florida marlins rant with chicago references

Geez, without this battle between the Cubs fans and the White Sox
fans, this forum would be its ususal barren wasteland. I'm just
wondering if all of you folks are cross-posting to the Cubs and White
Sox forums.
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

"boca brian" <bocabrian.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134653656.752094.60750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken Zwyers wrote:
> > "Jed Taylor" <asbcc.RemoveThis@offthedial.com> wrote in message
> > news:oqttp15e1gqgm4jvqmgik29tp92oos81cj@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:30:21 -0600, "Ken Zwyers" <zeker.RemoveThis@anet.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Can you give any facts to back that up? It's a nice, airy, wide
open,
> > and
> > > >fairly clean stadium. And, in the last few offseasons, it's been
spruced
> > up
> > > >so that it is no longer such a sterile place.
> > >
> > > Sure, that's easy. Over the past decade+, numerous articles
> > > concerning the design of ballparks coming online have pointed to
> > > abject failure of New Comiskey and how architects (most notably HOK, I
> > > believe) have studiously avoided making the same mistakes.
> > >
> > > Several years ago, I had dinner with a guy whose firm was responsible
> > > (and he was in charge of the project itself) for building the new
> > > minor league park in Dayton, OH, and we discussed this very subject.
> > > He, too, spoke at length about how NC defined what-not-to-build, and
> > > how virtually every design following it, including the ballpark he was
> > > responsible for, strove for a retro feeling that clearly "borrowed"
> > > from classic stadiums (stadiae?) such as Wrigley and Fenway.
> > >
> > > No amount of "sprucing up" is going to change the mountain range of
> > > concrete that envelops both player and fan. No amount of "sprucing
> > > up" is going to change the pitch of the upper deck, where one feels
> > > like the slightest misstep forward will cause a tumble into the lower
> > > deck. What's been done is just putting lipstick on a pig.
> > >
> >
> > Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that it wasn't as bad as it
was
> > made out to be from the start. And the improvements the last few off
> > seasons has made major improvements. Again, it's a matter of one's
> > preferences.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Look, you don't like the place? Fine - that's your right. But if
you're
> > > >going to trash the place, at least give some examples as to why.
> > >
> > > I have. It has all the panache of an Elvis-in-black-velvet painting.
> > > And we haven't even touched on its location and all the entertainment
> > > options surrounding it. Now that would make for one very, very short
> > > paragraph.
> > >
> >
> > Again, if that's how you feel, that's your opinion. Being familiar with
the
> > area, I know where the fun places to go are, and I like the easy access
to
> > the highway if I'm going straight home. Location is fine with me. If
you
> > don't like it, if you'd rather fight through the side streets
surrounding
> > Wrigley, more power to you.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >And, yes, the stadium was ramrodded through Springfield. I'm a Sox
fan,
> > not
> > > >necessarily a Reinsdorf fan. But you Cubs fans have been getting
screwed
> > > >with, as well.
> > >
> > > The Tribune company doesn't use tax dollars to conduct its business,
> > > at least as it relates to running an MLB franchise. In fact, because
> > > King Richard objects to accurate reporting of his corruption and is a
> > > Sux fan, the Cubs suffer because of local and state government rather
> > > than benefit from it, as have the Sux, the Bearlys, and the Bulls.
> > >
> >
> > It doesn't matter where the money's going, it's needlessly coming out of
> > your pockets, and you're ok with it! As far as the rest of your
statement,
> > sounds like sour grapes. The mayor hasn't had an accurate reporting to
who?
> > To you? Who are you to decide what's accurate or not. Yeah, the Cubs
are
> > suffering all the way to the bank. They're the ones who shoved the new
> > stands down the city's throat. They're the ones who keep messing with
the
> > building owners across the street over nickels and dimes. And they're
the
> > ones who are scalping their own tickets. And they're the ones who have
