Mark Cuban Interview on WSCR

by gocubs40 on Oct 8, 2007 4:50 PM CDT

2 video links:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3USY7hjZOd0

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9XrtwHxWXo

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 100 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Cuban is everywhere

Linked is the AP story where he says he wants to bid in the cubs, pending detail on the assets involved.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071008/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbn_cubs_cuban_2;_ylt=ApeHbO_ohtBmVx9CbTKtwZwE1vA I

by N Oakley on Oct 8, 2007 4:47 PM CDT reply actions

I got rotoworld.com stuff

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban confirmed Monday that he wants to buy the Cubs.
"It's a great sports town, it's a great franchise with a storied history. There's so many opportunities here," he said. "When a team that's so iconic and such an amazing team like the Cubbies come up, it's an opportunity I couldn't let slip by." It's highly unlikely that Cuban would be allowed to enter the MLB fraternity. Though he'd likely be great for the game, the other owners aren't going to want anyone who would rock the boat.

It WILL Happen!!!....but not this year...

by Chanman25 on Oct 8, 2007 4:48 PM CDT reply actions

Or face Cuban with no salary cap

That would be insane. He would try and outspend the Yankees. I might like it at first, but he would have to hire a GM team like Boston's. Great player development and great free agent signings.

by IllinoisCubs on Oct 8, 2007 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions

WT...where did this preconception come into play

Cuban is going to seek talent, and whomever deep pocket buys the Cubs will push their self-imposed budget near or to the top of the NL and eventually compete with the RedSox...Yankees are idiots.

Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."

by Ivy Walls on Oct 8, 2007 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes, the high price will dictate

That whoever actually ends up with the team isn't just in it to sit on it to squeeze it for money.

by Fro on Oct 8, 2007 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions

You got to........

hand it Mark Cuban. He is great at PR! Unfortnunately, this does not mean he will ever be given the chance to own the Cubs. IMHO, Selig will not give him a fair shake. Too much publicity seeking. He wants, no needs the Cubs to be owned by someone who will follow like the rest of the sheep.

RIP kerrysotherwife!!!!

by timeforachange on Oct 8, 2007 4:55 PM CDT reply actions

Selig has no say at this stage

It is an open bid for a divestiture of a publicly held company....by SEC law

Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."

by Ivy Walls on Oct 8, 2007 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions

Baseball has.......

anti trust excemption.

I believe, any new ownership has to be approved by the majority of the MLB Owners and the Commish.

"You are an asshole": NDcubsfan

by timeforachange on Oct 8, 2007 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions

Cuban can play hard ball

if he is a mind to. Baseball could lose it's anti-trust status over this if it is screwed up by Selig.

Say that Cuban bids about 200k more than any other owner ship group and that Zell accepts it.

Then say that Selig and Reinsdorf do not approve the sale to Cuban.

Can you say federal court for at least 2 reasons.

Zell wanting the most he can get hauls MLB into court.
Cuban also goes to federal court (perhaps in conjunction with Zell and the Tribune company).

They seek an injunction and then the Trib is forced to own the Cubs while the court and etal hash it out.

Throw in some politics (say Durbin, Obama or some such) and MLB could very well lose it's anti-trust status.

I for one beleive this could get quite entertaining before it is over.

Disclaimer: I am not a legal type so what I have posited may be hooey but I wonder.

My God that one is going to land in Milwaukee - Lou Boudreau describing a Dave Kingman home run in the Cub/Phillie 23 to 22 game in 1979.

by cjn54 on Oct 11, 2007 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions

Ivy Walls

I disagree and would really love to see this "SEC law" you think there is.
The MLB has final say on who gets the team. You have to get approval from the league to buy a team. The anti trust laws allow this. Please post this so called law you think there is.

by cubswin on Oct 8, 2007 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions

Publicly Held Corporations

in the United States are heavily regulated. The Board of Directors owes a Fiduciary duty to the share holders. This includes maximizing revenue. If the Board of Directors is face with two offers that are essentially the same, but one is larger than the other, then they must take the larger offer. Assuming that Cuban and Canning offer similar mediums of exchange (say Cash), then the Board of Directors of the Tribune must accept the Cuban offer or open themselves up to a law suit. Its a conflict between Federal Law and a Major League Baseball Rule.

by frustratedfan on Oct 8, 2007 8:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Where do you come up with

this nonsense? There is no law stating any of that. The board has an obligation to do what they consider to be in the best interest of the corporation. Period.
It is not in conflict with any law.

by cubswin on Oct 8, 2007 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Sarbanes-Oxley

The SEC has been making it very clear that, under Sarbanes-Oxley, it is important that Directors fulfill their fiduciary obligations. This means that the actions that they take should maximize the revenue. And if they do not maximize the revenue, they open themselves up to law suits from shareholders and SEC prosecution under various statutes (including Sarbanes-Oxley). What this means is that if the Tribune Board gets two offers that are similar in type of payment, they have to accept the higher one. If they do not, the Directors have breached their fiduciary duty.

