|
|
-1-
For those who came for their morning BM and noticed the site was down, my apologies! Apparently PNC officially shut off every National City Credit Card today (even though the letter I got said it was good until it's expiration date) - well, it unfortunately coincided with Billymeade.com's expiration date, and so the whole thing got hosed. BUT I renewed it for another 3 years, so you get to read my wacky thoughts for another 1000 days.
Today's highlights:
The Cavs sucked last night, and frankly, most of this series. Here's hoping they can figure out what's ailing them and get out of Boston alive.
There was another kindergarten attack in China - that's FOUR in the last 2 weeks. China is quickly becoming the "Chicago of the Far East".
Congrats to the British Conservative party for assuming power. I don't think you could every logically explain British politics to me, but whatever. Bonus points for liberals spinning this as "The Conservative Party is not conservative! Wahhhhhhhhhh". If anything, we'll get better music out of it.
Lost was great last night... although I felt that episode should've been the first one of this season. It seems that they're now in "uh oh, only 3 episodes left, let's cram a ton of crap in" mode. I hate that mode.
Doing a family history is tedious, but the MeadeWiki is coming along nicely. I've currently covered 16 generations of Meades, 3 more to go.
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 12, 2010 10:49
|
-2-
I had many a good political conversation when I lived in London, mainly because people over there can discuss politics without being dicks. The Conservative Party in the UK is a very far cry from what you're accustomed to thinking of when you hear "conservative" over here.
The guy who moved here from London to take my place while I was there was a huge Tory supporter and thought he'd seamlessly slip into being a conservative here, until he heard all the stuff conservatives stood for here and realized he fell much more in line with the center-left of this country.
Cameron got his support by pulling his party to the left, which picked up the votes of the more socially liberal segment of the British population. If the party didn't make that move, there was no way they would've been able to work out a deal with Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. So while I know some people here in the US want to cling to anything and try to call it a victory for their far right thinking, simply because they see the word "conservative", it simply isn't that. That's why the news isn't even 24 hours old and it's slipped off most right wing websites. They realized they jumped the gun and that this wasn't a victory for them at all.
|
|
|
|
|
-3-
mrpicklesdad said:
it simply isn't that
Then what is it? The conservative party in the UK stands for protecting their nation and letting the citizens control their fate. That aligns perfectly with my philosophy.
And yes, I desperately want to "cling" to anything that has the word conservative on it. It's all I live for! Dick.
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 12, 2010 12:51
|
-4-
Yikes, don't get all offended by it. I don't think of you as truly far right thinking anyway, whether you cling to what happened in the UK is up to you. Just trying to provide some context on the movement of The Conservative Party over the past couple years and how it led them to 10 Downing.
Manifestos are cute. They're often quickly discarded once the people that wrote it are given the power. We've seen that here many a time. As for the events of the past 24 hours, what "it" is, is a movement of their center right party to the center left to pick up some seats. Then when there wasn't a majority in Britain for the first time in a long time, the Liberal Dems had the choice between the incumbents that just lost power and what was behind door number 2, a very simple choice.
Oh, don't forget that it was the leader of the Labour Party who agreed with the brilliant decision to agree to "protect the nation!" too by running into Iraq with little plan of what to do when we got there. By their manifesto, would the Tories have not gone along on Iraq and told us that it will end up making their nation, and ours, less safe? Or done exactly what the Labour party did?
It's also debatable if conservatives here truly are guided by "protecting the nation" and "letting citizens control their fate", ehhhh, actually I'm staying away from that one because I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in the political pissing matches here anymore (but they are amusing to read from time to time!!). I just figured I'd draw on my experience living in the UK and conversations with my friends and colleagues who live the impact of British politics every day. They understand American politics very well and know where their leaders fall when lined up on the American political spectrum.
So with that, hammer away, because I'm done with the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
-5-
The Cavs still suck, right?
