GatewayRedbirds.com

Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

it's really weird

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

I have no problem with the way they won. It's an awesome team. I think you're missing the point, which is that there's nothing "revolutionary" about how the Cubs built that team. I don't see how it's worthy of 2 different books.

To me, it's FAR more difficult to sustain a good/great team for over a decade like the Cardinals have, because you don't have the benefit of EVER picking early in the draft.

Socnorb11 wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

I have no problem with the way they won. It's an awesome team. I think you're missing the point, which is that there's nothing "revolutionary" about how the Cubs built that team. I don't see how it's worthy of 2 different books.

To me, it's FAR more difficult to sustain a good/great team for over a decade like the Cardinals have, because you don't have the benefit of EVER picking early in the draft.

The Cubs have a massive following that loves to spend money on crap and anyone who can try to make money off their success will. It's not about being worthy due to being revolutionary or something.

There will be far more than just 2 books on the team (and a David Ross biography and possible biopic to boot).

That said, the Kaplan book is almost certainly trash but the Verducci book is quite good.

Socnorb11 wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

I have no problem with the way they won. It's an awesome team. I think you're missing the point, which is that there's nothing "revolutionary" about how the Cubs built that team. I don't see how it's worthy of 2 different books.

I haven't read the books or even a thorough synopsis of their contents. But any time a franchise beloved by many people breaks a 108 year losing streak -- ie, a situation unparalleled in modern American sports -- you can be damned sure there will be some books written about the occurrence. It doesn't have to be the first time a GM has built a team the way the Cubs did.

heyzeus wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

I have no problem with the way they won. It's an awesome team. I think you're missing the point, which is that there's nothing "revolutionary" about how the Cubs built that team. I don't see how it's worthy of 2 different books.

I haven't read the books or even a thorough synopsis of their contents. But any time a franchise beloved by many people breaks a 108 year losing streak -- ie, a situation unparalleled in modern American sports -- you can be damned sure there will be some books written about the occurrence. It doesn't have to be the first time a GM has built a team the way the Cubs did.

True.

I was more or less just echoing the comments from page 1. The premise of the books is liable to be fairly uninteresting.

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

it's really weird

Don't fans of virtually all sports teams do this? No matter what other teams do, it sucks compared to *my* team. You'll even find Browns fans who would rather keep losing while trotting random crappy quarterbacks out there than to win Super Bowls with a rapist QB like the Steelers. Say what you will about the Johnny Football era, at least he didn't rape anyone (that we know of).

Socnorb11 wrote:

heyzeus wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

MrCrowesGarden wrote:Cardinals fans really do fetishize winning in a particular way.

I have no problem with the way they won. It's an awesome team. I think you're missing the point, which is that there's nothing "revolutionary" about how the Cubs built that team. I don't see how it's worthy of 2 different books.

I haven't read the books or even a thorough synopsis of their contents. But any time a franchise beloved by many people breaks a 108 year losing streak -- ie, a situation unparalleled in modern American sports -- you can be damned sure there will be some books written about the occurrence. It doesn't have to be the first time a GM has built a team the way the Cubs did.

True.

I was more or less just echoing the comments from page 1. The premise of the books is liable to be fairly uninteresting.

To us, it would. I have books about the 2006 and 2011 world series teams that are painstaking accounts of how the teams were built, the personnel involved, and the pivotal playoff games we played. But I acknowledge that these would be boring as dirt to a fan of any other team. I'd like to read about how the Cubs were constructed about as much as I'd like to read how my toaster oven was constructed, but I recognize that fans of that team will be all in.

Socnorb11 wrote:Honestly, the 2016 Cubs aren't as "home grown" as people probably think.

Theo didn't draft Rizzo, Zobrist, Addison Russell, Baez, Soler, Fowler, Heyward, Montero............. or any member of the starting rotation.

He gets credit for drafting Bryant and Contreras, and he gets credit for making some really good trades, but it's not necessarily a "home grown" team, top to bottom, by any stretch.

Baez was the Cubs 1st rounder in 2011.

Swirls wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:Honestly, the 2016 Cubs aren't as "home grown" as people probably think.

Theo didn't draft Rizzo, Zobrist, Addison Russell, Baez, Soler, Fowler, Heyward, Montero............. or any member of the starting rotation.

He gets credit for drafting Bryant and Contreras, and he gets credit for making some really good trades, but it's not necessarily a "home grown" team, top to bottom, by any stretch.

Baez was the Cubs 1st rounder in 2011.

Theo was hired after the 2011 season. He also didn't draft Contreras, who was an IFA signing back in 2009 (!), although his conversion to catcher happened under Theo.