Cubs for sale?
Link below to Crain's article discussing the Tribune's impending plans to sell some of its holdings (no registration required):
http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?article_id=24687&bt=Tribune&searchType=phr ase
The Cubs are certainly the most visible of those holdings.
Would you rather have a deep, deep pocketed owner with a burning desire to win it all? Or do you prefer the corporate ownership? For every potential Arte Moreno there's a Peter Angelos out there.
There 's a degree of speculation in all this, but this might make fiscal sense to the bean-counters at the Tower at this time.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
55 comments
Comments
Yeah, I saw this...
What is WGN Radio without the Cubs? WLS-AM? They'd become the 20th station in the market rather than the market leader.
Same with WGN-TV. They'd probably cease to be a superstation and what then? A WB Network affiliate?
I think for Tribco this is a case of "careful what you wish for".
by Al on Oct 24, 2005 2:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well...
As to being #20 in the market, Spike O'Dell isn't on top because of Dusty Baker. He's on top because the Wally Phillips / Bob Collins generation doesn't know how to change a channel. Until that generation dies or gets XM, he'll stay on top, regardless of Cub baseball.
Baseball is also NOT the reason WGN is a superstation. But, not being in the TV industry, I can see how you'd miss that!
Trib is in huge trouble. Between their tax issues, distribution scandals, declining readership and newspaper ad revenue, etc. they may not have a choice but to sell non-core assets.
Selling the Cubs is THE most obvious sale if they persue an unbundling strategy.
Were it ME, I'd sell the newspapers and focus on new media. And make the Cubs a centerpiece.
by Ivychat on Oct 24, 2005 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And guess what, Chuck?
And I think that is what they will do.
by Al on Oct 24, 2005 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
true
by mike bornemann on Oct 24, 2005 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe the Trib....
They have already started to eliminate News Departments at their weak sister TV stations -- San Diego being one of those markets. (KSWB) Here, they are contracting out news to the NBC O & O, KNSD.
(I believe Philly may be the other market in which the same situation has just transpired, but I'd have to go back and check on that.) They may have a problem in LA -- with the FCC suddenly not happy with cross-media ownership (new purchases, that is -- ownership of the LA Times & KTLA. (WGN and the Trib are grandfathered in)
The Trib was all but ready to buy the SD Union-Tribune, to have in tandem with KSWB-TV -- but the changing FCC spectrum put the end to that deal.
I have a feeling the ONE thing they won't part with -- is the Cubs. However, that's the one asset I'd like to see fall into somebody else's hands.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Oct 24, 2005 2:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Tribune Radio
by kaseyi on Oct 25, 2005 7:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One other thing --
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Oct 24, 2005 3:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
"And newspapers continue to be profitable, often more so than other industries. The 12 major public newspaper companies in the United States posted an average operating margin last year for their newspapers of almost 21 percent, according to Goldman Sachs, with Gannett and E.W. Scripps at the top with close to 30 percent each, and Dow Jones at the bottom with 9 percent. The New York Times Company's margin was 16 percent and that of the Tribune Company almost 18 percent."
These margins are for the newspapers only, not anything else. So if we believe this, the Tribune Co. isn't exactly bleeding cash from Chicago Tribune, or even from the Los Angeles Times or any of its other papers. And the Crain's article gives most of the credit to the percentage net income drop of 82% to the $1 billion judgment in tax court, which would be expected to hit overall profit margins hard and decrease share worth.
It appears that the Trib Co. is reacting like any corporation that is seeing its shares drop in value would, but it doesn't look like the newspapers are the main reason for the drop, nor does selling the Cubs look like the way to remedy the situation. Not engaging in illegal tax operations would be a good start.
Matt
by gauchodirk on Oct 24, 2005 4:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Why Papers are making profits
by Ross on Oct 25, 2005 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is true...
by Al on Oct 25, 2005 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bring on the Mark Cuban era!
Bring on the Cuban era!
Say what you will about the man, but he pays money to put good players on the field for his fans - and given the Cubs' HUGE following, and the fact money generally, though not always, does more to deliver a winning record in baseball than in other sports, and you have a recipe for a big free agent spending blitz, improvements to Wrigley, happier players, pushing for more night games, etc.
I say bring it on. The Trib needs to get out of both owning and covering the Cubs, and we fans deserve an owner as passionate as we are.
by Chadnudj on Oct 24, 2005 4:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I would love for Cuban to buy the Cubs
by SuperContext on Oct 24, 2005 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
is wrigley...
thanks
by dc60123 on Oct 24, 2005 4:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wrigley Field...
