Kaplan sits down with Ricketts (& Kenney Extension)

[David]

As much as I hate Kaplan, I'm excited to see this.

 

I sat down with the chairman for a one-on-one interview for an "Inside Look" epsiode that will air in a couple weeks on Comcast SportsNet.

 

Ricketts touched on a multitude of topics, including the future of Crane Kenney, the Cubs' president of business operations who has come under fire from some members of the media as well as the Cubs' rabid fan base who have linked him to the failures of the past regime. However, Ricketts pledged tremendous support for Kenney and even went as far as announcing that he is working on a contract extension for him.

 

“Day one, square one when we bought the team, everyone that was already here started fresh," Ricketts said. "What I’ve seen firsthand is execution. The baseball side and the business side are two sides of the same coin. We have to be working together to push the team forward to be the best we can be on the field.

 

"Crane has done a great job of executing on the business side. There has been some stuff in the media (about Kenney) and that doesn’t apply to me. I don’t listen to that. He’s doing his job and he’s doing his job well and Cubs fans need to know that. I am working on a contract extension for him.”

 

While the Cubs ownership group understands the need to build through player development, Ricketts expects his major league team to be vastly improved in 2012 despite a rough 2011 season that saw the Cubs finish 71-91 and 25 games behind the division-winning Milwaukee Brewers.

 

Ricketts spoke with approximately 20 people within the baseball world and got varying opinions on how to rebuild his baseball organization. But he posed one question to everyone he spoke with and their answers were key in how he proceeded to find Hendry’s successor. The question was “in a dream scenario where you could land anyone you wanted who would you hire? “The answer kept coming up Theo Epstein,” he said.

 

On the topic of how the new collective bargaining agreement will change how the Cubs do business because of the restrictions on spending in the amateur draft and in international free agency, Ricketts is confident that his new baseball operations team will maximize the value of their draft picks and will spend their available dollars wisely.

 

 

There's a little tidbit at the link about Wrigley too.

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/post/Ricketts-on-pursuit-of-Theo-Kenneys-futu?blockID=602506&feedID=9399

[BeerHere]

Kenney doesn't bother me. I do disagree with the comments Ricketts made about not tearing down Wrigley to rebuild the grandstands. "Fans want Wrigley plus a few improvements..." or whatever he said. Those improvements better be to improve the grandstands, scoreboard, jumbotron etc. I couldn't care less about the historical significance and "The Wrigley Experience". The ballpark is extremely old and needs to be rebuilt. Period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(hopefully in the suburbs)

[Clem Fandango]

I'm happy about the extension to Kenney, if only because it will piss a whole lot of people off.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I'm happy about the extension to Kenney, if only because it will piss a whole lot of people off.

 

but he eats babies.

[jersey cubs fan]

Kenney doesn't bother me. I do disagree with the comments Ricketts made about not tearing down Wrigley to rebuild the grandstands. "Fans want Wrigley plus a few improvements..." or whatever he said. Those improvements better be to improve the grandstands, scoreboard, jumbotron etc. I couldn't care less about the historical significance and "The Wrigley Experience". The ballpark is extremely old and needs to be rebuilt. Period.

 

 

Do you disagree with his statement that fans want Wrigley plus improvements? Because I think that is probably extremely accurate. I like the idea of a grandstand teardown but think it's probably unfeasible. I do believe that significant improvements can be made to the existing structure though, and am in support of that idea.

 

 

a suburban stadium is a horrible idea and non-starter.

[BeerHere]

Do you disagree with his statement that fans want Wrigley plus improvements? Because I think that is probably extremely accurate. I like the idea of a grandstand teardown but think it's probably unfeasible. I do believe that significant improvements can be made to the existing structure though, and am in support of that idea.

 

a suburban stadium is a horrible idea and non-starter.

