Sammys Boombox

I am Sammy's Boombox.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10677271/jason-whitlock-mark-cuban-nfl-prediction I love the NFL, but the nature of pass interference/holding/roughing the passer means the officials are going to be a major part of the outcome of a game. Now all of these non-football related penalties are going to make them even more of a focal point. Aggravating.

I guess from all of the hours I have wasted reading about "The Baseball Plan" and "The Business Plan" and reading everyone's opinions on the matter. This is what I think is closest to reality. Ricketts agreed to these terms because nobody else would. He basically had nobody to bid against, so he got the team. Yay for him, but if he had not caved maybe somebody else could have bought the team without those restrictions and it would have been better for the fans. Of course, that is assuming that whoever bought the team was buying them with the intent of making them this world-class organization. That is not a guarantee. This would-be owner is a huge question mark. Would they have been more successful in their endeavors in terms of the renovation? What approach would they have taken in hiring the baseball executives? Would they have a long-term plan at all? In general, I think if Mark Cuban bought the team more on his terms we would be in much better shape, but that is speculation. Since the moment Ricketts bought the team I think he has attempted to do what was in the best interest of the long-term success of the on-field product. They have failed, or at least been delayed in succeeding in areas (renovations, major league productivity, still no agreement on a TV deal), but I do trust that he is trying to do what he thinks is best for the fans. At the moment I would say that I am torn on how I feel about Ricketts buying the team. I do believe that they will eventually build an organization that is dominating at times and competing most of the time, but I think the sale terms that he agreed to have pushed back the beginning of that window much later than it had to be. At this point, if it is 2016 or later when the Cubs first play in a NLDS, they better be going to 15 of the next 20 NLDS. That is a high bar, but if these people are so smart at what they are doing and have this long to take advantage of the system, anything much less and I will not be pleased.

Find a competitor and give him tons of money.

Yes. I think the announcers agreed with you.

Opposite field linedrive HRs. I love it.

As a former "purist," can we just adopt the DH in the NL now? I think we would be just as prepared as any other NL team in filling that spot in the near future (more FA money to spend - well, hopefully - and tons of MiLB depth at corner IF positions).

Haha. When Len was talking about the trade today I thought of Herschel Walker.

He could have just wrote, "Can we rid the Post-Dispatch of Bernie Miklasz?" That guy writes the bulk of this nonsense.

The question he was answering was along the lines of :What do you say to those who think you are being too nice? Why didn't you just come in telling Rahm and the rooftops what you wanted, why it was more than fair what you were offering and to either get out of the way or you were going to be having meetings with these mayors in the suburbs tomorrow? I thought a great follow up would have been, "Knowing now that four years after buying the team you still not have begun renovations, would you be more forceful at the beginning if you could go back? If not, why? Where do you think you would be if you had been more forceful from the beginning?"

Apparently I have been reading Alcantara's name wrong.

We have too many Royals rejects on this team.

This was on BleacherNation. There were concepts for a floating stadium for the Padres and Chargers in the 1960s. My wife and I jet skied in Mission Bay and went around the island they are talking about. http://www.gaslampball.com/2014/2/26/5451082/a-floating-stadium-for-san-diego I really wish they could find those concepts.

We're going to be hearing a whole lot of "Wrigley Field at Corporate Plaza," I imagine. And cool for them. We need enough revenue to paper over Ricketts' incompetence and Epstein's indifference. I'm willing to rename it Corporate Field if it means even more money. They can name it Busch Stadium II. I don't care.

Not impressed at all with the rooftop rep.

But if that were true then the Cubs would have no reason to worry themselves over losing a lawsuit to the rooftops and could have continued with their plans and told the rooftops to bring it on.

So, maybe another idea for a poll is "How optimistic are you about the Cubs future?" I know that within the span of a few weeks I went from very angry at the Ricketts/Tribune/Selig/Chicago politics for putting the Cubs in a situation that seems pretty crappy for years to come (due to a conversation with an MLB reporter and then the Passan article) to extremely excited (TV deals, Tanaka, renovations) to upset that 2014 and it looks like 2015 are being punted (no Tanaka) to angry (renovation litigation) to very angry (this article today and the TV deal is still not in hand). I think I'm moving into the "I hope these guys bring us a perennial winner, but I'll believe it when I see it. And, if it does not turn into playing in the League Division Series 7 out of 10 years and playing in a couple of World Series every 5 years, then it wasn't really worth making my favorite sports team basically unwatchable for half a decade."

Obviously missed a couple of things today. I remember that Forbes report, but many owners debunked that when it came out. Obviously, there was a lot of truth to the Cubs portion of the Forbes report. I still think the previous ownership has to take a huge portion of the blame, but for the sake of this poll: 90/10 Ricketts/FO.

#5 in revenue and #1 in profit Where is this information coming from?

I want a Sam Zell/Selig/Tribune option. Even the local Chicago politics could be blamed on them for just accepting things like landmark statuses and entering into idiotic agreements with rooftop owners. No renovations to Wrigley. No investment in development. Screwing Cubs on TV deals.

This jersey with buttons instead of a zipper for the home unis: This jersey with a cleaner grey for the road unis: This hat in the 59-50 style with a blue bill. Red bill is awful:

I'm not sure if they even need the city's backing...but I'm guessing their odds are pretty good and that they just wanted to avoid the whole process. The rooftops are desperate and have nowhere else to go, so I wouldn't take the fact that they're willing to go this route to mean that they have or should have any sort of confidence in winning. I'd take the fact that they're putting up the most contentious portion of all of this, the RF sign, now as a decent sign. Maybe putting up the RF sign is the cheapest thing they can do that will anger the rooftops enough to force litigation. Get the litigation out of the way, and then when/if the Cubs win they will complete the rest of the renovations. Instead of sitting around trying to get the RTOs to agree not to sue, force them to sue (or shut up), so the Cubs can get along with the rest of the renovations.

It's gonna happen.

Cubs. As stated by others I will be too disappointed if it is not them.