Its one of the reasons why it is becoming harder to find directors for Corporations. After the advent of Sarbanes-Oxley the issue as to Director liability has once again become significant.

by frustratedfan on Oct 9, 2007 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions

That's all fine and good

but a major league baseball team is not an asset you can do that with. As long as the Tribune company informed their shareholders of the rules regarding the sale of that asset (which is probably buried in their 10K somewhere) they have fulfilled their duty.

Their is no way around this folks, unless the Supreme court nukes their excemption and that ain't happening.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 9, 2007 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions

MPH73

you are correct.

by cubswin on Oct 9, 2007 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions

Your interpretation

is simply not true. You are making assumptions of the law that are not there. This simplistic, amateurish analysis is totally misleading and shows a minimal understanding of the law and the responsibilities of a board of directors.

by cubswin on Oct 9, 2007 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions

the above is in reply to

frustrated fan,

by cubswin on Oct 9, 2007 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions

I am getting

pretty damm sick of this method of argument on your part. Instead of tossing out ad hominem attacks, perhaps you might want to explain why the Board of Directors of the Tribune Corporation, a public, as opposed to closely held corporation, are not subject to the fiduciary obligation required of all other board members. Did I give a "simplified" view of the various Sarbanes-Oxley provisions? Sure. This is a baseball board, not an antitrust board.

But the following are facts which cannot be disputed:

The baseball antitrust exemption is a judical, not a legislative construct dating from the early 20th Century.
Although the Courts have revisited this exemption and upheld it, and although they indicated (about 20 years ago) that they were disinclined to revisit the issue but rather leave it up to Congress to "fix", there is no legal barrier to prevent the Supreme Court from revisiting the issue if it so decides.
The critical facts about baseball have radically changed since the original exemption. The entire structure, the impact on interstate commerce, and the entanglements outside of the ball game have changed. And radical changes have also occurred (the elimination of a separate American and National League) since the last time the exemption was considered by the Courts.
Baseball was sufficiently concerned about the exemption that they settled with one of the losers in the San Francisco Giant case for 6 million dollars to avoid trial.
Members of Corporate Boards owe a fiduciary duty to the owners of the Corporation (the shareholders). The concept of Fiduciary duty is well known.
Major league baseball cannot prevent a lawsuit -- either from an aggrieved shareholder seeking to block a sale to a lower bidder or from a losing bidder. In either case, baseball's AT exemption could be put into play.

Of course, we all know how you are going to respond. Ignore the facts and attack the messenger.

by frustratedfan on Oct 9, 2007 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions

A lot of back and forth here

but I think the key point you raise is number 2. For anything to change here, the Tribune company would have to sue MLB and basically be willing to take the case through the court system and all the way up to the Supreme Court. I am no lawyer, but I know there are time constraints here, and the likelihood of that happening is minimal.

I do agree with your point, that if (and it's a big if) the Supreme Court ever decided to accept a case such as this, there is a good chance they would reverse the excemption based on the changes that have evolved with the game over the years. Also, the whole steroid issue would work against them with the justices as well.

I think you will see a whole lot of go between with the Tribune and MLB, if one of the candidates (that is not MLB friendly) has a much higher bid. They will plead their public company scenerio to MLB, but it will probably fall on deaf ears.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 10, 2007 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions

If so (especialy if it is Cuban) than MLB

will find it's self in a federal court room in a hurry.

My God that one is going to land in Milwaukee - Lou Boudreau describing a Dave Kingman home run in the Cub/Phillie 23 to 22 game in 1979.

by cjn54 on Oct 11, 2007 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions

The Tribune Company

isn't the only one that can take this to Court. The losing bidder can as well. Where the Directors have to sweat is the concept of a derivative suit. This happens when the Directors breach their fiduciary duty. Its why most Directors insist on insurance to immunize them in the event that they are sued for breach of their obligations.

by frustratedfan on Oct 12, 2007 11:29 PM CDT up reply actions

I really don't care, frustrated how sick

you are of it. Your total lack of understanding of "fiduciary responsibility" shows me you have no real idea of what you are talking about.
Don't worry, I'll ignore you from now on and let you ramble on with your nonsense trying to pass it off as knowledge.
Here's an idea for you, go buy a few shares of Tribune stock and then proceed to sue them if you don't like the decision.

by cubswin on Oct 10, 2007 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions

Did not one of the bidders

of the Red Sox consider going to court after loosing out to the group that got them even though they bid more.

Seems to me I came accross that somewhere in the last few years,

Some how Selig and MLB talked them out of it.

Any one know if it was fact??

My God that one is going to land in Milwaukee - Lou Boudreau describing a Dave Kingman home run in the Cub/Phillie 23 to 22 game in 1979.

by cjn54 on Oct 11, 2007 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions

The State

considered going to Court because it involved a trust. And MLB ended up settling this with the State. What makes the Tribune situation interesting is that it is a publicly traded Company making the sale. And, of course, I don't know what baseball would do if, for example, Zell stripped all of the assets out of the Tribune entity except for the Cubs.

