98navigator

A plethora of ground ball out. Me likes!

DLEE up the middle

Good job by Ryan to hit that ball to the right side

Theriot is making him work

Nope. I'm watching it locally but I just checked the feed; it's not on.

Actually, I think Guz has just gotten better. He used to pitch on the right side of the rubber (it was Maddux last season that suggested he changed). It could be that he is able to get the ball inside better from the right side but I think it's also fair to say that he's pitching better overall (improved health probably is playing a better role).

I like the new GameDay

This is the last chance for the MiLers on the trip. I think the regular guys will play a lot less than yesterday...

Actually, someone has been creating them using a bookmarked link with updated date and team info. Hopefully, when the season starts, MLB will make it easier to find on its front page and or the front page of the individual team sites. They're available on MLB.com now, like the last game, right? I would still switch to CBS Sportsline. Gamday is too flashy, slow... and their new update doesnt help. CBS Sportsline is straight up information. Are they? I wasn't around last night so I didn't see them... It wasn't around on Thursday when I looked.

Actually, someone has been creating them using a bookmarked link with updated date and team info. Hopefully, when the season starts, MLB will make it easier to find on its front page and or the front page of the individual team sites.

Phil Rogers / Tribune I think the media is making too big of a deal out ot the "employee" remarks...

The advertising money is based on ratings (which gets to my original point about WGN making a profit on Sox games). Overall, the Sox had higher ratings in 2006 thus, the network will have the luxury of charging more per ad during Sox games in 2007 (than they can charge for Cubs games). That said, I fully expect the Cubs to regain the television and radio lead this season and for the foreseeable future. Actually, that's not quite true-advertising dollars aren't done precisely on past ratings. The Cubs with their push over the offseason probably have convinced advertisers to pay more for their games again-there are going to be a great deal of Cubs fans that check in to this team to see how they are doing, and advertisers will project that the Cubs will likely be ahead in ratings again this year and spend their dollars accordingly. It is true in a traditional sense. Nielson's television ratings rankings and Arbitron's radio ratings system are used to create a starting point for the cost of ad space based on the most recent pattern of consumers. It is also probably true that Cubs executives tried to negotiate a higher price per advertising based on a longer trackrecord of success. That doesn't mean they were successful; most likely the ad prices for Cubs games will be the same or slightly less than they had hoped (based on last season's prices) while not taking the kind of hit that other teams, with less loyal followings, would have experienced. The goal is to increase the cost of the ads yearly (at the worst they stay the same).

Yes, it is the case. The real story isn't a spike in Sox ratings following a WS, it's the Cubs TV and radio ratings drop because of a poor season (unlike previous poor seasons). The decrease was due, in part to the success of the Sox; Cubs defectors who not only started to watch and listen as well as go to the Cell, but it was also Cubs fans protesting a poor product. The advertising money is based on ratings (which gets to my original point about WGN making a profit on Sox games). Overall, the Sox had higher ratings in 2006 thus, the network will have the luxury of charging more per ad during Sox games in 2007 (than they can charge for Cubs games). That said, I fully expect the Cubs to regain the television and radio lead this season and for the foreseeable future. Also, as long as the Cubs and WGN share a common parent company, Sox games will never outnumber or equal Cubs games on the network. WGN Sports will continue to reassign more of its Sox games to WCIU/Sox Net (which can only seen locally) thereby reducing the number of national Sox games while maintaining local revenue. Yet another benefit to having a flagship network.

Do you have any support for that assertion? If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true. On your first question, it's common knowledge that the Sox beat out the Cubs in radio and TV ratings (2006) for the first time in over 20 years. It really isn't a surprise considering the Cubs won 66 games and the Sox were basking in the glow of a WS. It was published in the Tribune so you may want to search the archives. On your second point, no, my view is that Zell doesn't care about the baseball part of the Tribune (he's admitted as much). My point about the Sox was specific to the poster I was replying to---who implied that WGN must be profiting because they are running Sox games--as if to say there is minimal profit in Sox telecasts. My reply is two fold: because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games... Also, the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls will always be shown locally in Chicago because it is a local station (with a national following).

I agree with this. I just don't think WGN has much besides sports going on programming wise. Remember when WGN was trying "the WB". That idea went down in flames. The cable stations are all being forced out by specialty channels that cater to certain segments and show only certain stuff. WGN as a national cable station is probably largely being sustained by sports fans that complain to cable providers if it's dropped. I never see anything on there except endless reruns of shows that were popular sometime before I graduated elementary school. FYI, the WB turned into CW...

