Bleed Cubbie Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Wendel Clark Day Is Here Bar-right-arrows



Just Another Boring Off-Day

So.

It's Tuesday. Anything interesting happen yesterday?

While you're all stewing and mulling and pondering and hyperventilating over the impending sale of Tribune Company, and what it means to the Cubs and whether Wrigley Field will be included in the Cubs sale (and I cannot imagine any prospective owner NOT wanting the ballpark, too), I wanted to tell you about a book I've recently read, which I highly recommend and which will give you, or ought to, a new perspective on your life.

"In An Instant" is the story of Bob Woodruff, the ABC News reporter and anchor who was seriously wounded while reporting in Iraq.

I feel an affinity toward him and his wife, Lee, who co-wrote the book, not just because I also work at ABC, but because both of them attended my school, Colgate University, though after I had graduated. The book is written in "segments", almost like a diary written by both of them as a conversation or journal, describing not only how he was wounded and recovered, but also how they got to that point in both their lives.

The recovery itself was nothing short of miraculous -- half of Woodruff's skull was destroyed by the bomb blast and had to be reconstructed, and he is lucky to be alive. Lee Woodruff tells of how she had to tell her kids, and the rest of her family, and how they all pulled together. While it is true that, because he is a journalist and thus has access to resources that others perhaps wouldn't, the story is still one of survival, of doubts, of highs and lows, that anyone in such a situation would go through. It's a story of love too, not just Lee and Bob, but their entire family and how their faith in each other and in their doctors helped bring him back to where he could return to work at nearly full capacity, though his rehab continues even today.

One very good thing that came out of this event, was that Bob Woodruff was able, through his position as a reporter, to help bring attention to the plight of soldiers who don't have the resources he had, and also the current troubles in VA hospitals around the country. His family has also started the Bob Woodruff Family Fund for Traumatic Brain Injury, which will help to assist members of the military who have suffered brain injuries.

I'm not sure I've really managed to capture how much I was touched by reading his story, an amazing tale of survival and renewal. It's a story of love and family and hope, and well worth reading. In the summer of 2008, I'll be attending my 30-year college reunion (gulp! how could it have been that long?), which I have learned will be Bob Woodruff's 25th. I hope to meet him then and shake his hand -- I admire him and his wife greatly.

Read this book. Well worth your time.

0 recs | Comment 125 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Didn't want to panic....
I was excited to hear about the Tribune selling the Cubs, dissapointed in the showing for opening day, but realize the season has only started.

The concept that Wrigley could be sold to someone other than the buyer of the Cubs is jarring and something that I hope does not happen.  I am hopeful that this is the start of public posturing to maximize the sale value.  Maybe the Tribune is also being represented by Drew Rosenhous...

"You call that pitching? This is baseball! Not tennis!" Ham Porter

by N Oakley on Apr 3, 2007 9:07 AM CDT   0 recs

Wrigley and the Cubs
I would not be at all surprised if the sale of Wrigley is decoupled from the sale of the Cubs.   Zell has to sell the Cubs because of the partial ownership of the White Sox.  But does he have to sell Wrigley?  In fact, would the Wrigley property sell (at a quick sale) for other use for more than its price as a ball park?  If so, I could see Zell/Tribune sell the team with the City, as part of the Olympic Bid, agreeing to build a new Stadium for the team (say where Miegs Field Stood).  A "win/win" for both Zell and the buyer.  Zell gets maximum value for the Cubs AND for selling the Wrigleyville real estate and the new owner of the Cubs gets the team and a shinny new ball park.

I am guessing that we may see the Tribune tower sold as well.   No reason why the Tribune has to be right on Michigan Avenue.  They can move what's left of the paper to over near the Printing Center .   Zell is going to bring major changes, mostly bad, to the City.

by frustratedfan on Apr 3, 2007 9:22 AM CDT   0 recs

Speculation...
... is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

Sure, they could do that. The city, however, won't know about the Olympics till 2009, which is when the IOC will make the final choice of its host for 2016. Unless, of course, the USOC chooses Los Angeles when they make their decision later this month.

