Tribune and the World Series

[da bears]

So yesterday my family had the relatives over for Mothers Day and my dad and I were talking to my uncle who is a Vice President or something important for some company (yeah I'm really informed), and my uncle said he and about 12 others had a meeting with a CEO of the Tribune this past week. My uncle said that they were asking questions about this branch of the tribune and that, finally someone asked about the Cubs. The guy said he's as frustrated as anyone. However, someone followed up with how much money would the Tribune make if the Cubs won the World Series. My uncle said the guy answer $10 million.

 

I was pretty surprised by this. I figured the number would be highger. Hearing this just made me angry because I realized that $10 mil is just not as much money for these Tribune guys as for the rest of us. Fact is, for "only" 10 million, winning the World Series just can't be that high for the Trib. Steve Stone was talking about this on Friday on the Score and he even said that these franchises with the individual owners oddly enough want to win more than a company like the Tribune. Not that I wasn't fully aware of all this, it's just getting really frustrating right now.

[LoneStarCubFan]

That doesn't surprise me. Anyone who thinks the folks at the Trib care about winning a World Series is fooling himself.

 

All they care about is putting butts in the seats each day. As long as tourists continue to make a game at Wrigley a part of their trip to Chicago they don't have to go all out to put a winner on the field. And they won't. They'll continue to half-ass it and sign guys who used to be good to make it look like they're trying in the offseason. You won't see a significant free agent signing by this franchise until there is an ownership change.

[da bears]

There needs to be some type of boycotting the crappy product. That would be the best way to send a message, by NOT filling up 99% of the stadium game in and game out. Unfortunately, that's never gonna happen. I guess our best hope is that the stadium fills up less than usual.

[Chocolate Milk]

Not filling Wrigley Field will only succede in cutting the Cubs payroll.

[LoneStarCubFan]

And the hay's already in the barn as far as this year is concerned. They aren't sold out for the rest of the year but they've certainly sold a ton of tickets already. A boycott does no good, especially when you have tourist sheep who are going to make Wrigley part of their trip to Chicago regardless of how the team is playing.

[da bears]

Yep thats the problem. Please just SELL Tribune!

[goonys evil twin]

Disney brought the Angels to the World Series. They haven't exactly lit the world on fire since being sold to a gung-ho individual owner. The Braves have enjoyed great success under the ownership of Time Warner. Pittsburgh, KC, Tampa, Colorado, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Baltimore and Detroit have shown that being owned by individuals, or a collection of individuals is not the answer. Philly has been owned by a mysterious group of very quiet behind the scenes men and have done nothing for years. LA is a big market team owner by individuals and they've been a pretty stagnant franchise for a long time.

 

Focusing on ownership as the problem is an enormous mistake. Ownership is not the answer. Ownership could help, but it won't necessarily. Remember, Reinsdorf was considered the devil for decades as the Sox owner until they finally pulled one out last year. He nearly drove that team out of town.

 

Focus should be on management and the theories and practices of management. They continuously make predictable mistakes and fail to address glaring problems. New onwership doesn't guarantee better management, it just guarantees different management.

 

Cubs fans should not give Hendry and Baker the excuse of bad ownership holding them back from great success. Hendry and Baker, and the men who surround them in management, are the reason this team has failed so miserably to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity to achieve great success. Few teams had the combination of high and consistently growning payroll, and talented farm system, that the Cubs have had the past 6 years. There's no excuse not to have done a heck of a lot better than they did.

[Larry Horse]

Goony, as long as TribCo is in charge and the Cubs are making money, MacPhail isn't going anywhere and either is Hendry. Hendry, who assembled this mess, just got a contract extension.

 

Your points justify the fact that Hendry, Baker, etc. should be fired. But the current ownership more than likely won't make the necessary personnel changes needed.

 

And plus, why not look at the Twins, Yankees, Red Sox, Marlins as success stories not under corporate ownership?

