Is the Tribune Looking to Sell the Cubs?

[ZMovieman]

I guess it's important to consider the source, but the Chicago Sun-Times made a mention today about the Tribune Co. possibly looking to sell the Cubs. I know this was brought up over the offseason, but decided to add a new thread after I couldn't find the old one back a few months. Anyone in the know know if something has recently changed with the Trib?

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scorecard/03/21/truth.rumors.mlb/index.html

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

I hope so. No more Andy MacPhail, Baker, and Hendry. 8)

[Coach C]

I hope that they'll sell it to someone who actually wants to put a decent product on the field, and that someone who wants to win a championship.

[DivineBovine]

Oh please please please. Sell the team.

 

As Cub fans, we should all complain about the Trib being tightwads. The more pressure they feel to spend money, the more likely they are to sell.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

I hope that they'll sell it to someone who actually wants to put a decent product on the field, and that someone who wants to win a championship.

 

I'd take the equivalent of Florida's team over the crap we saw last year for $100M. At least I'd have some hope for the future.

[Mizzou]

On the topic of the Tribune Company....

 

I've never bought into the whole "the Trib doesn't care about winning" theory. Ownership doesn't spend 100 million on a team if they don't care about winning.

[David]

On the topic of the Tribune Company....

 

I've never bought into the whole "the Trib doesn't care about winning" theory. Ownership doesn't spend 100 million on a team if they don't care about winning.

 

I agree. But I wouldn't mind an owner that would take a more proactive approach to winning. For some raeson, I could picture Mark Cuban going out and offering Billy Beane or Theo Epstein an absurd amount of money to come here, and then giving them lots of freedom to go out and get the best players they can with that much money.

 

Think Red Sox...not Yankees...

[TB_11]

On the topic of the Tribune Company....

 

I've never bought into the whole "the Trib doesn't care about winning" theory. Ownership doesn't spend 100 million on a team if they don't care about winning.

 

I think the problem is that they spend 100 million when they could spend 10 million+ more. They look at the Cubs as something that should turn a profit.

[Omar]

On the topic of the Tribune Company....

 

I've never bought into the whole "the Trib doesn't care about winning" theory. Ownership doesn't spend 100 million on a team if they don't care about winning.

 

I agree. But I wouldn't mind an owner that would take a more proactive approach to winning. For some raeson, I could picture Mark Cuban going out and offering Billy Beane or Theo Epstein an absurd amount of money to come here, and then giving them lots of freedom to go out and get the best players they can with that much money.

 

Think Red Sox...not Yankees...

 

I was thinking the same thing. Cubs would also get better TV time especially during spring... and more High Definition games...

[erik316wttn]

IF the team is sold I fear the games moving off of WGN and onto some regional radio station that doesn't have nearly the broadcast range WGN does.

[frostwyrm]

On the topic of the Tribune Company....

 

I've never bought into the whole "the Trib doesn't care about winning" theory. Ownership doesn't spend 100 million on a team if they don't care about winning.

 

I think the problem is that they spend 100 million when they could spend 10 million+ more. They look at the Cubs as something that should turn a profit.

 

If people got the extra 10 mil they'd promptly bitch that it wasn't 20. Bottom line is that fans of a team that has the highest payroll in its league have no business complaining about money. It's like listening to Bill Gates complain about his taxes

[Blueheart05]

On the topic of the Tribune Company....

 

I've never bought into the whole "the Trib doesn't care about winning" theory. Ownership doesn't spend 100 million on a team if they don't care about winning.

 

I think the problem is that they spend 100 million when they could spend 10 million+ more. They look at the Cubs as something that should turn a profit.

 

 

If it were strictly about turning a profit, the player salaries would be significantly less and they would not be paying the manager 4M/year on a team with 3M+ in attendance. The Cubs have gotten the wrap of being a team that doesn't spend to win based on past leadership. In truth, a team doesn't need 100M payroll to win a championship.

 

IMO, the Cubs have increased the team payroll, in the last few seasons, in an effort to both counterbalance the negative view of never spending as well as to field more competitive teams. We can debate about some of the moves but it's clear that they aren't made on a team that isn't trying to win.

 

Cubs tickets were a dime a dozen not that long ago. After the barren 1970s, -80s, and much of the 1990s, the team attempted to bring in a winning managment team. Andy MacPhail may be controversial now, but his hiring was suppose to signal a positive change in the direction of the team. Afterall, he has a winning resume (with the Twins). Similarly,the promotion of Jim Hendry, to GM, and the hiring of Dusty Baker, as the field manager, were both apart of the team's committment to winning. Obviously, the team still has a lot of work to do but I don't see the general failures as a specific desire to turn a profit at the expense of winning.

Edited March 22, 2006 by Blueheart05

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

They're commited to winning all right. They're just so freaking incompetent that 100M dollars can't buy us a playoff team.

[soccer10k]

On the topic of the Tribune Company....

 

I've never bought into the whole "the Trib doesn't care about winning" theory. Ownership doesn't spend 100 million on a team if they don't care about winning.