And, of course, what would baseball have done if Cuban, not Zell, had purchased sufficient shares to control the Tribune Company and then spun all of the assets except for the Cubs off to other entities. Certainly baseball couldn't have prevented Cuban from purchasing publicly traded shares.

Of course, the easy solution is to strip baseball of this wholly unwarranted and unnecessary antitrust exemption. While it was imposed by the Judiciary and can be eliminated by the Judiciary, it can certainly be eliminated by the Legislative Branch (and if the Executive wanted to, the Executive could test the exemption in Court by initiating an AT action... but that won't happen as the next Commissioner of Baseball is about 16 months from being out of his current job and certainly isn't going to tick off his next "bosses".

by frustratedfan on Oct 12, 2007 11:36 PM CDT up reply actions

You are partially correct

but when the Tribune bought the Cubs, they agreed to abide by major league rules when it comes to divesting of the asset. The rule is very simple; 2/3 of major league owners need to approve who you sell to. This really has nothing to do with the SEC or fidiciary responsbility that public companies have to their stockholders.

Thats not to say that Zell and the Tribune company wont' try to pressure MLB to allow them to take the highest bid (I think they already started this by talking of selling assets seperatetly), but in the end, they have no recourse over the rule of 2/3 approval of existing owners.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 8, 2007 11:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Restrictive Covenants

And when many people purchased houses in the 50's and 60's they included a provision in the deed that the property would not be sold to individuals of a certain religious or racial background. And those provisions were unenforceable.

If Baseball does not have the AT exemption, which would be the contention of the aggrieved non-purchaser, then it also does not have the legal authority to enforce this part of the agreement. That's the point. No one is saying that MLB doesn't have the agreement, what they are saying is that the agreement may not be enforceable. (And unenforceable provisions in contracts and agreements are not all that uncommon. Most contracts understand this and include a provision holding that the rest of a contract is still valid even if individual clauses are not valid.) Society imposes limits on what you can and cannot contract for.

You cannot agree by contract to work in an hourly job for less than the minimum wage. You cannot agree by contract to waive the right to a safe workplace. You cannot agree by contract to become a slave. You cannot waive by contract your right to workmen's compensation. You cannot be held to a contract in which you agree to commit a crime. And so forth.

Again, is it certain that baseball would lose? Of course not. But it is also not certain that baseball would win. And if I were betting, I would bet against baseball.

by frustratedfan on Oct 9, 2007 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions

I would love to see that challenged

by I don't believe it will. The Trib does not have the time for an extended court battle because Zell's plan to buy the company could crumble.

What I think will go down, is one of MLB's preferred groups will be pressured to at least come very close to any potential bid from Cuban. Now if Cuban blows people away with a bid of say - 1.3 or 1.4 billion, it could get very interesting.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 9, 2007 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions

Very bad example

Restrictive convenants were illegal because the violated fair housing laws. A more on target case would be co-op board
This is a group of owners who agree by contract and you can only get in with their approval. They can refuse you for any reason they choose even IF you offer the most money. If you could PROVE they refused you because of your race, religion or sexual orientation ( in NYC anyway) then you have a case if they refuse you because they are a bunch of old conservative folks who don't want a new loud fun guy, too bad you don't get in.
Baseball has the AT exemption. What are the odds it gets removed by Congress so Cuban can buy the Cubs over MLB's objections ? The Trib bought the team knowing the rules and signed off on them, a new buyer must do the same. Anyone who witnessed the way the sales of both the Nats & Red Sox where handled ( both to bidders which by all reports were NOT the highest) The Red Sox ran into a bit of trouble with the MA AG
but got past it with a contribution to charity.

You may not LIKE the set up but it is not illegal and it won't be
challanged in court.

"It's the Cubbies. There's always a vibe. It's the greatest vibe in baseball." Greg Maddux on Cub fan's optimism even after the 06 debacle.

by jessica on Oct 9, 2007 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Just for conjecture

what is to stop the ILL AG from jumping into the fray??

Remember this is an important ILL company, you could concoct a scene where the ILL pols jump into this.

Combine that with a federal court room and you have a real jolly show potential.

My God that one is going to land in Milwaukee - Lou Boudreau describing a Dave Kingman home run in the Cub/Phillie 23 to 22 game in 1979.

by cjn54 on Oct 11, 2007 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions

This is silly

The ONLY reason that the MA AG did was because the Red Sox
where being sold by a CHARITY licensed in the state there for the state had some obligation to make sure it was correct. They don't get involved in corporations.

"It's the Cubbies. There's always a vibe. It's the greatest vibe in baseball." Greg Maddux on Cub fan's optimism even after the 06 debacle.

by jessica on Oct 11, 2007 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions

The Trib or Zell has no time

for court battles. They need to sell the asset and get on with the restructuring of Tribune company under Zell's control.

