I think the latter may be more likely (a hand holder).
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Why would you want........
a hand holder for him?
How bout hiring competent people.
Jim Hendry is likely a nice guy. He helped move the team from point A to B. IMHO, someone else will move the team to point C (C = Championship).
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
Hendry is a nice guy...
…and frankly, this is a major reason he got the 4 year deal last year.
If it was up to me, I would wipe the slate clean, but certain circumstance may make that difficult. Having 3 years left on his deal is reason number one, and giving the new Head of Baseball Operations a little time to get up to speed is not a bad thing.
In the end, as long as Hendry is answering to someone who is competent, it will be a big step in the right direction.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Exactly right.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
How About 36 Home Night Games w/Fridays?
I think 40 home night games would be a little much, but I sure could see 36 with Friday night regular season home games allowed. The Cubs should be able to use the additional 6 home night games on Fridays. I know that the Cubs didn’t have the problem this season of having to play a Wrigley day game after a night road game. The possibility of that happening should not exist.
I believe 36 home night games would be enough to keep the Cubs players from complaining and keep the tradition of day baseball alive. I think it would be good for the Cubs to start every homestand with a night game. I’m sure the neighborhood would love to have the Cubs go back to playing just 18 home night games a year. We’ll see what happens.
memphiscub - August 24, 2009
36 ... 40 ...
… not too much difference there, is there?
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Only Significant Difference
I could see having more Thursday night home games in addition to having more Friday night home games, if the number was 40. I don’t see the need to increase the number of Thursday night games. Of course, this is just talk because changing the city ordinance in the first place to raise the number of night games and allow for Friday night baseball is going to be difficult.
memphiscub - August 24, 2009
I'm greedy, take half out of the middle
and make it 42.
I’m all for the Cubs being more competitive when it comes to this kind of thing and I’m still a day-game diehard.
Can’t wait for Thur-Sun; 4 straight in the sun (hopefully).
blackhawk24 - August 24, 2009
Al (Part Deux).............
Is your love for Jim Kenney due to him being blog friendly?
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
"Jim Kenney"?
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Crane Kenney....
trying to multitask. Damn work………
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
The question......
still stands……..
Is your love for CRANE Kenny due to him being blog friendly?
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
I do appreciate the time he has given this site.
But I also like the job he has done. He has brought additional revenue to the team and I have no doubt in my mind that he wants to make the Cubs a winner.
That’s good enough for me.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
and
the fact that he has brought you into the ‘house’. Just tell everyone Al the truth – you are are friend of the chairman. That you email with him all the time.
We can’t view anything you say on Crane as being ‘just’
tallCubbie - August 24, 2009
nice. Let's also never take another reporters opinion or comment about anything as 'just' either....
because communication with the subject of a comment or story is out of bounds now.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
Hah... exactly.
Those biased bastards and their access tainting it all! If they are let inside Wrigley, they shouldn’t be allowed to write!
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
Well, as long as a video of Al in his swimming trunks at a pool party at Crane's house
doesn’t all of a sudden show up on Ch. 2, I think we can trust him. ;-)
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
what?
dood, what’s your problem? I want them to keep Kenny too. Guess I shouldn’t let you see my calendar.
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
I've tried to be fair in my interviews with Crane Kenney.
I’m not sure what your objection is.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
An interesting.....
question would be if you feel it is hard to be objective because of your relationship with him. Your dilemma is similar to that of a beat writer.
I have not been overly impressed by him.
timeforachange2009 - August 24, 2009
I don't think so at all.
If I think he’s done something wrong, I’ll say so — like the priest incident. On balance I think he’s done a good job and I hope he gets a chance to continue — with the freedom to spend money to win.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I think I'm the only one who doesn't see any problem with the "priest incident."
I have no issues with it. None whatsoever. People all over the world do it, especially in mostly-Catholic countries. It didn’t faze me then and I don’t understand the outrage now.
chilango2 - August 24, 2009
Here's the problem with it.
It took the focus away from baseball and put the media on another non-baseball track. It was a completely unnecessary distraction.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Plus...
… to me, at least, it amounted to an official sanctioning of all those crazy “curse” ideas.
If something can be blessed, it can be cursed. By blessing it, its like admitting to these curses, which in and of itself can’t hurt much, but also doesn’t show much confidence in the team’s ability to win of their own volition.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
and speaking as one of the Eastern Orthodox faith...
…I felt it demeaned and embarrassed my church. Regardless of the whole Crane/priest he said/he said thing, I still point to the priest and say “what were you thinking?”
Obviously the best thing would have been to not do anything at all, but if Kenney was determined to pull a stunt like this, he should have gone total tongue in cheek – get Fr. Guido Sarducci to do the blessing, and maybe let Billy Goat’s cater the post-game spread for the teams and the media.
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
I am Eastern Orthodox as well
and felt the same way.
Al has been very tough on Kenney about that incident. He and I both agree it was a stupid thing to do, and it might have helped set the tone for that entire series.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 24, 2009
I agree
with the poster who indicated that if the Cubs were so fragile that they let something as trivial as that “set the tone for the series”, then you must be one of the loonies that thinks Bartman cost them a World Series berth.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
I absolutely don't think that re Bartman
but I detest anything and everything that plays into the stupid Cubs “mythology.” The priest incident certainly does that.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 25, 2009
It was also pathetic that Kenney lied about it after the fact and claimed the Priest asked to do the sprinkling of the holy water.
I’m sorry but I believe the Priest when he says Kenney called him and asked him to do it. I still don’t understand why Kenney would lie about it. He seems to like attention a lot and seems all to eager to put his face in front of a camera. He is Tribune corporate lawyer that has absolutely no business running a baseball team. I hope Ricketts has the sense to fire him ASAP.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 25, 2009
Sure
I get that. It was dorky, at best.
But, set the tone for the series? That is hyperbole at it’s worst.
azjazzman - August 25, 2009
I am in full agreement.
What was stupid about it was people’s reaction to it, IMO. If curses don’t exist, just laugh at yourself and move on. But the second people saw the Priest blessing the dugout, you’d have thought Steve Bartman rode in on a goat wearing a ’69 Mets jersey.
I saw it as sort of a tongue-in-cheek ribbing of ourselves as Cubs fans. That it got blown out of proportion by a bunch of folks is what troubles me more.
Goodie1969 - August 24, 2009
Right.
The blowing it out of proportion is what took the focus off of baseball.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
The Cubs took the focus off baseball
the second they took the field.
You know what took the focus of baseball for real? The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake which caused a week-and-a-half stoppage in play of the World Series. A’s up 2 games to 0. The Bay area was devastated. Ten days later, the umpire yelled “Play Ball!” again, and what did the A’s do?
They swept the Giants and won the whole damn thing. I’m sure the fans of Oakland would laugh at people complaining about a silly priest taking the focus off baseball. What a bunch of self-flagellating saps we Cubs fans must seem like.
Goodie1969 - August 24, 2009
We also like to throw bats at pitchers.
Something I don’t think a Cubs player has yet managed to do.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
How......
about his lying about the reason the priest was there?
timeforachange2009 - August 25, 2009
And you know what, that didn't have a thing to do with the series
What did? The genius that is Joe Torre. Joe mentioned to the media right before the start of the series that all the pressure is on the Cubs, how it’s them with the best NL record, home field advantage, the Dodgers just making it in and oh one other thing, that 100-year drought.
He basically made sure the entire focus was on the Cubs. What did the Cubs do? Demp walked the universe in game 1; they didn’t hit. The entire IF each made an error in game 2; they didn’t. And game 3, well they just plain didn’t hit again.
blackhawk24 - August 25, 2009
I'd like to think Al's
just a bit more objective than it being Kenney is a-blogger-kind-of-guy
blackhawk24 - August 24, 2009
Kenney has gotten a lot of good will around here since he gave Al an interview.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 25, 2009
How did the Mets and Yankees Manage in 1974 and 1975?
