Sarava, my post in the other thread was inspired by Beluga's comments. I thought I had said "some" Sox fans as I never make or intend to make blanket accusations about any fanbase or group of people.
I should have clarified that I was talking in particular about the real world outside of this forum. A great number of Sox fans are in fact very elitist toward the Cubs in always using words like "loser" and "futility" when in fact their own organization is filled with much of the same in its history save for the more recent championship win. It becomes nauseating and those comments finally pushed me to vent that. About alI have to say on the topic and any future comments will be about baseball and not the back and forth between the two clubs.
I have nothing against the Cubs or their fans, and I want to make that clear. And Sarava, that was an offensive post in the other thread, and I truthfully didn't appreciate your assumption of my character.
Also, I apologize if I offended anybody, I was kind of bummed after what happened yesterday to me (see Anything Goes Thread) and I was off my rocker and apparently on my high horse. #Bows
Sarava, my post in the other thread was inspired by Beluga's comments. I thought I had said "some" Sox fans as I never make or intend to make blanket accusations about any fanbase or group of people.
I should have clarified that I was talking in particular about the real world outside of this forum. A great number of Sox fans are in fact very elitist toward the Cubs in always using words like "loser" and "futility" when in fact their own organization is filled with much of the same in its history save for the more recent championship win. It becomes nauseating and those comments finally pushed me to vent that. About alI have to say on the topic and any future comments will be about baseball and not the back and forth between the two clubs.
I both agree and disagree with this post.
I feel uncomfortable when members of my own family use such words to describe the Cubs: people don't realize there are only a handful of people left from the WS team, and we'd only had a 9-year-shorter drought than the Cubs.
The only part I disagree with is the fact that you said "more recent championship win." I would've said myself, a modern championship win, because a 97 year difference between the last WS wins is hardly "more recent", rather "a win in the modern era". Just my 2 cents.
Just saw the highlights on Baseball Tonight. WTF was Danks doing on the "triple" in the 11th inning? Should've been a single.
I honestly have no idea myself. You don't dive for a "can of corn", as Hawk would say. We fielded like a AA team today, and I'm extremely disappointed with Robin for pulling Quintana when he was bulldozing the Dodgers. Tough for Reed, though, to get his first loss. I would've put in Nate Jones at the time, just my thoughts.
Fire dominated New York, scoring 3 goals - a clear goal was called off due to poor positioning by the referee - and New York's lone goal was offside. Great performance all around.
From 1960 to the present, the White Sox made the playoffs 5 times, they never won a single series until the World Series run of 05. During that same time period, the Cubs made the playoffs 6 times. The difference between the Cubs and the Sox during the past 52 years is that the Sox won 5 more games during their playoff run in 05 than the Cubs did in theirs in 03.
I'll be honest, I think it's kind of silly and short sighted to look at playoff appearances as the only measurement for success in baseball, a sport that up until 1995 only had 2 playoff teams per league and before 1969 was only allowing 1. This isn't the NHL or NBA where you can just look at playoff appearances and have a good idea of a team's success for a period of time. The Sox have had a number of seasons before the 'modern era', '95 to the present where they just fell short despite having fantastic seasons.
Just a little food for thought:
Since 1950 the Sox have had 14 90 win seasons and 10 90 loss seasons
In that same time frame, the Cubs have had 5 90 win seasons and 18 90 loss seasons, with 6 of those coming since '95 with just 1 for the Sox.
Last edited by IU Hawks fan: 06-18-2012 at 01:17 AM.
Cubs have been a beacon of futility throughout their history for the most part, especially since the mid-20th century, there's zero denying that. Things may finally be getting done properly with the new regime going forward and an actual true organization can be built and therein find sustained success. I'm optimistic, but it's going to take a while. I can handle a rough season or two knowing/seeing a direction and things getting done to improve and build long-term. Gonna be a bit painful at times along the way in the meantime. I thought it'd be a painful ride on both sides of town this summer but the Sox have surprised, though having guys like Dunn and Rios play to what we all thought their regular levels would be certainly helps things. As a baseball fan, period, they've been a pleasant surprise with the success they've found this season. See how things go the rest of the way.
I will say this, the Cubs will be a team to watch over the next five years with Epstein and Hoyer at the reins of the front office. I'm intrigued to see what happens with the club.
I'll be honest, I think it's kind of silly and short sighted to look at playoff appearances as the only measurement for success in baseball, a sport that up until 1995 only had 2 playoff teams per league and before 1969 was only allowing 1. This isn't the NHL or NBA where you can just look at playoff appearances and have a good idea of a team's success for a period of time. The Sox have had a number of seasons before the 'modern era', '95 to the present where they just fell short despite having fantastic seasons.
Just a little food for thought:
Since 1950 the Sox have had 14 90 win seasons and 10 90 loss seasons
In that same time frame, the Cubs have had 5 90 win seasons and 18 90 loss seasons, with 6 of those coming since '95 with just 1 for the Sox.
Isn't the point to get in the playoffs and win the World Series? In 08 the Cubs won 97 games and that season is seen as a complete failure because they got swept. When people refer to the Cubs futility they are talking about not winning a World Series in over 100 years, not that they have had 9 90 loss seasons in the past 32 years. Whats the difference between going 82-80 and 72-90 if you are sitting at home in October?
Isn't the point to get in the playoffs and win the World Series? In 08 the Cubs won 97 games and that season is seen as a complete failure because they got swept. When people refer to the Cubs futility they are talking about not winning a World Series in over 100 years, not that they have had 9 90 loss seasons in the past 32 years. Whats the difference between going 82-80 and 72-90 if you are sitting at home in October?
Isn't the point to get in the playoffs and win the World Series? In 08 the Cubs won 97 games and that season is seen as a complete failure because they got swept. When people refer to the Cubs futility they are talking about not winning a World Series in over 100 years, not that they have had 9 90 loss seasons in the past 32 years. Whats the difference between going 82-80 and 72-90 if you are sitting at home in October?
Obviously the point is to win the World Series. But 'futility' absolutely goes beyond the lack of a world title. I think when you hear people talk about their futility they certainly are talking about
1) the terrible terrible seasons they have had, and the utter amount of them their are
AND
2) The horrible choke jobs...'69, '84, '03, '07, '08
Did you ever heard the Red Sox called futile before 2004? No, because they were still a competitive team. 16 losing seasons since 1950 is a hell of a lot better than the 42 the Cubs have had. That's what futility is...it's not just about winning the World Series, it's about not winning games period.
Obviously the point is to win the World Series. But 'futility' absolutely goes beyond the lack of a world title. I think when you hear people talk about their futility they certainly are talking about
1) the terrible terrible seasons they have had, and the utter amount of them their are
AND
2) The horrible choke jobs...'69, '84, '03, '07, '08
Did you ever heard the Red Sox called futile before 2004? No, because they were still a competitive team. 16 losing seasons since 1950 is a hell of a lot better than the 42 the Cubs have had. That's what futility is...it's not just about winning the World Series, it's about not winning games period.
Uh ya, you absolutely heard about the Red Sox's futility before 04.
For all the Cubs losing they where never really a futile club because they where often competitive. To be fultile doesn't mean not winning championships, it means being a horrible team for a long time.
The Pirates are a futile club having finished below .500 for 20 years now.
For all the Cubs losing they where never really a futile club because they where often competitive. To be fultile doesn't mean not winning championships, it means being a horrible team for a long time.
The Pirates are a futile club having finished below .500 for 20 years now.
Guess it just depends on ones personal definition of futile. To me, 42 losing, sub-.500, seasons in the last 62 is futile.
In other words, trade is almost assuredly imminent. Only question is where to, as the Dodgers are the most brought up possibility and yet they really don't have much far depth from what I've heard.