I think the value of Wrigley Field to Tribco is higher if it's sold as a ballpark than as real estate. It could increase the value of the franchise by $100 million or more. There's no way that land is worth that much if it's not a ballpark.

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

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 9:26 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually,
The land is worth much more than the ballpark.  Just look at the housing prices in the area (I know, I just bought.....)

If the Zell deal goes through, it would be smart to divide the park and the team.  They will get more if sold seperately.  The new owner of the team may want the park, but likely would be outbid by someone with a plan for the property.

"I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this." Sue369

by timeforachange on Apr 3, 2007 11:38 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Landmark Status
Of course, landmark status prevents anyone from altering the facilities without approval. Razing Wrigley to then put in three flats and other million dollar housing won't be approved. Further, converting the existing ballpark to some type of historic loft housing (imagine what could be done) is unlikely to be approved.

DmL

by dmlichte on Apr 3, 2007 11:46 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Correct me....
if I am wrong, but I believe the city council voted to remove "landmark status" from a building in the South Loop" about a year ago.

There was a big deal made of it, but it passed through with the mayor's backing.

I hope the park stays up, but, I would not be shocked if the new owners go to the city and asks to build a new park to strengthen their revenue sources.  My guess would be somewhere on the West Side.....

"I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this." Sue369

by timeforachange on Apr 3, 2007 3:36 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Where?
And who pays for it?
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 3:38 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Bonds.....
bonds, and more bonds....

My guess is it would be tied to the olympic bid....

I would have to look at the #####'s BUT, I could argue it would be better for the new owners to self fund the stadium rather than lease Wrigley....

"I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this." Sue369

by timeforachange on Apr 3, 2007 3:46 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm willing to bet
A lot of those housing prices are directly and indirectly tied to the ballpark, and if Wrigley was to be demolished (won't happen as stated because of landmark status) prices would quickly drop.
Go Nebraska Football!

by sanantonecub on Apr 3, 2007 12:26 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

yup
I'd be willing to wager you are correct. If you get rid of Wrigley, what does that neighborhood have? A gigantic bar district... and that's about it.
AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike on Apr 3, 2007 12:35 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

But...
... without Wrigley, a lot of those bars close.

It was suggested in one article that the Tribune could sell the park to someone who would lease it to whoever buys the Cubs. Or they could keep it and lease it themselves.

That makes more sense, I think,.

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

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 12:57 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Yep...
If you drop the "Wrigley" out of "Wrigleyville,"...

The Cubs and the ballpark are what make the neighborhood and nightlife what they are. A lot of things would be adversely effected if Wrigley was gone...

Ahh, finally...spring has arrived...

by Mark H on Apr 3, 2007 2:31 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually,
What you have if you take the park out of Lakeview is an up and coming Lincoln Park.
"I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this." Sue369

by timeforachange on Apr 3, 2007 3:06 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 3:39 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

NO!!!!!!!!
I just bought a new home.  Please SHUT UP!!!! ;)

An up and coming Lincoln Park!!!!

"I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this." Sue369

by timeforachange on Apr 3, 2007 3:43 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

lol
Okay, an up-and-coming Lincoln Park, then. :)
Ahh, finally...spring has arrived...

by Mark H on Apr 3, 2007 4:25 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

That's the thing that bothers me though
Which is what Wayne Huizinga did if Florida.  He locked the Marlins into a horrible lease in which most of the revenue for people entering the park went to the stadium.  Then he kept the stadium and sold the team.  The Marlins, financially at least, have never recovered.

Oh, and earlier in this discussion it was said Zell has to sell the team because of his part-ownership in the White Sox.  C'mon.  He could more easily sell the share of the Sox than the Cubs.  He's selling the Cubs because his buyout plan is highly leveraged.  The Cubs don't fit in with the rest of the Tribune's media conglomerate and they can be easily sold to pay down the debt without affecting the core business.

by Josh77 on Apr 3, 2007 3:07 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Al,
This is a business.  If you were buying the team, would you not want to maximize the profits early on to recoup the $$$$$ of you investment?