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 12, 2010 13:12
|
-6-
Actually, almost done, couple last things from an article linked below:
"The coalition's plans include:
- Introduction of a banking levy;
- Commission to investigate the possibility of separating retail and investment banking;
- Plans to give Bank of England a direct role in measures to tackle long-term threats to financial stability and a watching brief over day-to-day bank supervision
- Raising non-business capital gains tax to bring it close to income tax levels;
- Cap on non-EU immigration. "
If you want to say those (with the exception of the last one) are in line with the current state of American conservatism, feel free.
This was enjoyable too:
"No government in modern times has ever been left with such a terrible economic inheritance," Cameron told reporters in the garden of 10 Downing Street, the prime minister's official residence. Hmmm, sounds awfully familiar, I know American conservatives were very receptive of that approach a year and a half ago too.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100512/ts_nm/us_britain_election
So, as I said, when the details came out, certain far right wing news sources quickly took this development down from their top headlines, and in some of those places it's impossible to find any articles at all about what happened less than 24 hours ago. Simple understanding of British politics would've helped them avoid that blunder.
Ok, now I'm done.
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 12, 2010 13:17
|
-7-
billymeade said:
The Cavs still suck, right?
I'm still rooting for the Cavs and would love to see them make the NBA finals (admittedly I watch tons less NBA since moving back here and also admit to getting on the Blackhawks bandwagon when they drafted a crop of great young players). Seems like a lot of fans have already turned on LeBron and have some conspiracy theories after last night's performance. I still think LeBron is ultra important to Cleveland and Cleveland is important to LeBron. I'll find it very hard to cheer for him if/when he's in a Knicks uniform next year. He should stay in Cleveland. I'm very glad I got a chance to see his first couple years in the league live. Definitely fortunate to be nearby to watch both Jordan and LeBron turn into superstars.
|
|
|
Comrade LoveMonkey
May 12, 2010 14:16
|
-8-
billymeade said:
protecting their nation and letting the citizens control their fate
That may be Billy's philosophy but his party stands for "protecting the ultra-rich and letting corporation control the nation's fate."
|
|
|
Captain Kickass's #1 Fan
May 12, 2010 14:16
|
-9-
billymeade said:
The Cavs still suck, right?
I'd use the word "pathetic".
mrpicklesdad said:
I still think LeBron is ultra important to Cleveland and Cleveland is important to LeBron.
Unfortunately, Cleveland needs LeBron far more than LeBron needs Cleveland. For Cleveland fans, I'd say it's impossible to not assume the worst about what uniform he'll be wearing next year, i.e., I don't think it will be a Knicks jersey, but I fear it will not be a Cavs jersey either. If he leaves, it will be like Thome, Ramirez, Belle, Lee, and CC leaving all wrapped into one catastrophic event and multiplied by Jose Mesa's 1997 choke job. Not. Good.
mrpicklesdad said:
The Conservative Party in the UK is a very far cry from what the deuce you're accustomed to thinking of when you hear "conservative" over here.
This is, of course, very true. UK Conservatives would be Democrats if they were transplanted overnight to the US. Still, conservative v. liberal is a matter of perspective and degree, not absolutes, such that most US conservatives would prefer to have a UK Conservative such as Margarat Thatcher (and perhaps David Cameron, but only time will tell) as their leader rather than a UK Liberal (who in some respects is not what we'd consider "liberal" here either).
Other than that, I have no qualm with anything you said but for two observations:
1. I'm not sure which "far right wing news sources" you're referring to, and if you're referring to Fox News, you may be right, I don't know, but I've seen the Conservative-Liberal deal reported all over the place, including all the "far right wing" news/analysis sites I visit throughout the day. I just don't see this being swept under the rug as you suggest.
2. And I'm not trying to be a dick, as I am actually receptive to the point that American political discourse is too often filled with people being assholes (something I've certainly contributed more than my fair share to) and would be happy if the rhetoric, including my own, were to be toned down, but I can't help but notice that you curiously never refer to any thing as "far left wing". There's a certain ironic bias on display there that feeds the very issue that you lament above.
