Re: Cuban's chances getting better than we thought?

[CuseCubFan69]

It is beyond absurd that the organization's front office is being held up by the amount of office space inside of Wrigley Field.

 

If true, wow.

 

Is it even true that they have fewer front office types than most teams? They have about a half dozen special assistants to the GM. They've got 15 names in the baseball ops section. I'm sure teams like the Mets and White Sox, with a bunch of people actually considered part of the ownership group, probably have more names. And the Yankees seemingly have 2 front offices, in the Bronx and in Tampa. But I've never heard anything about the Cubs lacking bodies in the front office.

 

I think I remember reading something that said the Cubs have the fewest full-time employees (employees working all year round) than any other team in baseball.

 

Sounds more like back office types than what I consider front office. Front office are your heads of baseball operations and whatnot. Marketing and ticket sales people are more like support staff, especially for a team like the Cubs that doesn't need help selling tickets.

 

No everyone at Wrigley who works in the office in considered front office. And those department heads you mention, don't have very many employees which report to them. Front office means all non uniformed full time employees. At least that is the terminology throughout MLB.

 

Ticket sales people are not part of the front office. They are part time unionized employees. There are people who work the ticket office year round (the ones who handle group and season tickets) and I don't envy them. Fans give them a verbal beating on a regular basis.

 

Is Frank Mahoney still in charge RIV?

 

Frank Maloney is the Director of Ticket Operations.

 

 

I thought Frank was still there but I wasn't sure...thanks. Boy, he's living my dream, coach Syracuse and then work for the Cubs.

[CoolHandLuke]

It is beyond absurd that the organization's front office is being held up by the amount of office space inside of Wrigley Field.

 

If true, wow.

 

Trust me...it's true. Remember the old donut shop? That became media relations in 2005 because there was no place to put them when they expanded another department. Now Media Relations is in a trailer in the parking lot. One very small department has people in four different areas because there is not a space to accomodate them all.

 

It's an old ballpark and there is no more room to add office space. So if they redo the grandstand, I think the current employees might be quite happy. It was why everyone was looking forward to the triangle building on the corner of Clark and Waveland as it would have included office space.

 

How hard would it be to rent some office space somewhere? It makes no sense that they allow the space in Wrigley to constrict them.

[Soul]

It is beyond absurd that the organization's front office is being held up by the amount of office space inside of Wrigley Field.

 

If true, wow.

 

Trust me...it's true. Remember the old donut shop? That became media relations in 2005 because there was no place to put them when they expanded another department. Now Media Relations is in a trailer in the parking lot. One very small department has people in four different areas because there is not a space to accomodate them all.

 

It's an old ballpark and there is no more room to add office space. So if they redo the grandstand, I think the current employees might be quite happy. It was why everyone was looking forward to the triangle building on the corner of Clark and Waveland as it would have included office space.

 

How hard would it be to rent some office space somewhere? It makes no sense that they allow the space in Wrigley to constrict them.

 

Yeah I don't get that either.

[CuseCubFan69]

It is beyond absurd that the organization's front office is being held up by the amount of office space inside of Wrigley Field.

 

If true, wow.

 

Trust me...it's true. Remember the old donut shop? That became media relations in 2005 because there was no place to put them when they expanded another department. Now Media Relations is in a trailer in the parking lot. One very small department has people in four different areas because there is not a space to accomodate them all.

 

It's an old ballpark and there is no more room to add office space. So if they redo the grandstand, I think the current employees might be quite happy. It was why everyone was looking forward to the triangle building on the corner of Clark and Waveland as it would have included office space.

 

How hard would it be to rent some office space somewhere? It makes no sense that they allow the space in Wrigley to constrict them.

 

Yeah I don't get that either.

 

Maybe because that would cost extra money while they are already paying for the space at Wrigley?

[RedIvyCub]

It is beyond absurd that the organization's front office is being held up by the amount of office space inside of Wrigley Field.

 

If true, wow.

 

Trust me...it's true. Remember the old donut shop? That became media relations in 2005 because there was no place to put them when they expanded another department. Now Media Relations is in a trailer in the parking lot. One very small department has people in four different areas because there is not a space to accomodate them all.

 

It's an old ballpark and there is no more room to add office space. So if they redo the grandstand, I think the current employees might be quite happy. It was why everyone was looking forward to the triangle building on the corner of Clark and Waveland as it would have included office space.

 

How hard would it be to rent some office space somewhere? It makes no sense that they allow the space in Wrigley to constrict them.

 

Maybe this might prove to the masses that the Cubs don't print money under the grandstands????

[RedIvyCub]

Maybe because that would cost extra money while they are already paying for the space at Wrigley?

