Why Tribune won't sell the Cubs

by pageian on Dec 10, 2006 3:06 PM CST

Not sure if this has been posted yet, I haven't seen it but if it's up already then accept my apologies. This is a nice article on why the Cubs aren't going to be sold. Makes sense on some levels. I for one have wondered about why they would be adding payroll when everyone else slashes payroll when they are getting ready to sell. I think that the article is drawing the correct conclusion in that the reason why the Cubs are spending so much is directly related to no-shows at the park and declining television ratings. Add that to the Sox recent success and Cubs brass has had the appropriate fire lit underneath them. Just my opinion. I don't doubt that something could happen and we may even end up with new owners but I doubt that the Trib is going to decouple from the Cubs and sell them as a separate entity. But hey, that's just one relatively uninformed guys opinion, so take that for what it's worth. No "Voice Of God" prophecies from me about this, just guessing and speculation. Here's the article.

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.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This link

Only takes you directly to Google...
NOt to be a pain, but it looked interesting... Can you repost the link?

MCDONOUGH!

by secdelahc on Dec 10, 2006 3:02 PM CST reply actions

Sorry

I fixed it right after I posted, you must have hit it pretty quick.

by pageian on Dec 10, 2006 4:18 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks

What can I say? I'm bored....

MCDONOUGH!

by secdelahc on Dec 10, 2006 5:03 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks for the updated link

I'm not completely sold on the idea behind the article though. It's all over the place. First it says that the team will lose ticket sales using the no shows as evidence. Then it says the team's attendance is not really dependent on performance.

And anyway, if the best business decision (to avoid all of the no shows turning into non-sales) is to add payroll, then isn't that also the best way to improve the sale price? If you need to sell the team in the middle of the year and your ticket sales rate is lower than in the past couple years, that's even worse for cash flow than the payroll increase. So I don't particularly agree with the premise of the article, and I think it contradicts itself in the process.

On a somewhat related note, I drove by good ol' Wrigley today and they seem to be doing some work on the upper deck and the Clark & Addison entrance. Not sure if more work is to be done, but I saw what appeared to be iron archways being put in on the left field corner of the upper concourse (similar to the arches that support the lights). Anyone have any news on this? I suspect the work going on at the entrance is the bricks that have been for sale on the website. Any chance we could get a photo journal of the progress like the bleachers project from last year? That'd be great if anyone lives in the area, as I don't really pass through Wrigleyville too often in the off-season.

MURTON!!! - just trying to help his karma so we keep him.

by 26.2cubfan on Dec 10, 2006 4:08 PM CST reply actions

Well...

... I'm not going to post twice-weekly photos like I did last year, but if David, the other photographer, or I, happen by the park from time to time, perhaps I'll post some photos. I think the general idea is that eventually, the iron archways are going to be all around the ballpark, replacing the chain-link fencing on the LF side, and the ugly concrete panels on the RF side.

by Al Yellon on Dec 10, 2006 4:18 PM CST up reply actions

Excellent

If I happen to be in the area again I'll try to remember to take my camera. I'll just email you the pics and you can choose to post them if you feel they meet the BCB standards....

I'm a big fan of the idea of replacing the concret panels. LONG overdue.... Has the idea of planting ivy all around the exterior of the park ever been discussed? I know they originally planted some along the brick outside the updated bleachers.

MURTON!!! - just trying to help his karma so we keep him.

by 26.2cubfan on Dec 10, 2006 10:17 PM CST up reply actions

I'm happy to do that...

... if you send me pics.

They did plant ivy on the new outer bleacher brick walls. It looked like it was going to be a failure, but toward the end of the season it started to "take", and crawl up the wall. It's likely to take several years before it really looks good, though.

by Al Yellon on Dec 11, 2006 4:09 AM CST up reply actions

Good points

but I think what the article is getting at is that generally when a team is going to be sold management starts lowering the payroll, like Wayne Huizenga did with the Marlins after the '97 World Series. Maybe that's not always the case but I think the sentiment is that new ownership doesn't want to be tied down with contracts that they didn't approve, they want to go out and spend the money the way they choose.

But yeah, the article did contradict itself in a few places didn't it? It took sort of a shotgun approach I think.

by pageian on Dec 10, 2006 10:39 PM CST up reply actions

The article

is full of suppositions. We've all heard them before and, as such, is just another rumor. It speaks of adding $33M in payroll and never mentions the savings due to releasing players like Pierre.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Dec 10, 2006 6:00 PM CST reply actions

Agreed

I hate it when they say something like the team added $33 million in payroll but they don't tell you how much they subtracted. What if $40 came off the books? Adding $33 million wouldn't sound all that great then. Maybe they are counting what came off and adding it in to the $33 million figure, but if they are they should say that.

Btw, I have no idea what the payroll is anymore, haven't kept track. Anyone have an approximation?

by pageian on Dec 10, 2006 10:34 PM CST up reply actions

this article is pretty accurate about the

sale of the team. The team really is not for sale, as potential buyers have been quoted. The guessing game that the sportswriters have fostered is pretty silly.

by cubswin on Dec 10, 2006 7:39 PM CST reply actions