The Real Losers?
Posted on: April 14, 2008 6:06 pm
I've been thinking about how the Cubs have been labeled losers of the past century only because we have failed to win a WS title since 1908 (not to mention not winning the NL Pennant since 1945). It got me to thinking though...are we the ultimate losers? I don't really think so. Sure, it's been a little miserable not seeing a WS title hoisted in Chicago's north side since for 99 season, but technically, I don't think we should be labeled "losers." It got me to thinking, remember last year when the Philadelphia Phillies became the first team to reach 10,000 losses? Sure, they've been successful in recent years, but yet, they still only have 1 World Series title (compared to the Cubs' two) and have won the pennant only 5 times compared to the Cubs' 16 (granted, the Cubs have been a team for 7 years longer). Do you think the label of "losers" should be planted onto the Phillies? Maybe, maybe not, the choice is yours. Just some food for thought..
Comments
|
Reputation: 79
Level: Pro Since: Feb 7, 2008 
|
Posted on: April 14, 2008 7:16 pm
The Real Losers?I keep saying it, that title should be slapped on the Brewers, considering all of their playoff appearances from 1983 on |
Reputation: 90
Level: All-Star Since: Apr 12, 2008
|
Posted on: April 14, 2008 9:49 pm
The Real Losers?I partly agree with you Lotec. I don't agree on the comparison of WS since the Cubbies have been around more then twice as long as the Crew and they won it a century ago. However I do agree that the ineptness of the past 25 years belongs to Milwaukee. No playoff appearances for Milwaukee to the Cubs 5. I have a question then. How much of a difference do you think it would have made if the Brewers had a bigger market? Having one of the lowest payrolls, no thanks to that weasel Bud Selig, in baseball really hurt the free agent opportunities that Milwaukee had. Who would want to come to a team that loses 90 games every year? |
|
Reputation: 99
Level: Superstar Since: Aug 18, 2006
|
Posted on: April 14, 2008 11:03 pm
The Real Losers?Problem is..this isn't about the Brewers and the Cubs...it's about the Cubs and their labeling as "losers" |
|
Reputation: 97
Level: Superstar Since: Mar 8, 2008
|
Posted on: April 15, 2008 2:06 pm
The Real Losers?I think the real losers are the fair weather fans. Good for all you Cubs fans for sticking with your team through the rough times (your whole life). But does it really make you feel better to point the finger at a team that's not doing as well? Yeah, me too but it just makes you look weak. The best teams are the ones with the most consistantly loyal fans. |
|
Reputation: 98
Level: Superstar Since: Nov 8, 2006
|
Posted on: April 16, 2008 3:24 pm
The Real Losers?I think you are on to something. I have always thought that one of the main reasons the Cubs have been branded as the lovable losers is because when they lost the World Series in 1945, that was the 5th or 6th straight World Series loss and kept alive a 37 year championship drought at the time. Following the 1945 WS loss, the Cubs were horrible until around 1963. And as we all know, the time period of the late '40s to early '60s is still the golden age of baseball. During that time you had Jackie Robinson, all those great Yankee teams and players, the Dodgers and Giants moving west, and so on. So the Cubs were at their very worst when baseball was at its perceived very best. So once that period was over, and the Cubs began to have some small measure of success with popular players, the stigma was already there and has been ever since. < |