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 12, 2010 14:43
|
-10-
Top headline on Fox News all of yesterday afternoon/evening. On last check, it was the 18th headline on their page, less than 24 hours later, under such important headlines as "SC Gov Sanford meets with Argentine Lover", "'Potty Parity' Reform Seeks Equality of Restrooms" and "Victoria's Secret Model in Apparent Suicide Attempt".
The banner on DrudgeReport.com yesterday afternoon/evening yesterday was "Cam's The Man!!!", as of now, I see no reference on their page, as whether or not Obama will play a round of golf with someone who makes a living nowadays off calling Obama racist among many other deplorable accuasations, one most recently noted by stim. Why would he even consider it? And why is it news? Meh, I don't even want to find out.
Anyway, the above is an amazingly speedy disappearance of interest in what's happening in jolly old England.
And to your second point, I thought saying that both sides can't discuss politics without being dicks would hit it. From my personal opinion, yes I do find the far right verbage to be much more disgusting, but that's likely because I believe hold race relations and respect for diversity in a much higher regard than others. But I've routinely stayed away from MSNBC and can say with 100% honesty that I've never gone to DailyKos.com in my entire life, because I find the far left very disturbing as well, especially during the past administration.
To a much more enjoyable subject, I don't blame the mentality of Cleveland sports fans at all. They have every reason to expect the worst given the letdowns of the past 50 years. I was raised by an insanely die-hard Cubs fan, so I know the mentality. I've had plenty a conversation with the managers and bartenders at Flannery's to know that the bounce of a lottery ball kept them from closing. I'm a little optimistic that Gilbert's deeper pockets can keep them from returning to the Gund days of a couple thousand watching a 70 loss team, but nothing beats the story of a hometown kid stepping in to erase 50 years of sports failures to bring home a championship (or several).
|
|
|
|
|
-11-
LoveMonkey said:
That may be Billy's philosophy but his party stands for "protecting the ultra-rich and letting corporation control the nation's fate."
Be fair now. Both major American political parties have adopted that creed.
|
|
|
|
|
-12-
mrpicklesdad said:
Simple understanding of British politics would've helped them avoid that blunder.
There is no such thing as "simple understanding of British politics". Their rules are more convoluted than cricket.
|
|
|
|
|
-13-
Fun fact! "Tory" was a derogatory term in the 17th century (as was "Whig")... I'm not a fan of the "Teabaggers", but I would like to see them in history books, just so they'd have to print the source of the term.
I'm gonna start my own party, the Roman Helmets.
***
It's too easy to become discouraged as a Cleveland sports fan - especially with the confluence of events:
They've look pathetic in 4 games of this series with no signs of improvement.Hopefully Lebrons elbow problem isn't permanent, or else we can lump him in with the Grady Sizemore's of the city.Z is most likely retiringNo way Shaq'll be backIf we don't win the title or at least get to the Finals, no way Brown comes back as coachNo Brown? No Shaq? No Z? Unless they make a huge pickup in the offseason, I don't see Lebron staying. It's been 7 years, how long must he wait for "the team"? (Note: I say 30 years)
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 12, 2010 15:25
|
-14-
Ha, I'll give you that. John Oliver did a great piece on exactly that on the Daily Show (yes I watch and enjoy the Daily Show, big surprise) last night.
Cricket's rules seem more simple than baseball (not to mention the fact that we didn't so much invent baseball as much as we added rules and complexity to the 800 year old game of cricket and called it a different name, yeah, I'll be called unAmerican for that observation). Where it gets complicated is how and when the game ends. But the actual gameplay is very straightforward. I tried to explain baseball to my coworkers one day, and at that point realized how complicated it actually is.
Games were awesome though, because they were BYOB and with the exception of national matches, the stadium's half empty. So you get a group together, grab a bunch of beers, some sammiches, a newspaper or two and just stretch out and enjoy a nice summer day. Yeah, the matches lasted all day, but you just showed up whenever and left whenever and felt like you got your moneys worth. Plus the cricket grounds were always cool places. Lords was the best because I would pass the Abbey Road crossing on my way back to the tube station.
|
|
|
|
|
-15-
I always love listening to BBC Radio 1's sports reports when they're like "Lindsey Buckingham has 27 wickets and has been up for 14 hours this innings".
