Sale of Cubs Update #24

[Careless]

I guess one response of the Tribune would be to agree to sell the Cubs to Canning but sell Wrigley Field to another entity or hold on to Wrigley as well. If Canning offered 650 million and another buyer offered closer to 1 billion. The Cubs could tell Canning that his bid was only sufficient to buy the Cubs but not the Cubs and Wrigley.

 

I don't think there's anything that gives MLB power to say who owns Wrigley Field.

now that's an excellent point. Hold the field hostage.

[CubFanPhilly]

I guess one response of the Tribune would be to agree to sell the Cubs to Canning but sell Wrigley Field to another entity or hold on to Wrigley as well. If Canning offered 650 million and another buyer offered closer to 1 billion. The Cubs could tell Canning that his bid was only sufficient to buy the Cubs but not the Cubs and Wrigley.

 

I don't think there's anything that gives MLB power to say who owns Wrigley Field.

 

Why would Canning accept a counter of just the Cubs if he bid $650 mil. for the club and the park? I don't see that happening. And if the difference in offers is as large as $350 mil., the Trib and the Trustee are asking for a lawsuit (brought by the employees and/or the Department of Labor).

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I guess one response of the Tribune would be to agree to sell the Cubs to Canning but sell Wrigley Field to another entity or hold on to Wrigley as well. If Canning offered 650 million and another buyer offered closer to 1 billion. The Cubs could tell Canning that his bid was only sufficient to buy the Cubs but not the Cubs and Wrigley.

 

I don't think there's anything that gives MLB power to say who owns Wrigley Field.

 

Why would Canning accept a counter of just the Cubs if he bid $650 mil. for the club and the park? I don't see that happening. And if the difference in offers is as large as $350 mil., the Trib and the Trustee are asking for a lawsuit (brought by the employees and/or the Department of Labor).

 

Well, if Canning doesn't accept the counter he basically removes himself from the running. Selig then would no longer have a crony among the bidders.

[CubColtPacer]

I guess one response of the Tribune would be to agree to sell the Cubs to Canning but sell Wrigley Field to another entity or hold on to Wrigley as well. If Canning offered 650 million and another buyer offered closer to 1 billion. The Cubs could tell Canning that his bid was only sufficient to buy the Cubs but not the Cubs and Wrigley.

 

I don't think there's anything that gives MLB power to say who owns Wrigley Field.

 

Why would Canning accept a counter of just the Cubs if he bid $650 mil. for the club and the park? I don't see that happening. And if the difference in offers is as large as $350 mil., the Trib and the Trustee are asking for a lawsuit (brought by the employees and/or the Department of Labor).

 

Well, if Canning doesn't accept the counter he basically removes himself from the running. Selig then would no longer have a crony among the bidders.

 

Then MLB simply doesn't approve any of the other owners, and the Tribune remains stuck with the Cubs who they don't want anymore. That doesn't sound like a good plan for the future of this franchise.

[CubFanPhilly]

I guess one response of the Tribune would be to agree to sell the Cubs to Canning but sell Wrigley Field to another entity or hold on to Wrigley as well. If Canning offered 650 million and another buyer offered closer to 1 billion. The Cubs could tell Canning that his bid was only sufficient to buy the Cubs but not the Cubs and Wrigley.

 

I don't think there's anything that gives MLB power to say who owns Wrigley Field.

 

Why would Canning accept a counter of just the Cubs if he bid $650 mil. for the club and the park? I don't see that happening. And if the difference in offers is as large as $350 mil., the Trib and the Trustee are asking for a lawsuit (brought by the employees and/or the Department of Labor).

 

Well, if Canning doesn't accept the counter he basically removes himself from the running. Selig then would no longer have a crony among the bidders.

 

Which is exactly what I expect would happen if the difference in bids is that large. Selig's influence can only determine the buyer if there isn't a significant difference in the bids. I doubt that any bidder, no matter how cozy with Selig, is going to accept just the ballclub for what they thought the ballclub and the park were worth.

[Banedon]

I guess one response of the Tribune would be to agree to sell the Cubs to Canning but sell Wrigley Field to another entity or hold on to Wrigley as well. If Canning offered 650 million and another buyer offered closer to 1 billion. The Cubs could tell Canning that his bid was only sufficient to buy the Cubs but not the Cubs and Wrigley.

 

I don't think there's anything that gives MLB power to say who owns Wrigley Field.

now that's an excellent point. Hold the field hostage.

 

This is where I fear that this whole deal is going to get a little nuts, and the chaos could trickle down to the team. If the field's being held hostage, or the Trib continues to wait out for the highest bidder and gets into a stalemate with MLB, I'm afraid the team won't be allowed access to the resources it might need to put the most competitive team on the field.

 

Of course that may force the hand of Jim and Lou and force them to go young...hmmm.

[Fro]

The other unique situation with the Tribune is they have the resources to give MLB or any of the individual owners a pretty big black eye if they want to force the team into taking a lowball bid.

 

They're a very powerful media company. With stuff like the steroid scandal floating around I wouldn't want them digging around if I were Selig or any of the other owners.

 

The desire to get the best deal done to make/save the most money trumps everything else for Zell's Tribune.

[davearm]

Wouldn't it be something if Selig and co. tried to ram a lowball bid from Canning down the Trib's throat, but Canning couldn't get approved by the owners?

 

I know this sounds totally ridiculous and completely implausible, but these guys have their own franchise values to be concerned about. At some point enough of them might rebel against Selig strongarming a club's ownership into taking less than market value on a sale.

 

You can be sure the thought will occur, "if the Trib has to take $650M when the Cubs are really worth $900M or $1B, what does that do to the value of *my* franchise?"

