It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2024 12:17 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79453
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Bucky Chris wrote:
BTW, Reuters predicted they made $500MM in profit in Q1/Q2, and predicted they would exceed $1B in profit for 2011. If you have more reliable information than Reuters, I'd be interested in seeing it. Or we can wait until they go public in May.


There's no doubt the company is growing rapidly. When we had the original discussion their likely profits- if there even were any- weren't anywhere close to what they probably were for the last quarter.

The killer application of Facebook was in establishing the true identities- however loosely- of users in what had previously been a venue where everyone was anonymous, at least for the most part. Google+, which is growing far faster than Facebook at the same point in their respective existences, is taking that one step further by actually verifying the identities of users. That will open the door further to targeted advertising and e-commerce options. In effect, Google is tightening its grip on the Internet. My guess is that Paypal will be the first giant to fall. Catching up to Facebook may prove slightly more challenging. In any case, it's very interesting to watch. And as much as I may dislike Paypal and be indifferent to Facebook, I'm certainly not rooting for Google.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:29 am
Posts: 8116
Location: South Elgin
pizza_Place: Ian's Pizza
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Bucky Chris wrote:
BTW, Reuters predicted they made $500MM in profit in Q1/Q2, and predicted they would exceed $1B in profit for 2011. If you have more reliable information than Reuters, I'd be interested in seeing it. Or we can wait until they go public in May.


There's no doubt the company is growing rapidly. When we had the original discussion their likely profits- if there even were any- weren't anywhere close to what they probably were for the last quarter.

The killer application of Facebook was in establishing the true identities- however loosely- of users in what had previously been a venue where everyone was anonymous, at least for the most part. Google+, which is growing far faster than Facebook at the same point in their respective existences, is taking that one step further by actually verifying the identities of users. That will open the door further to targeted advertising and e-commerce options. In effect, Google is tightening its grip on the Internet. My guess is that Paypal will be the first giant to fall. Catching up to Facebook may prove slightly more challenging. In any case, it's very interesting to watch. And as much as I may dislike Paypal and be indifferent to Facebook, I'm certainly not rooting for Google.


By Paypal failing, what do you mean? Can't see eBay going under, so you're predicting eBay scraps Paypal all together?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:54 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79453
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Bucky Chris wrote:
By Paypal failing, what do you mean? Can't see eBay going under, so you're predicting eBay scraps Paypal all together?


If Google is successful in what they're trying to do they'll have control of the majority of handheld devices, and a fully integrated system is appealing for users. It's the "value meal" concept. People don't have to think. People like "package deals". Once enough people have a Google e-commerce account that is simple to access from all their devices, ebay/Paypal is going to have to make the call on whether they accept such a widely used form of payment. My belief is that at some point the user demand will become so great that ebay/Paypal will be forced to allow users to pay via its competitor. That's somewhere down the road. and I'm sure ebay will fight that tooth and nail. The first step will probably be to start playing fair with its own users and reduce the time it holds their money, etc. Google's entry into the space will be good for consumers. At first.

But who really knows? You know that this stuff can move very quickly. There may be a player out there nobody has heard of or nobody has considered or perhaps even one that currently doesn't exist to throw a wrench into things. Also, at some point I would expect the government is going to have to put the brakes on Google. The Google-Motorola deal is still up in the air, isn't it?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Last edited by Rod on Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55840
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I think they'd be an average team most of the time the way most teams are and they'd play in front of about 25,000 people at Euclid and Wilke on most nights.

Precise local references like these tickle me. Right down the street from where I took swimming lessons!

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:58 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79453
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Curious Hair wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I think they'd be an average team most of the time the way most teams are and they'd play in front of about 25,000 people at Euclid and Wilke on most nights.

Precise local references like these tickle me. Right down the street from where I took swimming lessons!


I mention Arlington Park because it's not likely to be there in ten years unless something drastic happens in the Illinois racing industry and that location is ideal for the kind of Cub Town li'l danny is always promoting.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55840
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I think they'd be an average team most of the time the way most teams are and they'd play in front of about 25,000 people at Euclid and Wilke on most nights.