 

I think Cubs fans compare Wrigley to other parks (Miller Park, USCellular for example) add see what they've been missing. I agree that improvements can be made (must be made at a minimum). I'm not at all enamored with Wrigley (peeling paint and rust everywhere, nets to catch falling concrete, terrible food, no or expensive parking, no amenities for young kids, bad sight lines, terrible scoreboard etc etc). The improvements made to the bleachers were well done but the rest of the park is a dump. You may think that a suburban stadium is a non-starter, but I doubt the city administration does much to help the Cubs without at least the option being out there for the team. Personally, I would love to see it but I agree that it most likely won't happen.

 

Wrigley has a max capacity of something like 45K. If a new stadium could be built with a capacity of 55K that additional revenue could go a long way toward a higher payroll (assuming sellouts continue which I'll admit is not certain).

[Guest]

Do you disagree with his statement that fans want Wrigley plus improvements? Because I think that is probably extremely accurate. I like the idea of a grandstand teardown but think it's probably unfeasible. I do believe that significant improvements can be made to the existing structure though, and am in support of that idea.

 

a suburban stadium is a horrible idea and non-starter.

 

I think Cubs fans compare Wrigley to other parks (Miller Park, USCellular for example) add see what they've been missing. I agree that improvements can be made (must be made at a minimum). I'm not at all enamored with Wrigley (peeling paint and rust everywhere, nets to catch falling concrete, terrible food, no or expensive parking, no amenities for young kids, bad sight lines, terrible scoreboard etc etc). The improvements made to the bleachers were well done but the rest of the park is a dump. You may think that a suburban stadium is a non-starter, but I doubt the city administration does much to help the Cubs without at least the option being out there for the team. Personally, I would love to see it but I agree that it most likely won't happen.

 

Wrigley has a max capacity of something like 45K. If a new stadium could be built with a capacity of 55K that additional revenue could go a long way toward a higher payroll (assuming sellouts continue which I'll admit is not certain).

 

wtf?

 

Well, I guess maybe if you include SRO and rooftops.

[Guest]

We're talking about the Wrigley Field at Addison and Sheffield, right?

[BeerHere]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Field

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/chc/ballpark/information/index.jsp?content=history

 

The current capacity is 41,160, making Wrigley Field the 10th-smallest actively used ballpark.

I was less than 4K over. The point stands however -- a slightly larger ballpark could generate more revenue. A different location could allow the Cubs to increase advertising revenue etc. I realize that this is an unpopular position around here and that any differing opinions are usually met with insults and arguments over minutia.

 

 

edited

[Sammy Sofa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Field

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/chc/ballpark/information/index.jsp?content=history

 

The current capacity is 41,160, making Wrigley Field the 10th-smallest actively used ballpark.

I was less than 4K over. The point stands however -- a slightly larger ballpark could generate more revenue. A different location could allow the Cubs to increase advertising revenue etc. I realize that this is an unpopular position around here and that any differing opinions are usually met with insults and arguments over minutia.

 

Nope. Nice cross, though.

[jersey cubs fan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Field

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/chc/ballpark/information/index.jsp?content=history

 

The current capacity is 41,160, making Wrigley Field the 10th-smallest actively used ballpark.

I was less than 4K over. The point stands however -- a slightly larger ballpark could generate more revenue. A different location could allow the Cubs to increase advertising revenue etc. I realize that this is an unpopular position around here and that any differing opinions are usually met with insults and arguments over minutia.

 

 

edited

 

It's going to cost a hell of a lot of money to build a new structure, so who knows how long before the increased revenue actually goes back into the team. The scarcity of tickets at Wrigley plays into the higher demand for those tickets, thus, higher prices and more revenue. Creating some mall in the suburbs may increase the potential for top line revenues, but there is significant risk involved as well.

 

Also, who the hell cares about amenities for kiddies? Those things are useless.

[Guest]

The Cubs have enough revenue as it is. Add a REAL TV deal once the current agreements are up and we'll be in a great spot.

 

You're risking far too much in moving to the burbs for not that much potential gain.

