Red Sox, Curses & Simmons

Let's get one thing straight: For 86 years, the Yankees made the Red Sox their bitch. The Cubs have been nobody's bitch. Losers for 97 years yes, but never anyone's bitch, let alone for 86 years. This makes all the difference in the world.



Just in my lifetime, the Red Sox have been the Fun Boy, Skank, T-Bird and Top Dollar to New York's Eric Draven. They've been the Val Resnick to the Yankees' Porter. They've been the Detective Kujan to the Yankees' Verbal Kint: like Kint, Keyser Soze has always been one step ahead. The Cubs? More like Michael Bolton in Office Space. (PC Load Letter?!? What the #U^! does that mean?)



Keep this difference in mind.

Remember the end of Shawshank, when Andy Dufresne is sanding his boat in Mexico without a care in the world? That's how every Red Sox fan spent this past winter. We're out. Life is good. Now we're just waiting for our Red to show up: Cubs fans.

The Cubs-Sox bond can't match Andy and Red's -- a 20-year friendship highlighted by lots of chess, the expansion of a library and Andy buying a rock hammer from Red for $10 (almost as good a deal as Miami getting Shaq). But a kinship exists well beyond the twinned years of 1908 and 1918. Lumped together as lovable losers, both fan bases fell back on the same "woe is us" mentality, constantly rehashing past failures and worrying that their lives would pass without a championship. As we both headed for a Series showdown in 2003, unspeakable tragedy hit both of us: the Bartman Game and the Grady Little Game.

We were a collective mess.

So, yeah, we're connected. That's why Cubs fans can learn from us. Lesson No.1: all the pain and heartbreak are worth it. I swear.
(...)
Now I understand what happened: after 86 agonizing years, we ran out of bad luck.

I also know that someday that has to happen for Chicago, too.

My best advice to Cubs fans? Start thinking of yourselves differently. Stay away from the negative TV shows and apocalyptic newspaper columns. You can follow the team just fine without being infected by that stuff. The media-driven Curse of the Bambino had gotten so out of control by last fall that Fox's pre-game playoff shows could have been called Babe Ruth: A Photo Essay. But true Sox fans never discussed The Curse. If anything, we were hopelessly romantic, always believing this would be The Year. When our hearts were broken, we'd fall into a Dylan McKay-like tailspin but regroup with a curious optimism that renewed itself each winter.

By last October, we carried a certain edge, personified by Schilling's "Why not us?" campaign and the self-proclaimed "idiots" who scoffed at the idea of a jinx. Seriously, why not us? If the black sheep Patriots could turn into a dynasty, anything was possible. We really believed that. Cubs fans need to believe too. Don't let the media define you. So let the Bartman grudge go, even if the rest of the world won't. Not only were 20 other fans going for that foul ball, the game was lost because Dusty didn't trust his bullpen. Don't chalk up team failures to a curse; the Sox proved that logic wrong. And when it comes, don't be afraid to give yourself to a playoff run.

When last year's Yankees series started, Boston players were growing Fu Manchus and passing around a midget, Schilling was starting message-board threads, I was refusing to wash T-shirts covered in bird poop, some fans didn't shower while others didn't take off their caps ... everyone did his part. When your turn comes, you need to do the same, three million people rubbing the same rabbit's foot. I know it sounds crazy, but it works. You aren't the losers people want you to be. Remember, big-market teams have a huge advantage over small-market ones. (As much as I love to think the Sox were underdogs, their total payroll exceeded the average Bruckheimer budget.) If you want, pray the team trades Nomar, for karmic reasons only. Like Andy told Red: "Hope is a good thing ... and no good thing ever dies."

Cubs fans, I hope this column finds you and finds you well. See you in Mexico someday.

This is the first Bill Simmons column to which I've taken exception. It's just that few things irritate me as much as when people group Cubs fans and Red Sox fans together. Why would he do this?

I know why casual fans and media commentators group us together: because we have the unique collection of traits such as humongous periods without winning a World Series, storied (even mystical) ballparks, and huge, loyal fan bases. For this, we might look very similar, so they project some sort of bond onto us. From my vantage point, nothing could be farther from the truth. Simmons, in describing Red Sox nation, completely misportrayed Cubs nation by trying to link us to Sox nation.

I'm on record saying I can't stand the Red Sox. Behind the Yankees, they're public enemy number 2 in my book, ahead of the Mets. I don't even mind the White Sox. (Why everyone thinks Cubs fans hate the White Sox is another topic for another time.) I've just always thought of the Red Sox as the poor man's Yankees: trying all the Yankees dirty tricks, except without pulling them off as well. Hiring a mercenary like Schilling and winning a World Series only solidified my position. Nothing against Schilling -- he's a hell of a pitcher, and he earned everything he's brought them. It just feels a little too much like Ocean's 12: despite all the hype, they took the easy way out and short-cut the plot because it was pretty much a no-lose. Sox win? Schilling's a god. Sox lose? They always lose.

