TarzanJoeWallis

I thought this was going to be about my mom...I was going to be pissed. That would have been totally uncalled for. I often think you are one of the funniest posters on here, but I found that especially funny!

Except you make far more money in the long run if you own the building. Fixing the thing isn't just flushing money down the toilet, it's an investment. The state owning Wrigley would reduce the profitability. It's a dumb idea. You may be right, but won't the terms of the lease have a lot to do with the profitability of the deal? What if the state paid for the rehab and the upkeep, but the Cubs got to keep all of the advertising and concession revenues? Wouldn't that be a good deal for the new owner? Perhaps, but it doesn't really seem fair to the taxpayers of Illinois to have to fork over money in order to ensure favorable lease conditions. It's just a bad idea any way you shake it. I agree with you about the taxpayers. I think it remains to be seen if it is a bad deal or a good deal for the new owner.

Except you make far more money in the long run if you own the building. Fixing the thing isn't just flushing money down the toilet, it's an investment. The state owning Wrigley would reduce the profitability. It's a dumb idea. You may be right, but won't the terms of the lease have a lot to do with the profitability of the deal? What if the state paid for the rehab and the upkeep, but the Cubs got to keep all of the advertising and concession revenues? Wouldn't that be a good deal for the new owner? the real money would be from leasing the luxury suites. there is nothing to gain for a new owner in a rehabbed ballpark that they don't own. Again, it all depends on the lease. If the Cubs don't get suite revenues, advertising, concessions, etc., then it definitely is a bad deal for the new owner. If the Cubs get a sweetheart deal, then it could very well be a good deal for the owner. I'll see if I can find anything that talks about the terms of the Sox lease. That could answer a lot of questions.

I have stayed there and it is a nice place. As I said earlier, don't be afraid of Priceline. If you don't get the price you want it doesn't cost you anything but a few moments of your time.

Except you make far more money in the long run if you own the building. Fixing the thing isn't just flushing money down the toilet, it's an investment. The state owning Wrigley would reduce the profitability. It's a dumb idea. You may be right, but won't the terms of the lease have a lot to do with the profitability of the deal? What if the state paid for the rehab and the upkeep, but the Cubs got to keep all of the advertising and concession revenues? Wouldn't that be a good deal for the new owner?

That's the catch. The owner won't be paying for Wrigley, because it will be sold separately to the state agency. That's right. I heard the report (it was George Offman) and it basically said that if the the Illinois Sports Authority takes over the ballpark, they want the Historical Landmark restrictions eased so they can do a rehab on the place other than the areas that were mentioned in the post earlier. He said the plan was to gut the grandstand area and rebuild. He reported a cost of around $350 million and said it could happen as early as 2010. I didn't get the impression it would be like Soldier Field though where it looked like a new stadium. I was thinking it would still look like Wrigley, just new (kind of like the Bleachers project). Hmm, interesting. I thought selling Wrigley and the Cubs in two different deals was a ploy to get the price up of the Cubs. Next question, who would buy the Cubs and not Wrigley? That would seem pretty foolish unless the new owner planned to move them elsewhere. I absolutley have no idea where I heard or read this (and as such, may be talking out of my arse), but it seems as though I recall that someone (maybe it was Crany Kenney) was saying that this would help the sell because the new owners could buy the team for less (than if it had to buy both the team and the stadium), could get a reasonable lease from the state, and not have to pay to keep the ballpark operational. Unless there was some sort of a sweat-heart deal the owner of the Cubs would be in roughly the same shape as Loria. I really cannot see why anyone would be interested in buying the Cubs without Wrigley. I could. Would you rather spend $800 million to purchase the team and the stadium and then another $350 million to fix Wrigley (for a total of $1.35 Billion), or $600 million just for the team and have someone else pay to fix the stadium? Not having to pay to purchase the stadium, its upkeep, or its rehab could save a new owner hundreds of millions of doallars. Of course, I am making up those dollar amounts as I have no idea what the costs will be, but you get my point. As you said though, the lease is a big key too. I think the Sports Authority owns the Cell. What kind of lease do the Sox have?

That's the catch. The owner won't be paying for Wrigley, because it will be sold separately to the state agency. That's right. I heard the report (it was George Offman) and it basically said that if the the Illinois Sports Authority takes over the ballpark, they want the Historical Landmark restrictions eased so they can do a rehab on the place other than the areas that were mentioned in the post earlier. He said the plan was to gut the grandstand area and rebuild. He reported a cost of around $350 million and said it could happen as early as 2010. I didn't get the impression it would be like Soldier Field though where it looked like a new stadium. I was thinking it would still look like Wrigley, just new (kind of like the Bleachers project). Hmm, interesting. I thought selling Wrigley and the Cubs in two different deals was a ploy to get the price up of the Cubs. Next question, who would buy the Cubs and not Wrigley? That would seem pretty foolish unless the new owner planned to move them elsewhere. I absolutley have no idea where I heard or read this (and as such, may be talking out of my arse), but it seems as though I recall that someone (maybe it was Crany Kenney) was saying that this would help the sell because the new owners could buy the team for less (than if it had to buy both the team and the stadium), could get a reasonable lease from the state, and not have to pay to keep the ballpark operational.

