Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 381
  1. #346
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    61,289
    Quote Originally Posted by thawv View Post
    So, would you be willing to take a chance on building a state of the art stadium in Tampa, and hope they start packing fans in? There's also a chance that it just might not be a big baseball town, couple with everything you mentioned. Which are clearly valid points. The Bucks and the Lightening also don't play on a daily basis every other week in the middle of the summer.

    Either way, I think there are other cities that would love to have a team and would put many more fans in the stadium.
    Tampa Bay supports two other sports at the very top of the attendance charts, one of which has no business being successful in their state, yet is. The primary difference is the location in where they play. There's zero data to make me believe Tampa Bay hates baseball, but based on their support of other teams, it's quite easy to inference they hate driving to St. Petersburg to go to the Trop. The Lightening play 41 home games, many on week nights and they do fine. If the argument is "it's nice in FL in the summer", it's nice in the summer most places and people go. I see no evidence to think that the people of Tampa Bay won't go to weeknight events if it's actually made possible or weekend games. Right now, a weeknight game especially is made a near impossibility for many.

    We do know that Montreal has already failed and we have as much data on Tampa Bay supporting weeknight games in an available location as we do, say, Vegas and Nashville (both have hockey and football and support them fine). We have no data on a few places up for debate. I think placing the team in Nashville is about the same gamble as a prime-Tampa location would be; we have data that suggests they support winners in football and hockey, and no data that a prime city-baseball location would support weeknight games on the regular. Same for Vegas. So if Tampa Bay is a gamble; they basically all are for the very same reasons.

    I think Tampa Bay would also love to have a baseball team...they don't have one right now, St. Pete has a baseball team. I think we have plenty of evidence to inference they'd (Tampa Bay) also support a baseball team if that team was made accessible. I think the arguments that Tampa won't go to games is largely based on a horrible stadium in the worst location possible for that stadium and I haven't seen anything to suggest it's just the people of Tampa Bay who don't like baseball. I'm not against moving the team, I'm against blaming Tampa Bay's fans for their lack of in-game support. Wherever the Rays are, they deserve to be accessible and in an MLB baseball stadium that isn't putrid. When you take the 30th best MLB ballpark, which is in no way a destination for people, and make every game a destination to get to through bad traffic, bad parking, tolls, etc...it should not be a shock people would rather watch on their couch.

    I think in the end, Tampa Bay is as good of a home for the Rays as Nashville, or Montreal, or Vegas would be if the team was in Tampa Bay and made accessible to people. It is 47th in total population, it has one of the biggest positive delta changes in population growth from the last 2 cenuses...it should be a prime spot to support an MLB team. I'm not married to them staying in Tampa...they just need to be accessible wherever they are. Whatever pulls them out of this "woe is me, I'm so poor" spot (they have a reason due to their impossibly small attendance numbers) and forces them to spend and be an MLB market is good for me. If that's Tampa, or Montreal or whatever...fine. But we cannot discount just how horrible the planning was for this organization from the get go- the planning was at an amateur-hour level and is likely the prime culprit for just how bad this has gotten. If they had been placed in an MLB caliber stadium with MLB caliber accessibility, in Tampa, I expect the 2021 Tampa Bay Rays would be drawing just fine 20+ years into this thing.
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 10-04-2021 at 02:08 PM.

  2. #347
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,150
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    Tampa Bay deserves to have a fair shake at having a team; as of right now, the Rays have been given nothing fair. They haphazardly threw together a horrible baseball field, in a horrible location to meet expansion deadlines. They quickly threw together a proposal and this is the outcome; a **** field, in a horrible space for accessibility.
    That's their fault though. They've had over 20 years to build a successful franchise that draws fans and they've failed miserably. Staying in that crappy stadium all this time with ugly uniforms is their fault. The branding has been horrendous. Hard to get excited about fake grass inside a giant dark and ugly warehouse.

  3. #348
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    61,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    That's their fault though. They've had over 20 years to build a successful franchise that draws fans and they've failed miserably. Staying in that crappy stadium all this time with ugly uniforms is their fault. The branding has been horrendous. Hard to get excited about fake grass inside a giant dark and ugly warehouse.
    They have a lease on the stadium. They can't just break it whenever they want. This was set into motion 20 years ago. They have had no real recourse.

    Idiots planned this thing for quick MLB approval. We can debate that all we want, but blaming the city of Tampa or calling it unviable for MLB attendance ignores the root cause and passes the buck. Tampa, I fully believe, would support an MLB team if given the opportunity. They weren't.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

  4. #349
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    15,172
    Quote Originally Posted by ILMindState View Post
    If the Cubs signed the same players they did this off season but never made any of the trades (including Darvish). Do you guys think they would have won the division over the Brewers or Wild Card over the Cardinals? Would you have preferred that they did rather than making the trades?