It looks as if the Cubs in a worst-case scenario would only have to spend one season away from Wrigley. Did the Mets and Yankees ever play home games on the same day at Shea back in 1974 or 1975 when Yankee Stadium was being renovated? Did the schedule makers make especially sure back then that the Yankees and Mets were never scheduled to be at home on the same day? Did the Mets have to approve the Yankees’ playing at Shea? Did Bowie Kuhn demand that the Yankees be allowed to play at Shea? Did the Mets collect any money from the Yanks back then? Does anybody know how the condition of the field was in September 1974 and September 1975, when the Jets were still playing their home games at Shea?
I’m just wondering what the financial arrangement would be between the White Sox and Cubs, if the Cubs played their home games at the Cell. Did the Brewers get any money from the Cubs or Astros for having those two games in September 2008 at Miller Park?
memphiscub - August 24, 2009
If a renovation took place immediately after a season was completed.
Maybe they could have it done in time? Is that outrageous to expect? I have no clue. I’m no construction expert, but keep in mind that the foundation already exists. The field is brand new… and the bleachers are renovated. So, you’re just doing the grandstands. Maybe it’s possible.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
Best-Case Scenario
Chicago has a relatively mild late fall and winter. The renovations are done before the season starts. The Cubs get to play all of their home games at Wrigley the following season. I’ve heard others say that a more realistic scenario would be that the Cubs would spend half a season away from Wrigley. The whole season away from Wrigley possibility is clearly the worst-case scenario.
memphiscub - August 24, 2009
That's a plausible scenario.
They did manage to finish the bleachers in basically four months, during which the weather was pretty bad.
The Cubs could ask for a long road trip at the start of the following season to ensure completion of the project. I also recall that they opened new Busch Stadium in St. Louis with parts of the LF stands unfinished; they were completed on road trips.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I really think they'll divide into N-winters
so all the realistic work can be done for the 2014 centennial celebration.
blackhawk24 - August 24, 2009
I highly doubt...
…it would be possible to rebuild the entire grand stand in one offseason. They could go to 24/7 hour shifts to give it a shot, but then costs would go through the roof and may be prohibitive on this type of project.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
It's really only the upper deck that needs to be completely rebuilt.
As I said, the lower deck was gutted and rebuilt in 1968. All it needs is touchup work.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I don't know Al.
I think they’d wipe it all, and rebuild from scratch with on a new floorplan with less obstructions
SackMan - August 24, 2009
Then you're looking at--at least--a two-year project
The logistics may prove too daunting.
chilango2 - August 24, 2009
I just want a new grandstand....
with minimal obstructions! When you look at the new Busch, or PNC… they don’t have obstructions.
Oh… and a nicer exterior facade would be very welcome too.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
Agreed on the exterior facade
It would look really great in brick
berselius - August 24, 2009
To do that...
…you would have to wipe out the entire structure (which I think is the best route). Newer stadiums are free of obstructions because of newer construction techniques, which would require basically starting from scratch.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
And they don't have space on the present footprint to do it...
… especially if they build the triangle building.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
can they do that?
wipe out the entire structure? I thought Wrigley was a landmark.
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
Specific pieces are.
http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20040127&content_id=631178&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
I'm talking about...
…keeping everything from foul poul to foul pole and completely rebuilding the lower and upper decks.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Impossible.
Much of the field IS a landmark and can’t be messed with easily. The exterior facade is part of that, i believe. Which is unfortunate, as its pretty ugly at this point.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
Things can be worked around...
…but that just adds a lot of money to the project. It would be cheaper to just nuke the grandstand and start from scratch.
What they won’t be able to work around is making sure the updated grandstand/upper deck is structurally sound.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
It is people like you that the Landmark status was put in place to protect Wrigley from.
Yes, it would. But that isn’t how it works with Wrigley. Its been deemed in need of protection due to the history and nostalgia of the place, which is very real and important even if you specifically don’t feel it. From the article i linked:
So nuking it and starting over isn’t possible, as the four exterior walls and the roofs are protected.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
I gotcha!
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
I think that they left enough latitude in there
To rebuild the grandstand area. Exterior walls and roofs could be preserved while raising a new framework, using 21st-Century building tech, that would hold up the upper deck without the posts that block sightlines.
They do building “restorations” like this all the time, rebuilding the frame of a reinforced masonry building with a new steel skeleton.
It would be well worth it to preserve the feel of Wrigley with the amenities of a totally-modern stadium. If you read between the lines of the historical preservation statement, they can still do this.
vonde6 - August 24, 2009
I read that the new Busch has at least 5000
seats with only partial views of the field. Not because of poles but just because of the way the some seats are situated.
the nth - August 24, 2009
Won't happen at Clark and Addison
Land area is too small. They need the support posts to make the overhang of the upper deck work.
Other places have just a little cantilever of the upper levels hanging over the lower levels such that support posts can be embedded in the structure.
If Wrigley were changed that way, the upper deck would be out over Addison for portions of the RF stands. Behind the plate, the marquee would be nearly to the stop lights at the intersection.
If you’re a long-time Chicagoan, think how the United Center is so different from Chicago Stadium from a support post perspective. Same thing would have to happen to Wrigley.
blackhawk24 - August 25, 2009
Right.
The UC is at least twice the size of the old Chicago Stadium. There simply isn’t enough land, as blackhawk24 points out, to enlarge the structure, especially since they want to build the triangle building.
As I have mentioned, building that would give the Cubs SOME more space in the existing footprint of Wrigley to add premium seating.
Al Yellon - August 25, 2009
Lot's of factors...
…involved in this one (my brother is an architect). They would have to do all kinds of tests to determine what needs to be shored up in regards to the foundation etc. to make sure the new upper deck would be sound structurally. I would also think some pretty major work would have to be done to the lower deck as well.
Anyway, tons of unknowns until they really dig into this.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Ha ha
SackMan - August 24, 2009
what about
Soriano, Bradley and Zambrano? Are they part of the team in a year?
TheCubsGuy - August 24, 2009
If there not...
…you will have to spend a boatload of money for them to play for another team, I can guarantee you that.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
of course they are
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
If the Cubs want to win games they will be
Trading them would be stupid.
nji232 - August 24, 2009
No Jumbotron!
Yes to the TV network and pretty much everything else. I would cry if they put up a jumbotron or a video ribbon.
goddess - August 24, 2009
I would cry tears of joy
If I could see myself celebrating a World Series victory on the JumboTron, because the revenue it created allowed us to buy the player that helped us win.
SackMan - August 24, 2009
Exactly.
Rec’d.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Plus, the video screen could generate income year-round
as it can—ad should—double as a billboard when the Cubs are off.
chilango2 - August 24, 2009
Ever see the mini Jumbotron at Clark and Diversey?
Terrible. Doesn’t fit the neighborhood at all.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - August 24, 2009
Yeah, that thing is a real distraction.
I’m surprised it hasn’t caused traffic accidents. Or maybe it has.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Driving west on Diversey...
… from the lake towards Halsted on a rainy evening is so dangerous. All you can see is the light from that screen… everything else is a blur.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
Exactly!
I said this above without reading your comment. Its so obnoxious. I detest it, and one similar at Wrigley would be horrible. It’d need to be off when ever the park wasn’t open.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
I'm not saying I like it personally
All I’m saying is that it could be another source of revenue, which, ultimately, can be used to improve the on-field product—which is all I really care about.
chilango2 - August 24, 2009
Oh i totally agree one should be there.
I cant count the times i’ve been in the bleachers and had to wait till i got home that night to see a nice grab along the wall under me. That shouldn’t happen in 2009… a video board is needed, beyond the revenue generating stuff.