If they have to lease the park, the new owners would, IMHO, be nuts to not seek a new park.  It would be a bad business decision if they did not.  The prospective buyers did not get to this point because they are bad businessmen.

"I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this." Sue369

by timeforachange on Apr 3, 2007 3:41 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

It's bad business
to tear down Wrigley.

by Jhoratio on Apr 4, 2007 3:17 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Do me a favor.....
give me one reason why an owner would want to pay rent to a separate party to play in Wrigley.

I would bet the farm if another person or group purchased the park they would place unrealistic demands on the new team ownership group.  The owners would virtualy have NO choice but to seek other options.

"I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this." Sue369

by timeforachange on Apr 4, 2007 3:28 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Nonsense.
At this point there are enough bars in the neighborhood that it is now a self-sustaining set of entertainment.   They remain filled even in the off season.   If you look at the other neighborhoods a bit further off they are also still hot.  Wrigley goes and the bars stay.

by frustratedfan on Apr 3, 2007 5:50 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

hmmm
Ask the owners of those bars what percent of their revenue they make during home games and then let me know if they think their business is viable without the team.  If you've been to any of those bars on game day vs. offseason you know they survive primarily because of the gameday crowds.  Ski resorts stay open all year, but if you take away the snow, they all go bankrupt.
MURTON!! Just trying to help his karma so he gets 500+ ABs.

by 26.2cubfan on Apr 3, 2007 10:11 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Stretch of Bars
The Stretch of bars and restaurants on Clark is neither unique nor unusual on the North Side.   It occurs several times on Lincoln and on several other parts of the North Side.  None of those bars require a baseball team in their backyard to survive.  Will some of them go away?  Yes, sure.  But most will be just fine.  

by frustratedfan on Apr 4, 2007 10:02 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

If the Cubs are sold
ten Wrigley will be sold.  From Zell's perspective, it doesn't matter to whom he sells either, whether it's both together or each to a different group.  All Zell is trying to do is raise cash to pay down his debt.  Still, I'm sure it makes some business sense to sell to a group publicly committed to Wrigley, if only so Zell can enjoy the good PR.

If I were looking to buy the Cubs, I'd probably buy the team and Wrigley together, then look to sell the stadium in a sale-leaseback with a VERY favorable tenant-lease for a huge term like 99 years.  That'd be the way to do it.

by Jhoratio on Apr 4, 2007 3:22 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Re
As long as King Richard rules Chicago, there is no way anything like a baseball stadium is going in on the site of Meigs.  He wants that land returned to being a park.  Also, the traffic and lack of parking is bad enough around there.  Can you imagine what it would be like adding 82 Cubs games?  And then there would be groups like Friends of the Parks screaming about ruining the general nature of the lakefront and letting a private business use what is supposed to be for the public (and they'd be right).

There is a chance, however, that Zell would split the team and the park and try to sell the park for real estate development.  That is, after all, his business.  It would be a shame to lose Wrigley, but not out of the question.  Between the additional revenue a new stadium would give the new owners and the income from a major residential project that would go to Zell, that's a lot of money to give up just to keep the Cubs at Clark & Addison.

by Jed Taylor on Apr 3, 2007 2:27 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

not possible
I don't think it's possible to tear down Wrigley. It's a landmark, as others have pointed out.

And yes, the Meigs site makes no sense at all.

I grew up in "Wrigleyville" before it was Wrigelyville. It was just plain Lakeview back then, before Wrigley Field became an icon and the bars sprouted up like dandelions. Back then, it was a middle class to working class neighborhood, and slightly sleazy, especially right around the ballpark. I don't think it would go back to being that way without the Cubs. The bars might suffer, but the ethnic restaurants and the lakefront would keep people coming to the neighborhood.

"Hello again, everybody. Harry Caray from Wrigley Field on a beautiful day for baseball."

by danimal15 on Apr 3, 2007 2:43 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Little Richie and Meigs Field
He wants it returned to a park. Sure.  Pull the other one.  What he wants to do is to create a park which is a dismal failure at which point he can then justify it as the site of the new Casino.   As for parking, it can use the massive parking already set up for Soldier field.  The Friends of the Park have no clout anymore as demonstrated by that Spaceship that crashed into Soldier Field, the Concrete Resident unfriendly sea walls, and the private leasing of Millenium Park.

by frustratedfan on Apr 3, 2007 5:54 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

fyi
every time you insult your audience by saying they are hyperventilating and overreacting to something, i immediately leave and don't come back for awhile.

why you find it necessary to be condescending to the people who choose to frequent your site is beyond me.

