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