Cubs for sale?

[Soul]

So who should they have spent all that money on?

 

I don't care how they spend their money or how much they spend. I don't care if they spend $55 million like the Marlins did in '03. Just whatever they do, do it well enough to win the World Series. That's the trick. And that's what takes what the Trib doesn't have-----desire to win.

 

What should they have done?

 

Build a championship organization. Take a page from the book of the winners. Or, if they can't do it, then sell the team to someone who can.

 

Just freaking win. After 100 years, there is no excuse. None at all. Just get it done, whatever it takes. If it takes more money, then just do it. If it takes less money, then that's fine too.

 

Just please, no more excuses from the Cubs and the Tribune. I've heard them all and it's gotten old.

[cubbieinexile]

5 outs. 5 outs again rears its head. Apparently it was the Tribune pretending to be Bartman that night, apparently it was the Tribune manning the SS spot.

 

Its odd because somehow the Marlins have the desire to win championships (because they won them so therefore by your logic the team must have had the desire to win) yet they are an organization that routinely destroys their team. Has an owner that fellow owners sued in a RICO case because they theought he was purposefully destroying the team.

 

The Tribune company has not owned the Cubs for 100 years. Blaming them for what Wrigley did in 1950 is not even close to being right. They have owned them since around 1980 and in that time they have tried to field a team that wins it all. They have come close but just because they didn't get there doesn't mean they lack the desire to do so.

 

5 outs, one innnig ends differently and nobody is complaining about the Tribune.

 

.

[cubbieinexile]

 

Build a championship organization. Take a page from the book of the winners. Or, if they can't do it, then sell the team to someone who can.

 

You mean like hiring Dallas Green to build one of the best (and expensive) minor league and scouting organization? Or do you mean by hiring MacPhail who built a winner in Minnesota, and then proceeded to build one of the best farm systems in the majors and send the Cubs to the playoffs twice.

[Roast]

God i wish i was rich.

[Jazz]

5 outs. 5 outs again rears its head. Apparently it was the Tribune pretending to be Bartman that night, apparently it was the Tribune manning the SS spot.

 

Its odd because somehow the Marlins have the desire to win championships (because they won them so therefore by your logic the team must have had the desire to win) yet they are an organization that routinely destroys their team. Has an owner that fellow owners sued in a RICO case because they theought he was purposefully destroying the team.

 

The Tribune company has not owned the Cubs for 100 years. Blaming them for what Wrigley did in 1950 is not even close to being right. They have owned them since around 1980 and in that time they have tried to field a team that wins it all. They have come close but just because they didn't get there doesn't mean they lack the desire to do so.

 

5 outs, one innnig ends differently and nobody is complaining about the Tribune.

 

.

 

I think the question isnt that the ownership variable should change, because any team that is in the top 5 in payroll should be putting togther much better than a below 500 team, it is the managment handling the resources. Macphail IMO, and alot of the people under him, maybe even hendry, baker of course, should be looking for another job.

The ownership has given us more than sufficient monetary options, but the unwillingness to go over many of the Prized FA's over the last few years (Tejada, Pudge, Thome, etc..) even though in hindsight, some ot them wouldnt of looked so good right now, at the time they ownership had the money, but would not throw their money at it to make the team better, and instead settled with the Burnitz's, and the like that have becomed a staple in cubdom recently.

[cubbieinexile]

Pudge was always a risk and I think a lot of people were against it.

 

Thome would have been nice but not at the contract length he demanded.

 

Tejada? Tejada's the type of player that scares me to death. paying him the money and giving him the length he got would give me serious heartburn.

 

ARod? Sure I would want him, but 10 years 250 million would make anyone think twice.

 

JD Drew? Huge risk and everybody knew it.

 

Beltre? Huge risk becuase he only had the one year

 

Beltran? Again another risk but this time he got the big playoff performance to get the check.

 

Randy Johnson? Scary proposition.

 

Almost any of the FA from Glaus to Mags to Javier have huge risks involved that get worse because most of them demand long term contracts. About the only A+ free agent I wish the Cubs had was Manny Ramirez.

[LoneStarCubFan]

2) Wrigley Field must be abandoned and a new ballpark built, so that money can not be made unless a winner is put on the field. Yes, I really did just say that.

 

I've thought that for a long time. I'd both hate and love to see it happen. But it won't as long as the Trib owns this ballclub.

 

It is possible to win a WS playing at Wrigley but the Trib isn't all that concerned about it.

 

Yes, this team had a $100 million* payroll last year and yes that should be enough money to compete but with its resources there is absolutely no excuse for making the signing of a big ticket free agent contingent upon dealing Sammy Sosa. Teams with championship-level resources don't do that. They also don't pass on Miguel Tejada because the SS who cost them Game 6 in '03 is making too much money.

 

(*- really $87 million)

[transplanted_suburbanite]

2) Wrigley Field must be abandoned and a new ballpark built, so that money can not be made unless a winner is put on the field. Yes, I really did just say that.

 

I've thought that for a long time. I'd both hate and love to see it happen. But it won't as long as the Trib owns this ballclub.

 

It is possible to win a WS playing at Wrigley but the Trib isn't all that concerned about it.

 

Yes, this team had a $100 million* payroll last year and yes that should be enough money to compete but with its resources there is absolutely no excuse for making the signing of a big ticket free agent contingent upon dealing Sammy Sosa. Teams with championship-level resources don't do that. They also don't pass on Miguel Tejada because the SS who cost them Game 6 in '03 is making too much money.

 

(*- really $87 million)

 

Amen to both of you. As sad it is to say getting out of Wrigley would be a positive move just as Soul says. Don't let the park be more popular then the team.

[rocket]

yeah, just like fenway needed to be replaced before the red sox had a winner

[transplanted_suburbanite]

yeah, just like fenway needed to be replaced before the red sox had a winner

 

We are not the Red Sox though. What works for one team doesn't always work for another.

[J.R.]

Neither Wrigley nor the Trib can be blamed with any shred of legitimacy so long as our payroll is competitive with the league's best, as it has been for awhile now.

[cubbieinexile]

So building a brand new park would actually reduce attendance? Interesting theory. I guess all those fans who flock to a new stadium don't exist. People go to wrigley not because of Wrigley but because of what happens at Wrigley an around it. Unless they built out in the sticks I don't see that being a problem with a new stadium.

 

Cub fans for some reason like to look for the silliest reasons for the teams losing. They'll cut off their own nose just to think they are doing something to improve the their face. In the ends 5 outs. It happens differently and nobody says the Cubs can't win with Wrigley or with the Tribune.

[transplanted_suburbanite]

So building a brand new park would actually reduce attendance? Interesting theory. I guess all those fans who flock to a new stadium don't exist. People go to wrigley not because of Wrigley but because of what happens at Wrigley an around it. Unless they built out in the sticks I don't see that being a problem with a new stadium.

 

Cub fans for some reason like to look for the silliest reasons for the teams losing. They'll cut off their own nose just to think they are doing something to improve the their face. In the ends 5 outs. It happens differently and nobody says the Cubs can't win with Wrigley or with the Tribune.

 

Whoa whoa whoa I never said that Wrigley is the reason they are losing. Maybe I worded it in a way that was confusing.

 

Yes I don't think a new ballpark would bring in the same type of fans that are at Wrigley. As you said, "People go to wrigley not because of Wrigley but because of what happens at Wrigley an around it." Wrigley is very much a part of what the Cubs are and that is part of the attraction of going to the park. The reputation of our fans is that we go to Wrigley because it is a party place and we don't care about the games. I was thinking maybe if we were in a new park we could possibly attract some different types of fans that would come there for the team and the team only. Then in order to draw fans to that park we would have to field a winning team. I think Jim Hendry has been great... but maybe the suits would put a charge in him to go after the best of the best.

[J.R.]

Yes, by God, let's build a park no one wants to come to. Attendance bad, "real" fans good.

 

This is ridiculous.

[transplanted_suburbanite]

Yes, by God, let's build a park no one wants to come to. Attendance bad, "real" fans good.

 

This is ridiculous.

 

Nah, instead let's take people's comments out of context. It's not like Wrigley will be able to stand much longer anyway. Do you think the stadium could handle a World Series? What about a WS victory at home?

[J.R.]

Nah, instead let's take people's comments out of context.

 

I thought I read this correctly ... if not, please elaborate on your point.

 

I was thinking maybe if we were in a new park we could possibly attract some different types of fans that would come there for the team and the team only. Then in order to draw fans to that park we would have to field a winning team.

 

 

It's not like Wrigley will be able to stand much longer anyway. Do you think the stadium could handle a World Series? What about a WS victory at home?

 

That sounds like something out of the Jay Marriotti School of Structural Engineering. The ballpark is not going to up and fall over.

[transplanted_suburbanite]

Nah, instead let's take people's comments out of context.

 

I thought I read this correctly ... if not, please elaborate on your point.

 

I was thinking maybe if we were in a new park we could possibly attract some different types of fans that would come there for the team and the team only. Then in order to draw fans to that park we would have to field a winning team.

 

 

It's not like Wrigley will be able to stand much longer anyway. Do you think the stadium could handle a World Series? What about a WS victory at home?

 

That sounds like something out of the Jay Marriotti School of Structural Engineering. The ballpark is not going to up and fall over.

 

 

More like the Sauk Village Anti-Cardboard City Improvement Plan...

 

I wasn't saying if they built a new ballpark only the "smart" fans would show up. I don't think they would have guaranteed attendence like at Wrigley. If they built another park that would be able to hold more fans then Wrigley I think they could at least keep crowd numbers at or above the normal previous level. Maybe to pack the place full they would have to build a better team for the fans to come and see instead of just showing up to party. Wouldn't a new ballpark with more seating bring in more revenue?

 

I never said this was the way it SHOULD be. Just a thought on a benefit if we left Wrigley. Of course this will never happen.

[The Voice of Reason]

Neither Wrigley nor the Trib can be blamed with any shred of legitimacy so long as our payroll is competitive with the league's best, as it has been for awhile now.

 

The Cubs payroll is a long way from the Red Sox's and the Yankees and is projected to be the near equivalent of the Cardinals (from a dinkly little town like St. Louis) in 2006.

 

Trib paid $20 million for the Cubs and it's now (20+years later) projected to be worth $500 - $600 million. It's time to put some of that capital gain (not just revenue) back into the product or time for the Tribune conglomerate to cash in their goldmine of an investment.

 

Being competitive in no longer good enough.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Neither Wrigley nor the Trib can be blamed with any shred of legitimacy so long as our payroll is competitive with the league's best, as it has been for awhile now.

 

The Cubs payroll is a long way from the Red Sox's and the Yankees and is projected to be the near equivalent of the Cardinals (from a dinkly little town like St. Louis) in 2006.

 

Trib paid $20 million for the Cubs and it's now (20+years later) projected to be worth $500 - $600 million. It's time to put some of that capital gain (not just revenue) back into the product or time for the Tribune conglomerate to cash in their goldmine of an investment.

 

Being competitive in no longer good enough.

 

Don't you understand that there is no capital gain until you sell the asset ??

[Fro]

I think it's funny how whenever someone's team goes up for sale no matter the sport everybody immediately clamors for Cube's. When the Blues were for sale I practiacally praying for the man to buy them. What a guy.

 

I rememebr this summer when Cuban said he'd like to own the Cubs....I about fell out of my chair.

 

Big time payroll does NOT equal a good team ala this year's Cubs. I wouldnt mind Cuban being the owner, but you need quality playes, not just big time money players.

 

Big time payroll + smart spending usually does equal a good team.

 

Cuban's a stat geek. He'd be a tremendous owner. He's basically modelled a lot of what he's done with the Mavs off Moneyball. Only problem is there's not equivalent stats for basketball that they've found yet.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think it's funny how whenever someone's team goes up for sale no matter the sport everybody immediately clamors for Cube's. When the Blues were for sale I practiacally praying for the man to buy them. What a guy.

 

I rememebr this summer when Cuban said he'd like to own the Cubs....I about fell out of my chair.

 

Big time payroll does NOT equal a good team ala this year's Cubs. I wouldnt mind Cuban being the owner, but you need quality playes, not just big time money players.

 

Big time payroll + smart spending usually does equal a good team.

 

Cuban's a stat geek. He'd be a tremendous owner. He's basically modelled a lot of what he's done with the Mavs off Moneyball. Only problem is there's not equivalent stats for basketball that they've found yet.

 

He's also very very reactionary, which is a very very bad thing in baseball. Requires much more patience than basketball.

[oldcubsfan]

Nah, instead let's take people's comments out of context.

 

I thought I read this correctly ... if not, please elaborate on your point.

 

I was thinking maybe if we were in a new park we could possibly attract some different types of fans that would come there for the team and the team only. Then in order to draw fans to that park we would have to field a winning team.

 

 

It's not like Wrigley will be able to stand much longer anyway. Do you think the stadium could handle a World Series? What about a WS victory at home?

 

That sounds like something out of the Jay Marriotti School of Structural Engineering. The ballpark is not going to up and fall over.

 

 

More like the Sauk Village Anti-Cardboard City Improvement Plan...

 

I wasn't saying if they built a new ballpark only the "smart" fans would show up. I don't think they would have guaranteed attendence like at Wrigley. If they built another park that would be able to hold more fans then Wrigley I think they could at least keep crowd numbers at or above the normal previous level. Maybe to pack the place full they would have to build a better team for the fans to come and see instead of just showing up to party. Wouldn't a new ballpark with more seating bring in more revenue?

 

I never said this was the way it SHOULD be. Just a thought on a benefit if we left Wrigley. Of course this will never happen.

Why would a business take that risk? They sellout now and are competitive contrary to the thinking of many here. You sound like that idiot Mike Murphy. He's still griping that the "real" sox fans can't get tickets. You miss the main point that baseball competes for ENTERTAINMENT DOLLARS. It is not based on a select fan base. Stay home if you don't like the product, others will fill the seats.

[oldcubsfan]

I think it's funny how whenever someone's team goes up for sale no matter the sport everybody immediately clamors for Cube's. When the Blues were for sale I practiacally praying for the man to buy them. What a guy.

 

I rememebr this summer when Cuban said he'd like to own the Cubs....I about fell out of my chair.

 

Big time payroll does NOT equal a good team ala this year's Cubs. I wouldnt mind Cuban being the owner, but you need quality playes, not just big time money players.

 

Big time payroll + smart spending usually does equal a good team.

 

Cuban's a stat geek. He'd be a tremendous owner. He's basically modelled a lot of what he's done with the Mavs off Moneyball. Only problem is there's not equivalent stats for basketball that they've found yet.

I guess you missed the fact that he is a Pirates fan and would like to buy in to his real "hometown" team. Don't base everything you see in a quick interview.

[cubbieinexile]

 

Cuban's a stat geek. He'd be a tremendous owner. He's basically modelled a lot of what he's done with the Mavs off Moneyball. Only problem is there's not equivalent stats for basketball that they've found yet.

 

He bought into the MAvs and turned them around long before moneyball was written. Nor one can model anytihng off of Moneyball its a book written about people and their views. It is not a manual nor is it anything close to that.

[IowaCubsFan]

Nah, instead let's take people's comments out of context.

 

I thought I read this correctly ... if not, please elaborate on your point.

 

I was thinking maybe if we were in a new park we could possibly attract some different types of fans that would come there for the team and the team only. Then in order to draw fans to that park we would have to field a winning team.

 

 

It's not like Wrigley will be able to stand much longer anyway. Do you think the stadium could handle a World Series? What about a WS victory at home?

 

That sounds like something out of the Jay Marriotti School of Structural Engineering. The ballpark is not going to up and fall over.

 

Wouldn't that be the Cubs' luck though? They finally win the World Series, but it's tainted by the collapse of the second deck during the post Game-7 celebration, killing a thousand people and turning what should have been the greatest moment in Chicago sports history into the worst.

 

The Cubs would do that to me; just so I couldn't enjoy a WS title.