 

The entire comparison of franchises doesn't apply here anyway. The Cubs have set the standard for failure and no other team deserves to be mentioned in the same breath.

[goonys evil twin]

Goony, as long as TribCo is in charge and the Cubs are making money, MacPhail isn't going anywhere and either is Hendry. Hendry, who assembled this mess, just got a contract extension.

 

Your points justify the fact that Hendry, Baker, etc. should be fired. But the current ownership more than likely won't make the necessary personnel changes needed.

 

And plus, why not look at the Twins, Yankees, Red Sox, Marlins as success stories not under corporate ownership?

 

The entire comparison of franchises doesn't apply here anyway. The Cubs have set the standard for failure and no other team deserves to be mentioned in the same breath.

 

The tribune has fired several management types during their reign. Continued failure will affect the bottom line, and these guys will be gone if this trend continues.

 

If you're talking about the Tribune ownership you have to ignore the previous 70+ years of failure. You can't blame them for what happened before. And there are plenty of teams that have been as bad or worse than the Cubs since the Trib took over.

 

Sure there are teams under individual ownership that have enjoyed success. I never denied that. What I am arguing is that fans have to get over the familar crutch of blaming ownership, and put the focus and the blame where it belongs, management.

 

Andy and his crew brought this team from a perennial joke with occasional moderate success, to a team that could be a suuccess year in year out. Where they failed was taking the next step, and capitalizing on their earlier success. Hopefully ownership will make the necessary change to make that last step. But a change of ownership does nothing to guarantee success. Hendry, Hughes, Baker and the coaches have to go. If getting rid of Andy is the only way to get rid of those guys, then he needs to go. But I don't believe a new individual owner brings any greater chance of hiring the right guys to get the job done.

 

This always has been a management issue. Bad personel decisions have derailed this team. That's where the focus should be.

[CoolHandLuke]

The trib has allocated the money needed for a winner. The only problem I have with them is the fact that they gave Hendry an extension before anything played out.

[goonys evil twin]

The trib has allocated the money needed for a winner. The only problem I have with them is the fact that they gave Hendry an extension before anything played out.

 

That was Andy. Andy runs the baseball operations. That's on him, and it was a terrible decision. Why not wait until mid-season if you wanted to extend him during the season? The Trib has allowed the baseball people to make the baseball decisions, and that is a good thing. The problem is they've made a lot of wrong decisions.

[YearofDaCubs]

The trib has allocated the money needed for a winner. The only problem I have with them is the fact that they gave Hendry an extension before anything played out.

Although MacPhail has probably made money for the Trib and the Cubs managing and selecting GM's hasn't been his strong suit. IMO, he is part of the problem but he would never get fired.

[Larry Horse]

Goony, as long as TribCo is in charge and the Cubs are making money, MacPhail isn't going anywhere and either is Hendry. Hendry, who assembled this mess, just got a contract extension.

 

Your points justify the fact that Hendry, Baker, etc. should be fired. But the current ownership more than likely won't make the necessary personnel changes needed.

 

And plus, why not look at the Twins, Yankees, Red Sox, Marlins as success stories not under corporate ownership?

 

The entire comparison of franchises doesn't apply here anyway. The Cubs have set the standard for failure and no other team deserves to be mentioned in the same breath.

 

The tribune has fired several management types during their reign. Continued failure will affect the bottom line, and these guys will be gone if this trend continues.

 

If you're talking about the Tribune ownership you have to ignore the previous 70+ years of failure. You can't blame them for what happened before. And there are plenty of teams that have been as bad or worse than the Cubs since the Trib took over.

 

Sure there are teams under individual ownership that have enjoyed success. I never denied that. What I am arguing is that fans have to get over the familar crutch of blaming ownership, and put the focus and the blame where it belongs, management.