I'm not sure anyone would argue that baseball is not derived from cricket. Like cricket, the very basics of the game are easily explained, it's the mechanics that are difficult to describe. Hell, I'm 31 and still don't understand the infield-fly rule.
|
|
|
Captain Kickass's #1 Fan
May 12, 2010 16:37
|
-16-
billymeade said:
If we don't win the title or at least get to the Finals, no way Brown comes back as coach
If they do not win the championship (making the finals is insufficient), Brown should be fired before he gets back to the locker room. The collapse this year, with all the positive adjustments the team made, is 99.99% on the coaching staff.
billymeade said:
No Brown? No Shaq? No Z? Unless they make a huge pickup in the offseason, I don't see Lebron staying. It's been 7 years, how long must he wait for "the team"? (Note: I say 30 years)
I think losing Shaq and Brown would be addition by subtraction. Shaq is but a shell of his former self and Mike Brown has been outcoached by Doc Fucking Rivers. That's embarassing. It's funny that the Cavs got Shaq pretty much for the express purpose of occupying Dwight Howard (i.e., getting Howard into foul trouble) and they may not even get that far. Z's been great, but he's also running on fumes and knees (and feet) with a ton of mileage on them. I remember when he had 843 surgeries on his feet and had as many pins inserted just to keep his career going. I bet he ends up with a job in the front office unless he still harbors some resentment over being used as trade bait.
With the addition of Jamison and the subtraction of Shaq's expiring contract, the Cavs are in a great position to sign LeBron to a max contract AND go after another upper level talent to replace Shaq/Z. The problem is that might not be enough to get LeBron to stay if they crap the bed for a second year in a row, which is looking more and more likely.
Sigh.
|
|
|
Captain Kickass's #1 Fan
May 12, 2010 21:39
|
-17-
The Liberal Conservative coalition government story is now back near the top of the websites of CNN, Drudge and Fox News, probably due to the presser held by Clegg-Cameron. With the more directly relevant stories of Kagan's nomination, the assssstronomical deficit numbers, Fox's covering of BP's gulf fuckup and CNN's concern over obese children being teased at home and at school, the fact that this story lulled while there were no significant new developments doesn't appear to be the result of a vast right wing conspiracy or disappointment on behalf of the conservative media. Drudge's "Cam's the Man!!!" headline, for example, was posted with full knowledge of the Liberal-Conservative deal. After all, it was the deal that allowed Cameron to take over 10 Downing Street, and Drudge covered the stories of the Tories potential deal with the Liberals and how that could have overborne Cameron's Conservatives. I kind of like that phrase. It reminds me of Bastion's Buddies from GTA IV.
Back to Basketball, the Sports Guy surmises this is how the interview of Mike Brown could/should have occurred at the beginning of the fourth quarter last night:
Questions David Aldridge could have asked Mike Brown in that last interview: "Have you decided which Realtor you're using to sell your house yet?" ... "Are you intentionally trying to lose this game, or does it just seem that way?" ... "Are you playing Shaq because you think it's 2001?" ... "Are you going to take a year off, or do you think you'll get right back into coaching?"
So frustrating.
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 13, 2010 10:36
|
-18-
The Sports Guy gets far too over the top in his love for Boston. While I generally enjoy his articles, that usually only applies to his Vegas recaps, his mailbag responses, and his fantasy draft recaps (not all that into fantasy sports, but the cast of characters he has with him, and his dad, are all pretty amusing). Once I see an article that starts off talking about Tom Brady, Josh Beckett or Paul Pierece, I stop reading. While none of them are my most hated team in their respective sport, the BoSox (when they're not playing the Yankees), the Celtics, and the Patriots are all obnoxious and I generally find myself cheering against them.
