Gammons on Wrigley

[questionmarkgrace]

So if the owner had only fired the management, hired someone to get better players, made the tickets super cheap, that would have proven they were smart.

 

That was a whole lot of words just to go down the perfect generic laundry list that fans make about sports teams.

 

generic or not, all of these things have blown up in his face will possibly hamper the team's success and growth going forward.

[javy knows my name]

So if the owner had only fired the management, hired someone to get better players, made the tickets super cheap, that would have proven they were smart.

 

That was a whole lot of words just to go down the perfect generic laundry list that fans make about sports teams.

 

Thanks, I had a feeling I didn't want to read that

[dew1679666265]

1) Definitely the team was going to be pretty bad this year no matter who the gm or the owner due to the roster from 2010. But if he cleaned house immediately we probably could have gotten a gm in there who could have actually made some moves in offseason 09 to make the roster better.

 

Moves like what? This has been a very inflexible roster for at least the past couple of seasons with few spots available to upgrade and even fewer actual possible upgrades out there. I'm not opposing letting Hendry go, however it's very unrealistic to think a new GM could have made any really impactful moves.

 

2) did they over pay for the team? yes multiple articles in fortune and in the trib suggest that the team itself was worth between 450-720 million on the highside. they overpaid. Is this hindsight? I dont think so, they paid over 300 million more than any other team in baseball was sold for. But beyond that, the tribune article came out before the team was sold. Did they somehow jump 200 million dollar based on the 08 season? If so that shows that the Ricketts thought the major league talent was pretty good, not overpaid and aging quickly. For reference the red sox weresold for 600mil in 02. are the cubs worth more than the red sox?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704030231apr03,0,1173811.story

 

That was two years before the sale and before negotiations began. That was probably a low estimate anyway and then the bidding vaulted the price up that much more. Anyone who bought the team/field/Comcast share would have paid in the same area the Ricketts did, so any owner would have overpaid - and I don't think the Ricketts outbid everybody else by all that much, so numerous smart businessmen (including Cuban) were willing to nearly reach $1 billion.

 

And looking at what the Red Sox sold for 7 years before the Cubs sold isn't very productive. I could easily see them getting into the $900 mil to $1 bil range from 02-09.

 

3) did they underestimate the effect of ticket increases on the fans? I would say so, this is the first time in the last 30 years they have offered half price beers and cheaper tickets to try to draw fans in. The cubs have now jacked their tickets up three years in a row. The average ticket going from $42 in 08' to in 11' 52.32. The point is if they could have kept the tickets from being the highest in baseball they could probably still pack the place as Joe Ricketts suggested.

 

If the team is losing at the pace it is, it doesn't matter what price tickets are - they won't sell. You're not going to see the stands packed full when the team is awful whether we have the highest prices or the lowest. The likelihood is that if ticket prices dropped, you'd see a minimal increase in tickets sold and likely a decrease in overall revenue because the increase in tickets sold wouldn't offset the drop in price for every ticket sold the entire season.

 

4) did they underestimate public opinion on the use of government funds to pay for the team? Certainly, even Ricketts would agree. He suggests that "The plan that we threw out there was one that was relatively thoughtful but the timing and the explaining and the presentation of it probably could have been better,'' Ricketts said. He claims it was relatively thoughtful I think it lacked creativity and sensitivity.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0324-haugh-cubs-chicago--20110323,0,7450187.column

 

I doubt fans have quit coming to games because the Ricketts tried to get the state to pay for some of the Wrigley renovations. You could probably argue that an extremely tiny number of people stopped going because of it, but it'd be incredibly hard to prove a link between the state funding request and a significant drop in ticket sales.

 

5) did they underestimate the amount of debt accrued by purchasing and operating the cubs? Yes inaddition to the roster bottleneck, they are on mlb's debt list for a large amount of financed debt not pertaining to the roster, which is in many ways worse than having roster debt because such large amounts of money are financed at a higher rate of interest. The problem is it is hard to pay off 10 times the debt than the income your team generates(which is what gets you on the list) when the team is playing so poorly and people arent coming to the games. So now they have to pump more money into daily operations just to get their debt down to manageable levels. Half of the Ricketts family's net worth was invested into the cubs with there purchase. Do you think they are going to be willing to liquidate and gamble with much more of the other half? I dont. this goes back to point 3, they need public funds to subsidize wrigley field otherwise they will be having to dip into their own pockets again. sure long term it looks good, if the debt doesnt swallow them up in the short-term.

