 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Kepler
|
 |
Lovely Oregon
Jul 2002 time: 21:21
|
|
There's no such thing as a "mindset." Everybody's trying to #1 make money and #2 win. The Red Sox and Cubs can make money without winning, so they do. It's rational behavior.
This is a case where having loyal fans (well, in the case of the Red Sox, whining, cry-baby, belligerant, ignorant, but loyal fans) actually hurts a team's chances for winning it all. The Cardinals would conceivably have the same situation, but because their ballpark is so awful, they have to win to get people to come to it. Wrigley and Fenway are so beautiful, people come anyway.
The obvious solution is to blow up the great ballparks and replace them with cookie cutter monstrosoties like Busch, Three Rivers, or the Vet (think about how many league titles and world championships there were among those parks for the relatively short length of their existence). Destroy the only thing the Sox and Cubs have going for them, and then they'll have to win to attract fans.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sceptor107
|
|
Baseball is a steaming pile of poop. Its boring and its a bunch of rich boys complaining. I stopped watching last week. Instead I started watching the easts version of baseball called "Cricket".
Much better game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
Yay, no strike.
The idea that Wrigley is holding the Cubs back is utter nonsense. Show me compelling evidence to support that, like data from the last several decades showing that the Cubs have a significantly better road winning percentage than at home. I'd be willing to bet that evidence isn't there.
IMO, the only team that really is hamstrung by their ballpark is the Rockies, and there isn't much to be done about that (notwithstanding the humidor experiment).
The Cubs suck because they are poorly run and typically haven't really tried to win. They are a cash cow, even when they're miserable. Management actually tried this year, I'll give 'em that, but their decisions weren't all that great (and to be fair, who knew every player they went out and signed would either be broken for most of the season or suddenly suck). Winning takes consistent investment and a sound plan. You can win once or twice with a free agent splurge ('97 Marlins, '01 Diamondbacks, late 70's Yankees, for instance) but building a team that will contend for a long stretch takes brains. The Braves, despite their post season problems, are a good example of that.
walruskkkch,
The Yankees started winning again because Steinbrenner bought them from CBS (in '74, I believe). CBS had run the team into the ground - they had NO idea how to run a baseball team. Steinbrenner came in, bought some free agents, and invested heavily in the team. The renovation helped, but I look at that as a manifestation of the real change: better ownership. For all of Steinbrenner's failings (and they are many), one thing you have to admit is that he is obsessed with winning. I love that.
-Arrian
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|