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 13, 2010 10:56
|
-19-
It also seems ridiculously premature to write off the Cavs 2009-2010 season. I admit that I haven't watched much NBA this year, but the Cavs still have the best player in the game and a solid lineup. I heard there are questions about LeBron's elbow, I flipped to a game or two during intermissions of NHL playoffs but didn't see enough to see if he seemed slow or not. There also seem to be a bunch of conspiracy theories abound that he's upset with Brown and/or others and is just tanking. Either way, the Cleveland sports media (very surprised that Windhorst has seemingly abandoned him so quicly) and the national sports media seems to have already decided the series is over. Is it impossible for them to win in Boston tonight? No. Unlikely? I don't even know if I'd go that far. They have an aging team with a couple vets that are known to disappear at times. Hell, the Celtics are only favored by ONE POINT! So all the sports windbags can call the series over but the folks with money in Vegas say differently, and they tend to be right more often. And if the Cavs win, I assume they will be a solid 6+ point favorite in Game 7. Whether they could then get by the Magic is of course a whole different conversation.
I'm looking forward to watching the whole game tonight. NHL Conference Finals won't start until the weekend, the Cubs and Sox are both off this evening and the lady friend is off to Vegas for a ladies weekend, so I should be clear for a nice uninterrupted viewing.
|
|
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 13, 2010 11:21
|
-21-
Yeah, I saw that article. Cleveland has to ditch that mentality. The Cubs embraced the "lovable losers" mentality and it seriously seems to impact them when they're on the verge of success because it's all that people talk about around here. The Sox had a nearly equally long championship-less streak, but never whined and/or celebrated it and when they got hot in 2005, it wasn't talked about how they'd blow it, and they steamrolled through the playoffs leading to the second greatest sporting moment of my life, experienced at Flannery's (number one was Super Bowl 20, most Chicagoans won't tell you that it's 2010, more that it's the 25 years ASBXX) But when the Cubs make the playoffs it's "How are we going to blow it this time?", then they get swept by an inferior team.
I heard the same mentality when the Cavs were up 3-2 against Detroit, going into game 6 at Gund a couple years ago. We were at Flannery's (surprising) before heading to the game (pretty sure you were with us), and nobody was optimistic that they would win. And the Cavs lost at the buzzer and then got smoked in Auburn Hills. Even back at the greatest bar ever, after the game, people just weren't even all that upset, it was just "meh, this is what happens" as if they were prepared for only one outcome. Whether the mentality of the fan base really does impact the players is debatable. But the north siders here have 101 years of highlights they'll be happy to show you.
Yeah, Cleveland sports fans are more tortured than anyone else. Cub fans can at least say they enjoyed the Bulls of the 90's and now the Blackhawks, as a distraction from their futility. The Cavs of the past few years helped Clevelanders forget just how bad the Browns are or the Indians blowing the 3-1 ALCS lead a couple years ago. But the past isn't a reason to always assume that everything bad will continually happen to them. Hopefully it starts with LeBron staying in Cleveland and finally bringing the championship home. Hell, it could even happen in the next couple of weeks.
|
|
|
Captain Kickass's #1 Fan
May 13, 2010 12:13
|
-22-
I don't think most Cleveland fans ever really celebrate or embrace this particular trend; rather they lament it. But it's impossible to avoid the feeling of, "Oh fuck, it's happening again." when shit begins to fall apart. Breaking through one time will hopefully kill that mentality.
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 13, 2010 13:47
|
-23-
They lament it, but they accept it and assume it. The Cubs celebrate it, I didn't mean to imply Cleveland does, because from what I've seen there's no celebrating at all. They don't sell t-shirts with the "Win or Lose, We Still Drink" motto on it, the bars don't have drink specials named after the lack of championships, they don't have special scoreboards at their stadiums that keep tally of their futility, and so on.
But I do go back to the pre-game when the Cavs were on the verge of knocking the Pistons out and most had the thought process of "This is Cleveland. We will find a way to blow it." I got similar responses when I emailed friends about trying to come out for the World Series when the Tribe were up 3-1 on the Red Sox and it was "Don't waste your time, we'll blow this series". Granted, they were right in both instances. And I don't blame the fans for feeling that way to a degree, you can only get your hopes up so many times, but you just have to get on with it.
I do agree though, one championship and it's all history, and there'll be one hell of a party when it does happen.
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 13, 2010 14:07
|
-24-
mrpicklesdad said:
"Win or Lose, We Still Drink"
Errr, "Win or Lose, We Still Booze", is what it says on the shirts that seem to be the best sellers outside of Wrigley. I knew it didn't sound right the first time. And the atmosphere around the bars after the game is pretty amazing because without asking someone, you wouldn't know if they won or lost. Hell, even if you asked people, most wouldn't know. Point is, an apathetic, or pessimistic fan base seemingly permeates the team's mentality. Fan bases like the Yankees (as much as I hate them and their fans), the Cardinals, and others, embody the opposite and the results show. Of course, it's still very debateable whether fan's attitudes correlate at all to players' attitudes.
|
|
|
More famous than Satan.
May 13, 2010 14:13
|
-25-
I have yet to read all the responses, so I apologize if this has been said:
LeBron will NOT got to the Knicks. As a matter fact, Phil, you will get to enjoy LeBron live again. IF he does leave, he will go Chicago. They are already set with talented young players and enough cap space to get Lebron and possibly a 2nd tier free agent, and the Knicks are a thing of the past.
But we can win the Finals (and it starts tonight) - he stays.
|
|
|
Captain Kickass's #1 Fan
May 13, 2010 14:32
|
-26-
I understand what you're saying, and it's been a little while since I watched a Cleveland team in a playoff game lose while I was in Cleveland, let alone inside of a Cleveland bar. I take these losses hard. It ruins my day, my week, and sometimes the entire off season. If that's how people acted in Flannery's in 2006 versus the Pistons, that's sad. I still cannot talk about the 1997 World Series, the 2007 ALCS or either of the Florida/LSU championship games v. Ohio State without becoming apoplectic. It's surely unhealthy. The Drive, The Fumble, and The Shot (and hopefully not 2010's "The Collapse"), don't help any.
Hell, I'm not even really a basketball fan. I'd rate basketball as easily my least favorite of the 4 major sports. This isn't about basketball or even the Cavs; it's about Cleveland.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the White Sox didn't have half the history of coming close and failing as the Cubs, the Indians, the Browns, the Cavs and, formerly, the Red Sox had. I know the White Sox went a very long time without winning a championship, but what I remember of them growing up was them perenially being average at best and never really seriously challenging. A perusal of their season-to-season results tends to confirm this with a couple of better years here and there. When you're historically bad to average (as the Indians were from the 70s-80s), that's its own breed of frustration, but it's not as bad as getting repeatedly punched in the nuts when you're this close. And Cleveland's unique in the sense that it has three teams that have been so close, multiple times each, before ultimately crapping the bed. I'm not saying being a White Sox fan must have been awesome growing up; I'm just saying it's not the same kind of baggage.
I'm not sure it's over; you have to have faith and go down with the ship; but this much I'm sure of: Mike Brown is retarded.
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 13, 2010 14:44
|
-27-
Strak,
I'd like to believe that's true. Of course, right after Game 5, the Trib (like just about any local newspaper in a city with an NBA team) was running articles about why LeBron is coming here (some stuff about Calipari being the next head coach, why Del Negro was run out after 2 playoff seasons, LeBron liking Calipari, his agent being close with Calipari), but I don't buy it, here's why:
- LeBron has this ongoing ambition to be the billion dollar athlete. If that's his number one goal, then he needs to be in New York City. Chicago's a big market, but nothing compared to NYC.
- Whether the Bulls have a good young nucleus is definitely debateable. I won't go too far because my NBA knowledge has decreased lately. Sure Derrick Rose is a stud. But after that, where's the rest of our great young talent? We're in a bad contract situation with both Hinrich and Deng, neither has met expectations and have regressed since signing their deals. Other than Joakim Noah (who I can't stand and would prefer to see shipped off, but he's a decent post defender which we need), where's our great young talent? We probably would've been better off not making the playoffs, getting a swipe in the lottery, rather than going as an 8 seed and getting trounced by the Cavs.