But understated is the key… not only for the good of the atmosphere at Wrigley, but for the neighborhood as a whole. I hate their complaining about concerts, night games, all that… they knew where they were moving. But a giant screen lighting up Waveland at 3AM isn’t a solution either. People still live in those buildings across from Wrigley.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
How many WS have the Yankees won this decade
with their high bankroll? Payroll is only one aspect of a winning team.
Although Jumbotrons do work in certain stadiums, I think it would be a tough fit at Wrigley. Given enough ingenuity and a creative design maybe it could work but I am divided on this issue.
JFCubFan - August 24, 2009
The Yankees...
…have 4 World Series Banners in the past 13-years.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
Slackers...
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
And how many in the last eight?
Al Yellon - August 25, 2009
Classic Bill Simmons (ESPN writer, huge RedSox fan) joke that gets updated every year...
…though this may be the last year for awhile. Goes something like this:
ballhawk - August 25, 2009
That would be zero...
…but not the question asked. It is an excellent example, however, of how having the biggest payroll doesn’t always get you to the WS.
I don’t know if you’ve seen this or not, but there’s an interesting graph a fan put together on the Yankees’ payroll since ’77.
http://www.eugenewei.com/images/misc/yankees-payroll-800.jpg
It’s interesting that 4 of their five losing seasons came about when Steinbrenner was banned.
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
That would be zero, Al.
Hmm… did BCB delete my response? I could’ve swore I wrote this once before…
Anywhere, I found this interesting graph the other day, that details the level of the Yankees’ payroll going back to ‘77 when FA really took hold. It’s interesting to note that 4 of the 5 losing seasons the Yankees had all came during the time when Steinbrenner was banned.
http://www.eugenewei.com/images/misc/yankees-payroll-800.jpg
Graph ends in ’04, however, and needs to be updated.
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
it's still on my screen
from 27 minutes ago. try refreshing your screen
tootle - August 25, 2009
mine too
sue369 - August 25, 2009
How odd.
I see them both now.
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
Wow
that would be snarky coming from anyone else, but coming from you Al, it is downright hysterical.
azjazzman - August 25, 2009
Yes on Video Ribbon, No On Jumbotron
I don’t think the video ribbon is too much. Advertising revenue could be had with that thing. I feel the Jumbotron would be too distracting and interfere too much with the beauty of the park.
memphiscub - August 24, 2009
How has nobody recommended this?!
This is the reason BCB is the best blog on SBN and the best Cubs’ blog around. Great work, as usual, Mr. Yellon. Onto two of your points:
First, how do the Cubs not have a place for players to warm-up, take cuts, and essentially prepare for the game as it is occurring? This boggles my mind and is unacceptable.
Second, on the same line, how do the Cubs get away with the second smallest organizational staff in baseball? It seems contradictory to spend hundreds of millions but have no interior structure to support it. Ridiculous. No wonder our farm system has been horrible, no?
Dan
dtpollitt - August 24, 2009
Rec'd,+1, LSA
That’s why I started here. Al tells it like it is and really provides well organized and constructed thoughts. The cubs need to improve from top to bottom to avoid another year like 2009.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
Please refer back to the "Junbotron" Fan Shot of this weekend.
Such a video board is not a panacea. The other ideas are right on.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - August 24, 2009
No one's saying it's a panacea.
Just another piece in the puzzle.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
OT: Jazz Man
What instrument(s) do you play? Just curious.
vonde6 - August 24, 2009
10. Fire Lou Piniella.
DeRoMyHero - August 24, 2009
Find and hire a Sparky Anderson
There has to be another one out there somewhere. If not, make Lou Pinella study the man and his management philosophy. Sparky Anderson could have taken any Cubs team of the past couple of years to a Pennant.
Steaming Pile - August 24, 2009
1973 Reds and 1987 Tigers
Those teams had the best record in their leagues, were managed by Sparky, and got beaten by the 1973 Mets and 1987 Twins, respectively, in the LCS. The 1973 Mets were only 82-79, and the 1987 Twins were just 85-77. I don’t know if Sparky would have managed the Cubs to a pennant the last couple of years. Postseasons are unpredictable.
memphiscub - August 24, 2009
I'm starting to feel this way, too.
Goodie1969 - August 24, 2009
All seem to make sense to me except keeping Hendry.
But I can even see the latter given his contract. I don’t think Hendry’s “horrible” but I think he’s had enough time and opportunity. I’d rather see a change.
DudeVf11 - August 24, 2009
With the physical limitations bounding the ballpark
on all streets, increasing capacity won’t be likely. I disagree on the capacity limit, Al. The Cubs aren’t like most teams building new stadiums. The Cubs could use the extra seats IMO, to the tune of 47,000. But without the room, it’s nearly impossible.
Revenue generation via skyboxes is the real way to go. And I think the Triangle bldg is the enabler. It moves the offices out, allows concourses and premium seating areas to be built and most of all, enables real skyboxes and exclusive access to those skyboxes. Note that at the UC, how skybox access isn’t the same escalators the fans use to get to the 200 and 300 levels.
On the tix, I’d like to see a range of 400 and 500 level seats be reduced in price and be enticing to groups. I also think the non-alcohol sections should be better separated and increased in size and have more than one location.
The next biggest thing – if not the biggest – is the Cubs TV station. It must be done, be done soon and have the most positive and influential impact to the legions of Cubs fans nationwide.
On Kenney and Hendry, I’m torn a bit. I really don’t know how Kenney will fit since I don’t know how Ricketts works. Hendry needs to begin correcting the horrible contract issues the Cubs face. How that’s done, is well to say the least, rather difficult.
On the scouting and front office people, by all means get that up to snuff. The Cubs have been behind the times far too many years.
blackhawk24 - August 24, 2009
If you added 6,000 seats to Wrigley...
… you’d likely be adding 6,000 bad seats. You’re right that skyboxes and other luxury seating is the real revenue generator, and exactly correct that getting the triangle building built is the first step.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
True, but
6,000 bad seats with an average of 1 beer/soda and 1 hot dog per game gets the team a total of $30 per seat per game ticket+concessions. $14.5M per season isn’t bad.
Agreed it’s not the first priority, but if you’re doing everything else…
N Oakley - August 24, 2009
You would be messing with supply and demand.
One of the reason the Cubs can charge so much for their tickets is the demand far exceeds the supply.
That allows the Cubs to charge significantly more than a team like the D-Backs.
The D-Backs badly over-estimated the demand for tickets and built a stadium that seats more people than there is demand for.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
From what I've read on this board, there is a
huge demand for value seats from people who won’t pay to go and I doubt anyone paying for the CBOE seats will pay for Ueker seats.
You may be right, but adding a lower tier could also add supply to an underserved demographic.
N Oakley - August 24, 2009
The Cubs...
….would still sell out the bleachers even if they were, say, $14-bucks. It’s a pure revenue grab plain-and-simple. Granted, I’d probably be more inclined to spend on concessions or merchandise if the ticket prices were lower.
The Yankees could probably charge $40-to-$50 bucks for bleacher seats and still get a crowd in, if not a continual sellout.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
That thought would not [physically] work at Clark & Addison
and would require a complete overhaul of the upper deck to support the cantilever, sightlines and ability to extend the grandstands and upper deck around towards HR territory.
I’m speaking more of the chance the Cubs could support (and fill) a 47,000 seat stadium more easily than other teams.
blackhawk24 - August 24, 2009
People often ask me...
…born and raised in Kansas why I’m a Cubs fan. The answer: WGN. And the Royals.
tdubcub - August 24, 2009
Exactly why they need a national network of some kind.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Or a national network in need of programming willing to
guarantee a huge stream of revenue.
Both work for me.
N Oakley - August 24, 2009
What's funny to me...
Is that if I remember correctly, the Cubs having all of their games on WGN was stopped when WGN became a WB/CW affiliate in Chicago, right?
Now they have two different stations WGN 9 that the Chicago area gets, and WGN America, right?