That's not to say the process won't get interesting because you do have Zell and Tribune wanting to get every penny possible for the sale and MLB wanting to hand pick who they will allow into their little club.

I think Cuban is the kind of guy who would over bid by 200 mil or so, just to cause a rucus. In a circumstance like that, you may see Zell going to MLB and saying their buddy Canning needs to come up with more dough. He won't have much recourse, but he certainly won't be a happy guy.

One thing that is important to remember, is Zell is not one of your "good ole boy" businessman, and he goes against the grain. In the end, I don't think MLB wants him pissed and they will do everything possible, to have their preferred candidate come up with a competitive bid.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 11, 2007 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions

Basic Fact Wrong

Just because you keep repeating something over and over again does not make it true. The baseball AT exemption is a creation of the Supreme Court, not a creation of the legislature. Where Congress has the power to overturn this exemption, so to can the Federal Courts.

As for provisions, lots and lots of contract provisions are found to be unenforceable because of public policy. The racial Covenant is simply the most obvious and most egregious. But the fact that a contract has a provision which prevents you from doing X does not automatically mean that you cannot do X. (For example, most parking tickets have boiler plate which absolves the parking garage of any liability at all. However, many of those contract provisions have been held to be unenforceable).

by frustratedfan on Oct 12, 2007 11:44 PM CDT up reply actions

he should be able to own the team

if he pays the most money, why not?? Just because its against Selig's agenda, who won't even be here in a couple of year?

It WILL Happen!!!....but not this year...

by Chanman25 on Oct 8, 2007 4:58 PM CDT reply actions

You are....

right. He should be able to own the team if he is places the highest bid. History shows that this is not the case. I believe the current Red Sox group were not the highest bidderes. They were the choice of Selig.

"You are an asshole": NDcubsfan

by timeforachange on Oct 8, 2007 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions

So what?

The Red Sox won the World Series, didn't they? They make the playoffs pretty much every year, don't they?

Isn't that what we want?

John Henry's group preserved and spent money on fixing and expanding Fenway Park, and hired top baseball people and then left them alone to do their jobs.

THAT is what we want here. I am NOT convinced that Mark Cuban would do that.

Be careful what you wish for.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Oct 8, 2007 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions

Why is it that

the Red Sox are the team to idol? How about we be independent and let other teams idolize us?

PIE!!!

by LilLPLancer23 on Oct 8, 2007 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions

What???

Well, if we can do better than the Red Sox have done the past 5 years, I'd be all for it.

Until then, I'd love to emulate them.

by NO100 on Oct 8, 2007 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions

Exactly...

Cuban would want to be completely hands on when dealing with personnel issues, including players. An owner should be neither seen nor heard, only there to write checks and be responsible for hiring competent front office people.

I don't get why people are so high on Cuban to begin with? Yes, the Mavericks make it to the post season every year, but as a bunch of people on this board like to point out, it's about winning championships, not just making the post season.

Why would we want the Ozzie Guillen of owners?

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Oct 8, 2007 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Huh

"Yes, the Mavericks make it to the post season every year, but as a bunch of people on this board like to point out, it's about winning championships, not just making the post season. " Last year everyone was saying this about Peyton Manning and the Colts. I'd be willing to gaurantee that they will win within the next three years... When you have a consistently good team, the championships will come.

PIE!!!

by LilLPLancer23 on Oct 8, 2007 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Tell that to the Bills

Making it to the post regularly does not translate into a guarenteed championship

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Oct 8, 2007 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions

yea, and look at them now...

a thirteen year mnf withdrawal...

PIE!!!

by LilLPLancer23 on Oct 8, 2007 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions

yeah...

and giving up almost 500 yards a game

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Oct 8, 2007 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions

on that note,

i wish i drafted tony romo over marc bulger

PIE!!!

by LilLPLancer23 on Oct 8, 2007 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions

I need him and Lee Evans combined

to get me 23 points tonight to keep my perfect season going. I have faith in Romo, but Evans is an utter disappointment so far.

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Oct 8, 2007 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions

I drafted him

then ended up trading him away for Tory Holt before the season.

PIE!!!

by LilLPLancer23 on Oct 8, 2007 7:39 PM CDT up reply actions

I picked him up on the Waiver wire

last week, after someone dropped him. The only reason I am playing him is because Boldin is injured.

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Oct 8, 2007 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions

The Bills tanked after they fired Polian as GM

He went to the Colts and they've been real good ever since. I'll take management like him or Cuban any day.

by Fro on Oct 8, 2007 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions

I think you missed the point

The Bills went to, what, 3 or 4 Superbowls in a row? But they were unable to win a championship, i.e. making the playoffs regularly does not translate into a guarenteed championship at some point, though, I'll admit, it doesn't hurt.

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Oct 8, 2007 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Maybe in football...

but historically big playoff runs usually result in at least 1 WS. The only exception would be the last 90s Astros.

