Tribune and the World Series

[goonys evil twin]

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.

 

People have been complaining about sports owners since sports went pro. I think it's pointless. Yes, more pointless than whining about crappy players like Neifi or Pierre, or guys like Hendry and Baker.

 

Pro teams aren't just sold at the drop of a hat. No fan or group of fans is going to be successful trying to talk somebody into buying or selling a pro sports franchise. GM's, managers, coaches and players are replaced on a weekly basis in baseball. How often is a team sold? Once every 3 or 4 years?

 

I think complaining about owners is just a crutch, used by people like Mariotti who don't feel like delving deep into the problem and who only want the easy story.

 

By no means do I think the Tribune has been a great owner. But they've done as much or more as just about any other owner out there (they've certainly done more than Reinsdorf). Their management has failed. The problem is with management. Yes, it is ownership's responsibility to hire the right decision makers, but make no mistake, the problems we deal with are a result of moves by management. The Trib hired a fantastic candidate in Andy MacPhail to run their operations. He gave them no reason to replace him until the Hendry extension. You can't sit back with an objective eye and say Andy obviously had to go before. He was responsible for the resurrection of this franchise, and for bringing them to a spot where fans actually expected success. And he deserves credit for the financial success of the team as well.

 

Ownership gave Andy plenty of resources to get the job done. Andy's faith in Hendry is starting to really hurt the team. But you can't go nuts on ownership for that.

 

Players play. Coaches coach. GM's generally manage, and owners own. I'd say, out of all 4 of those categories, that the owners are the only ones who have done a reasonable job. Not great, but reasonable.

 

Of all the things to wish and hope for in pro sports, ownership change is about the biggest waste of time as any. Fans can revolt on a player and get him traded. Fans can grease the skids for a coach or even a GM by being loud enough. But fans aren't going to cause a pro sports owner to sell. The only possible way to have that happen is to completely abandon a team and force them into financial ruin. And that would defeat the whole purpose of a fan wanting to see the team get better.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I would think that people who become rich enough to independently buy baseball teams have similar mentalities as the board of directors of a corporation. Sure there are people like Cuban(different sport) and Steinbrenner(does a lot of harm as well), but what about people like Glass and Loria and Huizenga(sp)?

[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?

 

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

 

Andy is the president of the Cubs. He's accountable. Jim Hendry is the GM, he is accountable. Baker is the manager, he is accountable. Do you really think it accomplishes anything to have one guy to bitch at when times are tough? Individual owners aren't accountable to anybody.

 

And are you just going to keep ignoring the fact that the Angels won the world series when owned by Disney?

 

Ownership structure is not the reason this team sucks right now. Incompetent management decisions is.

[CubfaninCA]

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?

 

true, disney won a title. everything went right for anaheim the year they won it all. i'll bet tho that they have a much better winning percentage w/ moreno as owner. iirc the angels mostly sucked under disney. also, i recall how the dodgers went downhill when fox bought them.

[Jon]

One of the great things about the Tribune Co. is that they've provided a consistent and increasing payroll. If the team doesn't do well, management doesn't have to worry that ownership is going to cut payroll and require them to shed some contracts. Management pretty much knows what they're going to have in the future and can make moves accordingly.

 

A lot of GMs don't have that luxury.

[goonys evil twin]

true, disney won a title. everything went right for anaheim the year they won it all. i'll bet tho that they have a much better winning percentage w/ moreno as owner. iirc the angels mostly sucked under disney. also, i recall how the dodgers went downhill when fox bought them.

 

Disney was only the primary owner from about 1999-2002. They were under .500 the year Moreno bought them and are under .500 now. I'm not sure about the winning percentage, but the fact remains you can win with a corporate owner. And if you want to talk about winning percentage, what about the Braves and Time Warner?

 

This is a pointless topic. Ownership structure does not guarantee a thing. An individual owner can be just as profit driven, or maybe moreso, as some "faceless corporation". Generic corporation bashing very rarely has any substance to it. It's just an easy target that nobody is going to defend.

 

Owners hire somebody to run the team and give them resources to spend on the team. The Trib hired a well respected baseball man with a championship pedigree. Andy brought this team to some respectability. Maybe it's time for him to leave. It's definitely time for Hendry and Baker to leave. But fans should call for ownership to make those moves. Wasting time asking them to sell is pointless.

[YearofDaCubs]

Tribune owning the Cubs IMO isn't a problem considering our payroll is close to 100mil. What the problem is, is having MacPhail in charge of the Cubs org and giving extensions to people whom do not deserve it.

[Banedon]

People have been complaining about sports owners since sports went pro. I think it's pointless. Yes, more pointless than whining about crappy players like Neifi or Pierre, or guys like Hendry and Baker.