It seems to me, that instead of showing Newhart and WKRP re-runs all summer long, that the Cubs could (should?) have a very prominent place on WGN America.
STLCubFan - August 24, 2009
WGN America makes more money showing reruns.
Sad, but true.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
MLB started limiting WGN on how many national games they can do every year
Same with Braves games on TBS. From what I understand, it was part because of the contracts with Fox and ESPN as national broadcasters, and part due to other teams complaining about the Cubs moving in on their fan base- as can be evidenced by the number of non-Chicago area Cubs fan here.
Mike Martin - August 24, 2009
KANSAS RULZ!!
dtpollitt - August 24, 2009
Man...really?
The Royals were really good in the late 70’s-early 80’s. Some of their clashes with the Yankees are the stuff of legend.
Their descent into mediocrity is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Goodie1969 - August 24, 2009
Tickets and Hendry
Season ticket waiting list – When tickets are available at the door, then those on the waiting list can just go and buy them if that is what they want to do; otherwise somebody else can buy them. If this idea is paying to be on a waiting list or paying because the waiting list is long, then the season ticket holders are the ones who should pay the $50 surcharge for each consecutive year following the first year that they get the season tickets.
I think Hendry has to go. When they have a capable person who will take the job, then they should let Hendry go.
AboutTheCubs - August 24, 2009
How do you possibly
police the season ticket waiting list. If you give those folks (am I one), the ability to buy tickets before the general public, then the tickets brokers and other back alley businessmen are going to find a way to abuse the situation.
If they can find a way to make it, I would love the opportunity to not have to wait for hours on the phone or online to buy tickets.
TheRiot Police - August 24, 2009
I may be wrong about this
But I assume that a decent chunk of the brokers tickets are from season ticket holders as well. Maybe I’m thinking too much of what happens with Packers games
berselius - August 24, 2009
Some NFL teams already do this.
If you limited it to, say, four tickets per person on the waiting list, there’s not a lot that the brokers are going to be able to do to abuse that, especially if, say, you excluded bleacher tickets.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
NO JUMBOTRON
CHuebs23 - August 24, 2009
Tom Ricketts - are you out there?
some great thoughts here. i hope that you are a regular reader.
Ihatethecards - August 24, 2009
i believe tom ricketts account is blou
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
it's only a matter of time then...
until security is ramped up to throw half of the fans out of the ballpark for being “stupid kool-aid drinkers” if they clap for the team when they’re not doing well.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
I think it would be pretty hilarious
If Kool-Aid and the Cubs joined forces in a marketing campaign
berselius - August 24, 2009
I love kool-aid
And I swear before you all right now, if they combined forced and made a “Cubbie blue” flavor, I would buy every one of the packets I could find.
chitownhawkeye - August 24, 2009
the warning on the cubbie blue would read:
WARNING: May cause depression, fits of rage, and a sense of euphoria.
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
+1
vonde6 - August 24, 2009
BLou
Has already been bitched slapped to start this topic. Remember Ricketts is from Omaha and Alderson is working for the MLB now that he’s been fired by the upper echelon Padres.
Slamdog - August 24, 2009
Comedy relief
On the Phillies/Mets game currently airing, Phillies color analyst “Sarge” Matthews has just identifed the Mets manager as Jerry Man-wall.
Back to your regularly scheduled thread.
San Diego Smooth Jazz Man - August 24, 2009
Love Sarge
but not on the air, from what I’ve heard of him.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 24, 2009
Can we please put this Friday day game nonsense to bed?
During the past 20 full seasons (1989-2008) the Cubs HAVE had a worse record on Friday day games following Thursday road games, going 21-26 (0.447) in those occasions versus 827-766 (0.519) at home overall. Excluding a pair of double-headers to make up earlier rainouts, they are still 19-24 (0.442), which is essentially the same. Of these 43 games, the Cubs’ opponent also played a Thursday road game in 31 of those games (strangely, the Cubs are slightly above .500 where they have had to travel the same distance or further than their opponent, but are well below .500 when they travel a shorter distance than their opponent—this is almost surely a quirk of sample size, though). In games where the Cubs’ opponent was off on Thursday, the Cubs have gone 4-8, which is what you expect probably for a more rested club playing a team with no day off, although I have never seen statistics looking into this case.
The important thing to note, though is that if the Cubs could theoretically change their record in these games to be the same as their average home record, the team would only win 3-4 more games randomly distributed over 20 full seasons. Essentially, there is zero expected impact to the team’s performance in any single given season based upon additional Friday night games, at least statistically.
Now, I don’t really have a preference for day versus nights games (and I live nowhere near the field), so I can’t say I have a horse in this race, but let’s at least be honest with ourselves about what we’re really gaining here when we make the “more night games” argument.
MarchHare - August 24, 2009
Question, how does their record compare on the next day?
What I’ve always heard is the effect is felt on the next day, not the day that your arive home from a long trip.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
They appear to have been 22-21 in those games.
I’ve actually heard the same thing you have about the effects of travel, but it appears that because both teams are under roughly the same effects, the record is closer to their average home record. Maybe something else is at work here, too.
I guess I should caution not to read too much into this with the sample size being as small as it is, though. My original point still holds that there is still no evidence I can see of any kind that Friday night games give the Cubs a substantial, quantifiable competitive advantage.
MarchHare - August 24, 2009
Thanks for taking the time to look into this.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
No problem.
My brother and I were talking about the Friday day game issue during Spring Training, so I had most of this data on-hand already. No reason not to share…
MarchHare - August 24, 2009
Agree
Agree with you Al just about on everything.
As far as Hendry he has had a mostly very good tenure as the Cubs GM at least good enough for one more year.
I know people are knee jerk and to the people that don’t know the game getting rid of Hendry seems obvious but if you look at the big picture he deserves another year.
puckishcubsfan - August 24, 2009
Fire Pinella tomorrow and fire Hendry yesterday.
Lou’s inflexibility to move guys from their assigned roles out of spring training cost this team dearly, you can’t wait 6 months for certain players to “come around”! You can’t play super struggling Fonty at 3rd for 4 weeks without giving red-hot Fox some chances. You can’t let the idiots smash things in the dugout with no discipline whatsoever. You can’t let your supposed ace go without treatment between starts after he leaves the previous game with a stiff back and then let him take BP and end up on the stinkin DL. Sorry Lou, this year was your year to earn your pay and you just wanted to sit back and push button manage; turn in the same lineup card everyday and automatically bring Marmol in the 8th and Gregg in the 9th come hell or high water and never have anyone else ready.
Itchy - August 24, 2009
What about Lou?
Should Ricketts try to keep him aboard?
Blue Heron - August 24, 2009
Good question.
I think we have 40 games before we can make a final judgment on Lou.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Fair enough.
I agree with Rick Morrissey’s column in today’s Trib, though. He says Lou is too committed to playing the big-money guys, even when other guys are playing better.
Al, do you know how much personnel input Lou has with Hendry? Should they share the blame for the less-than-stellar trades/signings?
Blue Heron - August 24, 2009
He could find out...
Al, just shoot an email to your friend Crane Kenny and ask him.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
Al knows Crane Kenney?
That’s awesome. Definitely a good sign when the person who runs the blog has the ability to contact high profile people.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
Al's actually the Editor-in-Chief in case you didn't notice.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 25, 2009
I didn't really catch the meaning of that title on my way in.
What does it mean that Al is Editor-in-Chief? Does he just act like a board moderator (sorry for the Message Board mention, but I had to think of some kind of comparison) or does he actually edit the content as he views his job is to put the product forward to his readers?
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
*the best product forward
(P.S.) I wish there was an edit feature.
I don’t proofread before I post as other sites I’ve previously posted on have an edit feature.
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
You might want to submit the edit button feature to SB Nation's tech support.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 25, 2009
That's a question I'm not capable of answering. We'll have to leave that to Al.