> > their fans so duped that they constantly sell out for a second-rate
team.
> > Yeah, they've got it really tough.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > The team keeps giving you the impression that they're
> > > >putting a quality team together, and every year you get disappointed.
> > Why?
> > >
> > > Whatever my level of disappointment may be regarding the personnel of
> > > the Cubs, it has nothing to do with the joke foisted upon IL taxpayers
> > > called NC. We're taking about stadiums. No one every tells a visitor
> > > to Chicago that they must visit NC at least once, and no one flies in
> > > from all over the country to attend a game there. Oh, and Wrigley
> > > doesn't have to change its name every few years upon the latest
> > > application of said lipstick in the hopes that people will forget
> > > that, yes, the park sucks.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know what to say - the deal for the new stadium was made over 15
> > years ago - get over it. And, between the two latest Sox stadiums, the
name
> > has been changed once in the past 95 years. That can hardly be
described as
> > "every few years". But, then again, why muck up a discussion with an
> > accurate description of the facts?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Because they're not really trying to put together a first rate team.
> > >
> > > Well, that's not true. They are. How good of a job they're doing is
> > > what's in question, not their intention.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Why
> > > >should they spend that much money?
> > >
> > > You mean, why should they have one of the highest payrolls in
> > > baseball, as they do? When you get done Googling about how no one
> > > wants a stadium remotely like NC, check out MLB team payroll numbers.
> > >
> > >
> > > > They already sell out most games. They
> > > >just have to spend enough to make sure that you keep coming back.
Why do
> > > >you think that, out of nowhere, they signed two free agents and
traded
> > beans
> > > >for a center fielder?
> > >
> > > Out of nowhere? Just returned from a vacation to Pluto?
> > >
> >
> > Well, what big deals did they do last winter? Jerry Hairston Jr.? Chad
> > Fox? Jeromy Burnitz?
> >
> > >
> > > > Because, all of a sudden, everyone's interested in
> > > >the Sox.
> > >
> > > Hardly. Even Sux fan's aren't interested in the Sux, at least judging
> > > by attendance figures. And no one watched them in the playoffs,
> > > either, much to the dismay of Fox. At least you recognize that what
> > > attention there is is "all of a sudden".
> > >
> >
> > Once again, you paint a different picture than the truth. The Sox had
2.3
> > million show up. Not Cubs numbers, but that's over 28,000 per game -
hardly
> > the picture you paint.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Why do you think that they kept trotting Corey Patterson out
> > > >there? He's been a bust since day one - but he was cheap, and they
kept
> > > >touting how good he'd be once he "matured".
> > >
> > > I'm no Korey fan, but he was the team's MVP in 2003 until he broke his
> > > ankle. Some bust that season.
> >
> > Anyone can be an MVP for two months. Big deal.
> >
> > >
> > > Stick to the Sux. What you actually know about the Cubs is rivaled
> > > only by how little you know about the stadium your team plays in.
> > >
> >
> > And, as usual, when you guys can't come up with an argument based on the
> > facts, you resort to name calling. I haven't said anything personal
about
> > you, why do you have to resort to that? Maybe it just shows your
mentality.
> >
> > > BTW - how's the father & son promotion coming for 2006?
> >
> > Huh?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> Ken, I read the post again, I don't really see where he is calling
> you any names? But I do see where you impugn all cubs' fans with the
> trite, inaccurate, overused, ...."and they're the ones who have their
> fans so duped that they constantly sell out for a second-rate team"...I
> don't think any cub fan is duped. They spend their money and their
> time supporting their team and enjoy going to a wonderful ball park in
> a great location. Don't be jealous, simply understand that different
> people like different things. Just because far more people enjoy
> Wrigley and the cubs does not mean you can't enjoy the sox.
>

