root root root for the indians

the bosox are the long-imagined brothers-in-futility of the cubs, to be sure, and i'm sure many a cub fan latently pulls for the sawks. but i'm compelled to say -- karmically, i want the cleveland indians to win it all.

why? aligning stars, i suppose, or something equally meaningless. but the tribe hasn't brought home the hardware since 1948.

a few years ago, the list of the longest-deprived teams in the majors read like this:

1. 1908 -- chicago cubs
2. 1917 -- chicago white sox
3. 1918 -- boston red sox
4. 1948 -- cleveland indians

the sawks removed themselves in 2004. so did the southsiders in 2005.

should cleveland come away with the big one in 2007, that list looks radically different.

1. 1908 -- chicago cubs
2. 1954 -- new york/san francisco giants
3. 1961 -- washington senators/texas rangers
4. 1962 -- houston colt .45's/astros

that is -- there will be the cubs, the giants at a distance of nearly half a century, and then the beginning of the expansion franchises that haven't really existed long enough to merit the statistical expectation of a world title in my view.

the drought is just as sad/funny/absurd still if one looks at league pennants, regardless of how the redskins come out. the giants won the nl in 2002; cleveland the al in 1997.

1. 1945 -- chicago cubs
2. 1961 -- washington senators/texas rangers
3. 1969 -- montreal expos/washington nationals

one shouldn't, i suppose, trivialize the futility of the texas rangers. 47 years without a pennant is a long time. and yet, the cubs' 63 years is some 35% longer a period.

and isn't it interesting that, without cleveland to kick around, the cubs are heading lists otherwise populated by itinerant (in either name or location) franchises?

anyway, i'm all for relieving the suffering of the people of cleveland -- and if there is some sort of cosmic scorekeeper, maybe that'll be one more scratch on the postiive side of the ledger. go tribe!