Precise local references like these tickle me. Right down the street from where I took swimming lessons!


I mention Arlington Park because it's not likely to be there in ten years unless something drastic happens in the Illinois racing industry and that location is ideal for the kind of Cub Town li'l danny is always promoting.


Wasn't Arlington Park also on the shortlist of sites the Cubs would've moved to in the '80s, along with that Tribune-owned parcel off the Eisenhower in Elk Grove/Itasca/Wood Dale?

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:02 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79453
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
immessedup17 wrote:
If it is 25,000, at least then I'd be able to consistently get seats. And it'd be 10 minutes away.

I don't think it would be 25,000, especially because many Cub fans in the suburbs don't go to Wrigley as often as they would like because of the hassle. Whatever Cubs 'fans' from the city proper don't make it will be replaced by Cubs fans nearer to the current stadium.

You make it seem as if the team only has 'look at me' attendance.



Attendance is attendance. It doesn't matter why it's there. But I think it's a little misguided to believe that the Cubs draw 38,000 a game just because people like watching the Cubs play. They never did that before the park became a fetish. It was the same damn park in 1970s when they closed the upper deck and about 5000 people saw Ernie hit his 500th homer.

I do think they could draw 50,000 a night in my hypothetical stadium for a year or two, but after that they'd be a normal team. At that point what would differentiate them from the other team with whom they share a market?

I know it's natural to see the park sell out and say, "hey, if it were bigger we could sell more seats", but I don't think that's necessarily true. Part of the reason they sell out is the ballpark.

Finally, I find it disingenuous when certain Cub fans beat you over the head with how great the "Wrigley experience" is in one argument and then tell you it doesn't mean a thing in a different argument. It has to be one or the other, right? For the record, I do think the "Wrigley experience" is great. I've seen a lot of games there, and I don't really root for the Cubs to lose. I'm just confident that they usually will. But I don't think the park has anything to do with that. The odd day game schedule, maybe.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79453
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Curious Hair wrote:
Wasn't Arlington Park also on the shortlist of sites the Cubs would've moved to in the '80s, along with that Tribune-owned parcel off the Eisenhower in Elk Grove/Itasca/Wood Dale?


I don't remember, but Arlington is a pretty damn good location. If a Cub Town were to be more successful than Wrigley, it might have a shot there.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
too far..nobody wants to drive that far

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79453
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
312player wrote:
too far..nobody wants to drive that far


But like IMU said, there are thousands of Cub fans in the northwest suburbs. My argument would be that there are just as many fans out there, but they aren't likely to be the kind of fans that go to as many games as the frat boys that populate the area around Wrigley, have a lot of disposable cash, and no other real responsibilities. And bigger than that, they'd be ceding the title of "Chicago's team" to the White Sox and the corporations that love to treat clients and themselves to a day at Wrigley would likely spend at least some of that money elsewhere, maybe even at the park just a few miles south of downtown.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79453
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
immessedup17 wrote:
That was then, this is now.

I'm not disputing history, and I'm not arguing that there aren't 'fake' Cubs fans out there who only go because it is Wrigley and its the cool thing to do.

The Cubs still have an extremely large fanbase...of true fans. The ones that attend a few games a year, and watch 90% of the rest on TV. Whatever fans stop going because it is no longer Wrigley or no longer downtown WOULD BE REPLACED by the Cubs fans that cannot go as often as they would like now. These wealthy 'look at me' DB's that currently go for the shit of it would no longer, and guys like me could go to more than 2 or 3 a year. Other people who might not go at all would be able to go because they no longer have to worry about the hassles of public transportation or the cost of $55 easy-out parking.

I don't give a shit about a Wrigley experience...and of all the 'true Cubs fans' I know, I could guarantee each would say something similar. I'm not a fan of a ballpark, I'm a fan of a team...an organization. And there are enough people in the Chicago Metropolitan area to fill up Cubs games wherever they play.

I understand you think the organization and its fans are a joke...a fad...but this simply isn't true.

If you're subject to Cubs fanboyism I feel bad for you son, the Cubs have 99 problems but attendance will never be one.


Are we really going to have an argument about what a "true fan" is? If a guy goes to twelve games a year, gets drunk as fuck, and doesn't know the score, and you go to one game and meticulously keep a perfect scorecard, what makes you think you're the "true fan" and he isn't?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55840
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
there are thousands of Cub fans in the northwest suburbs.

Real talk. I grew up in Arlington Heights and I don't think I was even cognizant of the White Sox till I saw an ad in GamePro for a Frank Thomas video game.

Quote:
And bigger than that, they'd be ceding the title of "Chicago's team" to the White Sox and the corporations that love to treat clients and themselves to a day at Wrigley would likely spend at least some of that money elsewhere, maybe even at the park just a few miles south of downtown.

Yeah. This is precisely why I don't want the Cubs anywhere in the NW burbs and the Score, as a station, does. I like that we can all, north or south, make a claim to rooting for "Chicago's team." I don't root for the baseball Islanders.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Last edited by Curious Hair on Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65733
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
It's simple man. You build the new "Suburban" stadium. It gets an automatic attendance bump cause it's a new stadium right?
You have "Classic" matchups at Wrigley still. So when the Cards or some high profile team like Yankees or Sox come to town, the game is at Wrigley. Other then those special days, it's like Doubleday... just a museum.

By the time the new stadium bump wears off, the Cubs are a contender because JesuTheo has turned the Cub into a WS winner.

Now doesn't that sound nice?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:23 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79453
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
immessedup17 wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
312player wrote:
too far..nobody wants to drive that far


But like IMU said, there are thousands of Cub fans in the northwest suburbs. My argument would be that there are just as many fans out there, but they aren't likely to be the kind of fans that go to as many games as the frat boys that populate the area around Wrigley, have a lot of disposable cash, and no other real responsibilities. And bigger than that, they'd be ceding the title of "Chicago's team" to the White Sox and the corporations that love to treat clients and themselves to a day at Wrigley would likely spend at least some of that money elsewhere, maybe even at the park just a few miles south of downtown.

Not doubting your pictured frat boys have all of that...but the northwest suburbs isn't exactly Maywood. :lol:

There are true fans here, ones that would want to go to the game as much as possible. I know I fit that. I would for sure go to more than 2 or 3 games a year if the stadium was 10 minutes away. And I can safely speak the same for at least several of my friends.

I also don't think too many corporate parties would go to 35th and Shields for the 'fun of it.' The area is better...but its still the Soufside.
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Are we really going to have an argument about what a "true fan" is? If a guy goes to twelve games a year, gets drunk as fuck, and doesn't know the score, and you go to one game and meticulously keep a perfect scorecard, what makes you think you're the "true fan" and he isn't?

Yes. Because you are defining a fake 'frat boy' fan. So I have the right to define a true fan.

A guy that goes to 12 games a year because it is Wrigley and doesn't know the score is not a fan of the Cubs. He is a fan of a party atmosphere. You offer him free beer at the zoo 12 times a year with 5 of his 'bros' and he will be at the zoo getting hammered, not knowing the difference between a dolphin and a zebra.



No offense, dude, but you're the rare twenty-four year old single male who prefers living in Schaumburg to living at the corner of Roscoe and Racine. You also drive a hatchback.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
i know that there are frat boys who go for the field not the team..but they are the minority.. everyone knows that the north side has the women and the bars so the north side will always be a draw..when the cubs rebuild they need to stay in the city and on the north side. not many want to get on the expressway and drive through a dozen suburbs after having a few beers and have to drive home.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:35 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79453
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
immessedup17 wrote:
I'm getting younger? Cool.

I think you're out of touch with current 20-somethings that live in the suburb. I have a couple of buddies that have even done the whole 'downtown living' thing and have moved back to Schaumburg / Bloomingdale / Wheeling. I know you're an older guy...but the suburbs are kind of built up now...there are a lot of things to do...and when you want to go downtown, it is a 20 minute I-90 trip with no traffic, a little longer when there is some traffic.

Again with the hatch thing? Which is it? Is it only 20-something single males that want to drive hatchbacks, or is it rare for a 20-something single guy to drive a hatchback? If you're going to try to make it into something to rip me on, stick to one side. :roll:



I'm just busting your balls. I don't care what kind of car you drive.

Don't tell me your buddies lived downtown and moved back to the suburbs for any other reason than money or getting married- which also makes the reason money. I'm also guessing what you and I call "downtown" may be different things. Anyway, you're not really going to compare the Streets of Woodfield with a real Chicago neighborhood, are you?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
So we should try and preserve all the unique aspects of the park to make sure the Cubs remain a special team at the expense of making moves that will help the club win?

You're actually pulling a Goff/Berns bleachers thing here.

Youre a Sox fan. You have zero interest in the Cubs winning.

Its easy for you to dismiss attempts to draw revenue to aid in build a winning team because to you the Cubs are Wrigley and you like going to games there.

If Wrigley maintains its charm and the Cubs never make the playoffs, you'll be just fine.

I dont think its a stretch to say no other fan of any team on the planet can truly understand what it means to root for a team that is in its 11th Decade of not winning a title.

Why is the Cubs being "special" or a natl team important? Who cares? Ill gladly take a Marlins type existance over a team that sucks for 100 years but gets a lot of ESPN sunday night games. I mean if you are looking at it from a make money owing the team standpoint, you make sense but why would a cub fan care or even consider that point of view?

Being on equal footing with the Sox might be a good thing. Having to WIN to make money is probably a good thing from a fan's stand point.

There is only 1 goal as a cub fan. See them win a World Series before you die. None of the other stuff matters....to me at least. I dont hate the park or curse the IVY but if they built a cookie cutter and won a WS id be more than pleased and would be able to deal with the fact that less douchebags from Iowa will be going to games.


I think the flaw in this thinking is the belief that changing the park to be like many others is actually going to help them win. One thing I'm pretty sure it won't do is generate more money long term. The fact that they have a special park is the reason they are one of the top revenue producing teams. The Sox have an entire level of skyboxes they don't use. Just because you build something doesn't mean you can sell it. But I guess no one knows for sure. bernstein is convinced a Cub Town out in a cornfield in Huntley would be the biggest money-maker since the pop-up toaster. I just don't believe that.

In what thinking? I didnt say it was a magic ticket. My stance is not Bernstein's. I think the location is more important than the park if were having that discussion

But the special park thing hasnt really produced a lot of results. My point is, whatever moves you deem a step towards winning should be made regardless of how it affects the special ballpark. Sure they might be wrong, but I dont want my team operating to protect the park before winning. Make the moves to win, THEN if you can try and preserve the special factor.


And I think you are mistaken on this swinging back to a Sox town or the Cubs losing appeal.

That war is over. The Cubs won. They are a national and even a global team. That is not going away. If Wrigley crumbles today (could happen) the Cubs are still the Cubs and fans of that Evil Red C will still be fans.

I know how it was before Wrigleyville happened. Sox were bigger at some points. But that was before ESPN (HUGE part in making the Cubs natl) and the internet and every other form of media that has magnified exposure.

My point is the Natl teams have been decided in all the major sports and that is not changing. (If it could change it would take generations to happen)


Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs will always have the natl appeal.

Maybe Im wrong.

If I didnt know you better, Id think you were a Sox fan that is just hating on the Cubs and has convinced himself that its just the park and other than that Cubs = Sox. That WAS true, before the Cubs took the market. I just dont think it can be reversed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
immessedup17 wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Don't tell me your buddies lived downtown and moved back to the suburbs for any other reason than money or getting married- which also makes the reason money. I'm also guessing what you and I call "downtown" may be different things. Anyway, you're not really going to compare the Streets of Woodfield with a real Chicago neighborhood, are you?