That's the catch. The owner won't be paying for Wrigley, because it will be sold separately to the state agency. That's right. I heard the report (it was George Offman) and it basically said that if the the Illinois Sports Authority takes over the ballpark, they want the Historical Landmark restrictions eased so they can do a rehab on the place other than the areas that were mentioned in the post earlier. He said the plan was to gut the grandstand area and rebuild. He reported a cost of around $350 million and said it could happen as early as 2010. I didn't get the impression it would be like Soldier Field though where it looked like a new stadium. I was thinking it would still look like Wrigley, just new (kind of like the Bleachers project).

I think they go thru and pick the most ignorant questions for laughs, because I swear every week there is some kind of stupid ass question like this. Or it could be somebodies nephew or a friend that they thought would be cool to have one of their questions on the site. I'm with Sweet Swinging Billy and Cuse on this. I'm a half-full guy anyway (maybe that is why I still believe in the Cubs!), but whenever I see a question like this, I don't think it is some 42-year-old guy with no clue. I usually assume (perhaps wrongly) that it is some ten-year-old kid excited about the Cubs without the understanding yet that Big Z wouldn't ever be put in to give D Lee a day off. And if that's the case, and the kid is excited about seeing his question, then more power to him. On the other hand, if it is some 42-year-old guy, then he needs to go manage the Cardinals or something.

Same with me, Raisin. This is fun. Thanks for doing it OleMissCub. On the Indiana Pacers board I frequent they did something similar to this but with numbers. For instance, the greatest Pacer ever to wear number 1, number 2, number 3, etc.

Agreed. I stay downtown every trip. I use Priceline for a four-start hotel or better on Michigan Ave or the Loop and rarely pay more than $100 a night. I've had a suite at the Omni for $70 a night. I then walk to the El and take it to the park. Plus, downtown is a great place to be when you aren't at the ballpark. As Soul said, I don't know your budget either, but with three of you dividing the cost (I assume), I think you are better off going an extra $15 or so per guy (as opposed to getting a questionable room for $60 somewhere) and staying in a great place downtown.

Neither do I. In fact, I think it is actually kind of cool. I wouldn't want a new Wrigley Field to look like that or anything, but for the needs of a dome in a warm weather city, I think it is pretty innovative. Looks like it will still have the feel of an outdoor game but still protect from rain and sun.

Third homer went into the well in left. The pain in your shin may have affected that recollection! :D Interesting to watch big Lee Smith pick up the save by throwing TWO scoreless innings. Yeah, I saw I was wrong too. Funny how a vivid memory can be so wrong!

I was at the game they are showing now (Dawson's 3-HR game). I really smacked my shin on the seat in front of me when he hit the third. It hurt like crazy. I was telling my boys about this game (and the shin incident) just the other day. I remembered it was a very hot and humid day (which has proven to be true). I also remember that Dawson's third went out to right. It will be interesting to see if that memory is correct too. One of the things I most like about being able to see this game is being able to hear Dewayne Staats again. I thought he was a great announcer. I remember he left the Cubs for the Yankees, but years later he was doing the Rays. I wonder if he regrets ever leaving the Cubs.

I'm not sure which will happen first...the Bedard trade becoming official, or me figuring out if all of your winking means something.

They said during the Bulls game about ten minutes ago that Levine was reporting the Cubs got Fukudome and that he (Levine) would be on after the game to talk about it.

Same thing that took my dad. He was fine, then said, "Oh my God, I've got a terrible headache," and was dead.

The Score has been reporting for about an hour that he is going to be named president of the Blackhawks this afternoon.

I did hear it. It wasn't a real in-depth report, just a baseball update during their local Sports Center.

I lived on the same dorm floor at Indiana State University with Bubba the Love Sponge. His real name is Todd Clem, though he did go by Bubba in college. He was a nice enough guy, but could get on your nerves really fast. One of the local Terre Haute radio stations had a contest where each night for a week a different listener got to host the evening show. He happened to get picked and that is how he got in the business. Now he makes a ton of money and is talking to baseball players about being the masters of their own domain.

to be fair he said tuesday at the earliest. He also said out of Chicago. Might be about the White Sox.

I believe he does. BP just launched the new basketball website. That wouldn't matter with this though. The NBA doesn't follow the news embargo in place during the World Series. If something was happening with Kobe Bryant to the Bulls it could be announced during the World Series.

Do the White Sox have some coaching staff announcements to make?

Also of note: Marshall had a 5.84 K/9 this year. His FIP was 4.58. Hes never pitched over 150 innings. Don't expect Marshall to get better from what he did this year. Plus, Schiling compiled his numbers in the AL East while Marshall compiled his in the NL Central.

I've still got it.