 

But they don't pay for the space at Wrigley. Tribune outright owns the ballpark so they don't pay rent for office space...they own it.

 

Another reason, Cubs aren't making money hand over fist as everyone here believes.

[CuseCubFan69]

Maybe because that would cost extra money while they are already paying for the space at Wrigley?

 

But they don't pay for the space at Wrigley. Tribune outright owns the ballpark so they don't pay rent for office space...they own it.

 

Another reason, Cubs aren't making money hand over fist as everyone here believes.

 

That's what I meant, they already have the space paid for then and don't want to use/pay any extra.

[Jehrico]

It is beyond absurd that the organization's front office is being held up by the amount of office space inside of Wrigley Field.

 

If true, wow.

 

Trust me...it's true. Remember the old donut shop? That became media relations in 2005 because there was no place to put them when they expanded another department. Now Media Relations is in a trailer in the parking lot. One very small department has people in four different areas because there is not a space to accomodate them all.

 

It's an old ballpark and there is no more room to add office space. So if they redo the grandstand, I think the current employees might be quite happy. It was why everyone was looking forward to the triangle building on the corner of Clark and Waveland as it would have included office space.

 

How hard would it be to rent some office space somewhere? It makes no sense that they allow the space in Wrigley to constrict them.

 

Maybe this might prove to the masses that the Cubs don't print money under the grandstands????

No. That's why they're short on office space.

[davearm2]

So in 2000, Cuban bought the Mavericks for $285million. They were worth at the time $167million and the 23rd most valuable franchise out of 29 teams. Last season they were worth $463 million, good for #3 on the list. [greenfont]Clearly he doesn't know how to operate a business. Not to mention having only mediocre success with every other business venture he has ever taken on.[greenfont]

Let me preface this by saying that I think Cuban would be a great choice. However, defending his ability to run a business really doesn't do much to further his cause to non-believers, especially in the Cubs case. The man is going to make an obscene amount of money with the Cubs no matter what he does; the question is, is he going to run his business like Jeffrey Loria or like Steinbrenner?

And by like Jeffrey Loria, I would mean keep the payroll the same and not drastically change the team. Loria makes a ton of money by selling his young players high at the cost of the team's (continued) success. My finance major friend says he's the best owner in baseball because of his business savvy. I think he's an a-hole.

There could be any number of different ways to define the best owner in baseball, and profitability is certainly one.

 

Most fans would use some variation of wins and losses/playoff appearances/world series titles as the yardstick. The Marlins don't measure up too well on that scale, even after having won the WS in each of their two playoff seasons.

 

Regardless, it's pretty hard to make a case for a guy being the best owner in baseball when his team is perennially at or near the bottom of the league in attendance (MLB ranks since 2001: 29th, 29th, 28th, 26th, 28th, 30th, 30th, 30th so far in '08).

[davearm2]

I think its an extremely important point though for Bud Selig and all of the other owners voting for approval as well. Cuban has taken an operating loss several years (almost an 18 million dollar loss last season) on the Mavericks yet the franchise value continues to improve vs. the rest of the league. Cuban's business approach is still geared long term, nothing short term, and nothing that will impact the team in any given season. So no there is no comparison to Loria what so ever.

I think it's pretty reasonable to ding Cuban and the Mavs for their long-term vs. short-term decisionmaking in light of the Jason Kidd trade.

 

That'd be the equivalent of the Cubs trading Rich Hill and prospects for someone like Randy Johnson.

[Tyrant]

 

Most fans would use some variation of wins and losses/playoff appearances/world series titles as the yardstick. The Marlins don't measure up too well on that scale, even after having won the WS in each of their two playoff seasons.

 

 

In the last 15 years, Loria has more World Series titles than any other owner besides Steinbrenner.

[Outshined_One]

So in 2000, Cuban bought the Mavericks for $285million. They were worth at the time $167million and the 23rd most valuable franchise out of 29 teams. Last season they were worth $463 million, good for #3 on the list. [greenfont]Clearly he doesn't know how to operate a business. Not to mention having only mediocre success with every other business venture he has ever taken on.[greenfont]

Let me preface this by saying that I think Cuban would be a great choice. However, defending his ability to run a business really doesn't do much to further his cause to non-believers, especially in the Cubs case. The man is going to make an obscene amount of money with the Cubs no matter what he does; the question is, is he going to run his business like Jeffrey Loria or like Steinbrenner?

And by like Jeffrey Loria, I would mean keep the payroll the same and not drastically change the team. Loria makes a ton of money by selling his young players high at the cost of the team's (continued) success. My finance major friend says he's the best owner in baseball because of his business savvy. I think he's an a-hole.