[d_money]

This would be less of a mess if the commissioner of baseball, as it was initially intended, was an unbiased 3rd party with no ties to either the players or ownership.

[CubinNY]

This would be less of a mess if the commissioner of baseball, as it was initially intended, was an unbiased 3rd party with no ties to either the players or ownership.

Nicely put.

[Fred Hornkohl]

This would be less of a mess if the commissioner of baseball, as it was initially intended, was an unbiased 3rd party with no ties to either the players or ownership.

Nicely put.

 

My gosh, I don't know where you guys get this from !!! Kennesaw Mountain Landis, the original commissioner of baseball, was a judge who was hired by the owners of MLB as a PR move to attempt to minimize the damage of the Black Sox Scandal of 1919. Just incidently, he's the same judge who, just 5 years earlier, kept inexplicably delaying the court action that the Federal League brought against Major League Baseball until the Federal League folded and the "problem" went away. Unbiased ?? No ties ?? Give me a break !!!

[CubinNY]

This would be less of a mess if the commissioner of baseball, as it was initially intended, was an unbiased 3rd party with no ties to either the players or ownership.

Nicely put.

 

My gosh, I don't know where you guys get this from !!! Kennesaw Mountain Landis, the original commissioner of baseball, was a judge who was hired by the owners of MLB as a PR move to attempt to minimize the damage of the Black Sox Scandal of 1919. Just incidently, he's the same judge who, just 5 years earlier, kept inexplicably delaying the court action that the Federal League brought against Major League Baseball until the Federal League folded and the "problem" went away. Unbiased ?? No ties ?? Give me a break !!!

Landis was a nasty character, there is no doubt. He also got Jack Johsnon banned from boxing. However, Unless I don't know my history he was also not a former baseball owner. And as far as I know he also was fiercely independent, ruling for the players as often as ruling for the league in labor disputes.

 

Landis was responsible for keeping Blacks out of baseball among many other dispicable things, but he is generally regarded as an independent voice among baseball historians.

 

I think all the commishiners were non-owners up to Selig.

[Fred Hornkohl]

This would be less of a mess if the commissioner of baseball, as it was initially intended, was an unbiased 3rd party with no ties to either the players or ownership.

Nicely put.

 

My gosh, I don't know where you guys get this from !!! Kennesaw Mountain Landis, the original commissioner of baseball, was a judge who was hired by the owners of MLB as a PR move to attempt to minimize the damage of the Black Sox Scandal of 1919. Just incidently, he's the same judge who, just 5 years earlier, kept inexplicably delaying the court action that the Federal League brought against Major League Baseball until the Federal League folded and the "problem" went away. Unbiased ?? No ties ?? Give me a break !!!

Landis was a nasty character, there is no doubt. He also got Jack Johsnon banned from boxing. However, Unless I don't know my history he was also not a former baseball owner. And as far as I know he also was fiercely independent, ruling for the players as often as ruling for the league in labor disputes.

 

Landis was responsible for keeping Blacks out of baseball among many other dispicable things, but he is generally regarded as an independent voice among baseball historians.

 

I think all the commishiners were non-owners up to Selig.

 

You're quite correct about Selig being the first owner/commissioner. But the point still stands. Commissioners are hired and fired by the MLB owners. Any pretense of their independence is PR, and nothing more.

[Derwood]

i'm not sure why anyone here thinks that the Trib really cares what the new ownership group will do with the team once it's sold.

[jdelaney5150]

I think there's more drama being discussed about here than is actually happening in reality. First of all, the notion that any buyer would accept buying the Cubs without Wrigley Field is ludicrous. That would be like someone selling a car but when the buyer makes too low an offer saying "ok, I'll give you the car but you have to pay me to get the key every time you want to drive it." Hence, that would not even be a proposal from the Trib company.

 

All this talk right now in the press articles about "having to pay top dollar" should be seen in the same light as when an agent like Boras comes out and says about his client "we'll start the bidding at 5 years, $100 million." It's PR and making an attempt to drive up as many of the bids as possible. What sense would it make to say "yeah, really Canning is the only one we're gonna approve so even if his offer is lower it's gonna be accepted". It's a negotiation like any other. What goes on behind closed doors is another matter altogether.

 

I believe that if the difference between bids is small (<5%), then Selig is likely to get through the candidate he supports. However, if it is larger than that you can believe that the Trib will fight for Canning (or whoever the low-ball bidder is) to match the highest bid or will pressure Selig to approve whoever the highest bidder is. In a lot of cases Selig may not care about the bad PR, but remember that the Tribune IS the media. You do not want to get into a fight with a company that can literally flood the market with one negative editorial after another about you.

[Coach C]

i'm not sure why anyone here thinks that the Trib really cares what the new ownership group will do with the team once it's sold.

 

They probably won't. But they do care on how much value they will be getting for the Cubs.

[Derwood]

i'm not sure why anyone here thinks that the Trib really cares what the new ownership group will do with the team once it's sold.

 

They probably won't. But they do care on how much value they will be getting for the Cubs.

 

it just seems that some people are arguing Cuban over Cannings based on what would be best for the team, where the Trib is just going to do what's best for them

[Fro]

i'm not sure why anyone here thinks that the Trib really cares what the new ownership group will do with the team once it's sold.

 

Obviously they want the most money they can get for the team, but an owner who tanked the team wouldn't be good for WGN's bottom line, or the Chicago Tribune's, to a much lesser extent. I'm sure they sold a few more papers during the 2003 postseason than they normally do. It's not a huge factor, but if two bids were equal it'd break the tie.