 

I think the problem is that they spend 100 million when they could spend 10 million+ more. They look at the Cubs as something that should turn a profit.

 

 

If it were strictly about turning a profit, the player salaries would be significantly less and they would not be paying the manager 4M/year on a team with 3M+ in attendance. The Cubs have gotten the wrap of being a team that doesn't spend to win based on past leadership. In truth, a team doesn't need 100M payroll to win a championship.

 

IMO, the Cubs have increased the team payroll, in the last few seasons, in an effort to both counterbalance the negative view of never spending as well as to field more competitive teams. We can debate about some of the moves but it's clear that they aren't made on a team that isn't trying to win.

 

Cubs tickets were a dime a dozen not that long ago. After the barren 1970s, -80s, and much of the 1990s, the team attempted to bring in a winning managment team. Andy MacPhail may be controversial now, but his hiring was suppose to signal a positive change in the direction of the team. Afterall, he has a winning resume (with the Twins). Similarly,the promotion of Jim Hendry, to GM, and the hiring of Dusty Baker, as the field manager, were both apart of the team's committment to winning. Obviously, the team still has a lot of work to do but I don't see the general failures as a specific desire to turn a profit at the expense of winning.

 

I couldn't have said it any better. The people in here are starting to sound like Yankees fans. I'm not saying we need to become the Oakland A's, but the Cubs could spend 70-80 million the right way and win.

[srbin84]

I couldn't have said it any better. The people in here are starting to sound like Yankees fans. I'm not saying we need to become the Oakland A's, but the Cubs could spend 70-80 million the right way and win.

 

If were weren't the only team in baseball whose best players get hurt every year.

[Sec 511 Die-hard]

100 Million? Where are you people getting your numbers? The Cubs payroll is a couple million higher than the White Sox, while over the last decade the Cubs have doubled the Sox's attendance. If you think the Tribune is committed to winning you are a fool.

 

The Cubs are in the top half in revenue year in and year out and some of you people think that they are committed to winning because they spend more money than teams like the Pirates, Reds, Brewers, etc. With the amount of money the Tribune brings in, their payroll should be upwards of $140 million a year PERIOD!!!!

[soccer10k]

100 Million? Where are you people getting your numbers? The Cubs payroll is a couple million higher than the White Sox, while over the last decade the Cubs have doubled the Sox's attendance. If you think the Tribune is committed to winning you are a fool.

 

The Cubs are in the top half in revenue year in and year out and some of you people think that they are committed to winning because they spend more money than teams like the Pirates, Reds, Brewers, etc. With the amount of money the Tribune brings in, their payroll should be upwards of $140 million a year PERIOD!!!!

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. You must remember that sports are a business for these owners. They realize that the best way to make a profit is to put a winning team on the field. Cutting payroll to $40 million isn't going to accomplish that and raising payroll to $140 million isn't going to do it either. The Yankees have had the highest payroll in the league the past few years and what has that got them? Nothing since 2000. The Cubs don't need to spend a ton of money. We do not need to become the Yankees. We just don't.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

If people got the extra 10 mil they'd promptly bitch that it wasn't 20. Bottom line is that fans of a team that has the highest payroll in its league have no business complaining about money. It's like listening to Bill Gates complain about his taxes

 

They do not have the highest payroll in the league. In the past 5 seasons, the Cubs have ranked between 4-7 in terms of payroll in the NL.

[USSoccer]

100 Million? Where are you people getting your numbers? The Cubs payroll is a couple million higher than the White Sox, while over the last decade the Cubs have doubled the Sox's attendance. If you think the Tribune is committed to winning you are a fool.

 

The Cubs are in the top half in revenue year in and year out and some of you people think that they are committed to winning because they spend more money than teams like the Pirates, Reds, Brewers, etc. With the amount of money the Tribune brings in, their payroll should be upwards of $140 million a year PERIOD!!!!

 

The Tribune gave Jim Hendry more than enough payroll with which to win in 2004 and 2005. We were top 5 in the NL those years. It'snot ownership's fault that terrible decision making, bad field managing and bad luck resulted in underachievement. And looking at this year's payroll, I believe we are top 5 in the NL again.

 

A baseball team isn't as much of a public trust as you'd think. Yes, the Cubs could raise the payroll to 140m, but without better decision making it would be a waste of money, and they know this. It would be irresponsibly throwing money away.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The Tribune gave Jim Hendry more than enough payroll with which to win in 2004 and 2005. We were top 5 in the NL those years. It's not ownership's fault that terrible decision making, bad field managing and bad luck resulted in underachievement. And looking at this year's payroll, I believe we are top 5 in the NL again.

 

A baseball team isn't as much of a public trust as you'd think. Yes, the Cubs could raise the payroll to 140m, but without better decision making it would be a waste of money, and they know this. It would be irresponsibly throwing money away.

