Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: RE2:cubbie court Message-ID: <1022@ihuxe.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 18:34:07 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxe.1022 Posted: Tue Jan 8 18:34:07 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 9-Jan-85 05:29:57 EST Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 207 Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: RE: cubs go to court >>> David Rubin >> me > David Rubin >>>.....cub insults..... >>......met insult...... >Happy New Year to you, too! You really didn't expect me to sit idly by and watch you tear into our beloved cubbies? I was greatly offended by your remarks and replied in kind like I usually do. Your insults were cold and calculating and beneath contempt. >Goodness, I'd say we're at the beginning of an ad hominum attack. In >net.baseball, too! Is courtesy dead even here? Besides, I am writing >from New Jersey, and from closer to Veteran's Stadium than to Shea. First impressions are hard to break. You have come across previously as a Met supporter and a Cub hater. So when you continued attacking the cubs, I had short tolerance. Its irrelevant where you are writing from. >They certainly are playing day games by choice. They are not legally >obligated to play their home games at Wrigley Field, and simply >reminding the appropriate authorities that this is the case would >probably suffice to have such restrictions lifted. Does Chicago >really want the force the Cubs to move to the suburbs...or worse? Lets say you OWN a home. You live there quite happily. Suddenly you realize you could actually be paying less taxes elsewhere. You are not legally obligated to stay there. You could move. Buy another house. Or even rent. Not sound money management unless you are independently wealthy. I don't think the threat of moving elsewhere will have much effect on the government to lower taxes. Why should the cubs spend millions to move? It makes no sense. >I have as much sympathy with the neighborhood folks near Clark and >Addison as I do for the folks who buy homes near an airport which >later expands. Sure, it's a real pain and inconvenience, but they >KNEW there was that risk when they moved there. Yes, they were suppose to forsee the future at the turn of the century? A time when night baseball was unthinkable. No TV contracts. etc. Good joke. >If weekday night games bring more revenue to the major league clubs, >and if the Cubs refuse to play weekday night games, why should the >Cubs receive a reward for other teams more profitable policies? The >Cubs are too "classy" to play night ball but are not too "classy" to >accept money for other teams doing so, eh? I answered this quite strongly previously. You're just repeating the same questions without listening to the answers. Basically all teams agree to split evenly all revenue generated regardless. Why single out the cubs day games? There are many other profitability policies to gripe about too. You don't see anyone else complaining about them. And the cubs I repeat are more than willing to play night games in their home. But fine. I suggest every team be allowed to sell their own television rights. No more splitting playoff money. Does that make you happy? The cubs no longer agree to participate in the leagues group deals. Why? Well, they happen to own a TV station too and it would be all profit. And the cubs following is much larger than most, so the rights could be sold for better than average. But no, the cubs are fair about it and agree to share their popularity with the league equally. Costing them a pretty penny in the process. Not even a word of thanks in return. An argument could be made for a designated ballpark(or rotate each game) each year to hold the World Series alla the Super Bowl. >I'm all for redistribution of baseball wealth to preserve some balance >(even though the Mets have the third largest cable TV profit---behind >the Braves (of course) and the Cubs), and do not wish to penalize a >team for playing in a small market. But the Cubs play in a small park >during the day in a large market by choice, and I see no reason why >the Twins should support Chicago's lighting tastes. I see no reason the cubs should support other teams low visibility. Either move to another city or take a revenue cut. Don't you see how silly these things sound? By the way, the two million fans the cubs drew was in no way shabby and one of the best in the league. >Had the Cubs >clearly stated their opposition to any requirement for night games to >the Commissioner's Office while the contract was being negotiated, >they could have compelled Kuhn to negotiate a contract with a waiver >provided for the Cubs, Picture me screaming on my desk. For the umpteenth time, the Commissioner's office was aware of the cubs situation and it was provided for in the contract which all agreed to. >so long as the Cubs were willing to accept a >wee bit less than more accomodating franchises. Okay, TEAM A refuses to let TEAM B play in the world series because they would generate more revenue if they were playing. Hence, lets give the TEAM B revenue cuts because they are costing TEAM A money. Once again, you are sounding silly. Once again I propose to allow the cubs to sell their own rights if you think you are being hurt by their participation in the group deals. You are not doing the cubs a favor by allowing them into the group deal. >Hey, Bowie didn't let me in on the negotiations. Anyway, it seems to >me if, say, the Twins are willing to help all teams increase their >revenues, and the Cubs are not, they DESERVE a larger share of the >procedes. It's hard to get worked up into an egalitarian frenzy when >some bake the bread and some just demand to eat it. Okay, you heard him Twin fans. He just asked your team to move to a better market so that your team can increase revenue for the rest of the league. Pretty embarrassing admition for a baseball fan I'd say. Once again, the cubs are not against playing night baseball!!!!!!!!!!!!! >Besides, the Mets >and everyone else are not reneging, as they would fulfill their >financial obligation to other teams by playing weekday playoff games >at night. What financial obligation? There is no obligation to play games at night. You play them when you want to. Its your misfortune you can't fill up your park during the day. It was purely selfish. You did not have other teams best interest at heart. > (1) I speak for myself, not the Mets or other Mets fans (and > your insulting response is, fortunately, atypical of Cubs > fans). And who made your insulting article excusable? And I specifically mentioned I was not returning the insults at any other Met fan. Atypical or not, you had it coming and I take such measures into my own hands. Right or wrong. > (2) Clubs playing night games during the week are maximizing > their services. More people can attend them, more people > can watch them. Its hard to overfill a sold out ballpark. Perhaps more people could watch them, but they are not maximizing their services. The Chicago baseball fan wants day games. The Cubs provide. This is true baseball spirit. The team belongs to the fans and acts in their best interest. How can anyone say this is wrong? Why should the cubs ignore their supporters and play night games? Personally, I was upset they were trying to fight it. I guess the pressure from big business rears its ugly head again. > (3) I can enjoy the product as presented at Wrigley; in fact > when I was an undergraduate at U of Chicago, I often made > the trip up to Wrigley. Of course, had I held a job at > the time, it would have been physically impossible to do > so during the week. Even as a student, my schedule often > forced me to take in my baseball at Comiskey. When the fans start complaining and they want a different product, then the cubs should change to night games. But that is not the case. > (4) All owners treat baseball team ownership as a business, > even the Chicago Tribune. The cubs don't play night games. They don't increase the size of their park. They are interested in providing a tradition to the Chicago fan. A profit is a profit. Why alienate your supporters for bigger profit. Thats big business. Not baseball as it should be. Or did you support the Oakland Raider move? >Well! I've been called all sorts of things in other newsgroups, but >nothing more offensive than "not a true baseball fan" right here, in >what was once the last refuge of good will. It was more than apparent. >To disagree with Robert's >world view on baseball evidently disqualifies me as a "true" baseball >fan. No. The problem was you said the cubs have to do this and that the way you saw fit or else face the consequences. You did not suggest. You did not inquire. Basically you just didn't care. That disqualified you. >Perhaps Robert is more out of touch with the "heartland" than I >am; most of the Cub fans I've known have loved a good baseball argument, >and could carry one on without denigrating their opponent. First you create an argument intentionally, then wonder what happened when someone takes the bait? I did not like the way you started the argument. I don't care if you don't like the way I continue it. I am always more than willing to discuss anything rationally. Few people do though. They always think they know better. I can act that way too when necessary if I see such behavior. >A "true" baseball fan is stimulated, not offended, by intelligent dissent. Didn't you think my response was stimulating? You mean after all that none of the reasons sunk in? Make up your mind, were you offended or not by my response. No cop out saying my article was not intelligent dissent because it would show your lack of comprehension. >Of course, Robert may think I'm an idiot... You said it, I didn't have to. Psychologists would say this is subconscious fears rising to the surface. Robert