Cubfanintheknow

You had me right until "penultimate." I don't think the word's even in the AP stylebook.

There are several other entities the Tribune could sell before it it would sell the Cubs. Why sell one of the more profitable arms of your corporation? because the Cubs are not a part of their core business. I think they would sell off some of their peripheral businesses and concentrate on what it is they do best, which is media. So... "We're going to sell off the Cubs, even though they're a big money maker for us. And we're sticking with what got us here--our newspapers, even though we're running into heavy competition with the Internet, which is draining our circulation. We're also keeping our local television stations across the country. Yes, there are more viewing options than ever before, but we think the WB is going to turn it all around for us." Selling the Cubs may stop the bleeding at Tribune Co. But it would only be temporary. The Cubs are not keeping the Trib afloat.lol They are a very small stream of revenue for a multi billion dollar corporation. Yes, I think they should concentrate on what it is they do best which is media, find new ideas to generate revenue from their CORE business, which does not include the Cubs. If they don't turn around their core business it really doesn't matter what the Cubs bring in. Also, WB is a blip on their screen. Newspapers are their business that is what they need to focus on. Incorporate the digital media, internet into their businessplan. Believe me, I understand what you're saying. I'm just incredibly skeptical it will happen. I think the Cubs are too closely affiliated with WGN-TV, WGN radio and--even though they hate to admit it--the Chicago Tribune to be sold off. Other entities will find their way to the chopping block before the Cubs do. I don't know that it is going to happen anytime soon, I am just making the case as to why they should do it, and why it may happen. Again the only thing that is slowing this down is the 450+ million dollar capital gain they would have to pay taxes on. Ah, yes, that little Capital Gains Tax thingie. Forgot about that one.

There are several other entities the Tribune could sell before it it would sell the Cubs. Why sell one of the more profitable arms of your corporation? because the Cubs are not a part of their core business. I think they would sell off some of their peripheral businesses and concentrate on what it is they do best, which is media. So... "We're going to sell off the Cubs, even though they're a big money maker for us. And we're sticking with what got us here--our newspapers, even though we're running into heavy competition with the Internet, which is draining our circulation. We're also keeping our local television stations across the country. Yes, there are more viewing options than ever before, but we think the WB is going to turn it all around for us." Selling the Cubs may stop the bleeding at Tribune Co. But it would only be temporary. The Cubs are not keeping the Trib afloat.lol They are a very small stream of revenue for a multi billion dollar corporation. Yes, I think they should concentrate on what it is they do best which is media, find new ideas to generate revenue from their CORE business, which does not include the Cubs. If they don't turn around their core business it really doesn't matter what the Cubs bring in. Also, WB is a blip on their screen. Newspapers are their business that is what they need to focus on. Incorporate the digital media, internet into their businessplan. Believe me, I understand what you're saying. I'm just incredibly skeptical it will happen. I think the Cubs are too closely affiliated with WGN-TV, WGN radio and--even though they hate to admit it--the Chicago Tribune to be sold off. Other entities will find their way to the chopping block before the Cubs do.

There are several other entities the Tribune could sell before it it would sell the Cubs. Why sell one of the more profitable arms of your corporation? because the Cubs are not a part of their core business. I think they would sell off some of their peripheral businesses and concentrate on what it is they do best, which is media. So... "We're going to sell off the Cubs, even though they're a big money maker for us. And we're sticking with what got us here--our newspapers, even though we're running into heavy competition with the Internet, which is draining our circulation. We're also keeping our local television stations across the country. Yes, there are more viewing options than ever before, but we think the WB is going to turn it all around for us." Selling the Cubs may stop the bleeding at Tribune Co. But it would only be temporary.

There are several other entities the Tribune could sell before it it would sell the Cubs. Why sell one of the more profitable arms of your corporation?

Walter E. Smithe spends a lot of money with all the media in Chicago. And to keep the Smithe dollars coming in, they're willing to play along with the little ruse--at least for a little while.

April Fools, people. April Fools.

I think it's right to put Ronnie Cedeno on a leash, considering the poor spring he's had. But the leash better extend through the entire month of April.

Yes, it is now going to be referred to as the "Bud Light Bleachers." And the naming rights to Wrigley Field? APRIL FOOLS!!!

"Eenie... meenie...minie... moe..."

Well, Dusty didn't exactly give Grissom a ringing endorsement in this morning's papers. And Grissom himself didn't exactly sound like a player confident in his ability to give 100% for an entire season. Angel Pagan would be a welcome addition to this team. He's played well this spring training and he certainly deserves to be given a shot.

I'm having a hard time believing this "The Cubs lied about Prior's injury to sell more tickets" theory. Here's a quote from Jim Hendry in Wednesday's Chicago Tribune: "Obviously, it'll be perceived any way people want t perceive it, but there's no advantage to holding back until Marth 14 and then discussing a problem we knew about earlier." Does anyone honestly believe the Cubs would wait until spring training is halfway over to finally seek medical treatment just to sell more tickets? Wouldn't they stand to gain more if they had sought treatment earlier if indeed Prior did need medical treatment earlier? For some reason, too many people want to read too much into every move the Cubs make.

Cover our respective butts, or ignore the obvious cloud around Bonds incredible stretching program? While it may be human nature to cover for ourselves, I think it is a difficult premise to suggest that all of us would approach the issue as Baker wants us to believe he did. I'm certainly not arguing the plausibility of Baker's recollection of his relationship with Bonds. I mean, he had to know the whole Bonds/steroid situation was going to resurface sometime. And this is the best he can come up with? But for so many posters to suggest that if they were in Baker's shoes (while he was managing the Giants) they would have approached the matter differently doesn't ring true with me.

Dusty Baker is covering his butt. Plain and simple. And I seriously doubt there's a poster on this board--myself included--who wouldn't do the same thing.

As many of you may recall, Chicago Bear's GM Jerry Angelo, who was new to the job, felt pressure to extend Dick Jauron's contract after the team's surprising 2001 season. This despite a couple of lousy seasons prior to 2001. Needless to say it turned out to be a pretty dumb move. There's no reason to rush things along. Let the season play itself out.

Steve Garvey was signing autographs at the All-Star Fanfest when it was in Chicago a few years back. My son, who was six at the time, wanted to get his autograph. I just couldn't bring myself to wait in line to get it. My son wasn't too happy with the decision. But some day he'll understand.

You're crazy!!! :wink: I suggested this a while back. But the problem with 15 team leagues is that there will always be one team from each league playing an interleague series throughout the entire season. I don't think the 30 games you have allotted for each team for interleague play is enough to cover the whole season. I wonder if schedule-makers have really studied this alignment to see if it would work. But I do like your schedule heavily tipped toward divisional opponents. And scrapping the natural rivalries is also a good idea. Now that it's been around a few years, the Cubs/Sox "rivalry" has lost a little of its luster. I think Cub fans have always looked at it as being less important than a Cubs/Cards matchup. And now that the Sox have won the World Series (ugh!), I think they realize who takes the inter-city series it's that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

Even with a less-than perfect roster (and that's probably being a little kind), the Cubs ON PAPER are better than most teams in the National League. I'd rate the Mets, Braves and Cardinals ahead of the Cubs and even with the Phillies and Astros. So it's not necessarily a bad place to be. There are a lot of things that have to go right in order for the Cubs to contend, namely maintaining a healthy starting rotation. But it also helps that the other contenders have some question marks, too. At least the Cubs have a chance in 2006. That's more than can be said for a lot of NL teams.

44 posts speculating something Dusty Baker may or may not have said. How long 'til spring training?

Here's the real point to this argument, as I see it. Those who don't like Hendry believe this is another shining example of his ineptitude as general manager. Those who like Hendry or are still on the fence with him aren't putting a lot of stock in this transaction.

This is the laughable part: So while entertaining offers that involve Manny and Clement, Prior, and possibly some nice offers from the White Sox, the Orioles will settle for the Lugo and Benson package? This story has to be 100% fabricated. O's would also get Anna! :wink:

I'm glad he didn't. Nothing like shutting the door when other options (ones that don't include Mark Prior, mind you) may be available. But if Hendry's determined not to trade Prior (and I've gradually come to this conclusion), it is important to "hang up laughing." If you don't, you may show hesitation or weakness, letting the O's dictate what's fair what's not fair in each proposal. There are better ways of doing that than humiliating another GM.

I'm glad he didn't. Nothing like shutting the door when other options (ones that don't include Mark Prior, mind you) may be available.

Jim Hendry takes a lot of heat on this board and in the media, but he does know when to shut up. He's taken a beating lately for even "offering" Mark Prior. But as a courtesy to the Orioles, who could yet wind up as a trade partner with the Cubs, he lets the speculation run rampant rather than speak out and possibly jeopardize a deal.

I'll save the hand-wringing and angst until after the signing. Until then, it's just talk.