DEJESUS!!!

by tomas21 on Apr 3, 2007 9:33 AM CDT   0 recs

Suit yourself.
Some people ARE hyperventilating. Whatever you want to do; your choice.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 9:41 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Hyperventilation
Are they literally hyperventilating, or just figuratively?
"You know what? You want a job? Go out and earn one." Sweet Lou

by Kyle Turney on Apr 3, 2007 9:54 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 10:04 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

you should use a funnier word to not anger people
I find everything is funnier in yiddish

http://www.bergen.org/AAST/projects/Yiddish/English/comwor.html

For example

"While you kakameyme sheygets are all farblondzhet and farklempt and got the shpilkes over the impending handl of Tribune Company..."

Not that kind of north side.

by HerrProf on Apr 3, 2007 10:14 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I find everything is funnier in yiddish
Thanks for the laugh. It is funnier in yiddish but Al and everyone else for that matter should be able to say what they want (within the rules of this site) without others taking it so personally.

by tucsoncubsfan on Apr 3, 2007 10:23 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Thank you.
How do you say "hyperventilate" in Yiddish, anyway?
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 10:24 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

i picked
farblondzhet    all mixed up    I got all furblungit.
Not that kind of north side.

by HerrProf on Apr 3, 2007 10:25 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 10:30 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

It's called
Thinking positively, having a good attitude, not letting one loss be a kill-joy, because the season is an infant, one freaking day old. It could grow up to be a strapping, strong Cubs season, you know. We choose not to wallow in one loss, but look forward to many victories.
Sorry but I had to say this.

by shop girl on Apr 3, 2007 10:00 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

FYI PT.2
I think that AL is talking only to the fans that ARE hyperventilating (figuratively), if you are not hyperventilating, then don't worry about it. Please chill yourself...
BigJohnAZ

by BigJohnAZ on Apr 3, 2007 2:06 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't think it's insulting at all...
...and I don't think Al was meaning to insult anyone. Why would "hyperventilating" or "overreacting" bother you? Do you have a self-esteem problem? A little too easily excitable? Maybe a little sensitive about the word "overreacting" because you have a tendency to "overreact"? Like now?

Give me a break, man. As soon as you're sure that you never unintentionally offend/insult anyone, than by all means begin preaching to other people about how to talk.  

Ahh, finally...spring has arrived...

by Mark H on Apr 3, 2007 2:26 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

What about Bob?
Admittedly, I haven't read his book, but some of this stuff really bothers me. Why is Bob Woodruff the story? We Americans are so easily swept in by the media's sensationalism. I just don't get it. I feel this way every time people lose it about Dale Earnhardt or Princess Diana or JFK Jr. or Darryl Kile and on and on and on. I understand that these are all decent people but the Woodruff thing is just incredible. Journalists are not heroes. They go into the line of fire for fame and fortune. They do it because they get something out of it. I don't blame them or think they're evil, I just don't think we should all drool over them as American heroes when they get blown up. I'm sure there is probably a good story there, but the some of this is just self promotion by the media who has something to gain. Again, I'm not slamming Bob Woodruff for getting blown up or saying he's not a good reporter. I'm just saying he's not a hero. There are thousands of guys like him who weren't getting paid 6 figures to be over there and haven't been on every TV show since they got back.
"You know what? You want a job? Go out and earn one." Sweet Lou

by Kyle Turney on Apr 3, 2007 9:45 AM CDT   0 recs

Right...
... but one of the points I made was that he has used what has happened to him to help those who have suffered similar injuries who don't have the fame and resources that he does, by starting that foundation.

In this way, something like this happening to someone famous, calls attention to a problem which might otherwise go unnoticed.

