Bleed Cubbie Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

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  |  Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Yeah, I saw this...
... in some ways it makes very little sense, as the article says, Tribune would likely NOT want to get into a bidding war for media rights now or in the future, and the Cubs ARE one of their most important assets.

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...
The Cubs are on WGN less and less.  So, they already ARE a WB affiliate (owner).

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?
I agree with you.

And I think that is what they will do.

by Al on Oct 24, 2005 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No chance
There's NO WAY they sell the papers.

by Ivychat on Oct 24, 2005 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

true
I think all paper media will have this issue at some point, there are already tons of online subscriton abilities.

by mike bornemann on Oct 24, 2005 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I believe the Trib....
will be divesting poor performing Radio & TV outlets, especially radio.
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
If I am not mistaken...the ONLY radio staion they now own is WGN-AM.  THey got rid of all the other radio stations a few years ago.

by kaseyi on Oct 25, 2005 7:19 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

One other thing --
Trib Company would NEVER sell WGN AM/TV, and the Flagship paper. No way, no how.

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Oct 24, 2005 3:42 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

If...
...they don't sell the paper, they'll shut it down.  The Tribune, and all newspapers, are dying.  The public just doesn't know it yet.  If the Trib doesn't, they're really screwed.

by Ivychat on Oct 24, 2005 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting
From an October 10 NY Times article:

"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
The reason that some papers have "profits" is because they are making huge cuts internally. These cuts include the number of pages, staff, etc. I've seen it first hand.
Corey Patterson, please go be potentially good somewhere else.

by Ross on Oct 25, 2005 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is true...
... at just about any large corporation these days.

by Al on Oct 25, 2005 2:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bring on the Mark Cuban era!
Remember this summer, when Mark Cuban came to sing the 7th inning stretch, and was interviewed about his deep interest in owning the Cubs?

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
Say what you will about the man (and I think he can sometimes be at best goofy, and at worst downright obnoxious), he took an NBA franchise in Dallas that was a perrenial loser and made it into a team that is on the short-list to win the title every year.  He doesn't mind spending the money for a winner, and I think in the baseball realm he could rival Baron von Steingrabber for most hated (and most "win-at-all-costs") owner in the bigs.  

by SuperContext on Oct 24, 2005 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

is wrigley...
a part of the franchise? would a new owner be forced to play at wrigley, or could the cubs be moved to, lat's say, the corner of north and harlem? (still within city limits) and does wrigley have any value as an asset if the cubs don't play there?
thanks

by dc60123 on Oct 24, 2005 4:51 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Wrigley Field...
... is indeed owned by Tribco; they bought it along with the team.

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...
of Wrigley Field are now historic landmarks since the city and the Cubs came to the agreement on more night games and the rooftops.  So though they might own it, they still have to answer to the city about some parts of it (ivy, scoreboard, etc.).

by mannytrillo on Oct 24, 2005 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No sale
So the Tribune owns Wrigley Field as well as the Cubs...and the Trib corp. is currently pouring a bunch of money into the bleacher expansion project...and has spent all this time haggling with the city and neighborhood...to sell the Cubs?

by Henry on Oct 24, 2005 10:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

just for clarity's sake...
i typed "north and harlem" just as a "what if" location, still within city limits, to try and get a dialogue started about how separable "the chicago cubs baseball club" and "wrigley field" could be in theory, or even fact. if my checking account ever exceeds one billion dollars, and i feel an interest in buying the cubs, amd i forced to purchase, and stay in, wrigley? is it an mlb edict? is it a city of chicago edict? is it my choice?
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
do the Cubs have any value if they don't play in Wrigley? (<-sarcasm)

by mkamper on Oct 24, 2005 5:07 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

sarcasm or not
you are probably right ...

by kjk on Oct 24, 2005 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I always think about that
when I see people wearing "Wrigley Field" baseball caps and sweatshirts/T-shirts etc.

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....!

NLBallClub

by NLBallClub on Oct 26, 2005 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That area near Harlem & North
or to be specific,  Harlem east to Narragansett, is probably the largest area of open space on the North Side -- once the home of a TB Center (I think) in the
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?

http://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&hs=Vr9&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mo zilla:en-US:official&q=dunham+park&near=Chicago,+IL&sa=X&oi=localr&cid=41850000, -87650000,6465595604201046996&li=lmd&z=3

by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Oct 24, 2005 5:17 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Your map...
... is about four miles north of Harlem & North. You're thinking of the old TB center near Harlem & Irving Park; that land is in fact still open.

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!
it's in walking distance from my house!  not that i'd want to go if the Cubs moved ...

by kjk on Oct 24, 2005 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

come to think of it ...
90 is not that much further from this location as 90-94 is from Wrigley.  I believe the proposed north/south el would not be too far either ...

by kjk on Oct 24, 2005 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It would be, though,
If:
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...
... David Kaplan of WGN said that he talked to someone upstairs in Tribco, who said that the Cubs are not for sale and will not be for sale.

DmL

by dmlichte on Oct 24, 2005 11:10 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

for the record...
what else would they say?

by bison on Oct 25, 2005 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's Just Speculation
Everyone seems to be missing the "Why they won't sell" part of that article.  I suppose it isn't impossible that the Trib unloads the Cubs, but it's very unlikely, folks.  The Cubs fit in too well with their media strategy (and despite what Ivychat says, WGN would be dropped by a lot of cable systems if they lost the Cubs.  Maybe not all, but many, many would.)  The tax burden on selling the Cubs would eat into a large reason to sell the team in the first place.

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.

I never travel far without a little Big Star

by Josh77 on Oct 25, 2005 12:54 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

You can...
... find out a lot more about Tribco at their corporate website, tribune.com.

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
The Cubs are  a part of integrated media company which the
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!
Now that is hilarious (WGN programming).

Although the WB has some minor hits, no?

NLBallClub

by NLBallClub on Oct 26, 2005 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's the problem
"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."

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
The Trib is not some souless distant corporation and
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.
The $ spent by the Yankees hasnt won them a WS in years (ok, years being relative, not the Cubs/White Sox/Astros/Mariniers "years", but still, years).  Dodgers havent won in years.  Cubs havent won in years.

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.

NLBallClub

by NLBallClub on Oct 26, 2005 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's because...
... simply "spending money" isn't the way to win. How many teams have proven that this decade alone?

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
That was the point I was trying to make.  :-)
NLBallClub

by NLBallClub on Oct 26, 2005 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hello, Mc Fly!
"This is why they (sic) spend 100 million on a payroll?"

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...
... as you correctly point out, is no longer with Tribco.

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
"I believe he can and will"

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...
... the minor league talent you mention.

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...
...future performance is based on past performance.

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
the Grudz/Karros deal for Hundley.  Great trade.

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...
about having this off-season to get it done...

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.

NLBallClub

by NLBallClub on Oct 26, 2005 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree....
... but you cannot set that line until you find out both what the Cubs do, and what their divisional opponents do.

by Al on Oct 26, 2005 7:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah
Because 11 years of MacPhail still isn't enough time to evaluate him.

At some point patience turns into insanity (trying the same thing expecting a different result).

by Ivychat on Oct 26, 2005 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

One more thing
"I don't think there is a baseball executive around who doesn't want to win. Andy MacPhail does"

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
Ok we should stop going to Cubs games because they are not
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
Yes, Jess.  No company, upon losing customers and money, invests MORE dollars to improve the product.  Yeah, that never happens.

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
I always thought the point of the boycott was to get the trib to sell the team to someone else who will make them a winner.  I don't expect them to win with the Trib.  For all we know Hendry might have less money to play with no that the sosa and others are off the books.  Would npot surprise me to find out they pocket that money now, and next year we are talking about how we wil have more to money to play with once someone else's contract ends.

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 Trib has basically pegged budget at ticket sales including
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"
according to who/what?  They could jsut as easy pocket that extra money.

by mike bornemann on Oct 26, 2005 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

SELLING CUBS MAKES SENSE
I've read through most of these and I have afew comments.

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...
I'm not blaming the Tribune Co. for the Cubs choking but I do blame them for not spending in the right places, not spending enough, and lack of post season appearances. Cub fans are the best in the nation and we DESERVE to have contenders on that field every year! Only in the last few years have the Cubs spent money on players. The Trib can get to the Yankees/Red Sox payroll $$$ but they never will because they have a BUDGET. Too concerned about the stock price and investors.

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

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bleed Cubbie Blue, the Chicago Cubs blog for the SB Nation, created on February 9, 2005 by Al Yellon
Start posting about the Cubs »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Reversal of opinion...Bradley will not be moved
P272649reg_small
VERY OT: The BT Football, "Congrats to ballhawk" & "Sorry, sue369" Thread
Yelloncard_small
Baseball Picture Puzzles Overflow 1
Derrick_rose_poster_by_rokasm_small
You know you want him, Get it done Jim!
Yelloncard_small
Baseball Player Picture Puzzles

Recent FanPosts

Cubs_small
Cubs HR Over/Under
Cubs_ying_yang_small
OT Aged Stadiums
Small
Here's a thought
Jake_fox_small
25th Annual Cubs Convention
Bucky_small
OT: Annual Thanksgiving  Thread
Dscn2381_small
Cubs 2010 2B and "the L word"
Cubswin712_small
Is there anyway we trade some of our high-priced players?
Yelloncard_small
Milton Bradley Named NL "LVP" By Joe Posnanski
Self-portrait-4_small
Crazy Idea: Rob Quinlan
10424_528302137858_173702948_31567344_967269_n_small
OT: Big Ten Football Thread, Nov. 21

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

Would you blow up the farm system for Halladay?
FanGraphs calls Grabow a "waste of cash."
Fangraphs hasn't given up on Geo, should you?
Baseball America's Top 10 Cubs Prospects
An animated tribute to the no-hitter that Pirates pitcher Dock Ellis threw on June 12, 1970. Simply...

Recent FanShots

Zambrano attends Bears game
Cubs install sign boards in bleachers to block Horseshoe Casino (Budweiser) building...
This one is for you sabermetricians
A Chicagoan, Part Of Cardinals Ownership Group, Dies
Making Fun Of Tim Lincecum's Hair...
Minor League Ball Interview With Billy Beane
Castillo Rumor Won't Go Away
Minor League FA's
The Cubs Debut of Turk Wendell: A Cautionary Tale Of Classic Cubs History

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

It Is Only...

Cubs By The Numbers

Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.

Click here to order your copy, available now!

SPONSORS

Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges

Yelloncard_small
Ticket Exchanges: Cubs Convention 2010
Yelloncard_small
Ticket Exchanges: General 2009 Ticket Exchange
Yelloncard_small
Ticket Exchanges: September 29-October 4 Homestand

Managing Editor

Yelloncard_small Al

Editorial Cartoonist

Toonmike_small toonmike

Contributors

Dsc_0139_small holy mackerel

100px-boisehawkscaplogo_small Josh77

Small shawndgoldman