 

Pro teams aren't just sold at the drop of a hat. No fan or group of fans is going to be successful trying to talk somebody into buying or selling a pro sports franchise. GM's, managers, coaches and players are replaced on a weekly basis in baseball. How often is a team sold? Once every 3 or 4 years?

 

I think complaining about owners is just a crutch, used by people like Mariotti who don't feel like delving deep into the problem and who only want the easy story.

 

By no means do I think the Tribune has been a great owner. But they've done as much or more as just about any other owner out there (they've certainly done more than Reinsdorf). Their management has failed. The problem is with management. Yes, it is ownership's responsibility to hire the right decision makers, but make no mistake, the problems we deal with are a result of moves by management. The Trib hired a fantastic candidate in Andy MacPhail to run their operations. He gave them no reason to replace him until the Hendry extension. You can't sit back with an objective eye and say Andy obviously had to go before. He was responsible for the resurrection of this franchise, and for bringing them to a spot where fans actually expected success. And he deserves credit for the financial success of the team as well.

 

Ownership gave Andy plenty of resources to get the job done. Andy's faith in Hendry is starting to really hurt the team. But you can't go nuts on ownership for that.

 

Players play. Coaches coach. GM's generally manage, and owners own. I'd say, out of all 4 of those categories, that the owners are the only ones who have done a reasonable job. Not great, but reasonable.

 

Of all the things to wish and hope for in pro sports, ownership change is about the biggest waste of time as any. Fans can revolt on a player and get him traded. Fans can grease the skids for a coach or even a GM by being loud enough. But fans aren't going to cause a pro sports owner to sell. The only possible way to have that happen is to completely abandon a team and force them into financial ruin. And that would defeat the whole purpose of a fan wanting to see the team get better.

 

Not much to argue with there Goony. The only thing I can say is that I'm not crusading for an ownership change. That said, if an ownership change took place, I'd probably be all for it, simply because it would like cause a trickle down effect of replacement.

[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?

 

true, disney won a title. everything went right for anaheim the year they won it all. i'll bet tho that they have a much better winning percentage w/ moreno as owner. iirc the angels mostly sucked under disney. also, i recall how the dodgers went downhill when fox bought them.

 

First, Goony, I want to appologize. I'm venting, which seems to be common for a Cubs fan these days. :oops: :roll:

 

Second, I realize that the Angels won a WS under the Disney company, but as CubfaninCA said, everything went right for them the year they won it all. I also look at the Atlanta Braves, who are owned by Time Warner, and although they appear to be doing well, how much of the team was already a part of the team that Ted Turner owned. I'm not just talking about Chipper or Andruw Jones, but the young guys. How many of them were in the system from Ted Turner's ownership?

 

But really, I'm just venting right now.

[YearofDaCubs]

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?

 

true, disney won a title. everything went right for anaheim the year they won it all. i'll bet tho that they have a much better winning percentage w/ moreno as owner. iirc the angels mostly sucked under disney. also, i recall how the dodgers went downhill when fox bought them.

 

First, Goony, I want to appologize. I'm venting, which seems to be common for a Cubs fan these days. :oops: :roll:

 

Second, I realize that the Angels won a WS under the Disney company, but as CubfaninCA said, everything went right for them the year they won it all. I also look at the Atlanta Braves, who are owned by Time Warner, and although they appear to be doing well, how much of the team was already a part of the team that Ted Turner owned. I'm not just talking about Chipper or Andruw Jones, but the young guys. How many of them were in the system from Ted Turner's ownership?

 

But really, I'm just venting right now.

I dont know when Turner started owning the Braves but they have been good for a long time now, at least since 1995.

[goonys evil twin]

Time Warner bought out Turner around 1996. Yes, he was owner as they built them up, but a corporation has been at the helm for most of their division titles.

 

If you think corporate ownership is the problem, how do you explain the Phillip Wrigley era? They were an abomination for much of his time. Ownership change could be nice. But management change is more important to the fortunes of the team, and a more realistic goal for fans to quest.

[bhogg]

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.

 

 

i agree with you. Some of the arguments in this thread suggest that MacPhail, Hendry, and Baker are responsible for putting butts in the seats. That's not the case at all.

 

I recall a time when the Cubs spent next to nothing on payroll --- see 1989 when the Cubs were next to last in the NL in payroll. Over the years, fans complained, and payroll increased. Today, the Cubs have a huge payroll. That payroll is coming from the trib, right?

 

 

There's really no good answer for the Cubs' problem. I'm like many of you -- I don't believe there is much inspiration for the club to win. If they win, they make a crap ton of money. If they lose, they make a crap ton of money.

 

I just dont buy the argument that MacPhail and Hendry won't go anywhere because we're making money. We made money with Himes, Frey, etc etc etc.