The buddy that comes to the forefront of my mind bought a home in Bloomingdale, and he lived in Lincoln Park. He could afford downtown just fine...but wanted to be closer to the suburbs...which is where many of his friends are, and his job as well.

Another buddy moved from right near the Loop to Wheeling...and as far as I know...he owns a trucking company near the southside...so it wasn't a money issue for him.





sounds like those guys are getting ready to settle down...the sox could overtake the cubs in ten years if a large land based hotel casino was built on the lakefront 2 miles from their park with more bars and restaurants built up in the area.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
immessedup17 wrote:
I'm getting younger? Cool.

I think you're out of touch with current 20-somethings that live in the suburb. I have a couple of buddies that have even done the whole 'downtown living' thing and have moved back to Schaumburg / Bloomingdale / Wheeling. I know you're an older guy...but the suburbs are kind of built up now...there are a lot of things to do...and when you want to go downtown, it is a 20 minute I-90 trip with no traffic, a little longer when there is some traffic.

Again with the hatch thing? Which is it? Is it only 20-something single males that want to drive hatchbacks, or is it rare for a 20-something single guy to drive a hatchback? If you're going to try to make it into something to rip me on, stick to one side. :roll:



I'm just busting your balls. I don't care what kind of car you drive.

Don't tell me your buddies lived downtown and moved back to the suburbs for any other reason than money or getting married- which also makes the reason money. I'm also guessing what you and I call "downtown" may be different things. Anyway, you're not really going to compare the Streets of Woodfield with a real Chicago neighborhood, are you?

Yeah, you can build up the suburbs all you want. Nothing in Illinois can replicate living in the city for someone in their 20's

There does seem to be one guy in every group who resists the whole living downtown/near north thing.

One could certainly prefer suburban life, but if you like going out a lot, concerts, bars, and having almost limitless options to do these things with easy ways to get there....there is no substitute


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65733
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
I would hate living in the city. People everywhere. Constantly. Everywhere.
Nah I much prefer living out here man. Very little traffic in the neighborhood. Extremely quiet. Nice starry skies.
I never really was a go out to bars kind of guy anyway. I mean, I do like bars, but I love chillin with a 12er and a fire in the backyard a lot more.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:37 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79453
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
rogers park bryan wrote:
In what thinking? I didnt say it was a magic ticket. My stance is not Bernstein's. I think the location is more important than the park if were having that discussion

But the special park thing hasnt really produced a lot of results. My point is, whatever moves you deem a step towards winning should be made regardless of how it affects the special ballpark. Sure they might be wrong, but I dont want my team operating to protect the park before winning. Make the moves to win, THEN if you can try and preserve the special factor.


And I think you are mistaken on this swinging back to a Sox town or the Cubs losing appeal.

That war is over. The Cubs won. They are a national and even a global team. That is not going away. If Wrigley crumbles today (could happen) the Cubs are still the Cubs and fans of that Evil Red C will still be fans.

I know how it was before Wrigleyville happened. Sox were bigger at some points. But that was before ESPN (HUGE part in making the Cubs natl) and the internet and every other form of media that has magnified exposure.

My point is the Natl teams have been decided in all the major sports and that is not changing. (If it could change it would take generations to happen)


Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs will always have the natl appeal.

Maybe Im wrong.

If I didnt know you better, Id think you were a Sox fan that is just hating on the Cubs and has convinced himself that its just the park and other than that Cubs = Sox. That WAS true, before the Cubs took the market. I just dont think it can be reversed.


I just don't think a Diamondvision and advertisements replacing the ivy gets you closer to a championship.

You may be right about the so-called "national teams". I do think that can change over time. Considering the business you're in, I know you understand just how difficult predicting the future can be. I'm pretty sure nobody thought in 1980 that the Cubs would become what they have and that the neighborhood would be what it is. The few guys who did (George Loukas) got rich. And maybe he just got lucky.

Finally, I don't think I've come close to hating on the Cubs in this thread. In fact, I've admitted I enjoy baseball at their park.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group