The Cubs Sale Thread

[CaliforniaRaisin]

The Wall Street Journal[/url]"]Two of the bids came from major financial players in Chicago: One is from John Canning, the head of private-equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners LLC, who has assembled a group that includes McDonald's Corp. Chairman Andrew McKenna. The other was from Tom Ricketts, chief executive of investment firm Incapital LLC and the son of TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. founder J. Joe Ricketts.

[Vanilla Ice]

and the third is Mark Cuban

 

[italianocubsfan7]

I'm surprised more people don't talk about this on the board. Oh well, can't get everything you want. I really hope Mark Cuban gets his bid awarded and becomes the new owner of the Cubs. He is the ideal guy for the job at a time like this. One thing is for sure, if Cuban does buy the team (say for $700 to $900 million), you know everyone is gonna be wiped out from a front office perspective. Good bye Jim Hendry, good bye Crane Kenney, good bye Mark McGuire (you suck btw)! Why do you think McDonough left right away as soon as he got his offer from the B'Hawks? Because of a situation like this. Please Mark Cuban! 8-[

[CubbieBum]

I'm surprised more people don't talk about this on the board. Oh well, can't get everything you want. I really hope Mark Cuban gets his bid awarded and becomes the new owner of the Cubs. He is the ideal guy for the job at a time like this. One thing is for sure, if Cuban does buy the team (say for $700 to $900 million), you know everyone is gonna be wiped out from a front office perspective. Good bye Jim Hendry, good bye Crane Kenney, good bye Mark McGuire (you suck btw)! Why do you think McDonough left right away as soon as he got his offer from the B'Hawks? Because of a situation like this. Please Mark Cuban! 8-[

 

That's because there's nothing to really say because everything is secretive. All we can do is sit and say oh yeah well I knew he was interested from the begiining and continue to hope Cuban wins.

[RedFlash]

I'm surprised more people don't talk about this on the board. Oh well, can't get everything you want. I really hope Mark Cuban gets his bid awarded and becomes the new owner of the Cubs. He is the ideal guy for the job at a time like this. One thing is for sure, if Cuban does buy the team (say for $700 to $900 million), you know everyone is gonna be wiped out from a front office perspective. Good bye Jim Hendry, good bye Crane Kenney, good bye Mark McGuire (you suck btw)! Why do you think McDonough left right away as soon as he got his offer from the B'Hawks? Because of a situation like this. Please Mark Cuban! 8-[

 

No necessarily. I still believe Hendry is a very good baseball guy, and I believe he has earn the right to keep his job, to be honest.

[italianocubsfan7]

Yeah your right, if anyone would stay it would be Jim Hendry.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I just hate that all these groups contain people from the financial industry. Meaning the odds are likely that they will run the team strictly for profit and not necessarily to win. (Purely speculation on my part, so don't jump down my throat for it) Madison Dearborn recently purchased my company. And trust me, after seeing many of the moves they've made so far, they are strictly in it for profit.

[CubinNY]

I just hate that all these groups contain people from the financial industry. Meaning the odds are likely that they will run the team strictly for profit and not necessarily to win. (Purely speculation on my part, so don't jump down my throat for it) Madison Dearborn recently purchased my company. And trust me, after seeing many of the moves they've made so far, they are strictly in it for profit.

Regardless of if they run the Cubs for profit (which I think any owner will do) they also need to field a winner if they want people to come to the ballpark. The Tribune Company has been very fortunate that the Cubs have had "good" teams, at least on paper. My dad told me that when he use to go to games in the 1960s the upper decks use to be closed. If the new owners are perceived as only out to make a profit and not put out a good product people will stop going to the games and profit will suffer.

[David]

I just hate that all these groups contain people from the financial industry. Meaning the odds are likely that they will run the team strictly for profit and not necessarily to win. (Purely speculation on my part, so don't jump down my throat for it) Madison Dearborn recently purchased my company. And trust me, after seeing many of the moves they've made so far, they are strictly in it for profit.

Regardless of if they run the Cubs for profit (which I think any owner will do) they also need to field a winner if they want people to come to the ballpark. The Tribune Company has been very fortunate that the Cubs have had "good" teams, at least on paper. My dad told me that when he use to go to games in the 1960s the upper decks use to be closed. If the new owners are perceived as only out to make a profit and not put out a good product people will stop going to the games and profit will suffer.

 

 

That neighborhood is totally different these days than it was in the 60s (or even the 80s). People will still fill the park to see a loser because it's a great way to spend a day. They just won't be paying 3-5x face value to a scalper/broker.

[CubinNY]

I just hate that all these groups contain people from the financial industry. Meaning the odds are likely that they will run the team strictly for profit and not necessarily to win. (Purely speculation on my part, so don't jump down my throat for it) Madison Dearborn recently purchased my company. And trust me, after seeing many of the moves they've made so far, they are strictly in it for profit.