That real estate is enormously valuable, but it's of more value to the Cubs than it would be if sold off.
North & Harlem? Odd location, that.
by Al on Oct 24, 2005 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few big pieces...
by mannytrillo on Oct 24, 2005 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No sale
by Henry on Oct 24, 2005 10:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
just for clarity's sake...
besides, the world could do with one less sears store.
;)
by dc60123 on Oct 25, 2005 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the question is
by mkamper on Oct 24, 2005 5:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
sarcasm or not
by kjk on Oct 24, 2005 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always think about that
Not "Cubs" caps, but rather the name of the field where they play. It isnt the only team/stadium that you see that for, but you dont see many Bears fans wearing shirts that say "Soldier Field" (ok ok, it's mandatory to wear an Urlacher 54 jersey to games, I know!).
The Trib (or someone) has so successfully marketed Wrigley Field that I could not fathom someone wanting the team without that asset.
Hell, remember all the radio commercials on 720 last summer touting "See what I have seen... I am Wrigley Field"??
They werent even doing promos for the team... they were doing promos for the field.
Not saying this is right or wrong or makes the Cubs fans better or worse or anything... but it certainly makes for a difference....!
by NLBallClub on Oct 26, 2005 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That area near Harlem & North
1950's....there may be a seminary on this parcel of land...it's been a while since I've driven past it but it's obviously visible on this map....a stadium location, possibly? Is that what the poster is implying?
by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Oct 24, 2005 5:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Your map...
However, it's not near any expressways or train lines and the existing streets are pretty narrow near there. It wouldn't be suited to a stadium at all.
by Al on Oct 24, 2005 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but!
by kjk on Oct 24, 2005 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
come to think of it ...
by kjk on Oct 24, 2005 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be, though,
1) Wrigley is deemed unsuitable in the future by a
new owner
2) If said new owner wanted to make sure the Cubs
stayed within the city limits of Chicago -- and
the North Side.
True, the existing streets that border the property are narrow and old -- but if the entire parcel was opened up, streets that border the area would obviously, be rebuilt -- It's not that much worse than the current congestion of Wrigley Field - of course, without the existing nearby "L." But that's a huge parcel of land -- someday, it will be developed. What if a 'modern' Wrigley Field is needed? I'm not suggesting that happen -- but even Yankee Stadium is going to be replaced.
I'm not sure why the poster mentioned "Harlem & North." I was thinking perhaps he was referring to this open land - and not that tightly congested urban area, which would mean -- clearing all of that away, which is residential and commercial. Not at all a good location for anything such as a ballpark, let alone all the negatives that would arise from such a project -- Chicago's version of Chavez Ravine? (I attended Triton College just west of that area, so I'm familiar with the H & N neighborhood)
by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Oct 24, 2005 6:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
For the record...
DmL
by dmlichte on Oct 24, 2005 11:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
for the record...
by bison on Oct 25, 2005 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's Just Speculation
I don't think this was a very well thought out article, especially since it misses the most obvious asset that the Tribune might unload--the LA Times. The corporate cultures of Tribune Corp and the LA Times have been at war from the moment they bought them, with exchanges that have gone something like this:
CHICAGO: You guys need to cut costs, stop hemorrhaging circulation and increase ad revenue.
LA: Yeah, well bite our Pulitzers.
CHICAGO: OK, whomever is in charge out there is fired.
(repeat ad infinitum.)
It would also take care of some federal regulatory concerns with KTLA ownership.
by Josh77 on Oct 25, 2005 12:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You can...
Kasey (see above) is right -- WGN-AM is Tribco's only radio property.
by Al on Oct 25, 2005 8:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Not gonna happen
Trib MUST be to stay viable. They provide the Trib programming
for WGN AND the sports cable network which they have
a large share of. They provide a steady though not spectacular
profit and are to some degree the most visable of all of the
Trib's assetts.
Overall I don't understand the hostility towards the Tribco
or desire for new owner. They are spending A LOT on payroll
even if it did not turn out that well lately. They have been reasonably respectful of Cub & Wrigley traditions given the financial pressures. The Mark Cubans of this world are a pain
in the ass and money alone does not buy you a winner just
look at where the Astros & White Sox are on the payroll list.
I much prefer the Trib, A locally based multi billion dollar
company that gives the baseball people a free hand WITHIN
a set budget to run the team.