 

The only people who have said this is an issue is a couple of Chicago beat reporters. Selig came out and said the Cubs being on this list is meaningless, it was expected and the Cubs aren't in any financial distress over it. If the Ricketts didn't have the ability to finance that much money and if the debt had a chance to overwhelm them, I doubt MLB would have approved the sale. MLB wants the Cubs to be good and profitable, not bad and stuck in a quagmire.

 

Search Scotti's posts and find the one he made on the Ricketts' financial situation and their upcoming plans - it was an excellent read and much better put than I just did.

[questionmarkgrace]

1) Definitely the team was going to be pretty bad this year no matter who the gm or the owner due to the roster from 2010. But if he cleaned house immediately we probably could have gotten a gm in there who could have actually made some moves in offseason 09 to make the roster better.

 

Moves like what? This has been a very inflexible roster for at least the past couple of seasons with few spots available to upgrade and even fewer actual possible upgrades out there. I'm not opposing letting Hendry go, however it's very unrealistic to think a new GM could have made any really impactful moves.

 

2) did they over pay for the team? yes multiple articles in fortune and in the trib suggest that the team itself was worth between 450-720 million on the highside. they overpaid. Is this hindsight? I dont think so, they paid over 300 million more than any other team in baseball was sold for. But beyond that, the tribune article came out before the team was sold. Did they somehow jump 200 million dollar based on the 08 season? If so that shows that the Ricketts thought the major league talent was pretty good, not overpaid and aging quickly. For reference the red sox weresold for 600mil in 02. are the cubs worth more than the red sox?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704030231apr03,0,1173811.story

 

That was two years before the sale and before negotiations began. That was probably a low estimate anyway and then the bidding vaulted the price up that much more. Anyone who bought the team/field/Comcast share would have paid in the same area the Ricketts did, so any owner would have overpaid - and I don't think the Ricketts outbid everybody else by all that much, so numerous smart businessmen (including Cuban) were willing to nearly reach $1 billion.

 

And looking at what the Red Sox sold for 7 years before the Cubs sold isn't very productive. I could easily see them getting into the $900 mil to $1 bil range from 02-09.

 

3) did they underestimate the effect of ticket increases on the fans? I would say so, this is the first time in the last 30 years they have offered half price beers and cheaper tickets to try to draw fans in. The cubs have now jacked their tickets up three years in a row. The average ticket going from $42 in 08' to in 11' 52.32. The point is if they could have kept the tickets from being the highest in baseball they could probably still pack the place as Joe Ricketts suggested.

 

If the team is losing at the pace it is, it doesn't matter what price tickets are - they won't sell. You're not going to see the stands packed full when the team is awful whether we have the highest prices or the lowest. The likelihood is that if ticket prices dropped, you'd see a minimal increase in tickets sold and likely a decrease in overall revenue because the increase in tickets sold wouldn't offset the drop in price for every ticket sold the entire season.

 

4) did they underestimate public opinion on the use of government funds to pay for the team? Certainly, even Ricketts would agree. He suggests that "The plan that we threw out there was one that was relatively thoughtful but the timing and the explaining and the presentation of it probably could have been better,'' Ricketts said. He claims it was relatively thoughtful I think it lacked creativity and sensitivity.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0324-haugh-cubs-chicago--20110323,0,7450187.column

 

I doubt fans have quit coming to games because the Ricketts tried to get the state to pay for some of the Wrigley renovations. You could probably argue that an extremely tiny number of people stopped going because of it, but it'd be incredibly hard to prove a link between the state funding request and a significant drop in ticket sales.

 

5) did they underestimate the amount of debt accrued by purchasing and operating the cubs? Yes inaddition to the roster bottleneck, they are on mlb's debt list for a large amount of financed debt not pertaining to the roster, which is in many ways worse than having roster debt because such large amounts of money are financed at a higher rate of interest. The problem is it is hard to pay off 10 times the debt than the income your team generates(which is what gets you on the list) when the team is playing so poorly and people arent coming to the games. So now they have to pump more money into daily operations just to get their debt down to manageable levels. Half of the Ricketts family's net worth was invested into the cubs with there purchase. Do you think they are going to be willing to liquidate and gamble with much more of the other half? I dont. this goes back to point 3, they need public funds to subsidize wrigley field otherwise they will be having to dip into their own pockets again. sure long term it looks good, if the debt doesnt swallow them up in the short-term.