Acapulco Taco Pie - August 25, 2009
Ok well thanks for the help anyways.
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
I do think they should share the blame.
Back to that “we need to get more lefthanded” comment by Lou. Maybe Lou didn’t specifically ask for the players Hendry got, but Hendry seemed to charge into the offseason with that in mind.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
If your GM can not be...
…100% accountable for who he signs, he shouldn’t be the GM. His job is to listen to all his people and make a decision, and I’ll guarantee, there were more opinions at their organizational meetings than just Lou’s.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Don't know where to put this
Because I don’t think it is worthy of a separate post, but the Cardinals are saying they think John Smoltz was tipping his pitches when he was in Boston.
Interesting…
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
Tipping his pitches for eight starts without anyone noticing?
Hard to believe.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
He said as much on the radio today.
Supposedly Chris Carpenter was in the bullpen prior to Smoltz’s start telling him what he was throwing prior to the pitch.
He didn’t call Boston out and say they missed it (but it could be inferred), simply blaming himself for poor performance and rushing back form injury.
Bill Potter - August 24, 2009
I thought the problem was that Smoltz wasn't able to throw his splitter
when he was with the Red Sox.
As I understand, he was able to do so on Sunday and that was one reason he was much more effective against left-handed hitters.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
He was on the Dan Patrick Show this morning
talking about how Carpenter was predicting every pitch in his bullpen prior to the game. Obviously that doesn’t explain everything he was doing with Boston, but it could explain part of the reason he was being hit so hard the second time through the batting order.
Bill Potter - August 24, 2009
That's interesting.
I’ll listen to the podcast.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
I guess those are skills...
…you can pick up after hanging around Duncan for few years.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Not hard to believe at all
Randy Johnson tipped his pitches for years. It’s just that nobody could hit him even when they knew what was coming.
azjazzman - August 24, 2009
As for me...
…I can’t see how anyone could possibly expect or want Ricketts to retain Hendry after this season. I’m not going to get caught up in another endless rehashing of all of the boneheaded moves he’s made with this roster and this payroll but, barring the extremely unlikely scenario of the Cubs mounting a late season surge, I think we’re going to be seeing a lot of new faces in the Cubs’ front office.
bluekoolaide - August 24, 2009
Actually
Actually you just made the point about keeping Hendry. Deciding based on one season is beyond stupid.
You base keeping him on the overall job. Not one season.
The media wants him fired. That’s enough for me to keep him.
puckishcubsfan - August 24, 2009
If you look at his overall work...
…there is even more reason to let him go.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
All the Cubs have done since Hendry has been the GM is win.
Since he became the GM in mid-season 2002, the team has had winning records in 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008 and likely 2009.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
This isn't Pittsburgh.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
We just take their best players for peanuts.
Sadly, Littlefield now works for the Cubs. Guess the deals he made with Hendry helped to get him fired so I guess we owe him.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
I would say you are setting the bar toooooo low
given the money spent, piss poor fundamentals and TOOTBLANs our players demonstrate day in and day out, Neifi, Macias, Enrique Wilson, Miles et.al in Cubs uniform and the results given the division we are in.
cubsnlinux - August 24, 2009
I think the negatives are focused on too much.
How about all of trades and acquisitions that have worked out?
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
Kool-Aid Drinker!!111!!1!
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
lol
cubsnlinux - August 24, 2009
Look at the Tigers.
They had a miserable season in 2008. How did they react? Not by firing the GM or Manager. In fact, both the GM and Manager have played a key role in turning 2009 into a winning season.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
Kool-Aid, is it addictive?
eths - August 24, 2009
Any GM...
…can outspend opponents (by a lot) in a weak division to win in the short term. What has he done to build a good farm system? What has he done in regards to getting the ROI on all these big player expenditures? They have yet to reach the WS despite all of his spending, and if you think the arrow is pointing up for the next 2-3 years, you are sadly mistaken.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Any GM...
…can wish that he could outspend opponents, but only a few can.
Enjoy it. The Cubs have been more fun to watch since the purse strings were loosened.
vonde6 - August 24, 2009
I believe...
…you helped make my point.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
Actually, no I didn't
Hendry’s bad moves have accumulated over a period of years and threaten to weigh this franchise down for years to come.
The below average farm system didn’t just happen this season. It’s the result of several years of poor scouting and player development=all things that Hendry, as GM, has to take responsibility for.
As for your last statement; it’s beyond stupid to base your own opinion simply on what you perceive the media to be saying.
bluekoolaide - August 24, 2009
Great topic of conversation.
I am on the fence with Crane, however I think Hendry should go. I don’t think Ricketts will fire him being that money is owed to him. But I think Hendry’s days are done here.
The increase in organization staff is a must, that should be the first priority. How this has been understaffed for so long is no excuse.
I like the idea of the triangle, this would be ideal for the fans, players and Cubs staff.
Fix Wrigley, but please no Jumbotron.
Grockcubs - August 24, 2009
50 bucks?
For the privilege of being on the list? I think that’s a horrible idea, Al – the 2.5m it would generate it not going to change all that much, and it would not ber particluarly fan friendlty, would it?
What about dropping the price of beers a buck or two? And bringing back Goose Island, a fine local brew? And the food, god, BETTER FOOD……. I would gladly spend more at the park on concessions of they were any good.
paul_reuschel - August 24, 2009
As I understand, building the triangle building will result in a revamped concessions area.
They would have more room to offer a variety of food. Currently, they only offer traditional ballpark food.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
The $50...
… would also get you the rights to buy, say, four tickets ahead of the general sale. That would probably be worth it to a lot of people.
Your other ideas are also good.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
The idea of paying $50...
…to reserve my place in line on the wait list is absurd; that’s tantamount to asking people standing outside of a club to pay fifty-bucks to reserve your place in-line. If you really want to get in, you’ll pay; even though you’ll eventually get in. First come, first served, Al.
I’d consider paying it though, if, and only if, those “four tickets” were to any and every series. For example, I can easily see Cubs v. Cards and Cubs v. Sox being proverbial black-out dates. Or, let’s say I would like to have two tickets to two games, and not four for one.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
Remember that 100,000 people are on the waiting list....
… and attrition is about 100 per year. Are you going to wait 1,000 years for your season tickets? Or maybe pay a small amount to get SOME tickets now?
I know what I’d do.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
I'm much, much...
…higher on the list than I assumed. So far up the list that several people here would be positively jealous. Which is funny because up until the other day, I didn’t know how long it was, and assumed I was somewhere near the bottom.
It’s still a bitter pill to swallow, and I’d probably end up spending the $50.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
This idea = The existing Cubs Club
It already exists, you just attach it to the waiting list.
I did the The Cubs Club this year and I could have purchased any game on the schedule (which I did — got Opening Day and another). It’s just an early on-sale date, no restrictions.
It’s an obvious revenue-generator, if you’re not willing to raise season tickets to market value (or open up more single game ticket inventory for season purchase).
Ryan D - August 25, 2009
That makes sense, although...
… I don’t know if they want 100,000 Cubs Club members picking through the tickets before the general on-sale.
Maybe find a way to merge the two — you want to stay on the list, you have to join the Cubs Club at a certain price level.
Al Yellon - August 25, 2009
Everybody's entitled to a down year
We’re just seeing more guys with down years this year. I think a lot of people may change their minds if the Cubs turn it around and have a banner year next year. I know it’s hard to be patient, but one year of struggle doesn’t make the Cubs a disaster. I agree with Al, that with these players there’s no need to toss them overboard too early. They have talent and will show it again, we may just have to wait until next year.
Saratoga - August 24, 2009
I wish some other GM's would agree with you...then we could trade Sori to them.
zevkalman - August 24, 2009
Sorian is having a down year, but
looking at his stats for about the last eight years show he’s averaged almost .280 and averaged between 30-35 hr’s. I’m hoping this year is an aberration, and that he will return to production next year. I realize his defense is what it is and that may not improve, but I think Hendry knew that when he signed him.