Regardless of if they run the Cubs for profit (which I think any owner will do) they also need to field a winner if they want people to come to the ballpark. The Tribune Company has been very fortunate that the Cubs have had "good" teams, at least on paper. My dad told me that when he use to go to games in the 1960s the upper decks use to be closed. If the new owners are perceived as only out to make a profit and not put out a good product people will stop going to the games and profit will suffer.

 

 

That neighborhood is totally different these days than it was in the 60s (or even the 80s). People will still fill the park to see a loser because it's a great way to spend a day. They just won't be paying 3-5x face value to a scalper/broker.

Contrary to popular opinion, people do not go to Wrigley Field, they go to see the Cubs. I don't know anyone who goes to Cubs games and gives two craps about Wrigleyville. If the new owners are perceived as not really caring about the product people will stop coming to see the Cubs. That means they will stop going to Wrigley.

[David]

I just hate that all these groups contain people from the financial industry. Meaning the odds are likely that they will run the team strictly for profit and not necessarily to win. (Purely speculation on my part, so don't jump down my throat for it) Madison Dearborn recently purchased my company. And trust me, after seeing many of the moves they've made so far, they are strictly in it for profit.

Regardless of if they run the Cubs for profit (which I think any owner will do) they also need to field a winner if they want people to come to the ballpark. The Tribune Company has been very fortunate that the Cubs have had "good" teams, at least on paper. My dad told me that when he use to go to games in the 1960s the upper decks use to be closed. If the new owners are perceived as only out to make a profit and not put out a good product people will stop going to the games and profit will suffer.

 

 

That neighborhood is totally different these days than it was in the 60s (or even the 80s). People will still fill the park to see a loser because it's a great way to spend a day. They just won't be paying 3-5x face value to a scalper/broker.

Contrary to popular opinion, people do not go to Wrigley Field, they go to see the Cubs. I don't know anyone who goes to Cubs games and gives two craps about Wrigleyville. If the new owners are perceived as not really caring about the product people will stop coming to see the Cubs. That means they will stop going to Wrigley.

 

I live in the area (yea, I should probably update my location). Going to the games is a way of socializing and hanging out (and an excuse to drink) for a LOT of people.

[David]

By the way, the Cubs drew over 3 million fans in 2005 and 2006. If you want to argue that that's because people had high expectations based on 03-04, that's fine. But the Cubs haven't drawn less than 2 million since the strike shortened season of 1995.

 

There have been plenty of horrible, horrible teams since then that have still filled up the park.

[cubfan]

I just hate that all these groups contain people from the financial industry. Meaning the odds are likely that they will run the team strictly for profit and not necessarily to win. (Purely speculation on my part, so don't jump down my throat for it) Madison Dearborn recently purchased my company. And trust me, after seeing many of the moves they've made so far, they are strictly in it for profit.

Regardless of if they run the Cubs for profit (which I think any owner will do) they also need to field a winner if they want people to come to the ballpark. The Tribune Company has been very fortunate that the Cubs have had "good" teams, at least on paper. My dad told me that when he use to go to games in the 1960s the upper decks use to be closed. If the new owners are perceived as only out to make a profit and not put out a good product people will stop going to the games and profit will suffer.

 

I'm sure all owners are going to want to make a profit. I think the difference is that some will want to maximize their profit. They could probably maximize the profit by putting together a good team instead of a great team.

[dew1679666265]

Yeah your right, if anyone would stay it would be Jim Hendry.

 

If we put together close to the kind of season this year that we could (WS ) I'd be utterly shocked if anybody fired Hendry.

 

Even if Cuban bought the club and disagreed with Hendry philosophically, he'd still likely keep him on for a year or two to keep some stability in the organization and "reward," if you will, the job he's done putting this team together.

 

Plus Hendry is widely respected throughout the majors, meaning Cuban keeping him on may promote his acceptance with other teams around the league who may otherwise be slow to do so.

[Derwood]

ESPN bottom line is saying there are 7 bids in including Cuban

[Outshined_One]

ESPN bottom line is saying there are 7 bids in including Cuban

 

Fascinating.

[UK1679666180]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chicago-cubs-wrigle-sale-jul18,0,4599368.story

[DivineBovine]

I just hate that all these groups contain people from the financial industry. Meaning the odds are likely that they will run the team strictly for profit and not necessarily to win. (Purely speculation on my part, so don't jump down my throat for it) Madison Dearborn recently purchased my company. And trust me, after seeing many of the moves they've made so far, they are strictly in it for profit.

Regardless of if they run the Cubs for profit (which I think any owner will do) they also need to field a winner if they want people to come to the ballpark. The Tribune Company has been very fortunate that the Cubs have had "good" teams, at least on paper. My dad told me that when he use to go to games in the 1960s the upper decks use to be closed. If the new owners are perceived as only out to make a profit and not put out a good product people will stop going to the games and profit will suffer.