 

That's the key. We're spending, just not on the right personnel. We have a manager who can't seem to figure out the obvious, and players like Prior are taking liners off the elbow and Nomar's shredding his groin coming out of the box. Replacing all-star caliber players with people like Glendon Rusch and Neifi Perez, who shouldn't even be on the roster to begin with, will cause your team to suffer.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

100 Million? Where are you people getting your numbers? The Cubs payroll is a couple million higher than the White Sox, while over the last decade the Cubs have doubled the Sox's attendance. If you think the Tribune is committed to winning you are a fool.

 

The Cubs are in the top half in revenue year in and year out and some of you people think that they are committed to winning because they spend more money than teams like the Pirates, Reds, Brewers, etc. With the amount of money the Tribune brings in, their payroll should be upwards of $140 million a year PERIOD!!!!

 

I guess I'm a fool. Higher payroll doesn't = winning. How you spend the money you have is what puts together a winning team.

 

How have the Braves been as successful as they have? The A's? The list goes on. If money = winning, the teams with the top payrolls would win the WS year in and year out, but that's not what happens.

[TB_11]

100 Million? Where are you people getting your numbers? The Cubs payroll is a couple million higher than the White Sox, while over the last decade the Cubs have doubled the Sox's attendance. If you think the Tribune is committed to winning you are a fool.

 

The Cubs are in the top half in revenue year in and year out and some of you people think that they are committed to winning because they spend more money than teams like the Pirates, Reds, Brewers, etc. With the amount of money the Tribune brings in, their payroll should be upwards of $140 million a year PERIOD!!!!

 

I guess I'm a fool. Higher payroll doesn't = winning. How you spend the money you have is what puts together a winning team.

 

How have the Braves been as successful as they have? The A's? The list goes on. If money = winning, the teams with the top payrolls would win the WS year in and year out, but that's not what happens.

 

I don't think anyone believes that money = winning, but to say it's not an advantage rich teams have over poor teams ignores the issue. It's one of the main reasons that the Yankees and Red Sox remain competitive every year, and that people expect teams like the Dodgers, Mets, and Cubs to do consistently better than the Devil Rays, Royals and Pirates year to year.

 

Ask any team, whether it be the high-and-foolishly spending Yankees down to the consistently-successful-on-a-budget Twins and A's, whether or not they would want an extra 10M added to their payroll, and every team will say yes. The Cubs could reasonably spend this much more on their payroll, but choose not to. Profits and a mediocre chance at success are worth more to the Tribune company that no profits and a better chance at success.

[Jon]

I don't know if anyone brought this up elsewhere, but on the WGN Radio Cubs Gameday program (right before the pre-game show) today, Kaplan interviewed FitzSimons, who clearly stated that "the Cubs are not for sale." I forget the jargon, but he also went on to say that the Tribune Co. doesn't have much of a reason to sell.

[J.R.]

More bad news.

 

breitbart.com[/url]"]Tribune Co., the newspaper publisher and radio and TV station operator, said Thursday that first-quarter profit fell 28 percent as revenue edged lower and the company absorbed stock-based compensation expenses and one-time charges.

 

The results slightly exceeded analysts' expectations but testified to the continuing slump in the newspaper business, with circulation from Tribune's 11 dailies down 3 percent and revenue from its newspaper division down 1 percent.

 

Interesting excerpts ...

 

breitbart.com[/url]"]The broadcasting and entertainment division saw operating revenues drop 2 percent to $303 million and operating profit rise 3 percent to $69 million. The favorable comparison was attributable to the Cubs' 2005 trade of Sammy Sosa to Baltimore, which caused Tribune to accelerate the payment of Sosa's salary and resulted in a $13.5 million charge in the first quarter last year.

 

breitbart.com[/url]"] Tribune shares rose 21 cents to $28.23 in midday trading on the New York Stock Exchange _ down 7 percent in 2006 and 47 percent from their all-time high of $53 on Feb. 2, 2004. The stock last week sank to its lowest price, adjusted for a split, since 1998 _ $27.09.

 

breitbart.com[/url]"]While FitzSimons said the stock is undervalued, analysts remain wary of the company's prospects unless it sells one of its businesses to generate cash. In a report to investors after the earnings report's release, Lauren Fine of Merrill Lynch criticized "a seeming reticence on the part of management to try to surface value through either asset sales or more material dividend or share repurchase proclamations."

 

Analysts have singled out the Cubs as a logical holding to be sold. But FitzSimons reiterated in an interview with Tribune's WGN-AM radio last week that the team is not for sale, denying the suggestion that the baseball club is a non-strategic asset and calling it a "tremendous asset" that fits well with WGN-TV, WGN radio and cable TV superstation WGN.

 

Dave Novosel, a Chicago-based analyst for the Gimme Credit research firm, said the company might need to wait out what he sees as a partly cyclical downturn in the industry while continuing to ramp up Internet-related operations to offset the loss of newspaper ads.

 

"I don't know that they really need to sell anything, because they have plenty of liquidity and they still generate very good cash flow," he said. "There's not really a need for cash. ... I don't think there's anything that Tribune management can do differently that can have a large impact."