Larry Rothschild= Bad Pitching Coach

by number1cubfan on Oct 8, 2007 8:20 PM CDT up reply actions

There's the A's

and also the Indians in the mid-90's

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Oct 8, 2007 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't agree with this

I have never heard of Mark Cuban sticking his hands in the player personnel decisions of the Mavericks. He's owned the team for over a decade, and he's had two head coaches--and the first one retired (temporarily, to be sure). This is not an owner who interferes with his hired executives.

I think people are reacting to the stereotype of the celebrity owner and not Mark Cuban. If someone can give me an example of Mark Cuban interfering with the player operations of the Dallas Mavericks, I'll change my tune. I'm not an NBA expert.

For the record, I neither support nor oppose Cuban buying the Cubs. But I think this is a totally bum rap that he interferes in player matters. Please give some evidence from the Mavericks if I'm wrong.

The artist formerly known as JoshinLA

by Josh Timmers on Oct 8, 2007 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes, this was wild speculation

on my part. But when I see Cuban arguing with refs and sitting right next to the bench during every game, shaking hands and hugging players between plays, it makes me assume that has his hand in player decisions as well.

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Oct 8, 2007 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions

Are you serious.....

I am no fan of Mark Cuban but he has brought in very bright people to run his team.

As for your Ozzie Guillen comment, I think it is laughable. IMHO, I would take him as a manager of my club. If he was the manager for the Cubs, I believe people here would love him.

"You are an asshole": NDcubsfan

by timeforachange on Oct 9, 2007 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions

Al.....

I happen to agree with you. What I was pointing out is that the current owners of the Red Sox were NOT the highest bidders.

"You are an asshole": NDcubsfan

by timeforachange on Oct 8, 2007 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions

After.....

reading your response, I don't get it.

"You are an asshole": NDcubsfan

by timeforachange on Oct 8, 2007 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions

It's not just what Selig wants folks

it's what the owners want and 99% of them don't want a rebel coming in and blowing salary structures out of the water.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 8, 2007 11:32 PM CDT up reply actions

Wasn't there speculation...

...that Zell's tactic of splitting Wrigley Field off and selling it (and maybe some other Cubs-related assets) separately from the sale of the team was actually a ploy to get around/force MLB's owners to go with the highest bidder, and not just someone who they approve?

I seem to recall some on this board saying exactly that - the Cubs' value would be greatly undercut if someone else owned Wrigley, and since MLB ownership approval only involves the "team" (and not the stadium or ancilliary companies), Zell could hijack the MLB owners into approving someone they might find odious, like Cuban, if he was the high bidder.

Anyone know anything about this? Bruce Miles? Any other reporters out there? To me, this is a HUGE story...both business and sports angles involved, and a potential model for future ownership sales to open up MLB to more than the current "boys club."

by Chadnudj on Oct 8, 2007 5:01 PM CDT reply actions

Most likely...

... Zell WILL sell the ballpark and the team in separate transactions -- to the same person or group, who would form a real estate partnership to run the ballpark, and then lease it to the group that owns the team. There are good sound financial reasons for this.

I still don't see why everyone is so enamored with Cuban. To me, he comes across as "it's all about me", rather than "it's all about winning". Take, for example, the quote from him in this article:

"When I went to the Cubs game a couple weeks ago, I sat in the bleachers, and I'll have a seat marked out for me and my friends. We'll be out in the right-field bleachers -- that's the best place to watch a game."

A seat "marked out for me and my friends"? A real man of the people, that guy. What a self-serving jerk he is.

Give me a group funded by people with money who are willing to spend it and then who will shut up and let their baseball people run the show. That's what they got in Boston with John Henry's group, and got great results.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Oct 8, 2007 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions

Yup.....

....the thought of Cuban buying the Cubs makes me wretch. It will be the Mark Cuban Show featuring all his drinking buddies and oh yeah, the Cubs. Let's see Mark in the booth, announcing with Pat and Ron and Len and Bob! Let's see Mark on Lead Off Man, talking about His Team. Let's see Mark in the clubhouse before the game, conferring with Piniella about the starting pitching. Let's see Mark heckle the umpires and write blogs about it, pissing off all the umpires, who then deny squeezing the strike zone and missing close plays. Let's see me stringing Cuban up next to that goat.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Oct 8, 2007 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions

Again

When did Mark Cuban call up Avery Johnson and start dictating defensive match-ups? I can't remember it ever happening.

I want to know how Cuban got this reputation. As far as I can tell, he has never interfered with the personnel or on-court activities of the Dallas Mavericks.

The artist formerly known as JoshinLA

by Josh Timmers on Oct 8, 2007 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions

Somewhere around here.....

....is a recent CNN/Fortune article I linked to wherein Cuban talks about doing exactly that with Don Nelson.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Oct 8, 2007 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Here

After purchasing the team, Cuban set out to change things. The Mavericks had a respected coach, Don Nelson, and two future MVPs, forward Dirk Nowitzki and point guard Steve Nash. But something was missing.