[BeerHere]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Field

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/chc/ballpark/information/index.jsp?content=history

 

The current capacity is 41,160, making Wrigley Field the 10th-smallest actively used ballpark.

I was less than 4K over. The point stands however -- a slightly larger ballpark could generate more revenue. A different location could allow the Cubs to increase advertising revenue etc. I realize that this is an unpopular position around here and that any differing opinions are usually met with insults and arguments over minutia.

 

 

edited

 

It's going to cost a hell of a lot of money to build a new structure, so who knows how long before the increased revenue actually goes back into the team. The scarcity of tickets at Wrigley plays into the higher demand for those tickets, thus, higher prices and more revenue. Creating some mall in the suburbs may increase the potential for top line revenues, but there is significant risk involved as well.

 

Also, who the hell cares about amenities for kiddies? Those things are useless.

 

Unfortunately the scarcity of tickets adds more to the secondary markets that to the Cubs revenue -- this is the reason they started the "Season ticket exchange". There is a practical limit to ticket prices.

 

A new stadium would cost a lot, but there are municipalities that are willing to share some of that cost with the Cubs - at least more willing to talk about it than the City of Chicago. Yes, there is risk but it should at least be an option. Laying all your cards on the table and saying publicly that moving the team out of Wrigley is not an option is shooting yourself in the foot. Where is the motivation from the CoC to chip in anything? The Sox got their new park only after they threatened to leave.

[WilcoFan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Field

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/chc/ballpark/information/index.jsp?content=history

 

The current capacity is 41,160, making Wrigley Field the 10th-smallest actively used ballpark.

I was less than 4K over. The point stands however -- a slightly larger ballpark could generate more revenue. A different location could allow the Cubs to increase advertising revenue etc. I realize that this is an unpopular position around here and that any differing opinions are usually met with insults and arguments over minutia.

 

 

edited

 

An improved Wrigley grandstand with more luxury boxes would more than likely be a larger revenue generator than a larger ballpark. Advertising revenue that might come in from companies would be offset by a decrease in tourist traffic.

 

A suburban stadium would not likely generate more revenue. Nor would it ever happen anyway. It is not even worth considering.

[BeerHere]

A retractable roof would eliminate the rainouts/delays. Spring games would sell out more frequently.

 

 

Just sayin......

[jersey cubs fan]

A new stadium would cost a lot, but there are municipalities that are willing to share some of that cost with the Cubs - at least more willing to talk about it than the City of Chicago. Yes, there is risk but it should at least be an option. Laying all your cards on the table and saying publicly that moving the team out of Wrigley is not an option is shooting yourself in the foot. Where is the motivation from the CoC to chip in anything? The Sox got their new park only after they threatened to leave.

 

I don't think you are paying attention to the political environment if you think small towns are lining up to pay for a stadium. The state has no incentive to contribute, which is what they did with the white sox. You either threaten to leave the state or it's worthless. There is motivation for the city to play ball here. They aren't going to be paying half a billion or anything, but that isn't necessary.

[jersey cubs fan]

A retractable roof would eliminate the rainouts/delays. Spring games would sell out more frequently.

 

 

Just sayin......

 

just saying nothing. This isn't Miami. The Cubs don't struggle to sell tickets because of weather problems.

[BeerHere]

A new stadium would cost a lot, but there are municipalities that are willing to share some of that cost with the Cubs - at least more willing to talk about it than the City of Chicago. Yes, there is risk but it should at least be an option. Laying all your cards on the table and saying publicly that moving the team out of Wrigley is not an option is shooting yourself in the foot. Where is the motivation from the CoC to chip in anything? The Sox got their new park only after they threatened to leave.

 

I don't think you are paying attention to the political environment if you think small towns are lining up to pay for a stadium. The state has no incentive to contribute, which is what they did with the white sox. You either threaten to leave the state or it's worthless. There is motivation for the city to play ball here. They aren't going to be paying half a billion or anything, but that isn't necessary.