There could be any number of different ways to define the best owner in baseball, and profitability is certainly one.

 

Most fans would use some variation of wins and losses/playoff appearances/world series titles as the yardstick. The Marlins don't measure up too well on that scale, even after having won the WS in each of their two playoff seasons.

 

Regardless, it's pretty hard to make a case for a guy being the best owner in baseball when his team is perennially at or near the bottom of the league in attendance (MLB ranks since 2001: 29th, 29th, 28th, 26th, 28th, 30th, 30th, 30th so far in '08).

 

Think of it this way.

 

Let's say you have a publicly traded company that is not particularly well-run. It's making a profit, but it's not performing up to its potential. However, the employees are treated well with plenty of vacation time and generous bonuses. Long-time customers get contracts for their goods at below market prices.

 

One day, someone with a boatload of money comes around and launches a hostile acquisition of the company. He buys out all the shareholders at $2b total, takes the company private, fires the Board of Directors, and puts his own people in place. Over the next three years, the guy who bought the company proceeds to cut costs in a huge way. He fires employees. He cuts down on bonuses. Subsidiaries are sold off to competitors. The price of the goods sold gets jacked up twofold. Regulatory compliance costs (OSHA, Environmental, etc.) are cut to the point where the company is still in compliance, but just barely.

 

Now the company is making a great profit. The company's value has increased from $2b to $5b. However, at the same time, employees, clients, and long-time customers are miserable. After carving out a path of destruction, the guy sells the company off at $5b just before the company begins to suffer a downward turn that leads into an eventual collapse due to all of the things I outlined above.

 

If you think of it from a business perspective, the guy who bought out that company at $2b was a great businessman. He made a 150% return on his investment, which is phenomenal. The company is also making a much better profit than when he first acquired it. You can say that his business savvy paid off.

 

However, in a larger sense, the guy completely killed the company. He alienated customers. He fired employees. He did a lot of really bad things that eventually led to the company's downfall. He made a terrific profit, but at the same time, he wrecked what once was a pretty good thing for a lot of people. He didn't care about the little people he crushed in carrying out his business plan. On a personal level, the man acted in a rather disgusting way.

 

Maybe he's a good businessman in the sense that he got a great return on his investment, but there's something to be said for the consequences of his actions.

[CubinNY]

So in 2000, Cuban bought the Mavericks for $285million. They were worth at the time $167million and the 23rd most valuable franchise out of 29 teams. Last season they were worth $463 million, good for #3 on the list. [greenfont]Clearly he doesn't know how to operate a business. Not to mention having only mediocre success with every other business venture he has ever taken on.[greenfont]

Let me preface this by saying that I think Cuban would be a great choice. However, defending his ability to run a business really doesn't do much to further his cause to non-believers, especially in the Cubs case. The man is going to make an obscene amount of money with the Cubs no matter what he does; the question is, is he going to run his business like Jeffrey Loria or like Steinbrenner?

And by like Jeffrey Loria, I would mean keep the payroll the same and not drastically change the team. Loria makes a ton of money by selling his young players high at the cost of the team's (continued) success. My finance major friend says he's the best owner in baseball because of his business savvy. I think he's an a-hole.

There could be any number of different ways to define the best owner in baseball, and profitability is certainly one.

 

Most fans would use some variation of wins and losses/playoff appearances/world series titles as the yardstick. The Marlins don't measure up too well on that scale, even after having won the WS in each of their two playoff seasons.

 

Regardless, it's pretty hard to make a case for a guy being the best owner in baseball when his team is perennially at or near the bottom of the league in attendance (MLB ranks since 2001: 29th, 29th, 28th, 26th, 28th, 30th, 30th, 30th so far in '08).

 

Think of it this way.

 

Let's say you have a publicly traded company that is not particularly well-run. It's making a profit, but it's not performing up to its potential. However, the employees are treated well with plenty of vacation time and generous bonuses. Long-time customers get contracts for their goods at below market prices.

 

One day, someone with a boatload of money comes around and launches a hostile acquisition of the company. He buys out all the shareholders at $2b total, takes the company private, fires the Board of Directors, and puts his own people in place. Over the next three years, the guy who bought the company proceeds to cut costs in a huge way. He fires employees. He cuts down on bonuses. Subsidiaries are sold off to competitors. The price of the goods sold gets jacked up twofold. Regulatory compliance costs (OSHA, Environmental, etc.) are cut to the point where the company is still in compliance, but just barely.