"I remember when I got there sitting and talking to [Nelson]," says Cuban. "We were 9-23, and he was like, 'Look, we could bag the rest of the season to get a top draft pick.' I was like, 'No, we've been ten years out of the playoffs. At some point, you have to learn how to win.'" (Nelson's lawyer, John O'Connor, disagrees with this version of events: "I wasn't there. But Cuban has a very active imagination.")

Cuban managed his players with a carrot and a stick. He flew them around in a jet that was so plush Tom Cruise rented it last year to fly his guests to Italy for his wedding to Katie Holmes. At the same time, the Mavericks' new owner wasn't above storming into the locker room and cursing them out when they lost, or going on the court during games and listening in on their huddles.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/03/news/newsmakers/mark_cuban.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007100412

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Oct 8, 2007 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions

That's a maybe

He isn't really dictating anything--he's just shooting his mouth off again. But I'll admit that when an owner shoots his mouth off, his employees listen.

But here you're having to go back to the very first months of Cuban's ownership. You would think if he were a "meddling owner," there would be more than one ten-year old example.

The artist formerly known as JoshinLA

by Josh Timmers on Oct 8, 2007 9:26 PM CDT up reply actions

I really

don't want him either. I can't stand him.

I'd like Geovany Soto to catch for me everyday. ;-)

by sue369 on Oct 8, 2007 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Al.......

seriously, is it any different than the him having an owners box?

"You are an asshole": NDcubsfan

by timeforachange on Oct 8, 2007 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm sorry for this rant but this is just pissing

me off. If he[Cuban] owns the Cubs who gives a fuck where he sits. This is completely off base, unfounded criticism of him. If you bought the Cubs you would do the god damn same thing. Sitting there is no different than a owners box. While I am not in support of Cuban owning the team you are just using truthiness in your argument instead of actual factual evidence of what is actually happening. This is where all the consperiacy theories of you are working for the Cubs/MLB come from (not saying I believe those, but this is where they come from)

GO CUBS GO!!!!!!

by roach on Oct 8, 2007 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm just guessing...

as I did not read the entire article. But what I think Al may be getting at is that the best owner for the Cubs would not be someone who's priority is where he sits at Wrigley Field.

Perhaps if Cuban talked about why he should be the owner and how that would translate into a championship besides just throwing around money, Al and other people (including myself) would want the guy as an owner. However, Cuban talks about owning the Cubs so that he can get good seats in RF.

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Oct 8, 2007 10:31 PM CDT up reply actions

Just read it

and yes, it talks about him being a "bleacher bum," which is not what I want in the owner of the Cubs to be.

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Oct 8, 2007 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions

Thats what I would want more than anything

not some coporate suit who thinks he is above the common fan, and he was having an interview on the radio not everything he says has to pertain to what you want to hear, just what he wants to say

GO CUBS GO!!!!!!

by roach on Oct 8, 2007 10:39 PM CDT up reply actions

If you want an average fan to be the owner

ok. But I myself would rather have an owner that knows explains what he plans on doing to bring the Cubs a championship. I want an owner who knows how to put together a winning organization besides just throwing money around.

Who cares if it is a corporate suit? The only thing that matters is winning, how they are going to do it, and why they are best for the Cubs, not where they are planning on sitting.

"Prince Fielder Dies Of Inside-The-Park Homerun" - The Onion

by DTJchris on Oct 8, 2007 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions

I want winning more than anything

hence me not wanting Cuban, but if I thought he would provide an equal chance as another owner I would want him because of the closeness to the fans over some suit in a luxury box

GO CUBS GO!!!!!!

by roach on Oct 9, 2007 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions

Don't you pretty much have your seat marked

out yourself. Please lets not let our personal feeling of the man get in the way. I for one have had enough with silent owners.

by oldtimer @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Oct 9, 2007 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions

I do not trust Selig

and combined with his buddy Reinsdorf (shudder) I just do not feel comfortable about it.

I want some one who will really, really care about the Cubs (and not just about$$ like the Trib did until this year).

And if Cuban were to upset some umps than considering the way they have acted this year then I say good!

I am beging to like the idea of Cuban getting the Cubs

My God that one is going to land in Milwaukee - Lou Boudreau describing a Dave Kingman home run in the Cub/Phillie 23 to 22 game in 1979.

by cjn54 on Oct 11, 2007 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions

All I care...