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

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 10:05 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree
that is a good thing. But in a shallow sort of view(which is the one that most people will take) is that Bob Woodruff is the hero. He got blown up and made his heroic recovery and now he is helping these poor soldiers. I guarantee you that these guys don't need our sympathy. They need respect. They need to be honored. Maybe unintentionally, the Woodruff story paints himself as the hero and the soldiers as victims. It's really the other way around. But understand too, the reason he is getting the attention is not because he got hurt, but because he was a reporter.
"You know what? You want a job? Go out and earn one." Sweet Lou

by Kyle Turney on Apr 3, 2007 10:15 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Re
Venturing into politics for a moment, but it's germane to this thread...

This is one of the saddest aspects of the way this invasion and occupation has been conducted.  While tens of billions of dollars are spent each year on grandiose weapon systems that don't work and are of dubious strategic value, young men and women are sent into urban guerrilla combat without basic proper protection.  Then, when they get injured, they suffer again because they lack the resources a well-known journalist has.  And because of improved battlefield medicine, far more soldiers survive serious injury than before.

This is the biggest crime - that Bob Woodward is able to get better medical and rehabilitation care than those who serve our country.  There's only one person to blame for this situation, and we all know who it is.

by Jed Taylor on Apr 3, 2007 2:39 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Since...
... some people think I only stop political talk here that I don't agree with, let me stop this one too.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 3:17 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

nobody is buying the Cubs without Wrigley
I strongly suspect this might be some complicated play to lessen the capital gains. I would add that I am a wee skeptical about the whole thing in terms of Zell getting the company for only 315 million of his own money and forcing the employees to become
owners without controlling interest. Lets just say it ain't over till
the fat lady sings
"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 Apr 3, 2007 9:59 AM CDT   0 recs

Jessica you are correct
Not only are they talking about selling the Cubs without the ballbark but it seems that they are trying to stick the new owners with the current WGN TV and radio contract that favors TV and Radio. This was not a problem when the Tribune owned the Cubs because they owned the TV and radio.

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/rosenblog/

A good day for me is a cubs win and a sox loss.

by diehardmark on Apr 3, 2007 2:50 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I wonder
How a tech savvy buyer (like Cuban) would feel about this. I imagine he'd want cubs games on hdnet or something.
Not that kind of north side.

by HerrProf on Apr 3, 2007 2:58 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

And Would They Have A Choice?
Ball teams do not come up for sale very often.  If the Cubs were put up for sale WITHOUT the ball park do you think that they would not be purchased?   The purpose of Zell is going to be to maximize revenue.  And the Cubs sold in one transaction and the ballpark and land in another is going to maximize the revenue.   Could the same owner end up with both?  Sure, but its not a given.

And at least some new owners will want a new park with that substantial skybox revenue.   Another location for the Cubs (in addition to Miegs, which is viable) is somewhere over near the United Center on the West Side so that the Cubs can share the United Center parking and other infrastructure.  This also gives King Richard what he wants, a chance to further push for the "Circle Line" and an expansion of the "Pink Line".

Wrigley's gone within the next 5 years.

by frustratedfan on Apr 4, 2007 10:07 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I've heard that before
You say Wrigley is gone in the next five years. Not sure how long you've followed the team, but we heard that refrain back in the early 1980s when the Tribune bought the club, and 25 years later, we still have Wrigley.

I'm coming around to the opinion some others have expressed here and that Trib columnist Rick Morrissey wrote about today (it's actually an idea I had about 20 years ago, but never shared with anyone except my brother, so I get no credit for it):

Keep the bleachers and scoreboard, the ivy-covered walls and the Clark and Addison Wrigley Field sign. Then take down the existing grandstand and build something more practical and modern (but keeping the traditional brick wall, old-fashioned lights, etc) where the grandstand now sits.

This isn't my favorite solution (which would be keeping the park as it is and upgrading where necessary), but perhaps it is the most realistic if we want to keep the essence of Wrigley (the neighborhood, the bleachers, the view of neighboring apartment buildings) long into the 21st century.

"Hello again, everybody. Harry Caray from Wrigley Field on a beautiful day for baseball."

by danimal15 on Apr 4, 2007 12:02 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah...
... the more I think about this, the more I think that's the best solution for everyone involved -- those of us who want to keep the "essence" of Wrigley get it, those who want something new get it, the new owners get a "modern" ballpark with modern amenities, more seats, more skyboxes, etc. while keeping that "essence" -- which ALSO sells.

Win-win scenario, the way I see it.

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

by Al on Apr 4, 2007 2:17 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I could live happily with the old
bleachers and a new grandstand.  The current grandstand is unremarkable and underneath is a disaster.  If you were going to start from scratch I'd look at digging down and building spacious restrooms in what would essentially be a basement.  It would save a lot of room, especially on the Addison Street side where, in one place, the current park pretty much comes out to the street.  

I would hope that they'd cantilever the decks to eliminate poles but  keep the seats close to the field.  One only need look at the Cell to see how non-overlapping of the decks pushes the fans far from the field.  And like the current lower grandstand, any upperdecks should curve toward the foul poles to give better sight lines to home plate.

by TR on Apr 4, 2007 2:17 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

one more thing
To keep from hurting the spirit of Wrigley, any plan would have to keep the playing field just as it is now - with the same dimensions, seats right on top of the field, bullpens down the lines, etc. The architects would be kind of forced to, anyway, because the site is so small.

Also, the brick wall would have to be taken down brick by brick and the same bricks used in whatever new grandstand they build. There's no way you could replace the bricks without hurting the "essence" of Wrigley. I detest some of those new stadiums (I think Houston is one of them) that have tried to use the bricks behind homeplate look, but with a much more modern feel. Give me the humble old ones at Wrigley any time (and with no ad on them behind home plate, but that's not an argument I'm ever going to win)

"Hello again, everybody. Harry Caray from Wrigley Field on a beautiful day for baseball."

by danimal15 on Apr 4, 2007 2:33 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Nice solution
I like your suggestion.  Of course, there would be the problem that Wrigley likely would have to be closed for a year or two to complete that construction.  

But since you're a loyal BCBer and Rick Morrissey isn't, I'm going to give you full credit for this idea (and will try and start the rumor that he stole the idea from you).

"Don't think; it can only hurt the ball club."

by Jesse Guam on Apr 4, 2007 3:08 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

BCB should buy the Cubs!
I think all of us at BCB should throw our money together and buy the Cubs. Why not? Al, you're a billionaire, right? I have about $100 in my pocket, so I'll start. We'll make this team even more disfunctional than ever! So who's with me?

Send all money to:

BCB Cubs Purchase Fund
c/o Al Yellon
1060 W. Addison St.
Chicago, IL 60657

by bergs55 on Apr 3, 2007 10:11 AM CDT   0 recs

Hey, wait!
I don't live there. It only seems like I live there. No, I'm not a billionaire. I wish.

But maybe we should do this. I tried to start this yesterday and I think we raised $41.

That's a start, right? Maybe I should rent a PO Box. Any other ideas?

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

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 10:15 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I would do this
if the event that the bid failed, which charity would it go to? project 3000?
Not that kind of north side.

by HerrProf on Apr 3, 2007 10:22 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Sounds good to me.
So, we have $41 from yesterday, and $100 from today... $141 in less than two days? A good start!
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 10:23 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Somebody yesterday calculated
we would need to sell 3 million shares at $200 per share to come up with the 600 million.  Al, maybe your site could be the link to make it happen?  

How do you get people to document commitments for that much money?  

Maybe this is where we need Mark Cuban and his technical expertise.

Someone contact Ernie Banks, Bill Murray and Steve Stone to be our front men.

No one tell the air raid siren.

"You call that pitching? This is baseball! Not tennis!" Ham Porter

by N Oakley on Apr 3, 2007 10:44 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

hey
that was me. The idea of public ownership really intrigues me. When the team is owned by the public, it truly ties a team to a city. The Packers are owned by the people of Green Bay and they take pride in that. Every year during training camp you see pictures of little kids letting the players on the team use their bikes to get across the parking lot. When they get buried in snow, the people come out and clean out the stands. I like that sense of ownership.