 

The only people who have said this is an issue is a couple of Chicago beat reporters. Selig came out and said the Cubs being on this list is meaningless, it was expected and the Cubs aren't in any financial distress over it. If the Ricketts didn't have the ability to finance that much money and if the debt had a chance to overwhelm them, I doubt MLB would have approved the sale. MLB wants the Cubs to be good and profitable, not bad and stuck in a quagmire.

 

Search Scotti's posts and find the one he made on the Ricketts' financial situation and their upcoming plans - it was an excellent read and much better put than I just did.

 

Moves like maybe trading D-Lee before the league thought he was worth nothing? It was clear he wasnt getting any younger and he had solid enough year to get some return. I don't know but they only made three moves that off season when they clearly needed more.

 

As far as the estimates, the comcast share is only worth 25 million per an article I sited in the other thread. its just revenue sharing not a quarter of the actual company. Cuban bid around 600 million he thought that wrigley provided a huge obstacle. as for the red sox price a few years earlier the economic down turn should have lowered the price. Inflation doubles every 20 years not every 5 years. the fortune article suggests they overpaid by half, my guess is they are better at estimating such things than you or I.

 

I think fans in general may be less apt to go to a game when the cubs are sucking but when the tickets have increased as talent has decreased its even harder to go. If the tickets were cheaper they would have more people there, maybe not like before in the 80's and 90's but people would go more often.

 

As far as the politics of getting wrigley built I was merely speaking to the fact that Ricketts underestimated the situation. They thought that people would support it unconditionally because it was the cubs they didn't because it was poorly timed and conceived.

 

As far as the debt thing, I think I have said what I wanted to. Short term they are at risk if they can weather it, long term its obviously a great investment.

 

I guess I expected less growing pains. you guys think he's doing pretty well. I guess we will agree to disagree

[Guest]

The Mets are being valued over $1B as they look to sell of some ownership of the team.

[Sammy Sofa]

So if the owner had only fired the management, hired someone to get better players, made the tickets super cheap, that would have proven they were smart.

 

That was a whole lot of words just to go down the perfect generic laundry list that fans make about sports teams.

 

generic or not, all of these things have blown up in his face will possibly hamper the team's success and growth going forward.

 

Nothing has "blown up in his face."

 

Basically your arguments are ridiculous, because they hinge on the idea of the Ricketts family being complete idiots who just bought a baseball team and were somehow clueless of very basic, obvious things that you, questionmarkgrace, realize but that they somehow unaware of when it comes to the financial status of the Cubs and Wrigley and what type of investment they were getting in to. Think about it for a few minutes.

[Sammy Sofa]

And I highly doubt that the relative few more people you'd get buying tickets during a crappy season would exceed or even match the money made off of the increased ticket costs. They key to the lowered attendance is the awful team, not the prices. For better or worse the Cubs will sell ridiculously expensive tickets like they're dirt cheap if the team is good.

[Sammy Sofa]

Unfortunately they only hire people with no-assed economics degrees. Really a poor decision in hindsight.

 

1) Definitely the team was going to be pretty bad this year no matter who the gm or the owner due to the roster from 2010. But if he cleaned house immediately we probably could have gotten a gm in there who could have actually made some moves in offseason 09 to make the roster better.

 

Explain what another GM would have been able to do before the 2010 season that Hendry couldn't have. I'm not talking not doing something stupid but ultimately irrelevant like overpaying for Grabow...explain what feasible moves that could have been done to actually make the team significantly better than how the 2010 season played out. I definitely wish Hendry had been out at that point, but no GM was going to make the Cubs much different than what we actually got last year and so far this year.

[XZero771679666304]

So if the owner had only fired the management, hired someone to get better players, made the tickets super cheap, that would have proven they were smart.

 

That was a whole lot of words just to go down the perfect generic laundry list that fans make about sports teams.

 

generic or not, all of these things have blown up in his face will possibly hamper the team's success and growth going forward.

 

Nothing has "blown up in his face."

 

No, things have gone about as they could have expected. I think people are confusing wheat they hoped would happen when the Ricketts took over with what they assume the Ricketts expected. Some people probably expected they would (or could) come in and turn this thing around on a dime, which is painfully naive.

 

These same people probably expect the ownership to echo their own reactionary opinions publicly, which would be terrible business. I've always been amused by people who think they can derive what owners/GMs are thinking just from what they see and hear. You don't conduct your business out in the open just to make your meatball fans feel better. We're not privy to that stuff, nor should we be.

 

Besides, their actions, including announcing plans for extensive renovations and lobbying the state for part of a large sum of money to implement them, says they knew what had to be done. Unless one thinks they didn't know the extent of the needed renovations until after they took ownership, which is just a laughable thing to assume.

 

And lobbying the city/state for funds only seems logical, given the restrictions the team is put under when it comes to renovating/upgrading the facilities.

[Sammy Sofa]

So if the owner had only fired the management, hired someone to get better players, made the tickets super cheap, that would have proven they were smart.

 

That was a whole lot of words just to go down the perfect generic laundry list that fans make about sports teams.

 

generic or not, all of these things have blown up in his face will possibly hamper the team's success and growth going forward.

 

Nothing has "blown up in his face."

 

No, things have gone about as they could have expected. I think people are confusing wheat they hoped would happen when the Ricketts took over with what they assume the Ricketts expected. Some people probably expected they would (or could) come in and turn this thing around on a dime, which is painfully naive.

 

These same people probably expect the ownership to echo their own reactionary opinions publicly, which would be terrible business. I've always been amused by people who think they can derive what owners/GMs are thinking just from what they see and hear. You don't conduct your business out in the open just to make your meatball fans feel better. We're not privy to that stuff, nor should we be.

 

Besides, their actions, including announcing plans for extensive renovations and lobbying the state for part of a large sum of money to implement them, says they knew what had to be done. Unless one thinks they didn't know the extent of the needed renovations until after they took ownership, which is just a laughable thing to assume.

 

And lobbying the city/state for funds only seems logical, given the restrictions the team is put under when it comes to renovating/upgrading the facilities.

 

Exactly. I understand what questionmarkgrace is doing, which is wanting the owners to think and act like he wants them to do...but it's simply not realistic.

[XZero771679666304]

Unfortunately they only hire people with no-assed economics degrees. Really a poor decision in hindsight.

 

1) Definitely the team was going to be pretty bad this year no matter who the gm or the owner due to the roster from 2010. But if he cleaned house immediately we probably could have gotten a gm in there who could have actually made some moves in offseason 09 to make the roster better.

 

Explain what another GM would have been able to do before the 2010 season that Hendry couldn't have. I'm not talking not doing something stupid but ultimately irrelevant like overpaying for Grabow...explain what feasible moves that could have been done to actually make the team significantly better than how the 2010 season played out. I definitely wish Hendry had been out at that point, but no GM was going to make the Cubs much different than what we actually got last year and so far this year.

 

I want Hendry out, but this last offseason was one of his best, all things considered. There wasn't much to be done about 2011, though it was largely Hendry who handcuffed himself.

 

The first few months of this offseason will say much more about the Ricketts ownership than the preceding two years.

[Sammy Sofa]

Unfortunately they only hire people with no-assed economics degrees. Really a poor decision in hindsight.

 

1) Definitely the team was going to be pretty bad this year no matter who the gm or the owner due to the roster from 2010. But if he cleaned house immediately we probably could have gotten a gm in there who could have actually made some moves in offseason 09 to make the roster better.

 

Explain what another GM would have been able to do before the 2010 season that Hendry couldn't have. I'm not talking not doing something stupid but ultimately irrelevant like overpaying for Grabow...explain what feasible moves that could have been done to actually make the team significantly better than how the 2010 season played out. I definitely wish Hendry had been out at that point, but no GM was going to make the Cubs much different than what we actually got last year and so far this year.

 

I want Hendry out, but this last offseason was one of his best, all things considered. There wasn't much to be done about 2011, though it was largely Hendry who handcuffed himself.

 

The first few months of this offseason will say much more about the Ricketts ownership than the preceding two years.

 

Definitely. Hendry should have been gone already, but this offseason marks the first real test of the Ricketts' era ownership. Everything else up until then has largely been riding out what was inherited from the Tribune era.

[questionmarkgrace]

Unfortunately they only hire people with no-assed economics degrees. Really a poor decision in hindsight.

 

1) Definitely the team was going to be pretty bad this year no matter who the gm or the owner due to the roster from 2010. But if he cleaned house immediately we probably could have gotten a gm in there who could have actually made some moves in offseason 09 to make the roster better.