To be fair, up until last season we ought to have grouped together 3 teams, not 2, because the White Sox belong in this discussion. All 3 had gone (literally) lifetimes without winning a World Series. If only Comiskey or US Cellular Field were better ballparks. Still, this is a story about tragedy and losing and heartbreak and agony, and I think until 2004 all 3 teams could lay pretty equal claim. The Red Sox might have had the most tragic moments, but the Cubs & Sox had many more tragic seasons. The Red Sox had the ball through Buckner's legs but the Cubs had the Zimmer > Essian > Lefebvre > Trebelhorn > Riggleman >Baylor > Kim era from 1990 - 2002 with only one season better than a 3rd place finish (2nd, wild card in 1998).

Simmons goes on to bring up the curses, so let's consider them. The Red Sox sold the best player ever to the Yankees for $100,000 and took a loan out against Fenway so that their owner could finance his girlfriend's play. The White Sox players took money from gamblers to throw a World Series because their ownership was so cheap that he pissed them off. The Cubs wouldn't let the owner of the Billy Goat tavern bring his goat into the bleachers. Hmm... where's Waldo? Which offense is least drastic? What, like they would have let a drunk bring a goat into Fenway?

Let's put the curses to the side, then. Another matter is the fans' attitude. Despite what Simmons says, by all other accounts Red Sox nation lived under a climate of negativity, cynicism, and looking to blame someone else. Cubs nation instead favored optimism (and drunkenness, and forgetfulness.) Simmons advises that we should "Stay away from the negative TV shows and apocalyptic newspaper columns." Other than Jay Mariotti's columns, though, we don't normally hear these voices. Circa September 2004 was an exception, and they earned every iota of negativity the media gave them, but that's not how the local media normally presents the Cubs. The media, in this case, reflects their fan base: they become negative when the fans are already pissed off. Except that we're rarely pissed off, and mostly cautiously optimistic, and the media reflects this quite well, I think. We're co-delusional that way.

In my lifetime, it seems as though the Red Sox have always defined themselves in relationship to the Yankees. Many Red Sox fans went on record saying that they're glad they won the pennant over the Yankees because it wouldn't have felt right otherwise. Chicago, despite being the Second City, does not have this inferiority complex. Our relationship with even our most bitter rival, the Cardinals, is not so dysfunctional as this. We've lost series against the Mets, the Padres, the Giants and the Marlins, but we did not amplify the problems by making these contests epic the way the Red Sox did with the Yankees. It was not personal. In fact, in 2003 I rooted for the Marlins after they came back to win the pennant over the Cubs. I (bitterly) tipped my cap to a team that played with enthusiasm and chutzpah.

(Now that you mention it, the Yankees never even seemed to care especially about the Red Sox except when the Red Sox made it personal, first.)

To his credit, maybe Simmons was not your normal Red Sox fan, at least as far as I understand them. Then again, I don't really understand Red Sox fans because I've never been one. I've never lived in Boston, or followed the Sox. Of course, I doubt Simmons understands Cubs fans, either. After reading that column, I'm convinced that he doesn't understand Cubs fans any better than any other outsider, which is disappointing. It's not disappointing that he doesn't understand; it's disappointing that he decided to write a column as if he did.

I mean, the Red Sox won the World Series, so now Red Sox fans can talk to Cubs fans like we're their little brother? If the Cubs had won before the Red Sox, I would still be rooting for the Twins or the Tigers or the Indians to win the AL every year. All things being equal, I prefer teams that develop young talent and show loyalty to their players, and I have that impression about these teams. I do not have that impression about the Red Sox.

It's not hypocritical, either, even if we admit that the Cubs also have flaws in this area, because I don't have a choice about being a Cubs fan. The Cubs could become a roster of mercenaries like the Yankees and I would still love them even if I hated what they were doing. In the AL though, I get to choose, and I prefer talent development and loyalty and players who play the right way. Red Sox fans should feel guilty. Not guilty for beating the Yankees, but guilty for bullying over all the other AL teams with a huge payroll advantage and mercenary squad. Maybe that's why Red Sox fans position themselves in opposition to the Yankees so strongly, knowing deep down that it's the only contest in which they can feel sincerely proud of supporting their team. Cubs fans might have reason to feel guilty when the Cubs finally win, depending on the circumstances, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. If they win this year, I think they'll have done it the right way for the most part.