 

Now the company is making a great profit. The company's value has increased from $2b to $5b. However, at the same time, employees, clients, and long-time customers are miserable. After carving out a path of destruction, the guy sells the company off at $5b just before the company begins to suffer a downward turn that leads into an eventual collapse due to all of the things I outlined above.

 

If you think of it from a business perspective, the guy who bought out that company at $2b was a great businessman. He made a 150% return on his investment, which is phenomenal. The company is also making a much better profit than when he first acquired it. You can say that his business savvy paid off.

 

However, in a larger sense, the guy completely killed the company. He alienated customers. He fired employees. He did a lot of really bad things that eventually led to the company's downfall. He made a terrific profit, but at the same time, he wrecked what once was a pretty good thing for a lot of people. He didn't care about the little people he crushed in carrying out his business plan. On a personal level, the man acted in a rather disgusting way.

 

Maybe he's a good businessman in the sense that he got a great return on his investment, but there's something to be said for the consequences of his actions.

Wow! what a great post.

[VanceJergins]

I think its an extremely important point though for Bud Selig and all of the other owners voting for approval as well. Cuban has taken an operating loss several years (almost an 18 million dollar loss last season) on the Mavericks yet the franchise value continues to improve vs. the rest of the league. Cuban's business approach is still geared long term, nothing short term, and nothing that will impact the team in any given season. So no there is no comparison to Loria what so ever.

I think it's pretty reasonable to ding Cuban and the Mavs for their long-term vs. short-term decisionmaking in light of the Jason Kidd trade.

 

That'd be the equivalent of the Cubs trading Rich Hill and prospects for someone like Randy Johnson.

 

Hill is already significantly better than Johnson at this point. I'm not very familiar with the Kidd trade, but I have a hard time believing it would be as bad as Hill and prospects for Johnson.

[davearm2]

 

Most fans would use some variation of wins and losses/playoff appearances/world series titles as the yardstick. The Marlins don't measure up too well on that scale, even after having won the WS in each of their two playoff seasons.

 

 

In the last 15 years, Loria has more World Series titles than any other owner besides Steinbrenner.

Wrong.

 

Loria has owned the Marlins since 2002. Prior to that, he owned the Expos for 2 years, in 2000 and 2001.

 

So in 8 years of owning MLB teams, Loria sports a 620-676 record, 1 playoff appearance, and 1 WS title. Not a very difficult resume to top at all.

[davearm2]

I think its an extremely important point though for Bud Selig and all of the other owners voting for approval as well. Cuban has taken an operating loss several years (almost an 18 million dollar loss last season) on the Mavericks yet the franchise value continues to improve vs. the rest of the league. Cuban's business approach is still geared long term, nothing short term, and nothing that will impact the team in any given season. So no there is no comparison to Loria what so ever.

I think it's pretty reasonable to ding Cuban and the Mavs for their long-term vs. short-term decisionmaking in light of the Jason Kidd trade.

 

That'd be the equivalent of the Cubs trading Rich Hill and prospects for someone like Randy Johnson.

 

Hill is already significantly better than Johnson at this point. I'm not very familiar with the Kidd trade, but I have a hard time believing it would be as bad as Hill and prospects for Johnson.

The Mavs trade was essentially Devin Harris and two #1 picks for Kidd.

 

The eight-player deal, in the making since before the All-Star break and talked about a lot longer than that, sends Kidd, forward Malik Allen and guard Antoine Wright to Dallas.

 

The primary piece headed to New Jersey is point guard Devin Harris. The others are center DeSagana Diop, swingman Maurice Ager, forward Trenton Hassell and retired forward Keith Van Horn. New Jersey also gets two first-round draft picks and $3 million.

 

Cuban, who was a Mavericks season ticket holder the last time Kidd was in Dallas, is essentially gambling that the 1½ seasons he’ll have Kidd is worth more than the 4½ seasons left with Harris running the offense.

 

Kidd, of course, is a proven commodity, but he turns 35 next month and is a decade older than Harris.

It was a high-risk, "win now" deal that so far has turned out very poorly for Dallas, and leaves them with 1 more year of a former allstar (Kidd) instead of 4 years of a possible future allstar (Harris), plus the draft picks.

 

Find some other names to plug into a Cubs scenario if you don't like Hill and prospects for Randy Johnson. Maybe the same deal for, say, the 2004 or 2005 vintage Randy Johnson works better. At that time Johnson was still pitching at an elite level, but was clearly on the downside. That's basically Kidd now.

[Outshined_One]

Wow! what a great post.

 

Thanks! I'd rather hope it was a good post given that I've spent much of the past year learning about the legalese involved in that topic. :stickman:

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Most fans would use some variation of wins and losses/playoff appearances/world series titles as the yardstick. The Marlins don't measure up too well on that scale, even after having won the WS in each of their two playoff seasons.

