Cubs/Bosox Conspiracy [merged threads]

[Luis]

I find it odd that neither the Red Sox or the Cubs have been able to win the World Series for the period that they have. Could it be they aren't trying?

The goal of teams really is to make money. Both of these teams are making money hand over fist. Would they make more money by winning the world series? They probably would make more money for a short time but less over the long run. Winning would destroy their image as loveable losers. If they won their fans would only expect them to do it again. If they didn't win again the fans would stop coming. Look what happenned to the Mets when they turned good during the late 60's then didn't maintain it.

The Cubs and Red Sox are in an enviable as long as they appear to try and win there is always next year and the money keeps rolling in.

I don't actually believe in this theory but I can't actually disprove it.

[pwdennis]

It's as good an explanation as any. I like it better than "Curse of The Bambino" anyway

[Skip]

It's not that far out. I've heard similar views expressed, at least with respect to the Cubs, several times.

[Craig S.]

Luis, I think there's something to what you're saying. Not a conspiracy, but I'm sure that they may not have quite the impetus to win that some others do.

[Max Power]

If you look at it in terms of ratio, years in existence to rings, as opposed to years since the last ring, there are fates worse than the Cubbies and Bosox - - - esp. the Astros, Rangers, and Expos.

Angels finally got off that list.

Pirates have a pretty bad ratio too.

Whitesox as well.

Some fans are very unlucky.

[Cooper]

Originally posted by Max Power
If you look at it in terms of ratio, years in existence to rings, as opposed to years since the last ring, there are fates worse than the Cubbies and Bosox - - - esp. the Astros, Rangers, and Expos.

Angels finally got off that list.

Pirates have a pretty bad ratio too.

Whitesox as well.

Some fans are very unlucky.

From that aspect I am sure the Phillies would qualify too.
It has only been twenty-three years since the won the ring, but that is one moment of glory since 1883.

The funny thing is that Philly baseball fans may be on of the most dejected bunch of fans; I am assuming that is due to the misery derived from how low they sink in the intervals between their good runs.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by Cooper
From that aspect I am sure the Phillies would qualify too.
It has only been twenty-three years since the won the ring, but that is one moment of glory since 1883.

Excellent point.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

The obvious difference between the Cubs/RedSox and those other long-term losers is that the Cubs and Red Sox have ALWAYS drawn well.

It's not a conspiracy, exactly -- more like a long-term experiment in mind control.

Think of the two franchises as a small "control group", used by the powers-that-be as a measure of a constant fan base in a normally-fickle world.

Clearly, something has been done to alter the baseball fans of Chicago and Boston to make them sell out games year-after-year with no real hope of winning anything. Making matters more complicated is that Chicago has TWO teams that never win it all, year-after-year, but only ONE team draws well each season.

So, it's not just a simple matter of adding something to the water supply; no, it's much more sinister than that. Clearly, total media manipulation is involved and, since Cubs and Red Sox fans are widespread, the manipulation must be not only nationwide, but international as well.

I've know it all along. But the day will come, my friends, and SOON -- when ALL fans will rise out of their Laz-E-Boys, fling open their windows and scream, 'WE'RE AS MAD AS HELL - AND WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!"

[SmedIndy]

Actually, before the rise of WGN - there were several seasons in the moribund Cubs era that they did NOT draw well at all - and were outdrawn by the Sox.

NOW - it's a logical excuse. Before, the Cubs were feckless in talent evaluation.

[KCBOOMER]

I don't think it is any kind of conspiracy at all.

The Red Sox and the Cubbies have the two best stadiuns in America to go to a baseball game and for whatever reason they have the most loyal fans. Cubs may be loveable losers but the Red Sox are heartbreakers.

[rc3000]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
The obvious difference between the Cubs/RedSox and those other long-term losers is that the Cubs and Red Sox have ALWAYS drawn well.

Not intending to be picky but the Sox attendance from the mid-fifties until 1967 was terrible. I am always reminded of this whenever I hear Dick Radatz on the local radio.