 

I'm sure all owners are going to want to make a profit. I think the difference is that some will want to maximize their profit. They could probably maximize the profit by putting together a good team instead of a great team.

 

 

The thought that profit is maximized by producing a winner is pure fallacy. There's a big difference between revenue and profit. A team that wins is always going to have more revenue, but that doesn't mean that it will have the most net profit. Wasn't Milwaukee hugely profitable when they sucked? And what about Florida and their $20 million payroll.

 

The fact is, owners whose priority is to win don't maximize profit. You'd have to be dumb to lose money every year just to win, but that doesn't mean sports owners all prioritize profit- like the Tribune company did.

 

Whoever the new owner is, its tough to imagine them being worse than the Trib has been. And I certainly haven't been fooled by their current payroll. The only reason they have written some big checks the last couple years is the impending sale.

Edited July 20, 2008 by DivineBovine

[CubbieBum]

The story I read on ESPN talked about their were seven bids in the first stage but it is now three in this stage. Maybe I misread (wasn't written all too well because it was rather confusing).

[BCVM22]

The story I read on ESPN talked about their were seven bids in the first stage but it is now three in this stage. Maybe I misread (wasn't written all too well because it was rather confusing).

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080719&content_id=3158596&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc&partnerId=rss_chc

 

From what I can gather, they'll narrow down this set of bids to 3-4 and then accept a 2nd round of bids from the remaining bidders.

[davearm2]

Just for sake of discussion, let's imagine the Cubs win it all this year, and final bids are due in November.

 

You're a bidder.

 

Does the WS win motivate you to increase or decrease your bid?

 

Or put another way, does the curse, the 100 years, the lovable losers, the wait til next year, etc. etc., does that stuff add value to the franchise?

 

I think winning does result in a net increase in the franchise value, but also those storylines that go away were adding value.

[CubFanPhilly]

Just for sake of discussion, let's imagine the Cubs win it all this year, and final bids are due in November.

 

You're a bidder.

 

Does the WS win motivate you to increase or decrease your bid?

 

Or put another way, does the curse, the 100 years, the lovable losers, the wait til next year, etc. etc., does that stuff add value to the franchise?

 

I think winning does result in a net increase in the franchise value, but also those storylines that go away were adding value.

 

I don't think the Red Sox value has diminished. It probably enhances value in the short-run (5 years).

[Fro]

Winning would both help and hurt the franchise... the Trib would get most of the $$ for all the World Series Championship merchandise. Certainly there would be a bump in everything short-term with all the bandwagoners hopping aboard, and there's no reason you couldn't make even more money in the short-term.

 

What would hurt the value is the new owner wouldn't get the fame of being the owner when the Cubs win it all (statue in Chicago, etc). I think that's worth quite a bit of money. You also couldn't keep revenue at what it is after a win if you fielded a poor team, so that means less revenue for those who want the Cubs just to make tons of money off the fans' loyalty.

[jersey cubs fan]

By the way, the Cubs drew over 3 million fans in 2005 and 2006. If you want to argue that that's because people had high expectations based on 03-04, that's fine. But the Cubs haven't drawn less than 2 million since the strike shortened season of 1995.

 

There have been plenty of horrible, horrible teams since then that have still filled up the park.

 

There haven't been very many multi-year stretches of stink. 96-97 were stink fests, and it was incredibly easy to find tickets to games. 98 changed things with the Sammy fest and playoff run. Expectations were high in 99 and 00, but because the teams stunk it was still easy to get tickets. The decent record in 01 once again increased excitement for the team and there was a palpable sense of better things yet to come with what was a highly rated farm system and an ownership group that was spending among the highest spenders in the NL.

 

Back to back over .500 seasons was a big deal to some people, but what was also true is that they stopped going 3+ years of sub .500, something they did with regularity before the 90's. Multiple years of sucking will sap the energy right out of that ballpark.

 

But in addition to this, attendance isn't the only factor. People stop watching the games on TV, they stop watching pre and post game shows, they stop buying merchandise, they stop handing over money to the team.

[Tyrant]

Yeah your right, if anyone would stay it would be Jim Hendry.

 

If we put together close to the kind of season this year that we could (WS ) I'd be utterly shocked if anybody fired Hendry.

 

Even if Cuban bought the club and disagreed with Hendry philosophically, he'd still likely keep him on for a year or two to keep some stability in the organization and "reward," if you will, the job he's done putting this team together.

 

Plus Hendry is widely respected throughout the majors, meaning Cuban keeping him on may promote his acceptance with other teams around the league who may otherwise be slow to do so.

 

I think that only makes sense though. It'd be weird to fire Hendry after two very successful years. While he has his flaws, he's still among the top 12 or so GMs in the game, probably.