Ricketts on tickets (X-ray for Gorzo)
The Harry Caray statue rededication was well done by the Cubs. Tom Ricketts gave a nice opening address and then spent a couple minutes with the beat writers. We'll flesh it out for the paper tomorrow (to be posted later today).
UPDATE: Tom Gorzelanny has gone for X-rays of his left hand. He was hit by line drive off the bat of the Pirates' Jose Tabata in the third inning. Carlos Silva pitches for Peoria today in a rehab start. If Gorzelanny is out, Silva could conceivably slide into that slot.
Here are the highlights of our brief chat with Tom Ricketts:
--On whether the Cubs would hold the line on ticket prices for next year, Tom was noncommittal, saying the Cubs hadn't formulated their pricing strategy yet.
--On attendance being down this year and thousands of seats being empty of late, Tom said: "Obviously, we want every seat full every game. The attendance has been very, very strong in the grandstand. But certain day games and then the last couple of night games, the bleachers have been softer. We've got to put a winning product on the field to make sure all the seats are full every year."
--On whether that lower attendance would affect player payroll for next year, he said: "They're related. Obviously, the more attendance generates more revenue, and more revenue gives you more flexibility to look at increasing payroll. The fact is, we have a really strong fan base. Hopefully, we'll put a very attractive product on the field next year."
During the Harry Caray celebration, Harry's widow, Dutchie, wore a No. 23 Ryne Sandberg jersey, saying Ryno and Stan Musial were Harry’s two favorite players. Tom Ricketts said winning, and not a marquee name, would be the main criterion for the new manager. He said the hiring would be GM Jim Hendry's responsibility and that Jim would bring Tom a "short list."
How about this for a name nobody's talked about yet but was thrown at me today as a possibility: Bob Melvin? The Cubs interviewed Melvin when they hired Dusty Baker and were quite impressed by Bob Brenly's former bench coach in Arizona. We'll have to see if Jim gives him an audience this time around.
With everything, we're a little late in getting back upstairs and blogging. It's a day off for third baseman Aramis Ramirez. Marlon Byrd has some soreness in his right leg. Darwin Barney replaced Jeff Baker at third. Manager Mike Quade said Baker has a sore Achilles' tendon.
So it goes:
DeWitt,, 2B
Castro, SS
Fukudome, Rf
Hoffpauir, 1B
Colvin, CF
Soriano, LF
Barney, 3B
Hill, C
Gorzelanny, P
In the minors, Iowa (AAA) split a pair at Albuquerque. The I-Cubs are in first place by a game. Jeff Samardzija got hit around in the hitter's park, giving up 9 hits and 11 runs in 5 innings in an 11-10 Game 1 loss. He fell to 11-3 with a 4.02 ERA. Marquez Smith hit a pair of homers, giving hi 16, in the second game, won by Iowa 8-6.
At Tennessee, Chris Archer suffered the loss in a 5-0 defeat at the hands of Jacksonville. Archer worked 5 innings, giving up 6 hits and 4 runs. He's 8-2 with a 1.85 ERA.
At Daytona, Rob Whitenack got a no-decision, working 6 innings of 4-hit shutout ball as the Cubs dropped a 2-1 decision in 10 to Clearwater.
In the interim between the end of the regular season the Cubs will "interview" a parade of "very exhaustively considered candidates," to probably include Bob Brenly, Mike Quade, Pat Listach (he'll be the token black interviewed to get around MLB's rules on managerial hiring), Eric Wedge, and who else knows who. Public line will be that they strongly considered Joe Girardi as well but came to the conclusion he will be staying with the Yankees.
In the end however this is Ryne Sandberg's job. The dog and pony show of vetting and interviewing a list of candidates will be done for public relations and credibility purposes. Nothing more.
I do not want Sandberg as manager. But it is predestined. What makes me ill is the fact that the Cubs are going to make the process a sham.
I am not impressed with Ricketts at all. When asked about next year all Ricketts does is give all these vauge answers, but when it comes to the empty seat he says whether fans come or not effect payroll, so I guess what Ricketts is saying if you want to add players Cub fans better come to the park, never mind that the Cubs stink.
He validates the concept of Lucky Sperm Club member. There has been nothing displayed that suggests he is "strategic," visionary or a true leader. Surely there has to be someone else in the Ricketts' family that is better capable to run their investment in a professional sports team. If not, then hire a damned top flight baseball executive to serve as Team President.