    I think the Cubs would not have lost 11 in a row with Darvish on the team and might have added at the deadline. That team still would not have been good enough to win the division. They might have challenged for the wild card but I wouldn't want to be in a wild card situation where you're up against a 105 win team with Scherzer on the mound. I guess all things considered the Cubs picked a good year to rebuild/retool whatever you wanna call it.
    No, they werenít going to contend just by bringing back the same group.

    I think the question is if they would have contended if they spent back to the lux tax line. In that case I think they could have contended, but once the decision was made to not replace the lost salaries and to drop additional payroll the season was basically over at that point.

  5. #350
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,150
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    They have a lease on the stadium. They can't just break it whenever they want. This was set into motion 20 years ago. They have had no real recourse.

    Idiots planned this thing for quick MLB approval. We can debate that all we want, but blaming the city of Tampa or calling it unviable for MLB attendance ignores the root cause and passes the buck. Tampa, I fully believe, would support an MLB team if given the opportunity. They weren't.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
    I don't blame the fans or people of Tampa, i'm sure they'd probably support a good franchise. Whoever signed off on these things is the cause, the city or the team or both, whomever was involved.

  6. #351
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    4,150
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    No, they werenít going to contend just by bringing back the same group.

    I think the question is if they would have contended if they spent back to the lux tax line. In that case I think they could have contended, but once the decision was made to not replace the lost salaries and to drop additional payroll the season was basically over at that point.
    Maybe they could have contended this year if they dropped some more money in FA, but i think they went a good route anyways, I think the org is in a good position. They sold high on Darvish, they got decent prospects back for Rizzo/Baez/Bryant, got talent for Kimbrel. The blowup came a year or 2 too late, but COVID and other things also happened, it's a shame we had to waste a couple of years on a clearly inadequate formula. I'd rather have a solid future than whimpering into the playoffs on 90 wins and not getting anything but possibly compensation picks for some of those guys. I think this season went almost ideal.

  7. #352
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    15,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    Maybe they could have contended this year if they dropped some more money in FA, but i think they went a good route anyways, I think the org is in a good position. They sold high on Darvish, they got decent prospects back for Rizzo/Baez/Bryant, got talent for Kimbrel. The blowup came a year or 2 too late, but COVID and other things also happened, it's a shame we had to waste a couple of years on a clearly inadequate formula. I'd rather have a solid future than whimpering into the playoffs on 90 wins and not getting anything but possibly compensation picks for some of those guys. I think this season went almost ideal.
    Hard disagree with most of this.

    This season was trash. Making the playoffs is always better than winning 71 games. They didnít choose this route for baseball reasons, they chose it for financial reasons. They absolutely should not have done this 2 years ago.

    The Cubs donít have to choose between tanking and not having a solid future.

  8. #353
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bloomington, IL
    Posts
    6,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratos View Post
    Maybe they could have contended this year if they dropped some more money in FA, but i think they went a good route anyways, I think the org is in a good position. They sold high on Darvish, they got decent prospects back for Rizzo/Baez/Bryant, got talent for Kimbrel. The blowup came a year or 2 too late, but COVID and other things also happened, it's a shame we had to waste a couple of years on a clearly inadequate formula. I'd rather have a solid future than whimpering into the playoffs on 90 wins and not getting anything but possibly compensation picks for some of those guys. I think this season went almost ideal.
    I still so ****ing hate this train of thought.There were great players on this team. The Cubs easily could have contended the last 3 years by just spending money to fix the glaring flaws. Even on short term deals. Instead they only signed minor league contracts. The team wasn't broken. The good players just got more expensive and ownership cheaped out.

  9. #354
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bloomington, IL
    Posts
    6,334
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    Hard disagree with most of this.

    This season was trash. Making the playoffs is always better than winning 71 games. They didnít choose this route for baseball reasons, they chose it for financial reasons. They absolutely should not have done this 2 years ago.

    The Cubs donít have to choose between tanking and not having a solid future.
    For sure

  10. #355
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bloomington, IL
    Posts
    6,334
    The idea that the Chicago Cubs need to suck to retool the team is so ****ing stupid. You know what's better then having a top 7 pick in the draft when you're trying rebuild? Nabbing some prospects by taking on a bad contract. Signing good players to 1-2 year deals and trading them for prospects if you suck at the deadline. Top 3 market. Take advantage of that. The Cubs should absolutely never have to tank. It's ****ing silly.

  11. #356
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    15,172

    2021 Chicago Cubs September IGT Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Sofnr View Post
    The idea that the Chicago Cubs need to suck to retool the team is so ****ing stupid. You know what's better then having a top 7 pick in the draft when you're trying rebuild? Nabbing some prospects by taking on a bad contract. Signing good players to 1-2 year deals and trading them for prospects if you suck at the deadline. Top 3 market. Take advantage of that. The Cubs should absolutely never have to tank. It's ****ing silly.
    Yep. The Dodgers last top 10 pick was Kershaw in 2006. The Cardinals last top 10 pick was JD Drew in 1998. The Yankees last top 10 pick was Jeter in 1992. 2022 will be the Cubs 6th top 10 pick in the last 12 years.