 

Andy and his crew brought this team from a perennial joke with occasional moderate success, to a team that could be a suuccess year in year out. Where they failed was taking the next step, and capitalizing on their earlier success. Hopefully ownership will make the necessary change to make that last step. But a change of ownership does nothing to guarantee success. Hendry, Hughes, Baker and the coaches have to go. If getting rid of Andy is the only way to get rid of those guys, then he needs to go. But I don't believe a new individual owner brings any greater chance of hiring the right guys to get the job done.

 

This always has been a management issue. Bad personel decisions have derailed this team. That's where the focus should be.

 

My response would be that the Tribune has had a quarter of a century to win a World Series, and they are still not any closer than the day they took ownership. I would be more than happy to give someone else a chance.

 

A change in ownership does not guarantee success, but keeping this current ownership does guartantee failure. The Cubs will NEVER win a Series under the Tribune watch.

[badgercub]

Goony, as long as TribCo is in charge and the Cubs are making money, MacPhail isn't going anywhere and either is Hendry. Hendry, who assembled this mess, just got a contract extension.

 

Your points justify the fact that Hendry, Baker, etc. should be fired. But the current ownership more than likely won't make the necessary personnel changes needed.

 

And plus, why not look at the Twins, Yankees, Red Sox, Marlins as success stories not under corporate ownership?

 

The entire comparison of franchises doesn't apply here anyway. The Cubs have set the standard for failure and no other team deserves to be mentioned in the same breath.

 

The Twins are a horrible example to espouse the virtues of an individual owner. Carl Pohlad is the richest individual owner of a team in MLB and yet consistently spends the least amount of money on payroll, stadium, etc.... The Twins have won because of management and player developement, not ownership spending money.

[Larry Horse]

Goony, as long as TribCo is in charge and the Cubs are making money, MacPhail isn't going anywhere and either is Hendry. Hendry, who assembled this mess, just got a contract extension.

 

Your points justify the fact that Hendry, Baker, etc. should be fired. But the current ownership more than likely won't make the necessary personnel changes needed.

 

And plus, why not look at the Twins, Yankees, Red Sox, Marlins as success stories not under corporate ownership?

 

The entire comparison of franchises doesn't apply here anyway. The Cubs have set the standard for failure and no other team deserves to be mentioned in the same breath.

 

The Twins are a horrible example to espouse the virtues of an individual owner. Carl Pohlad is the richest individual owner of a team in MLB and yet consistently spends the least amount of money on payroll, stadium, etc.... The Twins have won because of management and player developement, not ownership spending money.

 

Like I said, comparing the Cubs to other teams is apples to oranges anyway.

[goonys evil twin]

My response would be that the Tribune has had a quarter of a century to win a World Series, and they are still not any closer than the day they took ownership. I would be more than happy to give someone else a chance.

 

A change in ownership does not guarantee success, but keeping this current ownership does guartantee failure. The Cubs will NEVER win a Series under the Tribune watch.

 

There is no justification for that last statement. Disney won a world series. Why can't the Trib? They've provided more than enough resources for management to get the job done. The Trib could easily clean house after this season and bring in the right people to get the job done by 2008.

 

They haven't been great owners, but they've hardly been terrible.

[Larry Horse]

My response would be that the Tribune has had a quarter of a century to win a World Series, and they are still not any closer than the day they took ownership. I would be more than happy to give someone else a chance.

 

A change in ownership does not guarantee success, but keeping this current ownership does guartantee failure. The Cubs will NEVER win a Series under the Tribune watch.

 

There is no justification for that last statement. Disney won a world series. Why can't the Trib? They've provided more than enough resources for management to get the job done. The Trib could easily clean house after this season and bring in the right people to get the job done by 2008.

 

They haven't been great owners, but they've hardly been terrible.

 

Every management change, be it managerial or general manager, has failed. That's where my opinion comes from. How could anyone suddenly think they will magically "bring in the right people"?

 

And I don't want a owner that has "hardly been terrible".

[badgercub]

Goony, as long as TribCo is in charge and the Cubs are making money, MacPhail isn't going anywhere and either is Hendry. Hendry, who assembled this mess, just got a contract extension.