Consider the example cases of Pedro Martinez circa 2004 and Sammy Sosa circa 1997 and 2001. In 1997, the Cubs gave Sosa a 4-year contract extension despite his sub-par year. In 2001, they gave him a HUGE contract, bigger than he (or anyone) deserved, out of loyalty and appreciation for his last 4 seasons. They defended him through the situations surrounding the corking and injuries, perhaps more than they should. It wasn't until Sammy made it clear that he wanted to leave that they traded him, and they swallowed an extra $20million or something to do it. The Red Sox could have done this with Pedro this year. They could have brought him back out of loyalty to his career for the Red Sox. They could have given him the huge contract even though he probably won't live up to it. I still think loyalty like this means something, even in an era where free agency has led many players to stop being loyal to the teams that brought them up.

Now, I'm not here to completely defend the Cubs, who certainly aren't perfect. The Cubs are implicated in all of this as well -- all of baseball is implicated -- but not as much as the Red Sox, I think. The two biggest stars in the lineup came through situational trades (Garciaparra, Ramirez) rather than free agent signings. The top 4 members of the pitching staff (Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Maddux) all came up in the Cubs system (even though Maddux signed with the Cubs as a free agent). They traded a wonderful pitching prospect -- Dontrelle Willis -- because they desperately needed someone in the starting rotation and in the bullpen. It was a quality trade: Alfonseca was gone by 2003, but without Clement the Cubs would have never achieved what they did, while Willis certainly helped the Marlins in their own run. (Does anyone else think that Pedro's dwarf was Alfonseca's mini me?) That's one example, and their other trades benefited both teams as well. Even picking up Ramirez saved the Pirates from getting nothing for a guy they could not afford to keep. The Cubs biggest free-agent acquisition in the last couple of years -- Derek Lee -- brought in a guy who emphasizes discipline and defense, expects to play every single day, and made it through his first season with the club without a single negative media report. That's not a bad way to do it in this day and age.

And consider the 2004 opening day payrolls, where the Cubs came in at $91M while the Red Sox came in at $125M. That's a 37.3 percent disparity. The Red Sox were 25 percent higher than the next team, the Angels (3rd highest at $101M). If you could remove the Yankees ($182M) the Red Sox would look an awful lot like a team that bought a World Series rather than a team that earned one. No one likes the rich kid that just gets a new car from daddy when he wrecks one.

Baseball has changed. We can't undo free agency. We don't have a salary cap. There will never be a perfect world where winning seasons are only a matter of scouting, developing and utilizing talent. Players will not remain with teams for careers any more. $27.5M payrolls like the Brewers' will never buy winning teams. Money matters.

Still, you can try to do it the right way. I'm not saying the Cubs always do it the right way, but I am saying that the Red Sox don't. For that matter, the Cubs do handle things the right way, at least somewhat. I respect them for giving Sosa the contract in 2001, even though he betrayed thim in 2004 with his petulance. I love the talent they've developed recently. I like how they brought back guys with something to prove like Garciaparra, Dempster, and Remlinger. I wish they had given contracts to Bill Mueller even after he banged up his knee, and to Matt Clement after his season without run support, but these aren't crushing decisions. (I do wish Matt Clement all the best, personally, in Boston.)

So when Simmons writes this passage, I kind of resent it: "anything was possible. We really believed that. Cubs fans need to believe too. Don't let the media define you. So let the Bartman grudge go, even if the rest of the world won't. Not only were 20 other fans going for that foul ball, the game was lost because Dusty didn't trust his bullpen. Don't chalk up team failures to a curse; the Sox proved that logic wrong. And when it comes, don't be afraid to give yourself to a playoff run."

Cubs fans have a team to be proud of. We don't let the media define us. One time sitting the bleachers would make this obvious. We are smart fans with independint reasoning. We don't hold a Bartman grudge. I was at that game, and it was Prior's faltering & Gonzalez's error that devastated us, not Bartman. Dusty didn't trust his bullpen, but we didn't either. We thought Prior could do it, and he was doing it, right until the moment that he wasn't. And advising us to give in to a playoff run? If only you could have been in Chicagoland, Bill, during September and October of 2003. I think we rivaled Boston as far as giving in to supporting a team. Maybe we even surpassed Boston, since deep down, you all admitted that you were half-expecting the Sox to blow it again last year. In 2003, at Game 6, in the 7th inning, Cubs fans expected to win that game. We believed that our team would win that game. We knew they were going to the World Series. Maybe we're all a little worse off for having been burned so badly, the way Boston had been time and time again. Next time around, though, I'll still believe they will win the game. We're nobody's bitch, even if we are delusional.

Bill, we didn't ask for your advice, albeit good-natured, and we certainly don't need it because we're not like you seem to think we are. Plus, we like Nomar's karma. At least I do.