 

Explain what another GM would have been able to do before the 2010 season that Hendry couldn't have. I'm not talking not doing something stupid but ultimately irrelevant like overpaying for Grabow...explain what feasible moves that could have been done to actually make the team significantly better than how the 2010 season played out. I definitely wish Hendry had been out at that point, but no GM was going to make the Cubs much different than what we actually got last year and so far this year.

 

I want Hendry out, but this last offseason was one of his best, all things considered. There wasn't much to be done about 2011, though it was largely Hendry who handcuffed himself.

 

The first few months of this offseason will say much more about the Ricketts ownership than the preceding two years.

 

Definitely. Hendry should have been gone already, but this offseason marks the first real test of the Ricketts' era ownership. Everything else up until then has largely been riding out what was inherited from the Tribune era.

 

 

If you read the articles one claimed that the cubs were worth 750 mil on the high side. Fortune suggests they paid double what they are worth. Is that just me making nonsense claims about how I want them to run the team? they overpaid with multiple people including gammons saying they did. By the way the cubs are worth more than the mets according to this new forbes article. But for some reason people here know more than forbes?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html

 

When it comes to lobbying the state, Ricketts says that they went about it the wrong way. Its pretty clear from his quote. Read it again, twice if you have to.

 

As far as the tickets thats up for debate. i think they alienated fans with a combo of bad play and high priced tickets. people will take one or the other not both. Thats why they are now advertising reduced priced tickets and half priced beers. this is the first time the cubs arent in the top 5 in attendance in since 1998, and they have more seats now than ever. they are hovering around 33-34,000 on average right now. last year this time they were at 39,000 with an equally bad team. One bad year cubs fans can stand two in a row plus increases, and little improvement talent wise, that just poor management from marketing to gm. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/4054/cubs-attendance-down-but-far-from-out

 

As far as hendry goes we all agree he is terrible so why is it that much of a stretch to think that a different gm may have pursued different avenues for making the team better the last two offseasons?

 

At any rate, this isn't just conjecture or some fantasy about management should work. They have made some poor decisions, not just by my estimation but by a host of journalists as well.

[SouthSideRyan]

*Links to Forbes listing showing team is worth 800M.*

 

*Listing says Ricketts spent 700M*

 

*Claims Ricketts paid more than double what they're worth*

[SouthSideRyan]

Oh, and the Cubs are currently 5th in attendance/game.

[SouthSideRyan]

Oh, and the Cubs are currently 5th in attendance/game.

 

And they were 7th in 2002.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They have made some poor decisions, not just by my estimation but by a host of journalists as well.

 

It's like you are intentionally trying to side with the people who know the absolute least about business.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Okay, let's go over the link you posted.

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Chicago-Cubs_335092.html

 

The Cubs are valued at $775 million by Forbes.

 

The final price of the deal Ricketts paid was $845 million.

 

That deal included Wrigley Field and the Comcast share, which combined are valued at *at least* $75 million, but it's hard to say for sure.

 

So how, again, did he massively overpay?

[Sammy Sofa]

If you read the articles one claimed that the cubs were worth 750 mil on the high side. Fortune suggests they paid double what they are worth. Is that just me making nonsense claims about how I want them to run the team? they overpaid with multiple people including gammons saying they did. By the way the cubs are worth more than the mets according to this new forbes article. But for some reason people here know more than forbes?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html

 

You're all over the place, and as others above have just pointed out the numbers don't stack up to what you're claiming. If the highlight of your evidence on financial matters is Peter Gammons then you've taken a wrong turn somewhere.

 

When it comes to lobbying the state, Ricketts says that they went about it the wrong way. Its pretty clear from his quote. Read it again, twice if you have to.

 

That's Ricketts playing the PR game. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what they attempted to do in getting money from the state, and not getting the money now isn't something that "blew up in his face." It's what owners and teams try to do all the time, and often they don't get the finds they're seeking on the first go-around. It's not some kind of one-and-done situation, and it's not indicative of them being short on funds. It's simply smart business.