 

Your points justify the fact that Hendry, Baker, etc. should be fired. But the current ownership more than likely won't make the necessary personnel changes needed.

 

And plus, why not look at the Twins, Yankees, Red Sox, Marlins as success stories not under corporate ownership?

 

The entire comparison of franchises doesn't apply here anyway. The Cubs have set the standard for failure and no other team deserves to be mentioned in the same breath.

 

The Twins are a horrible example to espouse the virtues of an individual owner. Carl Pohlad is the richest individual owner of a team in MLB and yet consistently spends the least amount of money on payroll, stadium, etc.... The Twins have won because of management and player developement, not ownership spending money.

 

Like I said, comparing the Cubs to other teams is apples to oranges anyway.

 

but you did compare them, you said to look at the Twins, Yankees, Red Sox, Marlins.... If you look deeper, the Yankees success wasn't due to the fact George spent more money, it was that they developed guys like Jeter, Williams, Posada, Rivera, etc...... Sure, George spent money, and that helped but management and player developement were extremely important. The Marlins have tried it both ways, Huizenga spent money like a drunken sailor and then blew everything up and looked to a different model of acquiring and developing young talent. Ownership has very little to do with anything if you have good baseball people running things.

[Larry Horse]

Goony, as long as TribCo is in charge and the Cubs are making money, MacPhail isn't going anywhere and either is Hendry. Hendry, who assembled this mess, just got a contract extension.

 

Your points justify the fact that Hendry, Baker, etc. should be fired. But the current ownership more than likely won't make the necessary personnel changes needed.

 

And plus, why not look at the Twins, Yankees, Red Sox, Marlins as success stories not under corporate ownership?

 

The entire comparison of franchises doesn't apply here anyway. The Cubs have set the standard for failure and no other team deserves to be mentioned in the same breath.

 

The Twins are a horrible example to espouse the virtues of an individual owner. Carl Pohlad is the richest individual owner of a team in MLB and yet consistently spends the least amount of money on payroll, stadium, etc.... The Twins have won because of management and player developement, not ownership spending money.

 

Like I said, comparing the Cubs to other teams is apples to oranges anyway.

 

but you did compare them, you said to look at the Twins, Yankees, Red Sox, Marlins.... If you look deeper, the Yankees success wasn't due to the fact George spent more money, it was that they developed guys like Jeter, Williams, Posada, Rivera, etc...... Sure, George spent money, and that helped but management and player developement were extremely important. The Marlins have tried it both ways, Huizenga spent money like a drunken sailor and then blew everything up and looked to a different model of acquiring and developing young talent. Ownership has very little to do with anything if you have good baseball people running things.

 

That was my response to Goony's original comparison of the Cubs vs other franchises. I don't think the Cubs should be compared to anyone. They are in a class by themselves.

[goonys evil twin]

That was my response to Goony's original comparison of the Cubs vs other franchises. I don't think the Cubs should be compared to anyone. They are in a class by themselves.

 

When discussing franchise futility, sure. But when discussing current ownership? No way. They've only been in charge since what, the early 80's? Lots of teams have had similar or worse success since that time.

[LoneStarCubFan]

The Trib bought the Cubs in 1981. They're working on 25 years of futility at this point. Since 1982 the Cubs have been to the NLCS three times. The only teams who have made fewer appearances in that span are:

 

Philly- 2 (went to WS both times)

San Diego- 2 (went to WS both times)

Cincinnati- 2 (swept in one NLCS, won one WS)

Fla- 2 (won two WS)

Arizona- 1 (won WS)

 

Even the teams with fewer playoff appearances have all appeared in at least one WS since 1982 and all but two have won a World Series. Two of baseball's most recent expansion teams have won three World Series since 1997.

 

Only Milwaukee (an AL team until a few years ago), the Rockies (an expansion team), and the Expos/Nationals (who would have won their division in 94) have not been to the NLCS in that span. And Milwaukee was in the World Series in 1982.