I didn't say that towns are lining up to pay. I am paying very close attention to the political environment which is why I'm saying this. The only thing working in the Cubs favor is that there is new administration in Chicago (Rahm). The previous mayor and city council saw no motivation on their part and immediately dismissed the initial request by the Cubs without even a single review. I think the initial quote from Bernie was something like "Laughed it away..." or something like that. The city doesn't have any motivation because of the statements saying that the Cubs would never leave Wrigley Field made by current and previous ownership.

 

 

I'll I'm saying is - think about it. There are other and better options.

[BeerHere]

A retractable roof would eliminate the rainouts/delays. Spring games would sell out more frequently.

 

 

Just sayin......

 

just saying nothing. This isn't Miami. The Cubs don't struggle to sell tickets because of weather problems.

April/May tickets were available at the ticket booth for many games this year and years prior. Sellouts occur durng the warm months, rarely before.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'll I'm saying is - think about it. There are other and better options.

 

There really aren't. A suburban stadium is a horrible idea and not a real option.

[Guest]

A retractable roof would eliminate the rainouts/delays. Spring games would sell out more frequently.

 

 

Just sayin......

 

just saying nothing. This isn't Miami. The Cubs don't struggle to sell tickets because of weather problems.

April/May tickets were available at the ticket booth for many games this year and years prior. Sellouts occur durng the warm months, rarely before.

 

when the cubs aren't awful, sellouts (or very close to it) happen plenty in April and May.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2008-schedule-scores.shtml

[Brett]

Ricketts must have decided to do a media swing, because the Tribune has a separate interview-y type article on him today. The high point was Ricketts' confirmation that adding a big piece like Fielder or Pujols is up to Theo:

 

“Like I’ve always said, there is one person responsible for making those decisions, and one person accountable for those results,” he said. “So if (Epstein) believes strongly that’s what’s in the best interests of the team, then he’s got my support.”

 

That could mean a number of things when you break it down, but, once again, Ricketts is saying the right things.

[BeerHere]

A retractable roof would eliminate the rainouts/delays. Spring games would sell out more frequently.

 

 

Just sayin......

 

just saying nothing. This isn't Miami. The Cubs don't struggle to sell tickets because of weather problems.

April/May tickets were available at the ticket booth for many games this year and years prior. Sellouts occur durng the warm months, rarely before.

 

when the cubs aren't awful, sellouts (or very close to it) happen plenty in April and May.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2008-schedule-scores.shtml

 

The April attendance in that year (2008) averaged ~38,100, a full 2,000 tickets short of a sellout and I included the attendance figures that were over the listed capacity (assumed SRO and a sellout). Are you really debating that people don't go to games in April/May in Chicago due to weather? The first few games of every season usually sell out but the rain/cold weather keep people away.

[jersey cubs fan]

The April attendance in that year (2008) averaged ~38,100, a full 2,000 tickets short of a sellout and I included the attendance figures that were over the listed capacity (assumed SRO and a sellout). Are you really debating that people don't go to games in April/May in Chicago due to weather? The first few games of every season usually sell out but the rain/cold weather keep people away.

 

And you want to build a $1.2 billion stadium in the suburbs with a retractable roof to combat the handful of people that don't show up to a couple bad weather games?

 

 

It's not going to happen, nor should it happen, so leave it be.

[mul21]

The April attendance in that year (2008) averaged ~38,100, a full 2,000 tickets short of a sellout and I included the attendance figures that were over the listed capacity (assumed SRO and a sellout). Are you really debating that people don't go to games in April/May in Chicago due to weather? The first few games of every season usually sell out but the rain/cold weather keep people away.

 

And you want to build a $1.2 billion stadium in the suburbs with a retractable roof to combat the handful of people that don't show up to a couple bad weather games?

 

 

It's not going to happen, nor should it happen, so leave it be.

 

Well, it would also be convenient when we're in the World Series every year too.