The Cubs better win because I have them going wire to wire in first place this year! :)

I disagree. When someone asks you "Are you going to fight this, are you going to request a trade?" and the response is, "no, I'm not going to get into that I'm just an employee," it's clear that the true meaning is taken out of context. Also, when you see the actual interview, it is clear that Prior isn't speaking in a bitter manner. Of course he's upset, it's human nature, but we should take what he says with a grain of salt considering the situation is fresh...

That's somewhat of a reach! The Cubs acquired free agents, not associated w/ another club. It's not like they bought the Cardinals and therefore their worth more. That quote is from Tim Mahon, a Chicago-based economist with Anderson Economic Group LLC. His company has deemed the acquisition of players as an impetus for increased value. I will leave the business of evaluating worth to his judgement. However, I can see his point; the Cubs signing Alfonso Soriano and retaining Aramis Ramirez, in effect, prevented rival teams from benefiting from their services. I understand that and agree that it prevents a rival team from signing them. So, when a company invents something and copyrights it........... is that "akin to a large corporation’s acquisitions of smaller rivals?" No, it prevents their rival company from having, or producing the same thing. Acquisition of a rival and Preventing a rival are different in my mind I understand his point but I'm not going to defend it... It isn't my quote.

I don't dispute that not televising the games nationally would decimate the Cubs national following. I just don't think that it's as likely to happen as others. With the case of the Braves, you have a huge media conglomerate that has an overarching media strategy that didn't include Braves baseball. If the Trib is sold to either of the groups mentioned, it won't be the same as if they were sold to, say, Newscorp or Disney. These groups don't have huge television media empires. They're guys probably more interested in the Trib's newspapers, which have very little to do with the team or WGN. We still have to ask whether WGN is profiting or not from the games. The fact that they continue to show White Sox games tells me that, yes, they are making money on baseball and that there probably isn't much they could do programming wise to make more money. Now, the new WGN owner could come in and decide they want to try another way to make more money. I just don't think that breaking up the Cubs from WGN will automatically mean the end of national broadcasts. White Sox games were more popular than Cubs telecasts last season (for the first time in over 20 years); the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts. Don't get me wrong, I expect the balance of power to shift to the Cubs once again this season but the leverage for WGN won't be noticeable until 2008. Outside of that, WGN will always show Sox games (as long as the White Sox continue to pay) because, first and foremost, WGN is a Chicago station (and the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls are local teams). There was a time when Cubs baseball, Bozo's Circus, and Andy Griffin Show reruns made up the bulk of the WGN schedule. The network's programming is much more diversified now, in part, because of MLB rules that have worked to decrease the number of games superstations are allowed to carry. The action necessitated the creation of Comcast Sports Net and WCIU/Cubs Net (which is only available in the Chicago area). In the absence of baseball, WGN Superstation would continue to focus on syndicated broadcasts (reruns) nationally and the continued production of the handful of new shows currently running. Zell has already made it clear that his interest in Tribune is purely economic and not media or sports centered. With that in mind, I am merely bringing up the potential negatives that could arise.

That's somewhat of a reach! The Cubs acquired free agents, not associated w/ another club. It's not like they bought the Cardinals and therefore their worth more. That quote is from Tim Mahon, a Chicago-based economist with Anderson Economic Group LLC. His company has deemed the acquisition of players as an impetus for increased value. I will leave the business of evaluating worth to his judgement. However, I can see his point; the Cubs signing Alfonso Soriano and retaining Aramis Ramirez, in effect, prevented rival teams from benefiting from their services.

Another example of Paul Sullivan inventing his own news! The Suntimes provides a different take on Prior's view: This is what Paul Sullivan said: It was Sullivan who asked Prior if he wanted to be traded (as seen on Comast Sports Net).

WGN could expand its CW programming which, currently, takes a back seat to Cubs games during the season. They could find plenty of ways to make it profitable. In business, that statement begs the question "so why aren't they already doing it?" Most businesses don't like to just leave dollars on the table when there is something more profitable available. It could be argued that since the Cubs are another division of the same company, they are using WGN to boost the profitability of the Cubs, and that that benefit is larger than the profit that could be made by putting other programming on instead of the Cubs. That explanation wouldn't explain why WGN carries Sox games though. Does anyone want to argue that the Sox have more fans outside Chicago than the Cubs. I think that the situation is actually the other way around. The Trib has used the Cubs, a team that has one of the largest national fan bases in all of baseball (just look at the locations on this message board for evidence of that) to boost the profitability of WGN by selling broadcast rights at below market value to another Tribune division, thereby transferring profit from the Cubs to WGN. On a side note, what is the "CW". I have cable so I rarely watch the usual TV networks and never watch WGN except for Cub games. WGN isn't doing it now because they are currently under the Tribune umbrella and, at the moment, Cubs baseball (and Sox games) is the priority. If the companies are made separate, WGN can choose its own programming. Its not like this hasn't happened before. TBS is making the transition to end all national Braves baseball broadcasts by the end of this season. I can see WGN continuing to run the games locally (which is fine for those of us that are local) but I am concerned about the greater effect on a potential loss of the national viewers. As I said earlier, I'm playing devil's advocate by looking at the worst case but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. BTW, the CW is a network with new and rerun programs. In some areas, the CW is a stand alone station but in Chicago it shares time with WGN's regular schedule. Actually, the WGN Superstation (which is seen only outside of the Chicago area) may show more of the CW than we get locally; I learned in the game thread the other day that the show I was watching on WGN, before the game, wasn't being shown nationwide. I think the important question is why WGN televises baseball games, Cubs and Sox nationally. Obviously the Trib made that call and there is some reason why. If the reason isn't "that's the way we make the most money", then there must be some other reason. It could be out of some loyalty to the city of Chicago, building up the city or something. It could be simple "that's what we've always done" business inertia. It could be that the Trib uses WGN to drive up the value of the Cubs for financial reasons and then televises the Sox games out of a sense of "fairness" or something like that. Either way, the new owners of WGN and the Cubs will either decide that continuing to televise Cubs games nationally in some form is profitable or not. It comes down to whether there is something that will get better ratings to replace the games. I don't think the Braves example is necessarily a very good one. What Turner did when he bought the team and put the games on his TBS network, was an attempt to create the same kind of national following the Cubs already had. What the Trib did was simply take advantage of the fact that the Cubs had a pretty solid regional and national fanbase, a great tradition, and Wrigley Field, and used that to make money by broadcasting games on their cable superstation. To compare the Braves national fanbase to the Cubs is a bit of a stretch to me. Most of the Braves fans were pretty much created by a combination of the TV telecasts and the team's success. Once Turner sold the company, the same focus wasn't put on the team (what does Time/Warner care about building the fanbase for a baseball team that represents a tiny fraction of its business). Once the team got weaker, no one watched and that spelled the end of the Braves games. I think the odds are good that Cubs games continue to be televised nationally under new Cubs/WGN ownership. --WGN single handedly grew the world wide fan base of the Cubs. Winning did not. --The TBS model is analogous. If the Cubs are sold to a person or group who does not care about sustaining or building the larger (outside Chicago) fan base, a decrease in popularity will result. In the 1970s, the White Sox were far more popular than the Cubs. In 1982, Reinsdorf's decision to take Sox games off "free TV," in Chicago, came at the expense of intracity (and national) popularity and fan support. Cable TV was in its infancy and the attempts by Sox ownership to be trailblazers in the new media failed miserably. While more homes today are equipped with subscription based programming, most are only "basic" plans. Currently, WGN Sports allows viewers to follow the Cubs without having to pay for an extra sports package. If the Cubs were separated from WGN TV, there would be a profound negative effect in their national following (expressed over years). The Cubs are the number one NL road team and third in MLB (behind NYY & BOS). Those numbers are largely represented by people who have never been to Chicago much less to Wrigley Field. Again, that following was built by accessibility of games and not winning. I have no doubt that WGN will continue to provide local telecasts of Cubs baseball. Whether or not the national Cubs broadcast remains, if the two companies are split, is anyone's guess. Actually, the better question is how many, if any, national broadcasts will be available?

The Cubs will win the divison. The offense will be good and the pitching will be better than expected.

The plot thickens... Crain's article 1 Crain's article 2 With this bidding war going on, Tribune will probably extend its deadline to see if the offers continue to rise. All of this is on the heels of a recent published report that claims the Cubs offseason accquisitions have substaintially increased the team's value. I hate this one but it is true:

I think Walker's poor ST helps the Padres case. While it is against the rules to release a player based on economic concerns, they can certainly cite a worry about declined production as a justification for their "baseball decision." That coupled with Walker being one of many LH bats off the bench might be enough to prevent the grievance from going very far.