- Our post-Jordan ability to sign top free agents is a joke, especially with the recent legacy of Jordan. We should be able to attract top free agents but we've flopped every time we tried.
You're right in that we have a ton of cap space. If we would've moved Hinrich when everyone was telling Paxson to do it, we would have even more and could sign two top tier FA's.
And LeBron has claimed he won't go to a team that is in no position to win at this point. The Knicks and Nets would be eliminated under that statement, but I'm not convinced that LeBron has in his mind that he'll go somewhere where they have enough cap room for two top tier FA's and get Bosh to join him. No matter how bad the rest of a team is, with those two in the lineup, they can take over games. That's the model the Celtics used for their first championship (granted Rondo eventually started making large contributions)
|
|
|
Gypsy Catcher
May 13, 2010 15:12
|
-28-
The statement of the Cubs/Sox history has some merit, specifically the Cubs being competitive, only because of recent seasons, but the thought that the Cubs having regular heartache doesn't really apply. This is going to be far more history than you want, but I remember being armed in the post college Cubs/Sox debates with the fact that in my first 25 years, the Cubs had maybe 4 winning seasons, whereas the Sox had something like 15. Around 2000, going to Cubs games became a lot more sexy, and that gave the team more money to spend. But with the exception of the legendary 2003 NLCS, the team won one postseason game between this very day and their collapse to the Padres in 1984, they didn't even sniff the playoffs in the nearly 40 years before 1984. In the 90's the Cubs won 90 once, and had win totals in the 60's and the 70's in all but one other year.
The Sox, on the other hand, found the post season in the past 10 years as frequently as the Cubs and obviously had more success when they got there, tying many Major League records with their jaunt through the 2005 postseason only collecting one loss. In the 90's, the Sox contended most years, had 80+ wins in 7 of the 9 non strike years, but often took second to the Tribe, so the Sox were regularly better than the Cubs that decade as well. Their 1983 team washes out the Cubs 1984 teams, both were equally good and both had equally disappointing postseasons. They had a similar drought before the early 80's, but not nearly as bad as the Cubs, losing the 1959 World Series.
You're right, growing up a White Sox fan was frustrating, because they always seemed to have the talent, but always underachieved, usually floating around or just above .500 but ultimately not achieving much. Whereas the North Siders didn't give a crap, usually had a losing season and would just go to the game not for the baseball but to get drunk and take their shirts off.
Most people would sum up the past 40 years of Chicago baseball as saying that you went to Cubs games if you didn't care about the baseball but wanted a good atmosphere, and you went to Sox games if you didn't care about the atmosphere but cared about seeing good baseball. When I chose to buy a condo, I bought one in the shadows of Wrigley rather than the shadows of Comiskey (which is close to the neighborhoods that produce the stats that Billy, for some reason, loves to celebrate) for a reason. When I argue Cubs/Sox, my Cub fan friends love to use my housing investment to call me out. Not to mention I've been a big part of a Cubs season ticket package for over a decade. My heart is one place, my money is elsewhere, and yeah, it's hypocritical.
And yeah, you do get to my point that Cleveland fans are much more tortured than Cub fans because all the Cleveland teams have suffered perpetual heartbreak, whereas Cub fans are also Bulls fans and Blackhawk fans.
Ok, I've typed far too much today and I got far off the topic of Cleveland sports. I'll be cheering hard for the Cavs tonight and will try to make a trip to Flannery's if/when they make the NBA Finals.
|
|
|
More famous than Satan.
May 13, 2010 15:19
|
-29-
Even if you put Bosh and LeBron on the Nets or Knicks, I still don't see them winning the Finals within the next 3 years. I don't think LeBron would still go to one of those 2 teams if they are in no position to win in the next year - even with Bosh I really hope he disses NY. I am sick and tired of NY assuming he is going there, as if it is the epicenter of the f'n world. F' NY.
|
|
|
|
|
|