Wrong. The deal for the Cubs was influenced by Sam Zell's desire that, for tax purposes, was heavy into debt. The "winner" for Zell was NOT the team that could come up with the most cash but the most financed cash. If Cuban had "won" then he would have landed on the same list--guaranteed. The Ricketts family actually just plunked tens of millions more in AZ (a good chunk of the rebuid there was actually funded by them) and are able/willing to plunk 200M into the Triangle building (if they can get commitments for Wrigley). They are NOT strapped for cash. The family sold less than 20% of their shares of Ameritrade for over $400M to purchase the club. They are, however, committed to rebuilding the team the way they have built their businesses--heavy commitments for infrastructure early on to pay dividends down the road. That has worked for Ameritrade (twice--first to invest in tele-trading and they purchased the first company to use the Internet for trades less than a year after the first online trade) and with TR's businesses (the one he owns and the one he ran prior to that). Similarly, the Ricketts are investing in the Cubs (farm system, Mesa and, eventually, the Wrigley complex and CUBTV). For decades (under, essentially, two owners) the infrastructure of the Cubs was ignored. Now the team has ownership that is investing in the club's future (and willing to invest much more). That isn't bad ownership. That is very good ownership. Excellent post.