He's not the GM or the President - he's the owner. He's not supposed to be the guy giving answers about who will play 1B or why the team can't hit with guys on base.
Give him and his family time. He's smart enough to know that the team is laden with bad contracts and a rash spending spree isn't what's needed right now. I believe he's riding out the storms and focusing on things he can (the ballpark, spring training facility, revenue generating streams) right now and letting the guys he's hired to get the product on the field straightened out do their jobs.
He's not the GM but he sure has confidence in a GM that's been laid bare for all to see as being a prime reason for the rapid decline of the franchise.
The GM is probably the most important position in any franchise.
Here's an example.... Walt Jocketty was the GM of the Cardinals when they were the powerhouse of the Central Division. As soon as he left the Cardinals and went to the Reds, the Cardinals began their decline while the Reds started their ascent.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
I agree that there needs to be someone else in the organization responsible for baseball decisions (team President not named Crane), but I was commenting that I don't expect Ricketts to be that guy.
I want to see Bobby Cox become the next President of the Cubs.
Really?
Jocketty left at the end of the 2007 season, where they finished in 3rd place.
Since then, they've won the division 1 out of 2 seasons....1 out of 3 after this year.
3rd place (Jocketty's last season)
4th place
1st place
2nd place
Winning the division in 2009 and finishing 2nd in 2010 is somehow a "decline"?
>> Since then, they've won the division 1 out of 2 seasons....1 out of 3 after this year. <<
No, really.
The Cards aren't too different than the Cubs and likely won't win anything next year either. They've declined significantly in a weak division since Jocketty left.
Now list how the Reds have risen and the moves Jocketty's made since becoming their GM to get them to where they are and will likely build upon.
So by saying its "likely" the Cardinals won't "win" next year, are you talking about winning the division, pennant, or Series? I know how you like to have your own definitions for things. By "likely" - do you mean their odds are less than 50% of winning? Cause you know, by that definition, every team in baseball is "unlikely" to win next year. I'm not sure that even the Yankees will be even money (which by definition means 50% - equally likely or unlikely) to win their division next year. Maybe the Yankees - no one else.
That's about all I can think of.
He signed Chapman to a big money deal that should help out in the future.
The 19 pitches Chapman has thrown in the majors has nothing to do with Cinci's success this season.
I guess I did not understand the "Likely to build upon" that you included at the end of your post. Chapman probably does not help in building upon the success they have had this year. My apologies.
I think by this time we've got a pretty good handle on Ricketts, need to take him for what he is and not for what we'd like him to be but obviously isn't.... a baseball guy.
He's a corporate blue-blood (aka: corporate geek) that speaks in politically correct vagueness for fear of being pinned down.... and we need to read between the lines and connect the dots to understand what he really means.
What I got out of his pontifications is that the Cubs aren't going to sign any expensive free agents (sorry to burst your bubbles about Dunn or Cliff Lee) with his rationale being a decline in attendance.... see his comment about payoll being a function of attendance.
Payroll is likely to go down next year as attendance is anticipated to decline. A good businessman will always try to balance expenses with projected revenues to remain profitable in tough times.... the Cubs are obviously going through some tough times.
He also doesn't envision Hendry hiring a "name" manager. Oops.... I guess Girardi's out unless he begs for the job.
All this points to rebuilding and going young. Any moves Hendry makes this off season will likely be to acquire prospects and some fill-ins to plug the gap until some of these younger players can filter in, develop at a major league level and create a whole new team at some point.
Ricketts.... don't you just wish guys like him can just let down their guard, talk like a normal person and shoot straight for once?
If he really wants to play the "I'm a Cub fan too" game.... maybe he should use Bill Veeck as an example, memorize "Veeck As In Wreck" and loosen the collar.
Hey John Galt/ OhhBoyyy/ Whoever -
I'm glad you are off the "Sandberg is a sure thing bandwagon" you were on with your blogging buddy two weeks ago. If Ricketts comments mean a "name" like Girardi is out of running, it must also mean a name like Ryno and Brenly out too. I thought Ricketts was going to cynically bring in Sandberg to sell tickets, even though he knew he was putting him in position to fail. At least that's what one brilliant poster bearing your same phony name wrote only two weeks ago.
http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/4535#comment-62257
What caused the quick change of heart on Rickett's intentions? Or did you give absolutely no thought to what your wrote two weeks ago or today? As long as the words sound good.
You're reading too much into it.... I still think that Sandberg is the obvious choice.
I also wrote to watch how this whole dog & pony show/charade is played out by the Cubs to keep everyone interested, tuned in and to build up the excitement.
Even Paul Sullivan of The Tribune is catching on and he's one of the biggest Cub apologists in the media.
He begins his 1st paragraph in today's paper:
"With all the empty seats at Wrigley Field these days and the Cubs becoming an area afterthought, hiring Ryne Sandberg as manager would seem to be the perfect solution for marketing the 2011 Cubs."
Has Paul suddenly become jaded and cynical or is he looking at things pragmatically and realistically?
He reaches a lot more readers than I do.... maybe you ought to set him straight in your convoluted wisdom.
How does Ricketts' comment that he does not think the Cubs need a "name" manager mean anything in relation to the pursuit of Girardi, if it does not have the same implications to their pursuit of Sandberg?
And Paul Sullivan didn't write in the very same article that Ricketts comments ruled out Girardi. You're the one who said that. That's the contradiction I was replying to.
Hang on , Bud...
Do you think that Sandberg is a "name" managerial candidate?
I don't.... He's never managed in the bigs before and has no record of success whatsoever as a major league manager or even coach. He'd be a rookie manager!
He'd be nothing more than a sentimental choice that would be given a chance like any other candidate, yet who doesn't possess the aura that Sandberg had earned through his playing days with the Cubs.
If you were debating to buy Cub tickets, would you be more likely to do so if Fredi Gonzalez was manager or Ryne Sandberg?
Ryne Sandberg.... obviously! You'd get to see Ryno.... a Hall of Famer and Cub legend at the least, even if the Cubs sucked and it was a lousy game! Who wouldn't want to cheer him on and get behind his team???
Ryne Sandberg would be more likely to fill some empty seats more than any other candidate. No?
Think "marketing" and filling seats that are likely to be empty and generating revenue however you can.
Think "finance" and paying a "big name" manager like Piniella & Baker (and likely Girardi) something like $6million per as opposed to paying Sandberg something like half that amount due to inexperience and the fact that he wants the job so badly.
To the Cub organization Sandberg would make all the sense in the world. To me it would be like sacrificing the guy to the lions.... and I think his choice would be short-sighted because I think he'd be perfect for a young team that's on the rise and not one that will remain stale for another year or so. Quade's fine until then.
Girardi's won in Miami and he's won in NY.... he's now a "BIG" name. Any team that's looking for a manager would have Girardi at the top of their list.
Ricketts said that he doesn't think the Cubs need another big name manager.... that pretty much tells me that Girardi isn't going to be heavily recruited unless he begs the Cubs for the job, much like Andre Dawson did when he gave the Cubs a blank contract and told them to pay him whatever they wanted because he wanted to play on grass!
You may have me here. Maybe he was implying "marquee" to mean big contract - and certainly Sandberg will be much cheaper than Girardi. If that was what he meant (or - if that is what you interpreted from his response), then I agree you were not contradicting yourself.
However - if that was your interpretation, I definitely think your interpretation is wrong. I do think both Sandberg and Girardi (and Brenly for that matter) would be "marquee names" within the context that Ricketts was speaking. He was asked clearly if they needed a big name to held draw fans next year, and he replied that winning more so than who the manager is will determine how well they draw next year. The majority of the talk on next manager has centered on Sandberg and Ricketts was absolutely addressing the Sandberg candidacy with his comment on not needing a "marquee name".
I re-read the Sully article too, and it was clear he thought Ricketts was talking about Sandberg with his comments. I think Bruce was interpreting it that way as well. You had your own, unique interpretation as normal.
A big name and a marquee name are two different things....
A big name is a proven commodity that everyone's familiar with from their past success. Girardi would be considered a new big name as some of the others (Piniella, Cox, LaRussa, Leyland, maybe Gardenhire) have either moved on or are at the end of their careers and are being replaced by a newer generation (like Girardi & Scoscia). At least in my interpretation.
A marquee name is merely someone who everyone is familiar with. More of a marketing strategy than a baseball strategy. Again, in my interpretation. I'd consider Sandberg a marquee name at this point.
The media specifically mentioned "big name" and that's what Ricketts addressed.
As far as him saying (paraphrasing) that winning is more important than who the manager is.... what did you expect him to say? That was the obviously correct answer which also alluded that the Cubs aren't actively looking for a big name manager, yet left the door open if Girardi wants the job and takes it upon himself to reach out for it.
But again, anybody who thinks there's any potential manager out there that is going to turn this current roster into champions next season.... is naive and unrealistic. It always comes down to the players and not the manager. Managers don't win.... players do (to borrow from Jordan).
Get the players, determine the personality of the team and what motivates them ....then get the manager that matches that type of motivational skillset. Otherwise it's a the same hodgepodge of mismatched players and a wasted managerial position once again.
Fascinating - you just created your own definitions for word combinations that have precisely the same meaning to the general English speaking population. Are you sure Ricketts had access to your new dictionary prior to yesterday's presser with Bruce and the beat writers?
a blurb from Neyer's blog.....
(quoted from a newspaper)
One thing ownership won't do, Ricketts said, is favor a managerial candidate for marketing and fan-draw value, such as Ryne Sandberg.
"The fact is, it's Jim's job to decide which manager to bring in," said Ricketts, who expects to get involved as part of the interview process once Hendry has a short list of finalists. "But it's about winning, not about marketing.
"I don't think we need a marquee name to sell tickets. What we need is a team that produces on the field. That's really what's most important to us."
------
(from Neyer)
If you're a Cubs fan, that's exactly what you want your owner to say.
Reportedly, Ricketts once lived across the street from Wrigley Field and met his wife in the Wrigley Field bleachers. His love for the Cubs seems genuine. Today, much of his great wealth comes from the family business, but even before joining the family business he seems to have done quite well for himself. And he seems to believe in modern objective analysis.
I don't know if Ricketts is good at hiring people or managing them. I don't know how he'll respond to another losing season (if there is one). But less than a year into his ownership, he's said most of the right things and the Cubs seem to be in pretty good hands. They're down now, but I don't expect them to be out for long.
Looking at his background and previous successes.... I'd guess that he's very good at managing an organization. I think with that expertise he'd be able to look at the structure of the Cub organization by evaluating the goals & responsibilities of each function, how they mesh to a common end and the processes of each function to determine if it can be streamlined, made more efficient & effective and if he has the right "lieutenants" responsible for each who report to Hendry and himself.
I also feel that changes (if any) made within the organization at this point will be more important and of equal interest to those that happen with the roster.
We need to look at Ricketts from an organizational guru type and accept that he's not a baseball guy.
The ONE thing that I do hope is that his ego doesn't get the best of him, he looks upon himself in the same vein, that he recognizes the need for a "name" baseball guy to be in charge of those functions (NOT Crane Kenney) and that he concentrates on the things most important to the financial health of the franchise.... the ballpark and new revenue streams.
Let's see how it all unfolds and not concentrate too much on the baseball things he says.... but rather if and what changes take place above the dugout. So far he's hired some stats guys which may mean that he wants to "modernize" the way the Cubs evaluate players, prospects and who may be a better fit playing 81 games at Wrigley.
You mean the amount of money brought in is related to the amount available to spend?
Since Hendry wants to have a manager in place by the team's organizational meetings, and the Series could last until Nov.4, isn't that a handicap to choosing Girardi who could well be in the finals?
Ricketts wants a short list and then meetings with them to make a choice. Does the timing Hendry set put Girardi at a real disadvantage?
When are you guys going to get a clue?
It ain't the manager, it's the players that a manager has to work with.
Baylor, Baker & Piniella all proved that.
LaRussa's a good manager but the Cards aren't going nowhere in a very weak division because he has 4 good players and nothing else. He may be a "genius", but he's not a magician.
Been said many times because it's the ultimate truth in baseball.... a manager gets too much credit when his team wins and too much blame when his team loses.
Name a good team with a "bad" manager or a bad team with a "good" manager.
I've been saying this all year, It's the product on the field that matters, not the manager.
I believe Henry will have a difficult time improving this team for 2011, luck or career years
will have to make a difference. And I don't care if it was the best GM in baseball, the Cubs
need major improvements in pitching, fielding, hitting and base running.
Cincy and San Diego are also playing above their heads, won't be as good in 2011, but
the division the Reds are in is lousy anyway.
Thank you for your response to my inquiry. Next time I need to find another inane answer to a simple question I know who to ask.
So then why are you fretting about Girardi possibly having a handicap in regards to the process that was laid out??? Your whole premise is meaningless to the Cubs' situation.
The Cubs need to put the horses before the carriage. The ball's in Hendry's court to provide any new manager with a team that has what it takes before any new manager can have the chance to be considered a "good" manager.
Realistically it'll take at least a year for him to do that.... in the meantime a care-taker manager is probably the best way to go in that it'll lower expectations, take some pressure off the players in regards to expectations... fan/media focus and hopefully give them some time to gel together as a team, ideally have a leader emerge and to create some confidence in themselves.
ditto. Colvin, lefty, power, save, money for pitching, young, fast, i'm with you pal.
Isn't it interesting that players that were struggling (Fukudome, Cashner, Russell) seem to be playing better and are more relaxed with Lou gone? And will Soriano EVER get motivated to be an offensive force again?
Rooting for Starlin Castro to make that strong push for Rookie-of-the-Year...maybe a batting crown could clinch it for him. Curious to when was the last time (if ever) a Cub rookie led the league in batting?
All this talk about next year's first baseman, with even consideration given to LaRoche and other stop-gap veterans...if that is the route, why not keep Nady then? Granted, a left-handed first basemen would be ideal (Colvin?), but I am sure Nady would come cheap for next year and supply decent offensive numbers. His stats have picked up (.320 avg in August, thanks to playing with more regularity), including 15-41 since the DLee trade. Not really keen on the idea of spending $40million on Adam Dunn; those funds should be better spent on a quality starting pitcher, as well as other weak areas.
there was so much pressure in those games in April that these guys who made the playoffs 2 of the previous 3 years couldn't handle it.
Can't people understand that IT'S BASEBALL and streaks and slumps simply just happen?
>> Isn't it interesting that players that were struggling (Fukudome, Cashner, Russell) seem to be playing better and are more relaxed with Lou gone? <<
Jolly, I think that you're looking at this from the wrong perspective....
Lou was a big time player and manager always driven to win and he thrived in that sort of environment.... although he wasn't always successful.... the "Ditka" of baseball.
The teams that Lou was handed are the opposite of what he was all about... they cave in under pressure and expectations.... proving that you can't make someone into something they really aren't.... which was one of the reasons Lou was hired. Remember him wanting to instill a "swagger" into the Cubs? Never worked because it wasn't in any of the player's DNA. Note their performance in the two times Lou had them in the playoffs and subsequent years when expectations were high going into each season.
Does it have anything to do with attaining a certain comfort level after signing a big contract? Perhaps.... But a good athlete is driven to perform well and win regardless whether the reward is big or small. So it's not necessarily the big contracts.
Lou and the Cub teams that Hendry put together for him were a mis-match. Lou recognized it as early as the middle of last season and basically threw his arms up and stopped trying.... knowing he was essentially doing nothing more than banging his head against a wall.
The reason these guys started playing better individually and collectively was that the pressure was off because the towel was thrown in from above.
This more than anything should indicate to everyone the mental fortitude of this team and that none of these veteran players are likely to take any team to their Promised Lands... let alone the Cubs.... and because of that their trade value is very limited.
...I like him and admire him but agree with you completely that he gave up: "as early as the middle of last season and basically threw his arms up and stopped trying...". He was no doubt resigned to his fate and, to me, that explains behavior that I never expected from him. Tolerating poor play or announcing he had "no ideas" were among the things that shocked and disappointed me.
What I'm saying is that it would behoove the Cub organization to give their potential draftees Wonderlich Tests and every other kind of battery that digs into the mindset of these kids to see if they're made of the right stuff before drafting them and put as much emphasis on that as they do if a kid can throw a 100mph fastball or hit a ball 450 feet.
Also, it needs to be driven into these kids to approach each at bat as if it's the bottom of the 9th in a tie game with a runner on 2nd and it's the 7th game of the World Series.... from the lowest level of their minor league system all the way up.
That's how you build a winning system that translates into a winning major league team that's confident within themselves and capable of handling pressure.
After looking at the make-up of the division leaders I still believe that your core (position players) must be US/US raised. Most of the division leaders have 1-2 foreign position players and very few are they highest paid...the Cubs top 4 salaries are all foreign players. It would be interesting to see the make up of the past decades WS rosters.
Am I completey off the mark here? or could there be something to this...It has to be difficult to have a cohesive group when you can't communicate. Maybe the Cubs would be best served to hire a Latin American manager???
>> Am I completey off the mark here? or could there be something to this <<
I hate to go there, but maybe you hit on something some of us others have picked up on. I'm not saying that it's completely accurate and true as the Cubs have had non-Hispanic players that've signed big contracts and immediately tanked (Jacque Jones, LaTroy Hawkins, etc)....
But there seems to be a trend, at least on the Cubs that when a Hispanic player signs a big contract, they begin to decline and end up taking a siesta. Soriano, Zambrano and Ramirez are prime examples. You'd think the Cubs would've hit on at least one of them.
Not sure if it's the player or the resource the Cubs surround these guys with. Piniella was Hispanic, spoke fluent Spanish and could relate culturally to them as well as any other Hispanic coach/manager. Ivan DeJesus was their 1st base coach. It's not like the Cubs don't have people at higher levels that exclude Hispanics.
A lot of good it did.
This is one of the stupidest theories I have ever read. Its almost Dusty Baker-esque.
I swear Cubs fans come up with every excuse in the book why the team sucks.
And also, how exactly did Jacque Jones 'tank'???
Cubs are widely viewed as a country club among major league ballplayers. And it hasn't much mattered who the manager is.
It will go down in Cub history that Dusty Baker was the best manager this team ever had in the modern era. People like to skewer Dusty, but fact is the man is very well respected across the game and got more down as manager than anybody else past or present. The failure of the 2006 Cubs was a failure of Jim Hendry. People lament the fact that he played Neifi Perez all the time, but it's not like he had Derek Jeter or Starlin Castro rotting on the bench.
What Cincy is doing under Dusty speaks volumes. And isn't it amazing that the Reds have all sorts of young players contributing. Dusty was blasted for not giving young talent a chance in Chicago, but fact is the young talent he was handed by Hendry generally sucked. And Dusty knew it.
But I digress.
The Cub organization is blessed by having the most loyal and adoring baseball fans on the planet. Even more benefitting to the organization is that the Cubs unfortunately also have the most naive and dumbest fans. Some posters on this board are a microcosm of this fact.
I love how year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation and now centrury after century the knee-jerk response for the majority of Cub fans is to blame the manager for bad seasons.
Any manager is only as good as the players he has to trot out that were provided by his General Manager.
The Cubs haven't won a World Series in almost 2 LIFETIMES.
Through all these years, compare the number of managers that the Cubs have chewed up, spit out and cycled through vs the corresponding number of GM's they've had in the same amount of time.
After doing that, look at the rosters of all these teams, look at the players on these teams and honestly ask yourself if any of these former Cub managers really had a chance to win anything with the players they were provided?
Leo Durocher had a chance, so did Jim Frey, as did Baker & Piniella.... usually a one-year window. Other than that.... Cub GM's just haven't gotten the job done on a consistent basis to put their teams over the top.
But yet, until this year when it FINALLY became apparent to most of these same fans that Jim Hendry was unqualified for his position.... I don't recall Cub fans or the media putting any sort of heat or demands on a Cub GM.
Case in point.... Ed Lynch had to be the worst GM, yet how many years did he last while there was never any questioning about his lack of moves or his bonehead moves by either Cub fans or the media.
Wouldn't it be beneficial for most/all journalists to have a twitter account?
Working on it.
Did Ricketts mention anything about the Cubs next Spring Training facility? Every now and then I hear Mesa is voting on this or that and that it will come down to the general election when the voters will get to decide (which probably doesn't bode well for the Cubs).
As I read blogs on the AZCentral website, most of the citizens of Mesa and surrounding areas seem to think since Naples basically pulled their proposal that the Cubs are now at the mercy of Mesa so they don't feel like they should approve anything that is going to cost them money while some billionaire sits in Chicago and reaps the benefits. I know that's not how all of those in AZ feel or a totally accurate description of the current state of the negotiations, but urban legend spreads fast and when it comes to adding on tax dollars (or is perceived that will happen) the Cubs and the City of Mesa may have a battle on their hands.
It was a short, impromptu meeting with four writers, all of whom managed to squeeze in a question or two in three and a half minutes. Will keep an eye on it, though.
He's guilty of blog abuse, posting every time Manny Ramirez coughs. Seriously, that's what Twitter's for.
Copied from "Recent Blog Posts"
•PK hits 3-run HR; Manny gets hit
•Manny gets 1st hit with Sox
•Stiff lower back for Freddy
•Early exit for Freddy
•Manny's 0-for-2
•Manny's 0-for-1
•Manny set for Sox debut
•Manny's in, then out
Hey, Scott. It's 5pm Central Time. What's Manny doing now?
I was thinking the same thing when I came to the main blog page...this isn't Twitter and Bruce's formula of updating a post (unless something major and totally unrelated happens) seems to work nicely.
Just make an all Manny, all the time blog