Saratoga - August 24, 2009
Gotta agree with many a sentiment here..
Good ideas on increasing revenue, but Hendry needs to find employment elsewhere. This is a big market, with a big payroll, and expectations should be higher. Enough is enough – no more years to saddle us with more bad contracts and more “Hendry guys.”
Time to do better.
The Jade Scorpion - August 24, 2009
I must respectfully disagree with most all of this.
1) I don’t support doing any renovations to Wrigley Field other than maintenance. No jumbotron, no premium seating, no tunnel, etc. Wrigley is a true cathedral of the game, and I love that it still retains its classic feel. I am absolutely against these attempts to modernize it.
2) I don’t support constructing a triangle building. There are already plenty of bars and restaurants in Lakeview, and I seriously doubt that we have to have upgraded workout facilities, etc. to remain competitive with other teams. The building would cause an unnecessary spike in parking and traffic issues, as well
3) There is no reason to increase the amount of night games. This isn’t a big issue, but I don’t see a real reason why we need to attempt to bump the number up.
4) Why do we need more security at Wrigley? It’s not like more guards would have somehow prevented the beer-tossing issue.
5) We already have a national Cubs TV channel – it’s called WGN. The Cubs are on national TV more than any other team and subsequently have the largest national fanbase in the country aside from maybe the Red Sox and Yankees. When we go to places like California and Florida to play games, there are often more Cubs fans there than fans of the opposing team. I don’t think that there is a legitimate reason to have Cubs TV.
Pre - August 24, 2009
Rebuttals
1) If you don’t renovate Wrigley, it is in danger of being obsolete. There are serious issues with some of the sightlines, and premium seating is necessary to maintain payroll.
2) The Cubs absolutely need the triangle building for the reasons I mentioned. How can you be against something that would absolutely improve competitiveness?
3) More money from night games could help the player payroll. Why would you be against this?
4) Yes, extra security MIGHT have prevented the beer-tossing issue and in any case, would help show that the Cubs are serious in addressing idiot behavior.
5) WGN shows less than half of the games. A Cubs channel could show all of them for national distribution. The reason for the national fanbase was 140+ games on WGN for 20 years. That’s not the case today and retaining that fanbase needs a national channel like the YES Network.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
YES doesn't show Yankees games nationally, though
Similarly, national distribution of games on some “Cubs channel” would directly compete with MLB Extra Innings. WGN (and, formerly, TBS) has to make superstation payments to MLB to carry the games on WGN America. It’s not clear to me that one can simply whomp up what would in effect be a new “superstation” without a protracted legal battle with MLB.
Caledonia - August 24, 2009
But, remember that...
… all Yankee games are available nationally to their fans outside of NYC through Extra Innings.
I’m guessing the Cubs would figure out a way to do this before they ever launched it.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Isn't the YES Network available as a cable channel
on the sports tier of satelite TV and some cable systems?
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
Yes
But the out-of-market feed omits the actual games, to my understanding.
Caledonia - August 24, 2009
Well, that sounds like a rip-off.
What’s the point of having the channel if you don’t get the games?
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
all the
Steinbrenner documentaries.
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
They'd have to pay me to watch those
and even then I’m not sure I could stomach them.
cowsarecool220 - August 24, 2009
Crane Kenney has already been told he won't be retained
I state that with absolutely certainty of information. You can believe what you want to believe Al, but Kenney has been told he won’t be retained and is currently working with KornFerry.
BLou - August 24, 2009
Working with Korn/Ferry for what?
Dude doesn’t need an executive job finding service… if you are correct and he’s not going to be back, somebody else will want him immediately. While the cubs may have failed in many ways during the last few years, making money isn’t one of them. He’d be highly sought after.
AndrewJStone - August 24, 2009
I'm just telling you what it is
And as of this weekend the Ricketts were in ongoing negotiation with Sandy Alderson. I’m not advocating for Sandy Alderson one bit by the way. Again just telling you like it is.
BLou - August 24, 2009
If Ricketts gets Alderson to run this organization....
you will continue to be pissed off about this team, and I will join you in your spite and venom. Alderson is Bud Selig with a slightly better haircut.
santoswoodenlegs - August 24, 2009
I have limited opinion of Sandy Alderson
All I’m doing is reporting what I have been told from a direct source, and that is that Alderson and Ricketts have been in ongoing dialogue and that the lawyers are involved. Two parts to the equation…minority ownership interest and assumption of the title of Team President.
BLou - August 24, 2009
And who is that direct source?
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
::: crickets :::
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Maybe his source is "Bleep" Goat...
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
Ongoing
would be Mr Ricketts question to Alderson, " Sandy how could you not know Jose, Mark, Jason, Miguel, Jeremi and others were on steroids"? Makes you wonder how someone could be on a MLB fact finding list to find out about steroids and other things in Latin America, especially after getting fired from the Padres earlier this year.
Slamdog - August 24, 2009
I don't know enough...
…about Alderson to have an opinion, but there are about 30 other GM’s/Presidents that should have to answer the same question on the steriod front.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
alderson
money ball minus steroids=monkeyball
Slamdog - August 24, 2009
Exactly,
sabermetrics will come and go. It was just a facade created by the steroid era. I wouldn’t Alderson in a million years no matter how “respected” he is by many people in baseball. Not someone who is that obviously complicit with cheating on a grand scale.
Buzz on the Moon - August 24, 2009
sabermetrics will come and go. It was just a facade created by the steroid era.
…
whut?
drewishdrewid - August 25, 2009
My goodness.
you just said that sabrmetrics (the idea of measuring and defining baseball by new statistical analysis) was a facade?
what planet do you come from? how many light years away?
tootle - August 25, 2009
That is overstating my case.
I was a little bit hammered last night. Let me explain. Sabermetrics has it’s place at this piont obviously, but the internet saber community ignores scouting. Scouting is stillr eally valualble and so is leadership and such.
I don’t even know much about Alderson I was just riffing on the anti-moneyball/stats only thing. As Al is fond of saying, “Statistics don’t tell the whole story”
Buzz on the Moon - August 25, 2009
wanna lay
some money on that, BlueMike?
drewishdrewid - August 24, 2009
For once I really hope you are right
nji232 - August 24, 2009
Well, i know ESPN is nothing as compared to the word of BLou...
… but check this: http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/news/story?id=4421661
AndrewJStone - August 25, 2009
ahhahahahahahahahahhaa...
drewishdrewid - August 25, 2009
Renovation
What will probably happen is that within the next year Tom Ricketts and the Cubs will announce some sort of a phased renovation of Wrigley tied in part to the selling of naming rights.
Or in other words a much grander scale version of the multi-year improvement plan conducted by the White Sox when they sold the naming rights of the ballpark to U.S. Cellular. Of course naming rights to Wrigley won’t pay the full price tag of renovation, but it should put a dent into the expense.
I’m guessing the Cubs will eventually fetch upwards of $100 million in a naming deal for the ballpark. If the White Sox can get $62 million over 10 years for U.S. Cellular, then surely the Cubs can exceed that once the economy perks up in a year or so.
BLou - August 24, 2009
Al, Al, Al,
…good points all-around.
The Farm System needs to be revamped first and foremost; even if it means going out and “buying” a few people. The A’s & Giants seem to be flush with middle-infield talent, and I dare say that Nate Scheirholtz looks far more impressive than Foxy.
Oh, and I am one of those fans who have never actually lived in Chicago, and probably never will (too cold for my tastes). My mother, her parents, their parents, and more were all born and raised in the actual City of Chicago.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
5 Step Action Plan
I love Wrigley, just the way it WAS. Bleacher renovations were excellent. But tear the Captain Morgan thing off the park TONIGHT. Start TONIGHT.