    Since the cubs decided to lose on purpose again, Iím glad they got a high draft pick. They should be able to draft a great prospect at 7, but losing on purpose is not the only way to build a winner.
    Last edited by CP_414; 10-04-2021 at 09:20 PM.

  12. #357
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Sofnr View Post
    The idea that the Chicago Cubs need to suck to retool the team is so ****ing stupid. You know what's better then having a top 7 pick in the draft when you're trying rebuild? Nabbing some prospects by taking on a bad contract. Signing good players to 1-2 year deals and trading them for prospects if you suck at the deadline. Top 3 market. Take advantage of that. The Cubs should absolutely never have to tank. It's ****ing silly.
    The Chicago Cubs might be evaluated by Forbes as the 4th most valuable team, but that doesn't mean that the ownership group is the 4th richest. Joe Ricketts is #371 on the Forbes list...

    If the answer is simply to spend money, and admittedly that's never a bad option, the Cubs still wouldn't be the best. Just based on the richest majority owners, the Rickett's are only seventh. Some of these other majority owners also have extremely wealthy minority owners as well. While the Ricketts can generate a ton of income from the Club that can then be reinvested into the organization (an ability a lot of other teams lack), let's stop pretending like they're the Dodgers. When it comes to spending, some if it has to be a willingness to spend, and then there's the ability to spend.
    Last edited by Crusader; 10-04-2021 at 09:39 PM.
    Ü

    "But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."

    - Romans 8:25

  13. #358
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    15,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Crusader View Post
    The Chicago Cubs might be evaluated by Forbes as the 4th most valuable team, but that doesn't mean that the ownership group is the 4th richest. Joe Ricketts is #371 on the Forbes list...

    If the answer is simply to spend money, and admittedly that's never a bad option, the Cubs still wouldn't be the best. Just based on the richest majority owners, the Rickett's are only seventh. Some of these other majority owners also have extremely wealthy minority owners as well. While the Ricketts can generate a ton of income from the Club that can then be reinvested into the organization (an ability a lot of other teams lack), let's stop pretending like they're the Dodgers. When it comes to spending, some if it has to be a willingness to spend, and then there's the ability to spend.
    You are saying the Ricketts canít spend more on players because the family is only worth over $5 billion?

    It doesnít matter what the owners personal net worth is. None of these owners are pulling from their bank accounts to sign players. They sign players using team revenues. The Cubs have a top 4 revenue in mlb every season and a top 4 payroll rarely. Itís about a willingness to reinvest revenues onto the field vs putting those revenues in other investments that financially benefit the owners more than signing good players financially benefits the owners.

  14. #359
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,029
    Quote Originally Posted by CP_414 View Post
    You are saying the Ricketts canít spend more on players because the family is only worth over $5 billion?

    It doesnít matter what the owners personal net worth is. None of these owners are pulling from their bank accounts to sign players. They sign players using team revenues. The Cubs have a top 4 revenue in mlb every season and a top 4 payroll rarely. Itís about a willingness to reinvest revenues onto the field vs putting those revenues in other investments that financially benefit the owners more than signing good players financially benefits the owners.
    Iím saying if being competitive is as simple as flexing their wallets, then weíre not the biggest bully on the block. Honestly, Iím not sure if the Cubs ownership would even be in the top 10.

    If the answer is just to spend, itís not our organization that would be winning.
    Ü

    "But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."

    - Romans 8:25

  15. #360
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    15,172

    2021 Chicago Cubs September IGT Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusader View Post
    Iím saying if being competitive is as simple as flexing their wallets, then weíre not the biggest bully on the block. Honestly, Iím not sure if the Cubs ownership would even be in the top 10.

    If the answer is just to spend, itís not our organization that would be winning.
    Again, the owners net worth doesnít matter. They arenít spending their own cash or selling stock to sign starting pitchers. It doesnít matter that they are worth $5 billion and it doesnít matter where that ranks among owners. People are so happy to point out that it isnít liquid wealth when fans complain about them being worth so much money and not spending on payroll. Itís also not liquid wealth for the other owners and they arenít signing players using personal cash. These multi-billion dollar businesses bring in revenue. Then owners decide how much of that revenue should go back into their product each year, how much of that revenue should go into investments/property/etc, and how much should go to themselves. The Cubs choose to put a below average percentage of that revenue back onto the field compared to other owners.

    Nobody is asking them to outspend the Dodgers every year. They should spend in line with their revenues. They donít do that.

    Nobody is even saying that spending is the only thing they need to do to be competitive, but itís the advantage they have as a top 5 revenue club. The other top 5 revenue clubs donít lose on purpose over a third of the time. Thatís a choice that the Cubs keep making.
    Last edited by CP_414; 10-04-2021 at 10:34 PM.

Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •