Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: RE2:cubbie court
Message-ID: <475@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Jan-85 10:44:37 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.475
Posted: Thu Jan 10 10:44:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 01:06:37 EST
References: <1022@ihuxe.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 278

>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.

So long as I "insult" only the management (and it was not "insult",
but rather criticism) , I do expect you to refrain from personal
attacks.  I said nothing against you or the players, and strongly feel
yours was an inappropriate response to my criticism of Cubs management.
Cold and calculating?!? Anything but.

>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.

I have previously come across as Mets supporter, but there is nothing
you have read that warrants referring to me as a Cub hater (in point
of fact, I publically declared my support of them before the NL
playoffs and hold no animosity towards any team (save perhaps the
Yankees)).  Perhaps you have only recently begun reading articles in
this group, in which case I am sorry you misunderstood my motives,
though I remind you that criticism of a team's management does not
imply dislike for the team.

>>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.

Spending millions to move would produce millions more in cable
revenue. It only makes sense if night baseball is still prohibited.

>>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.

OK, I'll eat my words if less than 75% of those homes haven't traded
hands since the introduction of professional night baseball.  

>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.

All baseball teams have NOT agreed to split revenue equally
regardless.  You seem to feel that their is a moral distinction
between network money for playoff games and cable revenue.  Legally,
you are on firm ground...but I never said the Cubs MUST play night
games for the playoffs, only that they SHOULD.  Evidently, you believe
management agrees with me, so I don't yet see why you are upset with
the suggestion that management play a little hard ball with the City
Council.  The aldermen might respect them more for it...

>>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.

The Twins playing in Minnesota does not hurt the Cubs, and helps
baseball as whole by maintaining its national stature.  That is why
such teams are entitled to financial support through revenue sharing.
One cannot say that the Cubs do not hurt the Twins by playing playoff
games at night.  Thus the distinction.

>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.

For the umpteenth time, I am not suggesting a LEGAL obligation, but a
MORAL one.  I have not stated that the Cubs are legally obligated to
play night games (unless the Commissioner exercises his tremendous
powers to so compel them), but that baseball (as a whole) would be
better off if they did.

>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.

Reductio ad absurdum.  This would be an effective argument save for
the fact that Cubs management insists upon picking and choosing among
which revenue sources will be shared.  You are saying that the
logical alternative to the status quo is to share no revenue, while I
my proposed alternative is to share more.

>>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.

A distortion.  All I ask is that a team do its best.

>Once again, the cubs are not against playing night baseball!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny, that's what I said.  My point is that management doesn't have
the spunk to explain to its fans why night baseball is best for
baseball, and is instead trying to have the league "force" them to do
so in order to avoid responsibility.

>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.

Indeed it the Mets' misfortune that they cannot fill Shea during the
day, but I don't see how this makes me selfish.  I am not spiteful.

>>	(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.

You specifically did, in a postscript, after having already wished
death to their club's 25 man roster.  A pretty ineffective disclaimer,
as you are sure to have had an editor at your disposal.  And, again, I
did not have it coming.  Disagreement can be expressed without
personal attack.

CHALLENGE: Where was their insult in my first article?  I repectfully
submit to the readership of this newsgroup that no individual was insulted
and that no criticism was leveled at any person (save, implicitly, Jim
Finks).

>>	(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.

At first you stated that the Cubs provide day games as a "service" to
their fans, implying that to do otherwise would be better business,
and thus beneath them.  Now you are stating that it's good business.
So long as you understand that business is not beneath the Cubs, I'll
be satisfied.  The Cubs ARE big business!!

>>	(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.

An example of biased sampling.  Of course, if you ask fans who go to
games, they would prefer day games (after all, they can make it to them),
and if you ask fans who can't go to any, they, too, might argue for
tradition.  Somehow, it seems elitist to me to say those who work
weekdays just don't count.

>>	(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? 

Alienating your supporters is also bad business.  That's why (as I've
repeatedly said) the Cubs management is preparing to pass the buck on
the lighting issue.  I do not support the relocation of teams save for
good cause, such as running a loss, inadequate facilities, or active
efforts by local government to hamper operations (such as refusing to
allow lights, for example).  The Raiders claimed the second reason,
though I am sure Oakland fans know better than we do how justified
they were in so doing.

>>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.

It's more than apparent that either you are hypersensitive
(interpreting criticism of beloved objects as personal attacks) or
insensitive (unable to distinguish between criticism of institutions
and personal insults).  I've gone out of my way to interpret all this as
some sad misunderstanding, but it seems you DESIRE this discussion to
be held in the most acrimonious manner possible.  I had hoped you
would take the hint that it was time to lighten up a bit (hence the
rather unserious treatment of "not a true baseball fan"), but
apparently my hope was misplaced.

>>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.

I did not suggest, but I did not demand.  There is a difference
between saying the Cubs SHOULD do something (which is what I did) and
saying that they MUST.

>>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.

I did not create the argument, as mine was a followup to a previous
posting.  What you like or don't like has very little to do with what
you should or should not do.  Sometimes we should be polite, even if
we don't feel like it.

>>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.

Your response was stimulating, but not intellectually so.

>>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.

Well, I'll just thank my lucky stars that this isn't net.psychology!
Truly, that last remark speaks well for you, Robert.

>Robert

			Still hoping for the return of civility,

					David Rubin