[beowulf28]

Disney brought the Angels to the World Series. They haven't exactly lit the world on fire since being sold to a gung-ho individual owner. The Braves have enjoyed great success under the ownership of Time Warner. Pittsburgh, KC, Tampa, Colorado, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Baltimore and Detroit have shown that being owned by individuals, or a collection of individuals is not the answer. Philly has been owned by a mysterious group of very quiet behind the scenes men and have done nothing for years. LA is a big market team owner by individuals and they've been a pretty stagnant franchise for a long time.

 

Focusing on ownership as the problem is an enormous mistake. Ownership is not the answer. Ownership could help, but it won't necessarily. Remember, Reinsdorf was considered the devil for decades as the Sox owner until they finally pulled one out last year. He nearly drove that team out of town.

 

Focus should be on management and the theories and practices of management. They continuously make predictable mistakes and fail to address glaring problems. New onwership doesn't guarantee better management, it just guarantees different management.

 

Cubs fans should not give Hendry and Baker the excuse of bad ownership holding them back from great success. Hendry and Baker, and the men who surround them in management, are the reason this team has failed so miserably to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity to achieve great success. Few teams had the combination of high and consistently growning payroll, and talented farm system, that the Cubs have had the past 6 years. There's no excuse not to have done a heck of a lot better than they did.

 

I don't agree at all. I think ownership who cares can make a big difference. When you have a single owner--such as George Steinbrenner or Jerry Reinsdorf--there is one person out there to blame. There is one person you can credit or blame, unlike with a faceless corporate entity. Sure, there's probably a face they put out there to take the heat, but he may just be a figurehead.

 

Remember, corporations have shareholders, and they may or may not like sports. They may feel that any amount of money sunk into the sports entity they own is a waste of money.

 

Give me a situation like the Angels...or White Sox, DBacks, etc, have. You won't win every time, but at least you'll have ownership that generally wants to win.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't agree at all. I think ownership who cares can make a big difference. When you have a single owner--such as George Steinbrenner or Jerry Reinsdorf--there is one person out there to blame. There is one person you can credit or blame, unlike with a faceless corporate entity. Sure, there's probably a face they put out there to take the heat, but he may just be a figurehead.

 

Remember, corporations have shareholders, and they may or may not like sports. They may feel that any amount of money sunk into the sports entity they own is a waste of money.

 

Give me a situation like the Angels...or White Sox, DBacks, etc, have. You won't win every time, but at least you'll have ownership that generally wants to win.

 

The Angels won when they were owned by a corporation.

 

What good does it do to have one owner to blame?

[Banedon]

What good does it do to have one owner to blame?

 

I understand where you're coming from goony, and rationally, it makes sense. But I think people see that what we've had in place at all levels hasn't worked. There's a lot of frustration with the status quo, and the Tribune is a faceless corporate entity at the top of the food chain that's easy to target. The Cubs are a major market team, and if they are bought by a reasonably wealthy individual, with a strong desire to get the team to win, the payroll and such should take care of itself through revenues (or so I tell myself). It may not make an immediate positive difference, but I think people are willing to take the risk at this point.

 

It's probably change for the sake of change. But I'm not sure it can really hurt us much more than we are now...at least record-wise.

[beowulf28]

I don't agree at all. I think ownership who cares can make a big difference. When you have a single owner--such as George Steinbrenner or Jerry Reinsdorf--there is one person out there to blame. There is one person you can credit or blame, unlike with a faceless corporate entity. Sure, there's probably a face they put out there to take the heat, but he may just be a figurehead.

 

Remember, corporations have shareholders, and they may or may not like sports. They may feel that any amount of money sunk into the sports entity they own is a waste of money.

 

Give me a situation like the Angels...or White Sox, DBacks, etc, have. You won't win every time, but at least you'll have ownership that generally wants to win.

 

The Angels won when they were owned by a corporation.

 

What good does it do to have one owner to blame?

 

Accountability...with corporate ownership, there's no accountability. There's only a figurehead.