And if anyone at the Trib wants to know why they have
financial issues, try the programming on WGN. If I see one
more promo for DaVinci's Inquest I am going to puke
WGN runs promos for this SEVEN YEAR OLD 2nd rate
TV series ENDLESSLY prusumably thinking it will compete
with the C.S.I shows. Seriously if the Trib wants higher profits
better WGN programming would be a way to start
Jessica
by jessica on Oct 25, 2005 5:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Ha!
Although the WB has some minor hits, no?
by NLBallClub on Oct 26, 2005 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the problem
The problem is, as you note, the Trib measures success WITHIN a budget. There's no incentive placed on WINNING.
A Mark Cuban or a Patrick Ryan, who would own the team as a hobby, would ONLY care about winning. Good owners are ones who want to feed their ego, but remain hands off.
The Trib is hands off, but has no ego. Therefore, they are a bad owner.
by Ivychat on Oct 26, 2005 10:40 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Ego & Budget
I assure you they HAVE a corporate ego. I am SO
tired of the idea that they don't care about winning
or WANT to lose. This is why the spend 100 million
on a payroll ? They could spend half that and get
decent looking team on the field. There is NOTHING
wrong with budget based on actual revenue as this
DOES tie success into salaries. Cubs are depending on how you calculate, 3rd or 4th in player payroll. This
includes some VERY bad investments ( Sosa, Wood
Remlinger) but hardly cheap. They spend significantly
LESS than the White Sox & Astros so winning it is about much more than money.
There are many things ( like tearing up the bleachers)
that I wish the Trib/Cubs would not do but I think they
desperately want to win. It is good for their bottom line
and their egos
by jessica on Oct 26, 2005 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I concur.
Yet the Marlins, Angels, White Sox, etc., have had the ultimate success (pretending for a moment the Sox close it out).
The Cubs certainly spend enough money to win 90 games. Yet, they just dont ever get it done.
by NLBallClub on Oct 26, 2005 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's because...
It's spending money wisely, or more accurately, judging talent wisely.
by Al on Oct 26, 2005 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ditto
by NLBallClub on Oct 26, 2005 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hello, Mc Fly!
As noted many times, they spend the money to keep the ratings (read: profits) up. Winning doesn't matter. Being close and making a compelling product does.
Jim Dowdle, ex-Trib Broadcasting Company president/chief executive officer, was once quoted as saying that you have to give Cubs fans "a sniff" every few years and they'll be happy.
That's what the $100mm is for. To keep us simps thinking they are close.
There's a reason they spent big bux on free agents in 1991. They made less money in 1990 compared to winning in 1989.
Profits drive this beast. Not winning. The sooner fans figure that out, the sooner the Trib will change their focus.
by Ivychat on Oct 26, 2005 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dowdle...
I agree with you on one aspect of this: there may be a dichotomy between what TRIB execs want -- i.e. a "compelling product" as you put it -- and what CUB execs want, which is, in fact, to win.
I don't think there is a baseball executive around who doesn't want to win. Andy MacPhail does, Jim Hendry does. Absolutely. Maybe the suits at Tribune Tower don't, but I know the baseball people do.
Again, you and I disagree, and will continue to do so, on whether boycotts will be effective. I say they don't and won't make a whit of difference. You think they will. I respect your opinion, I hope you respect mine.
Now, let's talk about how to make the product a winner on the field.
It IS possible to do that, you know. Ask yourself this question, which is one I asked some Sox fans at the game on Sunday:
One year ago, could you (the Sox fan) have envisioned your team in this position?
They all answered no. And I think we'd say the same thing about what we'd envision a year from now, based on what comprises the Cub roster ON THIS DATE.
An offseason beckons. Jim Hendry has to take advantage of it. I believe he can and will.
by Al on Oct 26, 2005 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
Why? Because he got lucky and was forced to trade for Lofton? Where is Hendry's standing now if Korey doesn't shred his knee?
I have no confidence in Hendry to properly evalute and trade his minor league talent. Beyond the trades for Derrek Lee and Matt Clement, his offseason moves have been minimal. His in-season moves, while good on paper, were essentially risk free. He's let Brownlie, Sisco, Ryu, Guzman et al rot instead of trading them for needed help.
Having faith in Jim Hendry is unwarranted.
by Ivychat on Oct 26, 2005 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right about...
However, we're not talking about past mistakes. I believe Hendry would readily admit them if asked.
I'm willing to give him this offseason to correct them.
by Al on Oct 26, 2005 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Projecting...
His past has more failure than success. Projecting forward leads you to what conclusion?
by Ivychat on Oct 26, 2005 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you forgot to mention
Fact is Hendry is in place and will be in place. He has made some good moves and some poor moves. He has this off-season to get it done.
I hope he's smart enough to get the quality talent available and not wait around in a counter-punch defensive mode. In the off-seasons of years past, he's shown a willingness to sit on his ass. Too many holes on this club to do that again. We'll see....
by socalbob on Oct 26, 2005 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point...
At what point does management get swept out though? If the Cubs go .500, do they get another shot? What about ten games under?
There's gotta be a line for 2006. Wonder what it is.
by NLBallClub on Oct 26, 2005 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree....
by Al on Oct 26, 2005 7:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One more thing
I believe he does. I believe he wants to keep his job more than he wants to win. That means you pass on a Jim Thome because it would wreck profits in favor of winning.
MacPhail wants to win, yes. It's #2 on his list.
by Ivychat on Oct 26, 2005 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This IS hopeless
winning enough. They will have less revenue and then spend MUCH more. Yes I am SURE the Tribune will authorize them to go spend another 50 to 75 million on payroll ( Yankee/Red Sox
territory) when they are making LESS money. Makes sense to me
( This ends the thread for me as it is too nonsensical to continue)
by jessica on Oct 26, 2005 2:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Makes perfect sense
The way it really works is that, when a product stinks, people spend MORE on it and THEN the company improves the product.
Sheesh.
by Ivychat on Oct 26, 2005 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
boycotts
by mike bornemann on Oct 26, 2005 2:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
No they will have more to spend in 06
the extra revenue from rooftops. Next year they will have those
extra bleacher seats and numerous players off the books.
I don't know what the final figure was this year but I expect to
go up by about 10 million in addition to the extra from
expired contracts.
Trib has decided the payroll is ticket sales , other revenue
( TV , food etc) goes to operating expenses.
Jessica
by jessica on Oct 26, 2005 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"trib has decided"
by mike bornemann on Oct 26, 2005 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
SELLING CUBS MAKES SENSE
As we are all fans of probably the most popular baseball team in the nation (remember 03 Yankees-Red Sox series was pushed out of primetime by the Cubs-Marlins) we sometimes overvalue our team. Yes, the Cubs franchise is a large source of revenue for the Trib. But at the same time it has a lot of overhead. I'm not going to guess what the daily operating expenses are for 82 games played at Wrigley but I'm sure it's a hefty amount. Not to mention ever increasing player salaries, security costs, marketing, advertising, and repair costs for a ballpark that is falling apart. (Don't kid yourself, it is falling apart.) Required structural repairs for the park will likely exceed $200 million over the next few years.
The Cubs are NOT a core asset of the Tribune Company. We associate the Trib with the Cubs because we live the Chicago area. It is a multimedia company FIRST. The Trib owns newspapers, TV and radio station across the nation in virtually every state. Or has exposure in every state.
WGN TV or radio will not go under if the Cubs are not broadcast on that channel. In case you haven't noticed, they only broadcast about 60-70 games a year on WGN and it has been decreasing steadily over the past few years.
Though the newspaper is becoming more outdated it is far from dead. A lot of people over the age of 35 still buy a lot of magazines and newspapers. (That's more than half of the US population.)
I hope they do sell the team - hopefully to Mark Cuban or someone else that is just as interested in owning the team and turning it into a winner.
If the Trib does sell the team and the new owner deems Wrigley too costly to keep up, so be it. The ballbark is the best in baseball (maybe all of pro sports) but I want the World Series championships more than the ivy.
It is too costly nowadays for corporations to own a pro sports team. It's not like it was 30+ years ago - before my time.
Twice in my lifetime I saw them advance to the NLCS and have to win only ONE of three games for the National League Pennant. Both times they choked. I hope the trib sells. It would be the best news for Cubs nation in a long time.
by nething4championship on Nov 1, 2005 2:04 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
one other thing...
Going after the best free agents and jacking the payroll up won't gaurantee a championship but it greatly increases your chances. More so in baseball than any other sport. There's a reason the Red Sox, Yankees, and Braves are in the post season almost every year.
The Trib puts more money into the park, than the team.
No Ego. No Championships.
by nething4championship on Nov 1, 2005 2:43 AM CST reply actions 0 recs





