 

As far as the tickets thats up for debate. i think they alienated fans with a combo of bad play and high priced tickets. people will take one or the other not both. Thats why they are now advertising reduced priced tickets and half priced beers. this is the first time the cubs arent in the top 5 in attendance in since 1998, and they have more seats now than ever. they are hovering around 33-34,000 on average right now. last year this time they were at 39,000 with an equally bad team. One bad year cubs fans can stand two in a row plus increases, and little improvement talent wise, that just poor management from marketing to gm. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/4054/cubs-attendance-down-but-far-from-out

 

The Cubs are in the top 5 in attendance. And you're simply refusing to believe that a bad team on the field holds more impact on ticket sales than the prices. The Cubs having expensive tickets is nothing new. They didn't just suddenly cross a magic threshold of people not being able to afford their tickets. Tickets sales weren't down as much last year because they were only one season removed from 2008. As you get further away from the last winning season and the team gets worse, then sales and attendance will drop. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or your much-vaunted "many journalists") to figure that out. Basically unless you think the ticket prices will still impact their sales even when the team is good, then no, the ticket prices likely are not a significant reason for the downturn in attendance and sales over the team being really, really bad with no really superstars.

 

As far as hendry goes we all agree he is terrible so why is it that much of a stretch to think that a different gm may have pursued different avenues for making the team better the last two offseasons?

 

Like what? Again, I'm talking about doing something that makes the 2010 or 2011 teams significantly different. Any other GM would have been dealing with the same "wait until the inherited contracts are coming off the books" situation. This isn't a defense of Hendry so much as it it's attempting to get you to realistically look at the situation the Cubs were mired in going into 2010 and 2011.

 

At any rate, this isn't just conjecture or some fantasy about management should work. They have made some poor decisions, not just by my estimation but by a host of journalists as well.

 

Most of whom are sports analysts commenting on business matters.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

If you read the articles one claimed that the cubs were worth 750 mil on the high side. Fortune suggests they paid double what they are worth. Is that just me making nonsense claims about how I want them to run the team? they overpaid with multiple people including gammons saying they did. By the way the cubs are worth more than the mets according to this new forbes article. But for some reason people here know more than forbes?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html

http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/33/2011/val335092.gif

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Most of whom are sports analysts commenting on business matters.

 

That's giving them too much credit. They are writers.

[SouthSideRyan]

I was gonna say, Gammons isn't even an analyst.

[davearm2]

So if the owner had only fired the management, hired someone to get better players, made the tickets super cheap, that would have proven they were smart.

 

That was a whole lot of words just to go down the perfect generic laundry list that fans make about sports teams.

 

generic or not, all of these things have blown up in his face will possibly hamper the team's success and growth going forward.

 

Nothing has "blown up in his face."

 

Basically your arguments are ridiculous, because they hinge on the idea of the Ricketts family being complete idiots who just bought a baseball team and were somehow clueless of very basic, obvious things that you, questionmarkgrace, realize but that they somehow unaware of when it comes to the financial status of the Cubs and Wrigley and what type of investment they were getting in to. Think about it for a few minutes.

Well said. Nobody here knows the ins and outs of the Cubs' finances better than the Ricketts, and to suggest otherwise is just laughable.

 

It's reminiscent of when the armchair GMs think they are better talent evaluators and would make better trades/signings/draft picks etc. than the actual scouts and GMs that have apparently somehow managed to rise to the very top of their profession despite being totally inept and clueless.

[hardcorecubfan]

The Mets are being valued over $1B as they look to sell of some ownership of the team.

 

A billion, really?? do they have hidden real-estate in upper state NY I don't know about? They have lost the reputation of having rabid fans, unless they play the Yankees, new stadium lousy location.

 

I suspect it is worth a billion because the city funded 850 million of that stadium, so in reality they are only worth 150 million.

[javy knows my name]

So if the owner had only fired the management, hired someone to get better players, made the tickets super cheap, that would have proven they were smart.

 

That was a whole lot of words just to go down the perfect generic laundry list that fans make about sports teams.

 

generic or not, all of these things have blown up in his face will possibly hamper the team's success and growth going forward.

 

Nothing has "blown up in his face."

 

Basically your arguments are ridiculous, because they hinge on the idea of the Ricketts family being complete idiots who just bought a baseball team and were somehow clueless of very basic, obvious things that you, questionmarkgrace, realize but that they somehow unaware of when it comes to the financial status of the Cubs and Wrigley and what type of investment they were getting in to. Think about it for a few minutes.

Well said. Nobody here knows the ins and outs of the Cubs' finances better than the Ricketts, and to suggest otherwise is just laughable.

 

It's reminiscent of when the armchair GMs think they are better talent evaluators and would make better trades/signings/draft picks etc. than the actual scouts and GMs that have apparently somehow managed to rise to the very top of their profession despite being totally inept and clueless.

 

Davearm found the slope