The comment that I was responding to was "Stick to the Sux. What you
actually know about the Cubs is rivaled
only by how little you know about the stadium your team plays in.". There
was no need for that at all. It was mean spirited and had nothing to do
with the discussion at hand. Yes, I said those things about the Cubs fans,
because I beleive them to be true and they were pertinent to the discussion.
For whatever it's worth, I tried to state it in a more courteous tone - I
could've made it sound a lot more inflammatory. And, I'm not jealous of
Cubs fans at all. Everyone has their preferences, and they're entitled to
theirs as well. But, regardless of how this discussion started, somewhere
along the line it became a chance to slam US Cellular Field. And I don't
think that it's as bad as it was being made out to be in this thread. I
also felt that the purpose of the thread became "hey, if we can't slam the
team anymore, lets find something else about them to slam". If I'm wrong
about that, then I apologize. But I don't understand why that has to be.
In '03 I was (reluctantly) rooting for the Cubs in the playoffs. Not my
first choice, but I was glad some team from Chicago was winning. And it
seemed like it was a shame that some Cub fans couldn't (or wouldn't let
themselves) feel the same way. Again, if I got the wrong impression, then I
apologize.


> The purpose of this thread was to try and identify reasons why the cubs
> are so much more popular, not try to refute the fact that they are and
> use it to provide some information that might be used to refute the
> opinion in south Florida that the fans are to blame.
>
> Just as reinsdork has made decisions that have negatively impacted the
> sox attendance, the marlins are foolishly following the same path.
> Maybe with new ownership and better business people the situation would
> be different
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >"Jed Taylor" <asbcc.RemoveThis@offthedial.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:lvvrp11id9uan9u7m4a65chi5d72so8jto@4ax.com...
> > > >> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:58:49 -0600, "poka yoke" <a.RemoveThis@b.c> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >The Cell is a fine ballpark and will be recognized as such as time
> > goes
> > > >on.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> New Comiskey is a concrete albatross that has been specifically
used
> > > >> as a the model for what-not-to-build ever since its completion.
The
> > > >> only thing that will ever make it a "fine ballpark" is a fleet of
> > > >> trucks filled with C-4.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's also a fine testament to how rich owners screw taxpayers out
of
> > > >> hundreds of millions of dollars. That characteristic, however,
hardly
> > > >> makes it unique.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -------------------------
> > > >> "I am the federal government."
> > > >> - Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > >
> > > "What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay
in
> > Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of
the
> > people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this
> > (chuckle) -- this is working very well for them."
> > > - Barbara Bush
>
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

nice post. I was also relucantly rooting for the sox. But I dont think
you can refute my arguments

1) the sox would be more popular with a more likely owner and/or a more
fan friendly stadium in a better location

2) the cubs are more popular in part because of their (perceived or
real) better stadium/location or less hated owner and I believe more
popular over time players (sosa, banks, williams, sandberg, jenkins,
madlock, grace, dawson, lee, vs thomas, baines and dick allen (paully
is different).
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

Now I am really confused. I am not sure I understand, are you saying
sox fans have suffered and are desperate to be recognized in a cub
town/country? I thought this is what drove sox fans, rooting for the
underdog?
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

1a) Yes, I agree regarding the owner
1b) I agree with you about the ballparks, except that I would add the phrase
"perceived or real" to that statement, as well
2a) Yes, I also agree with the first part of your second comment;
2b) I can't agree with the second portion of your second comment. I think
that the Sox players are just as popular in their community as the Cubs
players are in theirs. Although I have to say that the Cubs' marketing has
blown the Sox' marketing away over the years.

Boy, I'm glad that this thread seems to be winding down. I much prefer to
stay positive! Thanks.

"boca brian" <bocabrian DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134742692.292044.3270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> nice post. I was also relucantly rooting for the sox. But I dont think
> you can refute my arguments
>
> 1) the sox would be more popular with a more likely owner and/or a more
> fan friendly stadium in a better location
>
> 2) the cubs are more popular in part because of their (perceived or
> real) better stadium/location or less hated owner and I believe more
> popular over time players (sosa, banks, williams, sandberg, jenkins,
> madlock, grace, dawson, lee, vs thomas, baines and dick allen (paully
> is different).
>
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

I think that what Jeff is trying to say is that, not including yourself, a
lot of Cubs fans need to put down the Sox. And, since the Sox won the World
Series, Cubs fans can't say that their team is better any more (at least not
before next year). So they resort to comparing attendance, ballparks, etc.,
because, to them, the Sox are the enemy. I've gotten some of this myself,
although a lot less than I thought that I would.

I've also found that, just as often as Sox fans think that Cubs fans are out
of line, Cubs fans feel that Sox fans are out of line. I think that both
sides have this type of issue.

"boca brian" <bocabrian.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134750731.129804.37870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Now I am really confused. I am not sure I understand, are you saying
> sox fans have suffered and are desperate to be recognized in a cub
> town/country? I thought this is what drove sox fans, rooting for the
> underdog?
>
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

i generally think that cubs kinda ignore the sox and the sox fans
constantly compare themselves to the cubs and their fans and their ball
park. Its kinda like successful big brother vs little brother. ask
cub fans who the cubs biggest rival is and you will likely get st louis
first yet sox fans care more about beating the cubs than any other
team. very few cubs view the sox as the enemy but most sox fans imho
are happier when the cubs lose than when the sox win.

just look at the idiot kass from the trib, he is never happy discussing
sox wins but rather takes every opp to bash cubs fans. when the cubs
were winning no one bashed the sox, but rather they were just
ignored....

thanks and maybe we'll share a beer sometime..
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

you are correct sir

"Ken Zwyers" <zeker.TakeThisOut@anet.com> wrote in message
news:f_ydnYoOSpiRJz7eRVn-og@comcast.com...
>I think that what Jeff is trying to say is that, not including yourself, a
> lot of Cubs fans need to put down the Sox. And, since the Sox won the
> World
> Series, Cubs fans can't say that their team is better any more (at least
> not
> before next year). So they resort to comparing attendance, ballparks,
> etc.,
> because, to them, the Sox are the enemy. I've gotten some of this myself,
> although a lot less than I thought that I would.
>
> I've also found that, just as often as Sox fans think that Cubs fans are
> out
> of line, Cubs fans feel that Sox fans are out of line. I think that both
> sides have this type of issue.

And regarding the Braves, yes they don't sell out their stadium but they're
averaging 2.8M through the turnstiles over the last 15 years. Back to back
WS wins in 93 & 94 (i think those were the years) pushed them over 3M for
the next 4 seasons. A big part of their success is consistently getting to
the post season. The Marlin's tanked the next season after their 1st WS win
and didn't get back to the post season after the next WS win. Another
factor, I think more important than the stadium, tradition, etc. is a
healthy minor league system with top notch coaching and scouting helping
defray the costs of the salary monster, sustained winning at the major
league level creates.

If the silver bullet the Cubs have found to fill the stadium was obvious 29
other teams would shoot it, as noted before it's some indefinable x-factor
related to the periphery of baseball and I doubt if it can be duplicated
successfully in another city.
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

What you're mentioning is my point exactly. I hear from almost all Cubs
fans that the Cubs fans aren't hostile towards the Sox fans, it's the Sox
fans that attack the Cubs. However, what Sox fans will tell you (and I've
had this opinion in the past as well), it seems the Cubs fans are the ones
who are attacking the Sox, while the Sox fans are more conciliatory.

That's why I think that, in reality, it's pretty even between fans. Because
we both thing the same thing of the other side. Just my $0.02.

"boca brian" <bocabrian RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134833981.038035.188740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> i generally think that cubs kinda ignore the sox and the sox fans
> constantly compare themselves to the cubs and their fans and their ball
> park. Its kinda like successful big brother vs little brother. ask
> cub fans who the cubs biggest rival is and you will likely get st louis
> first yet sox fans care more about beating the cubs than any other
> team. very few cubs view the sox as the enemy but most sox fans imho
> are happier when the cubs lose than when the sox win.
>
> just look at the idiot kass from the trib, he is never happy discussing
> sox wins but rather takes every opp to bash cubs fans. when the cubs
> were winning no one bashed the sox, but rather they were just
> ignored....
>
> thanks and maybe we'll share a beer sometime..
>
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

2b) you do understand my point right? cub players are more popular with
national media, national wide fans and chicago fans. Heck even within
the sox fan base, its gonna be tough to find people that like dick
allen. Remember albert bell?

When you say "Cub marketing" what specifically do you mean (the better
stadium, the more likable players, the festive atmosphere at wrigley,
pre and post game activities, more likeable ownership, better
announcers, better tv advertisements?)
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

Most of the sox fans I know, are not ignorant cub hating lunnies, but
certainly believe that the cubs rivarly is the moost important thing on
their mind. beating the cubs is more important than anything, heck even
ozzie said so, yet to cub fans st louis is typically number one.
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

"boca brian" <bocabrian RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1135002056.152106.34010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Remember albert bell?

Is he related to Sandburg?
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references 

leave off the last e for savings
 >> Stay informed about: florida marlins rant with chicago references