 

 

In the last 15 years, Loria has more World Series titles than any other owner besides Steinbrenner.

 

Loria has one world series title. By accident. He was sent to Florida to torpedo that team the way he was set up to torpedo Montreal for contraction's sake. Larry Beinfest screwed everything up.

[Tyrant]

 

Most fans would use some variation of wins and losses/playoff appearances/world series titles as the yardstick. The Marlins don't measure up too well on that scale, even after having won the WS in each of their two playoff seasons.

 

 

In the last 15 years, Loria has more World Series titles than any other owner besides Steinbrenner.

 

Loria has one world series title. By accident. He was sent to Florida to torpedo that team the way he was set up to torpedo Montreal for contraction's sake. Larry Beinfest screwed everything up.

 

My mistake. I thought he'd owned the team for longer than he has.

[CubinNY]

 

Most fans would use some variation of wins and losses/playoff appearances/world series titles as the yardstick. The Marlins don't measure up too well on that scale, even after having won the WS in each of their two playoff seasons.

 

 

In the last 15 years, Loria has more World Series titles than any other owner besides Steinbrenner.

 

Loria has one world series title. By accident. He was sent to Florida to torpedo that team the way he was set up to torpedo Montreal for contraction's sake. Larry Beinfest screwed everything up.

Right, kind of. D. Wayne Huizinga (sp?) won the first title. I don't think Loria was offered the franchise to undermine it, I think the owners like him. They don't care because MLB is a private club and he's one of the more popular members (regardless of what RedIvyCub thinks she/he knows). If he were going to move it would have happened already. Now that they have a stadium deal in place, they won't be moving.

 

The deal, btw, is a really bad one for the fans. Not only are they going to pay $395 million dollars The Orange Bowl area is one of the worst crime ridden slums in MIami, or at least it use to be when I lived there. Little Havana is controlled by corrupt politicians. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if their attendance figures don't significantly increase after they get their own park.

 

Not only that, but the team gets to lease the field tax free!

[SouthSideRyan]

Well yeah, they like him for the way he masterfully got baseball out of Montreal. Contraction was shot down, so MLB went back to their old standby of bleeding the common man for a ballpark that isn't necessary.

 

Jeffrey Loria is scum of the earth.

[Sammy Sofa]

Well yeah, they like him for the way he masterfully got baseball out of Montreal. Contraction was shot down, so MLB went back to their old standby of bleeding the common man for a ballpark that isn't necessary.

 

A new park isn't necessay for the Marlins?

 

In what dimension?

 

It has a horrible location, it's not designed at all for baseball and it's brutal sitting there for 3 hours or more in the Florida weather. Contrary to current attendance, they do have a reasonably strong fanbase down there.

[CubinNY]

Well yeah, they like him for the way he masterfully got baseball out of Montreal. Contraction was shot down, so MLB went back to their old standby of bleeding the common man for a ballpark that isn't necessary.

 

A new park isn't necessay for the Marlins?

 

In what dimension?

 

It has a horrible location, it's not designed at all for baseball and it's brutal sitting there for 3 hours or more in the Florida weather. Contrary to current attendance, they do have a reasonably strong fanbase down there.

They don't have a fan base at all and Dolphin Stadium is in the best location for easy access to both Dade and Broward County. However, the park isn't built for baseball, but that's not what stops people from going to games. Loria is just a terrible owner from the perspective of the fans. He's the reason why no one goes to games.

 

Edit: I've told this story before, but in 2001 I was driving home from work and listening to the Marlins. I can't remember who they were playing but it was late in the year and they were losing. In between the banter of Boog Shambi and Len you could hear "Less go Jankees. Less go Jankees". Boog got kind of pissed and said he was embarrassed.

[RedIvyCub]

 

Maybe this might prove to the masses that the Cubs don't print money under the grandstands????

No. That's why they're short on office space.

 

More to it than that, trust me.

[RedIvyCub]

 

Most fans would use some variation of wins and losses/playoff appearances/world series titles as the yardstick. The Marlins don't measure up too well on that scale, even after having won the WS in each of their two playoff seasons.

 

 

In the last 15 years, Loria has more World Series titles than any other owner besides Steinbrenner.

Wrong.

 

Loria has owned the Marlins since 2002. Prior to that, he owned the Expos for 2 years, in 2000 and 2001.

 

So in 8 years of owning MLB teams, Loria sports a 620-676 record, 1 playoff appearance, and 1 WS title. Not a very difficult resume to top at all.

 

Yeah, just ask Larry Lucchino and John Henry. :grin: