RedIvyCub

Absolutely correct. Testing is only allowed if there is suspicion. This is pulled directly from the Major League Baseball’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program (page 9). mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/jda.pdf "B. Drugs of Abuse Except as set forth in Section 3.A or Section 5.B (as to Stimulants) or Section 3.C or Section 4.E, Players shall not be subject to testing for the use of any Drug of Abuse. C. Reasonable Cause Testing In the event that either Party has information that gives it reasonable cause to believe that a Player has, in the previous 12-month period, engaged in the use, possession, sale or distribution of a Prohibited Substance, the Party shall provide the other Party, either orally or in writing, with a description of its information (“Reasonable Cause Notification”), and the Player will be subject to immediate testing or a program of testing, as determined by the IPA, to commence no later than 48 hours after the Reasonable Cause Notification was provided. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Party receiving Reasonable Cause Notification disputes the existence of reasonable cause, that Party shall have the right to commence a proceeding before the Panel Chair, as defined in Article XI(A)(9), within 48 hours after receipt of the Reasonable Cause Notification, and the Panel Chair will determine whether reasonable cause exists to subject the Player to testing. No reasonable cause testing of the Player will occur until the completion of the proceeding before the Panel Chair. The proceeding before the Panel Chair may be conducted by conference call at the request of either Party, and shall be completed within 48 hours from the time the Panel Chair was notified of the existence of the dispute. The Panel Chair shall issue his decision within 24 hours of the completion of the proceeding, and if the Panel Chair finds reasonable cause to exist, the testing or testing program, as determined by the IPA, shall commence within 48 hours of his decision. "

I don't see them butting heads with the MLBPA over this especially with the big money contracts. However, what a bankruptcy could affect are the payments still being made to Sosa. Would wipe those out as well as to any other player who had a contract with deferred payments. Bet the DBacks are thinking they should have done this themselves years ago. LOL

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/david-kaplan-chicago-sports/2009/07/breaking-news-cubs-sale-to-be-announced-today.html Seems once again his "excellent resources" are playing games with him.

Too bad the banks cant claim players as assets like they do with houses and cars. I can just imagine the repo man dragging off the entire Cubs outfield in the middle of a game :rotfl: Don't you mean the player's contract as an asset?

You all do realize the reason for less games on WGN, don't you? It's the Superstation tax. It's why TBS under new Braves ownership is no longer the flagship station of the Braves. So don't be surprised to see no more game on WGN America down the road. Albeit, they will probably still televise on the local feed only. And for those who are so upset about not seeing the Cubs on WGN...talk to fans of 28 other teams who don't have the advantage that you do. I don't think they will feel too sorry for Cubs fans if they lose WGN games. Then again, that is Zell's fear because then WGN will probably not be a Superstation much beyond that with all the horrific programming they offer.

sadly, no. for some strange and inunderstandable reason, tennessee is considered the reds market. who knew? oh, yeah, try living here in louisville. this is NOT a reds town, despite the bats being the AAA affiliate. i know of more cubs, sox (both), and (explitive deleted) cardinal fans here than reds fans and yet we are stuck with reds broadcasts over the cubs games. and yes that is important. do any one of you want to listen to 9 innings of jeff brantley and thom brennamen female doging about the cubs and/or cubs fans 3 game straight? its bad enough that if i ever wanted to catch the game on radio, bitter old marty brennamen comes out the speakers. thankfully when the games are on wgn, they aren't blacked out here (strangely enough). it's only when the games are on espn or tbs when i really don't have much of a choice. WGN games aren't blacked out anywhere. They pay the "superstation tax" for each game that they show. As MLB has found other ways to get money off of having out of market fans (through MLB EI and MLB.tv), that superstation tax has gone up which is why you no longer see Braves games on TBS and WGN has slowly but steadily cut the number of games that are shown. Very true. This is why some games were moved to CLTV about a decade ago and this is the reason for some games being on WCIU. Cubs and Sox are the only team paying this tax now and it has increased immensely since its inception. So don't be surprised that even though Ricketts is a huge fan of this team that you see less or no games on WGN America in the future. They could also do like they do with the Bulls and Hawks and only put the games on the WGN local feed hence reducing the Superstation tax. I never understood why the Cubs just took the rap for reducing the number of games without explaining the reason to the fan base. If people realized this, they could be mad at the right people.

Because you live in St Louis and FSN Midwest is your RSN.

I'm doing Gameday Audio this year. I'm blacked out of Cubs games anyway. Why don't you watch it on TV or do you not have cable or satellite? CSNC is the RSN in this area and I am able to watch all the games (except WCIU because it's too much of a pain to switch over to an antenna to get it on channel 69). MLBTV blacks out in market subscribers which is why you cannot get the Cubs games (nor Sox, Tigers, Reds). So I am going to assume this is for when you are working. When I'm working will be nice, but I also don't get CSN+, so that's a fair few games I can't otherwise watch. And like last year I'm sure I'll be wanting to follow other teams' games too. Eh, you need a job where your company server is located in another team's territory. LOL Seriously, it works.

I'm doing Gameday Audio this year. I'm blacked out of Cubs games anyway. MLBTV follows blackout rules too? I only want it for Cubs games. If the Cubs will get blacked out then forget it. If you go to the page and plug in your zip code, it will tell you which teams are "in market" and hence, blacked out. Only the Brewers would be blacked out for me. Hooray! Always glad to provide information that makes someone happy. I am glad you will be able to get the games. They will only blackout against the Brewers so you should get them on TV then anyhow.

I'm doing Gameday Audio this year. I'm blacked out of Cubs games anyway. Why don't you watch it on TV or do you not have cable or satellite? CSNC is the RSN in this area and I am able to watch all the games (except WCIU because it's too much of a pain to switch over to an antenna to get it on channel 69). MLBTV blacks out in market subscribers which is why you cannot get the Cubs games (nor Sox, Tigers, Reds). So I am going to assume this is for when you are working. Indiana's cable companies don't carry CSN Chicago because it's not the local RSN. At the same time, it technically is inside the Cubs home territory so the games are also blacked out on MLBTV. So if you get cable for any reason, you have no way of seeing those Cub games in this market. I'm still crossing my fingers that they won't black the games out with Uverse (which actually has the channel but they blacked out Bulls games) but I'll have to wait another month to see for sure. Incorrect, I live in Indiana. CSNC is my RSN...was in NW Indiana and it is in NC Indiana. Cable or Satellite...take your pick. I take it you don't live in NW or NC Indiana. They used to have a listing on their website but no longer of the cities where CSNC is the local RSN. BTW, we are blacked out of Pacer games up here even though we live in Indiana. Good thing I am not an NBA fan. If UVerse blacked out the Bulls, they will black out any Chicago team. It isn't the provider you use that matters...it is the overall blackout rules.

So, Greg chose working with the Padres over the Cubs.... You have to admit that is rather interesting...

Depends on who wants to be the guy to caters to the needs of Ron Santo. Sorry but that has to get old after a while so good for Corey on pulling down a full time gig.

I'm doing Gameday Audio this year. I'm blacked out of Cubs games anyway. MLBTV follows blackout rules too? I only want it for Cubs games. If the Cubs will get blacked out then forget it. If you go to the page and plug in your zip code, it will tell you which teams are "in market" and hence, blacked out.

I'm doing Gameday Audio this year. I'm blacked out of Cubs games anyway. Why don't you watch it on TV or do you not have cable or satellite? CSNC is the RSN in this area and I am able to watch all the games (except WCIU because it's too much of a pain to switch over to an antenna to get it on channel 69). MLBTV blacks out in market subscribers which is why you cannot get the Cubs games (nor Sox, Tigers, Reds). So I am going to assume this is for when you are working.

You gotta think this guy has somewhat reliable sources, I don't think MLB.com would just let him post his opinion of the situation as fact. Barry M. Bloom is a national reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

Seriously? Gee this is news to me....NOT!

See my previous post. Sorry walking on eggshells here trying not to offend or say to wrong thing while making my point. Kind of makes me sorry to have revealed my background in the game.

Sorry, I believe that is how some owners view Cuban...similar type.

That's right, but it's also not like selling a privately held company. Similar fiduciary obligations/issues apply as in the sale of a public company. The fact that those harmed by acceptance of a lower bid are employees of the Tribune makes it all the less likely. I think a key issue, though, is that it's the Trib that has the fiduciary responsibility, not MLB. If the Trib accepts the highest bid but MLB doesn't approve it the Trib couldn't be held liable. They will have done their part. Sam Zell doesn't appear to be the type of guy that will would go down quietly. He bought the Tribune Co. to make money, and if Cuban is offering the most money, he is going to move heaven and earth to make sure that Cuban is approved. One thing for sure, he cannot sue.

I don't even know what this means. Having the clubhouse to themselves? Who are they sharing it with now that they wouldn't share it with if Cuban was around? I'm confused what you're driving at. Some would, some wouldn't. It's still be a huge story because of the amount of money involved, and the fact that the Trib has owned the team for so long...it's going to be a massive change no matter who gets the team. I know you don't like Cuban, but I think you're letting that keep you from looking at this situation with much objectivity. As you know, the clubhouse is the players "haven" so to speak as you well know. They don't like FO types hanging out down there (::ahem:: Ed Lynch) all the time. Now only based on what I have seen and heard of Cuban, he is the type who will take up residence in there. Maybe not explained so well but the best I can do because I don't want anything taken the wrong way. It's JMHO but I don't think Cuban is the best caretaker for this club long term. I try to look at it from the long term perspective. I also think based on things I have heard that many of the owners think he is good for the Cubs long term. I know they still regret having Loria as an owner. Wikipedia is not the best source but based upon what I know about the story, it's pretty accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Loria His first baseball venture came in 1989, when he purchased the minor league Oklahoma City 89ers. During the 1990s he attempted to purchase several Major League teams, notably the Baltimore Orioles. Finally, in 1999, he bought a 12 percent interest in the Expos for $24 million, replacing managing partner Claude Brochu. After executing a series of controversial "cash calls" Loria became the team's majority partner at 94%. Loria was instrumental in the firing of manager Felipe Alou, but chose to be unavailable during the news conference.[citation needed] One of Loria's first acts was to reiterate demands for a new park for the Expos to replace Olympic Stadium, of which he bluntly said, "We cannot stay here." He lost a considerable amount of goodwill with Expos fans when the team was not able to reach an agreement for television and English-speaking radio coverage during the 2000 season, as the Expos tried to increase their revenue from broadcast rights. Both the municipal and provincial governments balked at public financing for the proposed Labatt Park, in part because Olympic Stadium still hadn't been paid for 25 years after being built[3] (and wouldn't be paid for, as it turned out, until 2006). In 2002, as part of an orchestrated move with Bud Selig and John W. Henry (owner of the Florida Marlins at the time), Loria sold the Expos to "Expos Baseball, LP," a partnership of the other 29 major league clubs, for $120 million. Henry then sold the Marlins to Loria for $158.5 million, including a $38.5 million no-interest loan from MLB. The deal was approved by the other owners before Loria and Henry even signed a contract.[4] Loria moved the Expos' entire front office and on-field staff to Florida. MLB's plans to contract the Expos and Minnesota Twins failed, though, as the Twins were compelled through legal action to fulfill the terms of their lease at the Metrodome. Loria's partners in the Expos ownership consortium filed a RICO lawsuit against Loria and Major League Baseball, but it eventually went to arbitration and was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.[5] The Expos were ultimately transferred to Washington, D.C. as the Nationals. Loria's first move as owner of the Marlins was to fire 60 employees, replacing them mostly with former Expos staff. Marlins team president David Samson, Loria's step son, mentioned during the 2005 offseason that the Marlins were exploring attempts to relocate.

Don't forget to take into consideration that they have a select few discount dates during weekdays in April and May to draw attendance. Not that I think it makes a whole bunch of difference in the final numbers. There are also quite a few school groups that attend day games in April and May as well. Yup, field trips to the ballpark for a game. I should have went to one of those schools when I was a kid. :wink:

I find it really hard to believe that the Red Sox haven't already played 4 or 5 Sunday Night Baseball games. You are correct, they have been on five times but I know what the rule was according to the paperwork I saw every year. Must be a Red Sox exemption and they get to use the games for the teams they don't put on Sunday nights like the Rockies....LOL Yes that last sentence was complete sarcasm. We all know that ESPN has become the flagship station of the Red Sox as witnessed by them being on just about every Monday night. http://tvsportsratings.com/?p=81

Why would you say that? Kerry Wood has no say in the new owner and neither do the players. They should be careful what they wish for if they enjoy having their clubhouse to themselves. JMHO based on past observations. Just asking...but if Cuban wasn't involved, would most fans really care that much who has the winning bid to purchase the Cubs? I think not.

Well, they don't pay other teams. They pay MLB in the form of a Superstation tax per game. There is a good article on the Library of Congress website about Superstations and the FCC which explains this somewhat. Why do you think the Braves flagship is no longer TBS? http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1997/62fr55742.html SBCA presented evidence that both the professional baseball and basketball leagues extracted additional compensation from WGN in Chicago and WTBS in Atlanta--both superstations known to be widely distributed on satellite--though the amount was not quantified. SBCA Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 72-73.

But are the requirements for being approved as a bidder a bit more lax than for being approved as an owner? Not really. The owners are instructed to not approve bidders if they don't think they are qualified. What people forget is that owners badly want the Cubs (and all other teams) to sell for outrageously high prices. That does nothing but increase the value of their own franchise. The Cubs have discussed the bidders with the other owners to make sure that there would be no problem with approval of all of them. Selig has done the same. This is a small group of people and they comminicate regularly about these things. The Cubs President was a M & A guy before he was appointed Cub President--he knows what he is doing. On top of all this--and don't underestimate this--any arbitrary disapproval of a qualified potential owner would open up MLB to a serious and very expensive lawsuit--and Sam Zell would not hesitate to go this direction. Here is where you are off. When a group wants to bid for a club, said group must sign a release which states that they have no recourse if they are not chosen as the winning bidder for the ballclub...i.e., cannot sue. Tribune had to sign a similar agreement. BTW, yes, Kenney (the self proclaimed chairman) was the lead General Counsel and was involved in M&A with Tribune on the legal side of things. This saying, he was involved with the acquisition of Times Mirror Company which quite frankly began the downward spirla of the Tribune Company and why they are where they are today.