This Week in Baseball 3/30 - 4/6

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

I disagree with the whole concept of the rooftop owners paying anything. Part of what makes the Cubs special (different from any other team) is the stadium they play in, and the rooftops and surronding area are a big part of that. That atmosphere is a big reason why they sell-out game after game, have become a merchandise wonder and have profited millions of dollars. If I owned the Cubs (meaning I would be worth hundreds of millions) I wouldn't look at the rooftop owners as taking money from me, I'd look at the overall picture and realize how lucky I was to own something special. If the rooftop owners are making money good for them, considering how much the Cubs take in (17%) why even fight the battle. It's not like that amount of money should mean anything to the owners of the Cubs.

That's a highly idealistic viewpoint to take. The Chicago Cubs are a very special team among their peers, this I won't deny, and that's part of why I'm a fan, but they're still a business, too. If you were a benevolent multi-millionaire owning the Cubs as a lark, i.e., P.K. Wrigley, you could afford to let a few people watch the game for free from their homes. If you were trying to make money off your investment, i.e., the Chicago Tribune, you would struggle to stand idly by as people make a profit off your product without passing that on to you. I won't deny that the rooftop owners are entitled to make money as another cog in the strange machine that is Wrigleyville, but they can't make that money and keep it all for themselves. The rooftop of Murphy's Bleachers is $1,000 per game to rent out. That's $81,000 over the course of a season, and they'd pay $13,770 for the privilege of having this unique business opportunity. Consider the revenue streams that the Cubs don't have--unlike the White Sox, Brewers, or dozens of other major league teams, they can't sodomize you with parking--as the cost of fielding a win-now team gets higher and higher, and you can see how it's silly not to make money off people who make money off you.

 

I saw the special on HD theatre showing the Nats ballpark being built. Im not too fond of it myself, its sort of bland. The cherry blossom trees wont look pretty past April so the biggest feature of the ballpark will probably be the view of the Capitol building which is lame.

Help me out here, but isn't most Washington architecture sort of bland? I get the impression that the idea is "do not overshadow the Capitol at all costs," and given the bureaucratic nature of the city, you're going to wind up with a lot of fairly uninspired buildings. I mean, there's the Federal style, but that's residential, and you can't be expected to build a ballpark that looks like a house in Georgetown. It's modern and clean, which can also be bland, but at least it looks like it's definitively part of Washington, unlike RFK, which could be (and was) anywhere. Camden Yards is Baltimore, Nationals Park is as Washington as possible under the circumstances of gridlock and compromise, which is pretty damn Washington.

 

You're right on the mark about the cherry blossoms, which was a well-intended but ill-advised gesture.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I disagree with the whole concept of the rooftop owners paying anything. Part of what makes the Cubs special (different from any other team) is the stadium they play in, and the rooftops and surronding area are a big part of that. That atmosphere is a big reason why they sell-out game after game, have become a merchandise wonder and have profited millions of dollars. If I owned the Cubs (meaning I would be worth hundreds of millions) I wouldn't look at the rooftop owners as taking money from me, I'd look at the overall picture and realize how lucky I was to own something special. If the rooftop owners are making money good for them, considering how much the Cubs take in (17%) why even fight the battle. It's not like that amount of money should mean anything to the owners of the Cubs.

 

I saw they were considering selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field (which is hillariously ironic). I cant wait for Underarmor Presents Wrigley Field or something even more dumber than that.

 

That is the only thing I will give Angelos credit for, as I figured he would have sold the naming rights to Camden Yards by now.

 

 

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

It's not ironic. The park was named for the owners of the team, the locally prominent Wrigley family. It's the same principle as Charles Comiskey naming the park for himself (it was officially called White Sox Park when the Allyns owned the team but I can't imagine anyone didn't call it Comiskey [or Kaminsky; best not to ask] then), or any similar case. At no point did the Wrigley company pay for the name or associate the Wrigley brand with the park, as is the case with Coors Field or the recent iterations of Busch Stadium. It's just what it's called. Selling the rights isn't ironic so much as disgusting, considering the money will not go into ameliorating the park or team, but straight to Sam Zell as he proceeds to sell the park to the cash-strapped state of Illinois to be managed by Jerry Reinsdorf's friends, then separately sell the Cubs to Jerry Reinsdorf's other friends. Calling it anything but Wrigley Field would be a losing proposition for all parties involved, but it would only be a small part of the enormous injustice that is the sale of the Chicago Cubs.

 

EDIT: Here's another example of why naming rights would be retarded. I was at the new Cubs team store in Woodfield last week, and there's an enormous amount of Wrigley Field-themed merchandise. The name sells itself, and well. Who'd buy a shirt that said "Aon Insurance Field"?

[geniusMoment 0]

I disagree with the whole concept of the rooftop owners paying anything. Part of what makes the Cubs special (different from any other team) is the stadium they play in, and the rooftops and surronding area are a big part of that. That atmosphere is a big reason why they sell-out game after game, have become a merchandise wonder and have profited millions of dollars. If I owned the Cubs (meaning I would be worth hundreds of millions) I wouldn't look at the rooftop owners as taking money from me, I'd look at the overall picture and realize how lucky I was to own something special. If the rooftop owners are making money good for them, considering how much the Cubs take in (17%) why even fight the battle. It's not like that amount of money should mean anything to the owners of the Cubs.

That's a highly idealistic viewpoint to take. The Chicago Cubs are a very special team among their peers, this I won't deny, and that's part of why I'm a fan, but they're still a business, too. If you were a benevolent multi-millionaire owning the Cubs as a lark, i.e., P.K. Wrigley, you could afford to let a few people watch the game for free from their homes. If you were trying to make money off your investment, i.e., the Chicago Tribune, you would struggle to stand idly by as people make a profit off your product without passing that on to you. I won't deny that the rooftop owners are entitled to make money as another cog in the strange machine that is Wrigleyville, but they can't make that money and keep it all for themselves. The rooftop of Murphy's Bleachers is $1,000 per game to rent out. That's $81,000 over the course of a season, and they'd pay $13,770 for the privilege of having this unique business opportunity. Consider the revenue streams that the Cubs don't have--unlike the White Sox, Brewers, or dozens of other major league teams, they can't sodomize you with parking--as the cost of fielding a win-now team gets higher and higher, and you can see how it's silly not to make money off people who make money off you.

 

I saw the special on HD theatre showing the Nats ballpark being built. Im not too fond of it myself, its sort of bland. The cherry blossom trees wont look pretty past April so the biggest feature of the ballpark will probably be the view of the Capitol building which is lame.

Help me out here, but isn't most Washington architecture sort of bland? I get the impression that the idea is "do not overshadow the Capitol at all costs," and given the bureaucratic nature of the city, you're going to wind up with a lot of fairly uninspired buildings. I mean, there's the Federal style, but that's residential, and you can't be expected to build a ballpark that looks like a house in Georgetown. It's modern and clean, which can also be bland, but at least it looks like it's definitively part of Washington, unlike RFK, which could be (and was) anywhere. Camden Yards is Baltimore, Nationals Park is as Washington as possible under the circumstances of gridlock and compromise, which is pretty damn Washington.

 

You're right on the mark about the cherry blossoms, which was a well-intended but ill-advised gesture.

 

 

I still don't see the point in going after something where you get around 100,000 in profit a year. That's what, less than a third of a rookie's salary? To me, it's not realizing part of what makes your team unique. I'm just highly suspect that whatever money is made from the rooftops is what determines whether the Cubs are financially viable. Hey, I'm all for the Tribune making money, I don't mind the raising ticket prices (hell, I still travel up to Chicago for Cubs games 4-5 times a year), I don't mind the concession prices, and I understand the advertising. I just think that the owners have profited so much off the aura of the Cubs that going after every possible penny leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Let's say Mark Cuban buys the Cubs, do you think he'd go after the rooftops? Would he still run a profitable team?

 

 

Still, the rooftop owners signed a 20-year-deal, so I suppose he's stuck paying. It just kind of sucks that things even got to this point as I feel the Cubs would make a profit regardless. I guess I'm just saying in my ideal world there wouldn't be this battle between the team and the surronding community seemingly every year.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

Again, it would not be a problem if the rooftop owners weren't charging admission. There's nothing to really debate here. The Wrigleyville atmosphere is improved by having huge crowds across Waveland and Sheffield, if you ask me, but the Cubs are entitled to their fair share, since it wouldn't cost a thousand bucks to sit on a rooftop and drink beer were there not a baseball game being played across the street. The Cubs open a new revenue stream, and the rooftop owners still rake in more money than most people make from a residential property. It's win-win.

 

What puzzles me is that you're totally cool with paying $50 to sit in the bleachers, or McDonough slapping ugly CLICKCLACK symbols on the doors, but for the team to salvage some money from what amounts to bootleg luxury boxes is some deep philosophical transgression.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

It's not ironic. The park was named for the owners of the team, the locally prominent Wrigley family. It's the same principle as Charles Comiskey naming the park for himself (it was officially called White Sox Park when the Allyns owned the team but I can't imagine anyone didn't call it Comiskey [or Kaminsky; best not to ask] then), or any similar case. At no point did the Wrigley company pay for the name or associate the Wrigley brand with the park, as is the case with Coors Field or the recent iterations of Busch Stadium. It's just what it's called. Selling the rights isn't ironic so much as disgusting, considering the money will not go into ameliorating the park or team, but straight to Sam Zell as he proceeds to sell the park to the cash-strapped state of Illinois to be managed by Jerry Reinsdorf's friends, then separately sell the Cubs to Jerry Reinsdorf's other friends. Calling it anything but Wrigley Field would be a losing proposition for all parties involved, but it would only be a small part of the enormous injustice that is the sale of the Chicago Cubs.

 

EDIT: Here's another example of why naming rights would be retarded. I was at the new Cubs team store in Woodfield last week, and there's an enormous amount of Wrigley Field-themed merchandise. The name sells itself, and well. Who'd buy a shirt that said "Aon Insurance Field"?

 

I still think of Gum everytime I hear Wrigley Field.

 

Maybe they should sell the rights to the gum company and throw the gum names in there somewhere like Wrigley's Juicy Fruit Field and during the offseason it can be Wrigley's Winterfresh Field. Wrigley also owns Big League chew now..that nasty stuff ick..

[geniusMoment 0]

Again, it would not be a problem if the rooftop owners weren't charging admission. There's nothing to really debate here. The Wrigleyville atmosphere is improved by having huge crowds across Waveland and Sheffield, if you ask me, but the Cubs are entitled to their fair share, since it wouldn't cost a thousand bucks to sit on a rooftop and drink beer were there not a baseball game being played across the street. The Cubs open a new revenue stream, and the rooftop owners still rake in more money than most people make from a residential property. It's win-win.

 

What puzzles me is that you're totally cool with paying $50 to sit in the bleachers, or McDonough slapping ugly CLICKCLACK symbols on the doors, but for the team to salvage some money from what amounts to bootleg luxury boxes is some deep philosophical transgression.

 

 

I don't mind the ticket prices because every team has the right to set prices for the seats in their stadium, if they charge more than people are willing to pay then people will stop going. As for the underarmor ads, well, I don't particularly like them, but there has been advertising in stadiums and on walls for as long as I can remember.

 

Personally, if I owned the team, they wouldn't have any ads behind home plate or on the walls, but I don't think that's ever going to happen.

 

 

I guess I'm saying what they do inside the stadium is there own business, I may not like it, but that's just the way it is. I'm just waiting for the day when someone just completely fucks everything up and takes off the ivy, puts in some more modern stands and walls, takes off the basket and turns it into Cellular Field.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

The plaque on the new Ernie Banks statue says, "Lets play two."

 

A century without a title AND we can't grasp rudimentary grammar.

[Dandy 0]

1. Did Tom Browning have to pay 17% of his fine to the Cubs?

 

2. They have every right to seek payment from the owners of the rooftops, as Czech stated. However, it is also a necessity that they do so, because where would it stop if they don't? You cannot set a precedent of allowing others to make money off your intellectual property, yt try to hold others accountable for basically doing the same thing. I am sure this is something that the Cubs enjoy having to make the Wrigley atmosphere what it is, but there is no need to throw your business sense out the window. The rooftop owners agreed to the stipulations and they are making huge profits. The problem lies with someone not honoring a contract that they are a part of, and he will probably be dealt with accordingly.

 

3. I used to hate naming rights, but I guess I have grown used to them. I would like to see everyone strive for a good sounding fit for their stadium, area, etc., and use some common sense on whether or not it would sound good or not. The Great American Ballpark sounds great, and I applaud the decision to go with that name.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I think Busch Stadium is still the greatest story behind naming rights. When August Busch bought the team in the early '50s, he wanted to rename the park "Budweiser Stadium." Team owners would not allow that (and now we have Coors Field and Miller Park). So Busch named the park after himself, THEN set about marketing new Busch beer.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Jason Kendall's thrown out two runners already. We'll ignore one was a result of a baserunning blunder and the other was a missed hit-and-run with Aramis on the basepaths.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

This has been the worst start to a Cubs season in seven years, actually. I can't believe they're failing to hit fucking Jeff Suppan. This is humiliating.

 

Well, at least the Old Style commercials on 720 are like one tiny little bit better, which is like saying you only lost 100 games instead of 105.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

This is like when everyone picked the Bears and Bulls to do well. I suggest that sportswriters predict no success for Chicago teams beyond the players being able to wipe their own asses.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I see where you're coming from, Czechsault.

[snuffbox 0]

Suppan was pretty good in April last year, too.

[Guest Smues]

If the Cubs lose right now it'll be their worst start since 2001 (the last time they didn't start 1-1.) Clearly their season is over and they should pack it up now.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Obviously the season isn't over for the Cubs, that's hyperpole. The Cubs have played like shit today though, making several errors and mistakes all over the diamond. If Piniella starts replacing some of these guys with "proven veterans," there's a good reason.

[snuffbox 0]

The Cubs were also deemed finished in April last year. Their playoff run should have an asterisk.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

I was kinda hoping our elimination number wouldn't be 159 by April 2nd, but okay. I'm not liking what I'm seeing from Soriano and Soto. Or any of them, really. This is bad baseball because it's yet another team that thinks they're entitled to a division championship, and they're not at all. I don't even know how they can remedy this, considering they're paying $110 million for an average team. I'm gonna end up being so right about Lilly falling off the planet this year.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

The Cubs seem to be half assing it today for whatever reason. And I'm not just saying it because I'm a Brewers fan.

 

I do agree with what Czech said about the Cubs charging the roof top owners for selling seats. If you're putting on a baseball game, you're producing a product, and you have a right to basically charge everyone seeing it, especially if someone else is already making money off it.

 

As far as naming rights, they're just a reality in sports now.

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

And the Chocolate Socket, now presented by Verizon Wireless.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Works for me!

[Guest (Loggins Name)]

If the Cubs are playing it cool because of last year, they need to be reminded that what the Brewers did was a historically epic collapse, and those don't just happen here and there. If they fall too far back in April, they won't catch up.

 

EDIT: The Soriano-not-batting-leadoff experiment is aborted once again.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I cant wait to see which Daniel Cabrera pitches tonight.

 

Hopefully not 7 ks 6 BBs 2 Hits D-Cab.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I'm gonna end up being so right about Lilly falling off the planet this year.

 

 

Over/under on the date when he has a fistfight with Piniella?

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Maybe it's a good thing I only saw have of the game today and by saw, I mean kept tabs on via MLB Gameday. It's too early to overreact, though. The Tigers are 0-2, pegged to win the wild card, if not the AL Central, and they're playing the Royals.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I thought people were high on the Royals, a little less than they are on the Rays..

[Guest]

David Eckstein's HUSTLE gets a run. Just forget that it was idiotic baserunning.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I thought people were high on the Royals, a little less than they are on the Rays..

People think they are headed in the right direction at long last. They still need to acquire the pure talent.

[NYU 0]

And according to ESPN, Pedro Martinez is out 4-6 weeks with a mild strained hamstring.

 

I guess the best solution now would be to make Sosa the fifth starter in the rotation but then you have a gaping hole in the terribly weak bullpen -- which is the exact same damn problem we had for the entire season last year. It seems the only change made to the pen was the addition of Matt Wise. And considering Wise allowed two runners on base in his first game with the Mets, and gave up the game-ending homerun to the Marlins in the second game of the season, he has looked just spectacular. Wonderful.

 

MIAMI -- Pedro Martinez will be sidelined 4-to-6 weeks with what the New York Mets said was a mild strain of his left hamstring.

 

The three-time Cy Young Award winner was placed on the 15-day disabled list before the Mets' game against the Florida Marlins on Wednesday night.

 

Martinez was injured Tuesday night, returned to New York and was examined by Dr. David Altchek at the Hospital for Special Surgery.

 

"It doesn't look good," manager Willie Randolph said before the diagnosis was announced by Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz.

 

"He said he heard a pop, and that is not a good thing," Randolph said. "Usually, when something like that happens, you are put on the DL right away, but we'll just wait and see what the results are. It could have just been a combination of a real bad cramp or a strain. Any time a pitcher pulls a hamstring, that is usually automatic DL."

 

Martinez allowed four runs in 3 1-3 innings during a 5-4, 10-inning defeat, limping off the mound after injuring himself during a pitch.

 

"He's an unfortunate loss," pitcher John Maine said. "Everyone knows what Pedro can do.'

 

The Mets filled Martinez's roster spot by purchasing the contract of pitcher Nelson Figueroa from Triple-A New Orleans.

 

They could move up Oliver Perez in the rotation to start Tuesday's home opener against Philadelphia. Jorge Sosa is a longshot possibility for the rotation.

 

"I think we will keep him where he is right now, but he is also an option," Randolph said.

 

Orlando Hernandez started the season on the disabled list.

 

"We've been doing this the last couple of years and that means me, Oliver [Perez], and [Mike] Pelfrey have to step up a little more," Maine said.

 

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press