[pathogan]

Originally posted by rc3000
Not intending to be picky but the Sox attendance from the mid-fifties until 1967 was terrible. I am always reminded of this whenever I hear Dick Radatz on the local radio.

in fact, Yawkey was sqawking that he needed a new stadium,that no one ould go to the old ballpark! I dont think its much more than some bad luck in the soxs case[okay, really bad luck]and bad decisions by the cubs. I also remember times in the 70's when there were tops a couple of thousand fans at cubs-met games,so sometimes there is some fuzzy memory involved,too.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I don't think it is any kind of conspiracy at all.

The Red Sox and the Cubbies have the two best stadiuns in America to go to a baseball game and for whatever reason they have the most loyal fans. Cubs may be loveable losers but the Red Sox are heartbreakers.

Agreed on both points.

During Tom Yawkey's lifetime he wanted nothing more than to win the World Series. He bought big stars in the '30s (Foxx, Grove, etc.) and had the makings of a dynasty in the mid-late '40s and probably fielded the second best roster in baseball over that era (unfortunately, the best roster was in NY).

It is well documented that Yawkey made some terrible personnel decisions on the basis of race, which pretty much killed the team through the mid '50s to the mid '60s. Then, starting in 1967, the Sox went on a run of very good to great teams that were done in by a litany of catastrophe (Aparicio falls rounding third, "Why'd he pull Willoughby?", Bill Lee goes into Zim's dog-house, Bucky Dent and so on). Once again, by the mid-late '70s, Boston fielded possibly the best paper-roster in baseball.

Since the renaissance of the late '60s attendance hasn't been an issue in Boston. They could sell more tickets if there were more seats.

While I've heard the "planned obselence" arguement before regarding the Cubbies, Boston, as an organization, has wanted to win so much it hurts. (Only during the winter of collusion before the '87 season when they didn't offer Clemens and Gedman anything and they couldn't resign the two 'til May 1st did Sox management appear to put $$$ over on-field performance.)

[ChicagoDave]

The 10 Top Properties in Baseball from ESPN article

This article proves to me the point I have made for years. As long as the Tribune Company owns the Cubs they will never try to make a winner as long as they have Wrigley Field.

People have told me, "You shouldn't go to the games. It's your own fault for filling the stands at Wrigley. If the Cub Fans didn't show up then the Trib Co. would have to change something. "

I have always said that, "it doesn't matter if the Cub fans pulled a protest and didn't show up for the games, the stands would still be filled because of tourism." Gary Huckabay helps me prove my point. Read what he has to say about Wrigley and the attendence and tell me if you agree with me.

10. Wrigley Field
Every adult, from time to time, dreams of escaping from accountability. It'd be nice, just for a short time, to find a place where if you made a mistake, there were few if any consequences. For the better part of a century, Wrigley Field has created that place for Cub ownership. Wrigley's an international attraction and community treasure, where bleacher bums come out and spend money on tickets, beer, hot dogs, beer, cotton candy, and beer, with little regard for the actual performance of the team on the field. Somewhere along the line, the beauty of the ballpark and the experience of getting mildly sunburned while grinning at the ivy became far more important than the actual quality of the game being played (or often perpetrated) on the field. Over the last 20 years, here's the attendance for the Cubs during those occasional seasons when they've been under .500, courtesy of the very cool baseball-reference.com:



Year Record Attendance Rank (NL)
1983 71-91 7th/12
1985 77-84 5th/12
1986 70-90 5th/12
1987 76-85 6th/12
1988 77-85 5th/12
1990 77-85 5th/12
1991 77-83 4th/12
1992 78-84 5th/12
1994 49-64 8th/14
1996 76-86 5th/14
1997 68-94 6th/14
1999 67-95 6th/16
2000 65-97 9th/16
2002 67-95 7th/16

That's a nice cushion to have. In 14 of the last 20 seasons, the Cubs have been a mediocre or bad team. But during only three of those seasons have they found themselves in the bottom half of the league in attendance. Thank you, Wrigley.