Is that the best person gets the job. Whether it's Cuban or another group.

by gocubs40 on Oct 8, 2007 5:12 PM CDT reply actions

All I care

is for the new owner to hire the best baseball people possible, give them some good dough, create an expectation of winning and get the hell out of their way.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 8, 2007 11:36 PM CDT up reply actions

Let's remember one thing

Baseball enjoys a unique exemption from antitrust laws. They can pretty much approve whomever they want. Remember, Bill Veeck wanted to sell the team to Ed DeBartolo in 1980, and Bowie Kuhn put the kibosh on that. What recourse did DeBartolo have? None.

by Bruce Miles on Oct 8, 2007 6:28 PM CDT reply actions

Let's also realize that times have changed

and if (hypothetically) Cuban offered the Trib $10 billion dollars, the Trib would probably take MLB to court in order to be able to sell the Cubs to him. The Trib would have a good argument: the Trib has the right to sell the Cubs to the highest bidder. Maybe MLB will win such a case, but maybe they won't....

by zevkalman on Oct 8, 2007 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Only a moron with a financial

death wish would do that. Why does everyone assume he has unlimited wealth?

by cubswin on Oct 8, 2007 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Never happen

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Oct 8, 2007 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Clarification

The $10B thing of course isn't going to happen, but neither is the lawsuit.

Santo Forever!

by BeerCub on Oct 8, 2007 7:10 PM CDT up reply actions

This case wouldn't even be taken by a court...

... because of the antitrust exemption. Only Congress can change that, and they have never shown any inclination to do so.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Oct 8, 2007 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Wrong

The Baseball AT exemption is not a statutory exemption. It is a Judicial exemption based on a Supreme Court decision that baseball is not a business, it is a game and thus does not constitute interstate commerce and thus is not subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. However, the facts have radically changed and the Supreme Court has reversed precedent, even long standing precedent. (After all the Law of the Land was Separate, but Equal until reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education). Would the Supreme's change their mind? Hard to say. But MLB's exemption is really based on a very thin set of facts at this point.

by frustratedfan on Oct 8, 2007 8:13 PM CDT up reply actions

Recourse

DeBartalo could have sued. In fact, the guy who lost out on the Giants did sue MLB. And they settled with him out of court before the trial for 6 million dollars. And the facts continue to become more and more in favor of elimination of the exemption. Consider:

At the time of the Baltimore Baseball case (the seminal Supreme Court decision) the American and National Leagues were separate entities and really did very little beyond provide general administration. The American and National leagues are now part of an entity called "Major League Baseball".
At the time of the BB case, the league did not negotiate a National TV contract. The National TV contract, which involves the sharing of a pool of revenue, is a business relationship.
At the time of the BB case, the league did not have a trademark pool sharing the Royalty rights.
MLB has now scheduled games in other locations (other than those of the two teams involved).

And so forth. If I had to choose a side, I would want to be on the side making the challenge.

by frustratedfan on Oct 8, 2007 8:20 PM CDT up reply actions

The guy I'd like to see as Cubs owner...

... since you're probably wondering, isn't Mark Cuban OR John Canning.

It's Don Levin.

Who? Some of you are asking.

Levin's the owner of the Chicago Wolves, the AHL hockey team in Chicago. He's a Chicago native, a Cubs fan, has deep pockets and has produced a team that has won championships, perenially contends, and is extremely fan-friendly. And yet, you've probably never heard of him, because he stays in the background and lets his hockey-knowledgeable people make the decisions. Wayne Messmer, one of the Cubs' three PA announcers, is a VP of the Wolves.

I'm 100% in favor of Levin, who has indicated interest in the Cubs -- but who has stayed in the background rather than in the bleachers.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Oct 8, 2007 7:52 PM CDT reply actions

I agree Al

I met the guy once about 10 years ago and of all the public candidates, he is the one that would seem to be best. The whole Canning - Selig relationship is really bothersome, to say the least.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 8, 2007 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions

Sorry but,

I think that whoever bids the most should get it, period. There shouldn't be any "special interests". I would hope that if someday, somehow, if I was ridiculously wealthy, that I would have a fair chance at buying the Cubs if they were for sale, regardless of what the commissioner and other owners think. Sure there needs to be some guidelines so that some wacko can't come in and buy a team, but tell me what reason should Cuban not be allowed to buy the team if he offers the most money? I don't really know who I would like to buy the Cubs by the way, I just don't think that a group of billionaires should get to pick.

by adam316 on Oct 9, 2007 9:00 AM CDT reply actions

It's all public relations.

It's no coincidence that Cuban only opens his mouth in Chicago when he needs votes in Dancing with the Stars.

by Fraggin Judge on Oct 9, 2007 9:32 AM CDT reply actions

HD-Net

Usually the Cubbie Blue team has all the angles covered but everyone is missing this piece regarding Mark Cuban buying the team. He owns the HD-Net television networks. He needs content, but more, he needs cable systems to pick up his stations. I'm convinced that without the Cubs and the Bulls that WGN wouldn't be picked up by half of the cable systems out there that they are currently on. If Cuban buys the Cubbies he can put them on HD-Net (especially for daytime content) and get his networks online.

I heard or read somewhere that YES (Yankee network) was actually worth more than the team. The Cubbies on HD-Net makes that whole package worth more. Cuban could then potentially sell out the combined package and make another financial killing. Mark is no dummy folks. Let's just say he is following in Ted Turner's footsteps.

Go Cubbies!

I want my Macias!

by wombat on Oct 9, 2007 11:47 AM CDT reply actions

Interesting point.

I hadn't considered this, but you may have hit the nail on the head. With Tribco being broken up, the Cubs will have to find an outlet for some of their games (only half or so can go on CSN). HDNet would be a possibility.

I'm not fond of Cuban's "it's all about me" personality, but clearly, he's a shrewd businessman.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Oct 9, 2007 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't like his all about me

personality either. But, I am more than willing to take that, as long as he brings "it's all about winning" attitude with him.

Look at Steinbrenner; the guy is really a jerk and how he has treated his managers is really classless. With that said, the guy makes one thing clear - anything less than winning a championship is not acceptable, and that permeates through their organization. Certainly, the Tribune company didn't come close to developing that culture, and it showed up in their win/loss record over 26 years.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 9, 2007 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions

Your point is well taken.

However, I feel compelled to point out that Mark Cuban is not the only potential owner out there who could put together an organization with this sort of focus.

Which is why I'm behind the Don Levin group.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Oct 9, 2007 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions

AL

Why do you hate Mark Cuban so much?

Because he actually is a fan of the team he owns? Because he wants to sit in the bleachers and enjoy watching his team?

The Mavericks were a pathetic organization before he came. Yes, they haven't won. They HAVE been one of the top 3 teams every year, got to the finals, and transformed into a team in which losing is not accepted.

I haven't seen him making personnel decisions on a whim. I've seen him be quite responsible.

The guy has a passion for his teams and I think it's quite admirable. Yes, I wouldn't want to sit in a room with him for 5 hours. But I also think he'd be good for the Cubs and for the city of Chicago.

Are you not sick of the suits running the Cubs now? I don't even know who they are, and have never seen any indication that they give two hoots about this team or about winning.

I'll tell you one thing... Mark Cuban would not have sat there and let Andy MacPhail screw up for 10 years the way Tribco did.

by nickler on Oct 10, 2007 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions

I'd like to know this too

"Oh no! He is going to be sitting in the bleachers with us!" So that is what your problem is? Afraid the spot he wants is where you sit or something?

by GoCubbies34 on Oct 11, 2007 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions

Hardly.

I just don't want an "all about me" owner, and that's what Cuban is. Let's see, his latest pronouncement isn't about what he'd do to improve the team, but about where he'd sit in the ballpark.

Yup, that's the guy I want, riiiiiiight.

Don Levin owns the Wolves, a successful, fan-friendly organization that has won championships -- and he stays in the background, puts his money up, and lets his hockey people run the show.

Sounds good to me.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Oct 11, 2007 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions

I really don't know

Has any other possible owner said how they would help the team? Is this even a common practice?

by GoCubbies34 on Oct 11, 2007 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions

That is a bunch of B.S.

How about telling it the way it is. Some fear he would be right behind the dugout a little to involved. His bleacher comment was directed at that concern. Maybe he is not as polished as Sam Zell or your Levin choice -- but one thing is certain he cares about his team.

by oldtimer @ Bleed Cubbie Blue on Oct 11, 2007 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions

Al - I do not know any thing about Levin

but I would be curious to know what he would do about Wrigley?

My guess is that Cuban would within say 10 years engineer some kind of new ball park perhaps paying for it himself.

Thoughts??

My God that one is going to land in Milwaukee - Lou Boudreau describing a Dave Kingman home run in the Cub/Phillie 23 to 22 game in 1979.

by cjn54 on Oct 11, 2007 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions

Maybe.

There's no doubt that Wrigley Field needs work to be preserved. The best idea would be to shut it for a year, tear the upper deck down and rebuild it. By doing this you'd get a new press box, new suites, and a stadium club that faces the field. The Cubs could play at the Cell for a year.

This could preserve the ballpark for another fifty years. I doubt Cuban could finance a new ballpark all by himself -- that's serious money we're talking about, after buying a franchise.

And where would you put it?

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Oct 11, 2007 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions

Cuban wanted to sit in Right Field

Al sits in left. As long as Cuban follows the unwritten bleacher rules and gets to the game early enough to save his seats, he is
as welcome as anyone

FYI OT I am amused that Bill O'Reilly is now after him over a film his company, Magnolia is set to release about Iraq. However O'Reilly has described Cuban as more or less a dupe of director
Brian DePalma which is hardly the case. Cuban may be many things but a mislead dupe is not one of them

"It's the Cubbies. There's always a vibe. It's the greatest vibe in baseball." Greg Maddux on Cub fan's optimism even after the 06 debacle.

by jessica on Oct 11, 2007 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions

Pink Hat Guy

Isn't the Jim Anixter mentioned in the Trib Steve Stone interview the same man of the green shirt and pink hat discussed frequently during the seasons?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-071011mitchell,0,1452356.column?coll=chi_tab02 _layout

He seems as crazy as Cuban.

by N Oakley on Oct 11, 2007 3:03 PM CDT reply actions