Relocation wouldn't be an issue. We would have the Brooklyn Dodgers, the Baltimore Colts, and the Athletics would be in Philly.

I realize I'm rambling a bit now, but you get the idea.

AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike on Apr 3, 2007 12:34 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I really like this idea...
...and think with some thought and planning, it easily could be pulled off. If you look at it as 3 million shares for $200 each, that puts everything into much smaller and simpler terms. Many people would be willing to purchase multiple shares, and $200 is low enough that it's easy to buy one or two shares. We would get written commitments from people to purchase a certain number of shares, and if we get enough shares sold, we go about collecting the money.
I'm all for seriously starting this, if anyone else is!

by stadiumguru on Apr 3, 2007 12:45 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I like the concept of having
someone show up at the Zell/Tribune with a business plan and barge full of cash.  I believe any tech savvy individual could document the commitments, but we need a financial institution to track real money.

Perhaps we should start it as a web poll to see how many would invest and at what level. ($1,000, $800, $600, $400, $200?).

Anyone want to start the Diary?

"You call that pitching? This is baseball! Not tennis!" Ham Porter

by N Oakley on Apr 3, 2007 1:54 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

done
AC 00 00 00 - BELIEVE

by mike on Apr 3, 2007 2:46 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Stoney..
Surprised his name hasn't come up as a possible bidder...or has it?
Well, sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.

by wicubfan on Apr 3, 2007 5:31 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Zell
I just wanted to clarify one quick thing. It has been raised that Zell would have to sell the Cubs due to his partial ownership in the Sox. Well this certainly is true, if he wishes to retain his ownership in the Sox. Jerry Reinsdorf was on WSCR yesterday and discussed Zell. Reinsdorf said that Zell really isn't much of a sports fan and hasn't been to a Sox board meeting in years. The only reason he (Zell) invested in the Sox is because his former business parter dragged him into it. So it seems that Zell has little interest in owning either the Sox or Cubs. But what is almost certainly true, Zell is going to do whatever he can to maximize his investment. Zell/Tribco will sell the Cubs because it makes the most fiscal sense to him and this deal.

by dmlichte on Apr 3, 2007 11:12 AM CDT   0 recs

Now let me get this straight.
Zell puts up around $300 million of his own money, acquires a company worth $7 billion, and is going to sell one portion of the company for $500 to $800 million.  And he'll probably sell the LA Times to Broad or Burkle for a similar amount.

Who is going to benefit most from this?

I shoulda gone to business school.

by Clark Addison on Apr 3, 2007 11:37 AM CDT   0 recs

Well
He'll be using the money gained from the sale of those assets to pay down the debt he's incurring to make the purchase of the whole company.  It's not like he'll pocket the difference.  But you are correct, he will likely sell the whole TribCo in a few years for a very handsome profit...
MURTON!! Just trying to help his karma so he gets 500+ ABs.

by 26.2cubfan on Apr 3, 2007 10:20 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Thanks for the Book Tip, Al
Did anyone see the ABC special on Bob Woodruff that aired a few weeks ago? I caught a little bit of it and, admittedly, was moved to tears by some of the scenes.

The one that got me in particular was when Woodruff went back to the hospital room where he recovered and, upon entering, immediately broke down in tears (soon followed by his wife). It was really affecting.

There was another striking scene where Woodruff's young daughters were teaching him how to pronounce simple words. Just staggering stuff.

I appreciate some other posters' comments about how hundreds of U.S. servicepeople have sustained similiar injuries and not gotten book deals, TV shows, etc.

But, as Al pointed out, Woodruff has used his celebrity status to draw attention to a shameful problem with our military's healthcare system and to raise money for those similiarly afflicted. Would you prefer he remain silent and do nothing?

Whether Woodruff is a hero is something every one of us needs to decide according to our own criteria. I think it's undisputable, however, that he is a hero to his own family -- something we should all aspire to.

I didn't have the ball, bitch!

by dat cubfan daver on Apr 3, 2007 11:58 AM CDT   0 recs

Well put. Thanks!
n/t
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Apr 3, 2007 1:05 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs