Brewers Message Board

Re: Happy 4th

wisblue — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:32:44 GMT

radio silence:

wisblue:

No, it really isn't. Chicago has had two major league franchises since at least the year 1900, while Milwaukee has only had one for about half that long. So, comparing the Milwaukee franchises to the Chicago franchises gives Chicago four times more chances for success. Even comparing just the Cubs to the Braves and Brewers gives the Cubs twice as many chances. If you're going to go down this road, it is also fair to start the clock running in 1953 when the Braves first came to Milwaukee, marking the first time (except for the original Brewers in 1901) that Milwaukee had a chance. When a franchise's last World Series appearance came before a high percentage of its current fans were alive, and its last World Series win came before virtually all of them were alive, that's pretty pathetic. It's a lot easier to find people (like me) who actually remember and witnessed the Braves winning the World Series and the Brewer appearing in one. The Cubs "dynasty" of the 1906-1908 era is not particularly fresh in my mind.

Who cares if it's easier to find people who remember the Braves and the Brewers? That doesn't make those teams better than any dynasty of the 20th century, because they were not dynasties.

I will say it again, I think it's stupid to try and compare the history of the Brewers franchise with the history of the Cubs franchise, no matter how much any of us despise obnoxious Cubs fans. The Cubs' franchise still runs circles around the Brewers, no matter how much people "remember" the last WS appearance.

On top of that, using two completely different franchises that happened to play in Milwaukee, in two completely different leagues, to compete with Cubs fans in a dick measuring contest is a cop out.

Again, I disagree. Maybe I'm not comparing franchises as much as I'm comparing the experiences of a Milwaukee baseball fan my age with the experiences of a Cubs fan the same age. The memorable experiences of following a team come from the things you live through and remember, not the things that you know of only through history books.

Re: Happy 4th

quicksdraw — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:50:41 GMT

Steve Mahne:

quicksdraw:

Steve Mahne:

quicksdraw:

Steve Mahne:

sidney lanier:

quicksdraw:

sidney lanier:

Happy 4th to you and everyone else, louie. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all -- and may that happiness include a 13-2 rout of the Cubs!

happy 4th to all but sid (just kidding)

I know you are. Have a great 4th, boons, and I'll try to make my game score prediction a little more accurate tomorrow.

I hope 11-2 is good enough for him.

were the last 2 days good enough for you?

How about the 1st place Brewers and 4th place Cubs? Is that good enough for you?

how aboit the cubs winning the title the last 2 years.

haha... you have got to be kidding... no one gives a damn that the cubs won the divison the past two years... im thinking about this year which matters more. you wanna play that game?

last WS appearence

Milwaukee 1982

Cubs 1945

last WS win

Milwaukee 1957

Cubs 1908

typical brewer fan stupid reaction post, "nobody cares when we get out butts whpped, but this year as long as the brewers are winning means so much more then the last 2 years. but if the cubs do win this year, then nobody care again. wah wah wah"....shut up.

Re: Happy 4th

badger80 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:06:09 GMT

radio silence:
I agree, Badger.
As much as I dislike Cubs partyers -- actual Chicago baseball fans are a pretty entertaining bunch, that goes for Sox and Cubs, real fickle -- I am tired of reading arguments that belittle the Cubs' WS history, like it's all some joke.
Not many franchises can boast a dynasty like the one the Cubs had at the turn of the century, and as I said before, who cares if anyone can remember that?

I think that the Cubs have been marketed as Lovable Losers for so long that people don't want to hear about the actual history of the franchise. Of course they would lose their mystic if people acknowledged that they once had a winning franchise. They'd just become the Phillies.

Re: Happy 4th

radio silence — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:00:06 GMT

I agree, Badger.

As much as I dislike Cubs partyers -- actual Chicago baseball fans are a pretty entertaining bunch, that goes for Sox and Cubs, real fickle -- I am tired of reading arguments that belittle the Cubs' WS history, like it's all some joke.

Not many franchises can boast a dynasty like the one the Cubs had at the turn of the century, and as I said before, who cares if anyone can remember that?

Re: Happy 4th

badger80 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:57:21 GMT

radio silence:
badger80:
radio silence:
Steve Mahne:
So your saying that the Sox count as a champ for cubs fans????
No, I'm saying that a Braves championship doesn't count for Brewers fans or the Brewers franchise.
This is true, but it isn't the Milwaukee way. People around here are very possessive.

I understand.
That's why I don't get the whole "it's a championship for Milwaukee" thing. No, it's a Championship for the Braves, who happened to move from Milwaukee and eventually be "replaced" by the Brewers (in a completely different league).
If we count "Championships for Milwaukee" vs. "Championships for Chicago," it's not a very close debate, and I don't care who can remember it (since when does the existence of facts depend upon people remembering them?)

You're preaching to the choir. With the exception of a few short periods, Wisconsin doesn't have much of a sports history. Those Packer teams from the 60's are getting really distant. Everything else has been a flash in the pan.

Re: Happy 4th

radio silence — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:52:41 GMT

badger80:
radio silence:
Steve Mahne:
So your saying that the Sox count as a champ for cubs fans????
No, I'm saying that a Braves championship doesn't count for Brewers fans or the Brewers franchise.
This is true, but it isn't the Milwaukee way. People around here are very possessive.

I understand.

That's why I don't get the whole "it's a championship for Milwaukee" thing. No, it's a Championship for the Braves, who happened to move from Milwaukee and eventually be "replaced" by the Brewers (in a completely different league).

If we count "Championships for Milwaukee" vs. "Championships for Chicago," it's not a very close debate, and I don't care who can remember it (since when does the existence of facts depend upon people remembering them?)

Re: Happy 4th

badger80 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:48:52 GMT

radio silence:
Steve Mahne:
So your saying that the Sox count as a champ for cubs fans????
No, I'm saying that a Braves championship doesn't count for Brewers fans or the Brewers franchise.

This is true, but it isn't the Milwaukee way. People around here are very possessive.

Re: Happy 4th

radio silence — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:36:43 GMT

Steve Mahne:
So your saying that the Sox count as a champ for cubs fans????

No, I'm saying that a Braves championship doesn't count for Brewers fans or the Brewers franchise.

lets be honest.... idk anyone who saw the cubs win a WS but i can name 20-30 people who saw Milwaukee win one, and it includes my parents and the man that was my baseball coach thru out my HS career.

Who cares?

I am counting the Braves WS win as a Milwaukee win... you can if you want or not if you disagree... it is what it is i guess

It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to combine two completely different franchises from two leagues to try and compete with one franchise that played an entire century in one league.

It's more of a geographical accident than anything.

Fact of the matter, DM has put a small market team into contention for the past couple years from building thru the system and making a move here and there. I have trust in the team and Doug to put a winning product on the field this year and for a while... I love watching the Crew play and hope they will be in contention for a while!
GO CREW

Now that's better than being concerned with Chicago franchises and WS appearances.

Re: Happy 4th

radio silence — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:33:15 GMT

wisblue:
No, it really isn't. Chicago has had two major league franchises since at least the year 1900, while Milwaukee has only had one for about half that long. So, comparing the Milwaukee franchises to the Chicago franchises gives Chicago four times more chances for success. Even comparing just the Cubs to the Braves and Brewers gives the Cubs twice as many chances. If you're going to go down this road, it is also fair to start the clock running in 1953 when the Braves first came to Milwaukee, marking the first time (except for the original Brewers in 1901) that Milwaukee had a chance. When a franchise's last World Series appearance came before a high percentage of its current fans were alive, and its last World Series win came before virtually all of them were alive, that's pretty pathetic. It's a lot easier to find people (like me) who actually remember and witnessed the Braves winning the World Series and the Brewer appearing in one. The Cubs "dynasty" of the 1906-1908 era is not particularly fresh in my mind.

Who cares if it's easier to find people who remember the Braves and the Brewers? That doesn't make those teams better than any dynasty of the 20th century, because they were not dynasties.

I will say it again, I think it's stupid to try and compare the history of the Brewers franchise with the history of the Cubs franchise, no matter how much any of us despise obnoxious Cubs fans. The Cubs' franchise still runs circles around the Brewers, no matter how much people "remember" the last WS appearance.

On top of that, using two completely different franchises that happened to play in Milwaukee, in two completely different leagues, to compete with Cubs fans in a dick measuring contest is a cop out.

Re: Happy 4th

radio silence — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:28:58 GMT

Steve Mahne:
radio silence:
Steve Mahne:
no one gives a damn that the cubs won the divison the past two years..

I would hope that Brewers fans give a damn that the Cubs won the division the past two years. I mean, none of us would prefer that the Crew win the division instead of the Cubs, right?

Also, the more I think about it, it's not a good idea to get into WS measuring contests with the Cubs. They have such a storied WS history, and one of the best dynasty teams in the history of baseball.

The cubs havent been to a WS since 1945, dont tell me they have a storried WS history... i would love to meet someone who remembers the games of the 45 WS...

Who cares if anyone remembers it? There's lots of storied institutions that people don't remember because they weren't alive to see it.

If you disagree, I'd like you to name one Milwaukee franchise that anyone remembers that was as productive as the ~1905-1910 Cubs.

Re: Happy 4th

wisblue — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:52:45 GMT

radio silence:
Steve Mahne:

haha... you have got to be kidding... no one gives a damn that the cubs won the divison the past two years... im thinking about this year which matters more. you wanna play that game?

last WS appearence

Milwaukee 1982

Cubs 1945

last WS win

Milwaukee 1957

Cubs 1908

This is stupid. If you have to use two different franchises with WS appearances in two different leagues to prove a point about Milwaukee, I'd point out that Chicago has the most recent baseball championship and WS appearance between the two cities.

That's a bad argument.

No, it really isn't. Chicago has had two major league franchises since at least the year 1900, while Milwaukee has only had one for about half that long. So, comparing the Milwaukee franchises to the Chicago franchises gives Chicago four times more chances for success. Even comparing just the Cubs to the Braves and Brewers gives the Cubs twice as many chances. If you're going to go down this road, it is also fair to start the clock running in 1953 when the Braves first came to Milwaukee, marking the first time (except for the original Brewers in 1901) that Milwaukee had a chance. When a franchise's last World Series appearance came before a high percentage of its current fans were alive, and its last World Series win came before virtually all of them were alive, that's pretty pathetic. It's a lot easier to find people (like me) who actually remember and witnessed the Braves winning the World Series and the Brewer appearing in one. The Cubs "dynasty" of the 1906-1908 era is not particularly fresh in my mind.

If Chicago needs a 50 year head start, and two entries to Milwaukee's one, to claim baseball superiority, that's pretty sad. Especially when that recent championship was probably the WORST moment in the baseball lives of a lot of Cubs fans. Of course, we should expect Cubs fans to want a massive handicap in their favor before entering any fight. They need a HUGE market size and payroll advantage to win their division titles.

Re: Happy 4th

Steve Mahne — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:15:23 GMT

radio silence:
Steve Mahne:
no one gives a damn that the cubs won the divison the past two years..

I would hope that Brewers fans give a damn that the Cubs won the division the past two years. I mean, none of us would prefer that the Crew win the division instead of the Cubs, right?

Also, the more I think about it, it's not a good idea to get into WS measuring contests with the Cubs. They have such a storied WS history, and one of the best dynasty teams in the history of baseball.

The cubs havent been to a WS since 1945, dont tell me they have a storried WS history... i would love to meet someone who remembers the games of the 45 WS...

Re: Happy 4th

Steve Mahne — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:13:21 GMT

radio silence:
Steve Mahne:
haha... you have got to be kidding... no one gives a damn that the cubs won the divison the past two years... im thinking about this year which matters more. you wanna play that game?
last WS appearence
Milwaukee 1982
Cubs 1945
last WS win
Milwaukee 1957
Cubs 1908

This is stupid. If you have to use two different franchises with WS appearances in two different leagues to prove a point about Milwaukee, I'd point out that Chicago has the most recent baseball championship and WS appearance between the two cities.

That's a bad argument.

So your saying that the Sox count as a champ for cubs fans???? lets be honest.... idk anyone who saw the cubs win a WS but i can name 20-30 people who saw Milwaukee win one, and it includes my parents and the man that was my baseball coach thru out my HS career.

I am counting the Braves WS win as a Milwaukee win... you can if you want or not if you disagree... it is what it is i guess

Fact of the matter, DM has put a small market team into contention for the past couple years from building thru the system and making a move here and there. I have trust in the team and Doug to put a winning product on the field this year and for a while... I love watching the Crew play and hope they will be in contention for a while!

GO CREW

Re: Happy 4th

radio silence — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:47:01 GMT

Steve Mahne:
no one gives a damn that the cubs won the divison the past two years..

I would hope that Brewers fans give a damn that the Cubs won the division the past two years. I mean, none of us would prefer that the Crew win the division instead of the Cubs, right?

Also, the more I think about it, it's not a good idea to get into WS measuring contests with the Cubs. They have such a storied WS history, and one of the best dynasty teams in the history of baseball.

Re: Happy 4th

radio silence — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:30:03 GMT

Steve Mahne:
haha... you have got to be kidding... no one gives a damn that the cubs won the divison the past two years... im thinking about this year which matters more. you wanna play that game?
last WS appearence
Milwaukee 1982
Cubs 1945
last WS win
Milwaukee 1957
Cubs 1908

This is stupid. If you have to use two different franchises with WS appearances in two different leagues to prove a point about Milwaukee, I'd point out that Chicago has the most recent baseball championship and WS appearance between the two cities.

That's a bad argument.