rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP (01/09/85)
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
rossiter@cornell.UUCP (David Rossiter) (01/09/85)
This net was peaceful and friendly, until this jerk Robert started an inexcusable ad-hominum attack on David Rubin. Rubin is a long-time contributor, his observations are temperate and fair -- witness his classy response to a vicious and unprovoked attack. Even during the heat of the pennant race, playoffs, and series, the Detroit, Chicago, San Diego, KC, and --- yes! --- Met fans were rabid, partisan, BUT COURTEOUS and true fans. Robert, please re-examine the texts involved, and either -- a) start acting civilized - or- b) get off this net.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (01/10/85)
>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
jhs@druri.UUCP (ShoreJ) (01/10/85)
Now, now, children, let' play nice! We've all had great fun with spleen venting, character assassination, and the Cubs-good guys vs. the Mets-bad guys (or whatever your preference) in this glorious debate over Wrigley lights, etc. Hey, I had fun, too. But enough is enough. Let's move the flames to the appropriate net or use "r" vice "f" for additional pot shots. How about a nice friendly debate over expansion teams? Ho Ho Ho.