1. Figure out a way to get out of the Soriano contract. Worst thing to happen to the franchise in History. Strangling the Club on & off the field.
2. Renovate Wrigley, maintaining everything possible from the original Park. Put new amenities & comforts adjacent to the building.
3. Figure out a way to get out of the Soriano contract.
4. Work hard to expand the TV rights and # of broadcasts.
5. Figure out a way to get out of the Soriano contract.
Cardsfansince62 - August 24, 2009
Two ways to get out of the Soriano contract
A. Pray like hell he retires
B. There is no other option (I guess other than getting run over by a bus, which of course nobody should ever ever ever wish upon another living soul)
BLou - August 24, 2009
The only way you lose Soriano...
…is if you fork over at least 50% of what he has remaining on his deal.
I’ll predict they simply hope this was down year for him and he can bounce back next year. There is just too much other stuff that needs to be done to pay half of Soriano’s freight.
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
My opinion of Soriano's decline is so strong,
that the idea of having Fox play left next year and freeing up $9m per year over the next 5 years looks pretty enticing to not watch Fonz’s bat slow week by week over the next 135+ weeks of in season baseball on his contract.
N Oakley - August 25, 2009
My two cents
I’m going to focus on the Crane Kenney/Jim Hendry stuff as I believe that this is a key step to what I see as major changes that are needed in how the Cubs front office works.
As for Kenney, I’d keep him around, but not as President of the organization. I believe that he should be kept around to first and foremost, spearhead the needed ballpark changes. He’s focused a lot of energy on that front, as well as efforts to expand the organization’s ability to develop alternative revenue streams. Let him do that. What I do not believe that he has contributed in is the overall development of the organization from a baseball standpoint. Its possible that this is not the job of the President, but under Kenney, I don’t see where this team has advanced from an organizational standpoint.
To further expand on that, and this leads to Jim Hendry ultimately. What I believe this organization has lacked for quite some time is an overall philosophy and developmental plan for its players. From an outsiders view players are drafted, whatever coaches the team has works the they players, and whatever happens happens. Teams like the Twins, A’s, Red Sox, et al have a clear, cohesive plan from top to bottom and being a part of their organization means working a certain way. There is a reason that over the course of the last decade or two, players developed by the Twins know how to play fundamentally sound baseball. The Cubs lack this.
This may be something that comes from the President, or from the GM, but IMO, its not something I’ve seen and the Cubs need to shake up how business is done and how players in their system align to an organizational philosophy. I do not believe that Jim Hendry is the man to call the shots going forward. He has shown himself to be extremely one dimensional in how he acquires players and while he may be one of the hardest working GMs in the game, I believe that the only way he’s shown to build a team is by spending money. So start at the top with a president who has a wide angle view and know how the sport works. Surround him with a GM who is more than a money spender and spend the money to hire the scouting and development people needed to bring this organization into the 21st century.
dmlichte - August 24, 2009
Your my hero!!!
MPH73 - August 24, 2009
bring back the days of
Dallas Green.
tootle - August 24, 2009
If only.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
Didnt
realize that they won alot of division tittles and established great memories in Cubs history.
Slamdog - August 24, 2009
it's not that...
Dallas Green came to the cubs as GM in the early 80’s after the TribCo purchased the Cubs (IIRC) and the benefits of his stewardship culminated in the cubs winning in ’84. He was the reason that Dernier, Sarge Matthews and Sandberg were on the team.
tootle - August 25, 2009
This is interesting
Lots of good ideas, but I still can’t help thinking how much I hate off days!!!
chitownhawkeye - August 24, 2009
I never realized that Crane Kenney has so many passionate fans
He should have his own baseball card.
bluekoolaide - August 24, 2009
Al, maybe on our next off day (Sept 10), you can come up with a list of 9 things that WILL happen once Ricketts takes over.
I say this because after reading through all these comments, I’m very surprised that I saw only one reference to personal seat licenses (PSLs). Not that I want to see this happen – few Cub fans would – but I’m trying to come up with good reasons why it wouldn’t happen and I’m not finding many.
Face it – if they’re seriously considering adding a jumbotron to Wrigley Field, then slapping PSLs on their fanbase is nothing.
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
I suspect PSL's are coming...
… but not right away.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
PSL's will seriously...
…chop up that wait list, too. But at what long-term costs? I don’t know of many people who can or are willing to pony up $20k per seat over three years.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
You may not...
… but I bet a lot of people would.
Al Yellon - August 24, 2009
A lot of people might.
It would, however, put season tickets fiscally out of reach for me.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
Lower ticket prices??
You want a team with a 100K waiting list to lower ticket prices?
How exactly does dumping thousands more dollars into the wallets of ticket brokers help the team?
If ticket prices were too high, people would give their tickets up every once in a while. They don’t.
Ryan D - August 24, 2009
It looks like
most of your nine suggestions require capital. I assume some of it would come from the season ticket holders $50 fee. Now, I you may be on the right track with all your points, but I don’t see him outlaying a whole lot of cash until payroll is reduced.
The offseason may be pretty interesting.
GHCF2314 - August 24, 2009
Payroll can't really...
…be reduced unless Clan Ricketts are going to eat around $100-million, or find other teams that are willing to take on a serious chunk of change. Neither of those options are likely to happen.
Unless Bradley and Fonzi can play to their career norms over the entire season, it’s bad debt that’s going to have to be carried on the books until those contracts run out.
LeSaboteur - August 24, 2009
All of this discussion, and I can't believe no one's mentioned
The #1 thing that Tom Ricketts and everyone associated with the Chicago Cubs National League Ball Club must do to ensure sustained success going forward:
SIGN ADAM LIND
Clutch16 - August 24, 2009
did someone say
LIND?
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
Circle gets the square...
ballhawk - August 24, 2009
OT: PV was hit by a line drive in his elbow during his rehab stint
jesus christos - August 24, 2009
Peavy
did not appear to be negatively affected. His finished his 5 inning stint (no runs) and hit 94 MPH after being hit on the elbow. More importantly, he reported no issues with the ankle, and appeared to be nimble in covering first base on a couple of grounders.
azjazzman - August 25, 2009
Not to change the subject much
But the Rockies just came back from a three-run deficit in the 14th inning to win 6-4 on Spilborghs walk-off grand slam. Great game.
Unfortunately, I’ve been out of the loop a bit the last few days (big project at work), so I’m not sure how this affects the Wild Card. Although I know it does.
Not Bruce Froemming - August 25, 2009
Damn.
I don’t think the Cubs will lose a game in the standings, but that drops the Giants one back in the WC and the Division. Rockies maintain their hold on the WC-spot, and pick up a game on the Dodgers.
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
Unbelievable
dramatic, come from behind win for the Rockies. This gives them a 3.5 game lead in the Wild Card over the Giants (7.5 over the Cubs). They also take 3 of 4 from the Giants. (They only pick up 1/2 game on the idle Dodgers, now trail by 3 – they get the Dodgers at Coors Field next).
Also, Marquis goes 8 innings and only gives up 1 run.
azjazzman - August 25, 2009
The Giants Bullpen just fell apart in the 14th
3 pitchers and they could only get one out between them. Zito had a good start as well. He has been very good lately.
Doggie Stalker - August 25, 2009
In Fairness
the Giants bullpen had been stretched pretty thin. A 4 game series at Coors will do that (a 14-11 game on Saturday). The Giants bullpen managed to keep the Rockies scoreless from innings 7-13, which is no mean feat against that ballclub, in that ballpark.
azjazzman - August 25, 2009
Yes but it was still a very ugly end.
The Cubs are much more efficient. They need only one pitcher to blow a lead in extra innings.
Doggie Stalker - August 25, 2009
Not ugly
if you are a Rockies fan. That win is HUGE.
azjazzman - August 25, 2009
I am sure the Giants are totally demoralized
but when 3 pitchers can only get one out between them it is ugly.
Doggie Stalker - August 25, 2009
I am sure the Giants
are not demoralized at all. Tough 4 game set in Denver against one of the hottest teams in baseball – realistically, they had to know it would be difficult. They are only 3.5 games out of the wild card and now they get the woeful D’Backs and those same Rockies at AT&T. Then, in September, they get the Cubs at home and 2 more series against the D’backs. Plenty of chances to make up ground.
azjazzman - August 25, 2009
And as I said previously
they got 7 shut out innings from their bullpen last night. You can’t ask for more than that.
The fact that Bochy was trying to mix and match in the 14th doesn’t diminish a solid effort. The disappointing part was that they couldn’t score against the Rockies less than stellar bullpen until the fateful 14th – but, hey, it’s only 1 game. The Giants have been a nice surprise this year for the fans in SF. 4 games back in wild card and 9 games over .500. And they have Matt Cain going tonight…
azjazzman - August 25, 2009
There is a...
…incline just above the CF wall that seems to be either a.) covered in ivy or b.) a series of dark looking windows depending on the picture. Could this area be leveled out, and a Jumbotron installed there? The relative low-lying nature might make it unfeasible since it’ll become a tempting target. Or is this the location of the Stadium Club that Levy’s operates?
Logistically speaking, adding a Jumbotron anywhere else within the stadium is going to be a nightmare. Adding it on a building across the street…well, it would have to be as big as the Yankees’ in order to read any of the text. Given the residential nature of the neighborhood, the argument for one seems like a non-starter. Based on existing sight lines from home plate, it would be be a.) confusing and b.) detrimental to those same sight lines possibly devaluing those premium seats.
Based on purely casual research, it looks like a ribbon board is going to be the beast option for increased revenue. The only way a Jumbotron goes up, is if the classic scoreboard comes down.
On a related note, does anybody know the physical depth of the scoreboard?
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
Are you referring to the juniper bushes that make up the batter's eye?
Or the windows directly behind them which make up the view from the Batter’s Eye?
Clutch16 - August 25, 2009
I suppose it would be both...
…but, the juniper bushes primarily. But if that’s where the Batter’s Eye is, adding a Jumbotron there is also a No-Go.
If Wrigley had its own Green Monster, then I could feasibly see setting it into the wall itself behind a pane of plexiglass; that’d probably be the best bet for Wrigley. Glancing around the rest of the park, there isn’t a logical place for it. In addition to the size requirements for an across the street Jumbotron, there are weather concerns for a board that size (cracking in extreme cold, etc.), and wiring issues.
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
Eh, i wouldn't worry too heavily about the video boards being effected by weather.
The ones at Soldier Field seem to operate just fine, even during the coldest games, which we’ve had plenty of the last few seasons.
Against Green Bay two years ago, i swear i couldn’t figure out why everyone was getting so wasted… then i realized when they bought a beer they had to slam it because it was freezing inside their cups.
If the screens can withstand that, anything at Wrigley from April to (god willing) October will be OK.
AndrewJStone - August 25, 2009
The difference is...
… that the video boards at Soldier Field are part of the stadium structure, were built during the reconstruction. Same thing for the video boards at Fenway, in Cleveland, in Detroit, and other cold-weather cities.
Any Jumbotron at Wrigley would probably have to be built OUTSIDE the ballpark itself and be on some sort of self-supporting structure, probably on top of or over one of the rooftop buildings on Waveland or Sheffield.
I am not an architect nor engineer but I’m guessing that would take quite a bit of skill from both types of people to pull off.
Al Yellon - August 25, 2009
I'm sure a lot of work and skill would go in to the board, no doubt...
… but i maintain that cold wouldn’t affect its location in any major way. The screens my company erect for large productions (concerts, outdoor political rallies were big last winter) fare fine in most weather, but other “weatherized” ones have to be rented for multi-day events where rain is a possibility, or when it’ll be getting too cold for the un-weatherized ones to survive. My assumption would be, buy the weatherized one for permanent installation and it’d be even more durable as you wouldn’t have to include all the parts and temporary connections to make it mobile.
Kind of like a nicer / bigger version of the one we’ve griped about at Clark and Diversey.
AndrewJStone - August 25, 2009
How about wind?
Chicago’s infamous winds seems like they would play a huge factor in the stability of the thing during Winter months.
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
I'm not really sure what city hall has to do with anything. ;)
N Oakley - August 25, 2009
Al, I've been watching...
…the Red beat up on the White, and there’s a fundamental difference when it comes to the placement of the Jumbotron: the outfield walls. Fenway appears to be totally enclosed; despite a lower RF-wall, it’s still much taller than Wrigley’s. Given the neighborhood dimensions of Wrigley, it almost has to be outside of the park.
But as previously mentioned, it’s going to be a non-starter; size matters are going to negate any perceived negatives. From backstop to RF, it’s 413.5 ft. By comparison, RF in Yankee Stadium is 366 ft. Depending on the actual added distance by crossing Sheffield or Waveland, it’s going to be exponentially farther. I’ll have to work up some actual numbers, but the board is going to have to be ‘Jumbo’ just to be viewable. Splitting the difference with a ribbon board looks to be more and more like a workable solution.
The other option I can see feasibly working is a pair of smaller boards working in tandem with each other placed directly on the sides of the current scoreboard. Those, however, would completely overwhelm the current scoreboard based on that video board installed in ’04.
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
The Cubs get a cut of the revenue from the rooftops, don't they?
Make me wonder that if you place a Dumbotron anywhere “in” the bleachers, are you really going to be earning more? A large display would be likely to block the view from one or several of the rooftops, which then would no longer be earning money. It sounds like one might have to replace the scoreboard, which btw is not possible afaik.
eths - August 26, 2009
OT: ...freezing inside their cups...
As strange as it may sound, I miss real winter weather. When it’s really cold, it’s dry. Here it generally is a degree or two around the freezing point. Which means moist feet from November to mid March.
eths - August 25, 2009
Absolute humidity is measure of dryness, not air temperature...
…and its usually expressed as the dew point temperature.
We all hear about relative humidity. It’s an expression of how much moisture air can hold at a given temperature. The warmer the air temperature, the more moisture the air can hold.
For instance on a 20 degree day with 80% relative humidity, translates to just over 3% relative humidity at 70 degrees.
blackhawk24 - August 25, 2009
I know - I meant dry as in no liquid water, i.e. everything is frozen.
eths - August 25, 2009
One important aspect, if they decide to install a Jumbotron, is imho:
Finding a place where the sun does not overpower the Jumbotron (LED screen) during daylight hours.
Despite the high contrast and luminance this technology provides, there still are circumstances where bright sunlight from the wrong angle and poor viewer angles can make these displays more or less useless. This might rule out some of the otherwise more obvious locations in and around Wrigley Field. It would be interesting if any experts with experience in planing such installations read BCB and could chime in.
When one knows which locations make technical sense, then it becomes easier to quantify the impact to Wrigley Field and the surroundings.
eths - August 25, 2009
That's a good point.
If you put it, say, over the buildings on Sheffield (behind RF), the sun is going to glare right into it in the late afternoon (and early evening for night games). That almost makes it necessary to put it on the Waveland side.
It’s not a simple task.
Al Yellon - August 25, 2009
boy, you got that right… ;-)
ballhawk - August 25, 2009
D'oh!
But, yes, it is going to be a beast of an option.
LeSaboteur - August 25, 2009
Happy to see you have come around on my crusade to $$ the waiting list
:)
Ryan D - August 25, 2009
OT: I have figured it out
The Cubs chemistry is way too good. Married people start to look alike, dogs look like their owners, etc, etc. Every hitter has the same flaws (except for a couple), Every starter shares the same traits. Every bullpen pitcher unfortunately shares the same traits. Time for some individuality training sessions or maybe just some good ole clubhouse friction. Or maybe not.
truelinkfence - August 25, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.