Last night when I posted a few headlines, I figured that would be enough to carry us through Friday. Wrong! This morning, Chris DeLuca writes in the Sun-Times that MLB owners are going to block Mark Cuban:
Global financial crisis or not, baseball's old guard plans to stand firm against letting Cuban into the club. "There's no way Bud and the owners are going to let that happen," a Major League Baseball source said this week. "Zero chance."
I had, as most of you know, initially been against Cuban, thinking his NBA courtside antics and his "all about me" image. After having met him last year in Las Vegas and considering what he did with the Mavericks when he bought them -- stepping aside and letting his basketball people run the show -- I was willing to see what he could do.
I do think DeLuca is a little over the top in his article, which seems to say that Cuban is the only person who can keep the Cubs winning at the current level:
And it's becoming clear Mark Cuban won't ride in to save the day.
Save the day? What's been going on the last two years? Is DeLuca saying that had Cuban been the owner this year, the team wouldn't have folded up in October? Ridiculous. Also, DeLuca has some out-there speculation:
All of this likely will put the group headed by John Canning Jr. -- Selig's personal favorite -- back as the front-runner.
There's nothing I've heard that would indicate this is the case. The Ricketts group out of Omaha still seems the most logical choice, and they have pockets as deep as Mark Cuban's. But the most important thing about the article may be this:
But this week at the GM meetings, [Bud] Selig cautioned executives to be prudent in the face of the world financial crisis.
"There are some very real issues in the global economy," White Sox GM Ken Williams said. "For any of us to believe this isn't going to ultimately affect our business, you have to have your head in the sand."
[Jim] Hendry agreed.
"We've all been fortunate with the Cubs to work for a great company that increased payrolls the last couple of years, even with the club for sale," Hendry said. "And I was fortunate enough that they gave me a contract extension without a new owner in place. We have a lot to be thankful for.
"At the same time, you face the reality of the world that it's very tough economic times."
And so, I agree with this:
Will the Cubs' ownership question put a crimp in general manager Jim Hendry's ambitious offseason plans?
"We'll be given a fair payroll number," Hendry said. "I don't have a final figure yet, but there is no indication that we are going to go backward. We're in the middle of a pretty good situation. The last couple of years, we've got it going in the right direction, and we don't have an old team. We still have a lot of positives, and our [minor-league and scouting] departments are doing real well."
And this final note about the ownership situation:
That same MLB source promised a deal won't be done by Opening Day 2009.
"We'll be standing here at next year's GM meetings," the source said, "and this will still be unresolved."
That very well might be true. We, as always, await developments.
1 recs | 169 comments
Damn, I was pulling for Cuban to be an owner.
I remember reading an article, about 3-4 months ago, that Cuban would try and take the owners to court if they potentially blocked him from taking over the Cubs. Damn, I wish I saved that link, it was interesting.
NittanyCub - November 7, 2008
Me too, actually
Even though I never thought for a second that he would be given the chance too own the Cubs. Never got my hopes up. He would’ve been a good fit for the Cubs circus style following and attention they get. He not only would’ve put the Cubs payroll right up there with the RS and Yankees, but probably competed with those teams for FA’s. Cubs payroll has increased but still don’t have the feeling that they will outspend the Yankees for a certain FA, if the Yankees are interested in same FA.
Plus, I just generally like Mark Cuban. I respect him and he’s a very intelligent man and he would’ve made being a Cub fan even more interesting, if that’s possible.
lemon20pie - November 7, 2008
The circus style...
… is something we have to get away from. I want the focus to be on the field.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Until the Cubs win a WS...
……that will never be the case. Atleast from the majority. I think obviously fans like you and myself and everyone on your blog and other Cub blogs, the focus is on the field but I think no matter who owns the Cubs, until they win a World Series and break all this other crap that comes along with being a Cubs fan, that circus stlye atmosphere will be there.
lemon20pie - November 7, 2008
I hope you're wrong.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Why wouldnt it be?
He had a few outbursts as the Mavericks owner, but that was years ago and hasnt happened since, he has David Sterns support (a far better commissioner) and I sincerely doubt he’d be in the crowd yelling at the umpires as he did in Dallas, which again hasnt happened in years…..he’s simply a fan, a fan with a lot of money and an intelligent and shrewd man who knows how to run a business and a sports franchise.
The Mavericks have been one of the best teams in the NBA the past decade and Cuban has shown he’s not afraid to make changes to an already successful team (firing Avery Johnson, trading for Jason Kidd etc.)
This will only serve to drag out the sale another year, hell maybe two.
bren - November 7, 2008
I wasn't referring to Cuban...
… when I referred to the “circus style”. It’s all the other trappings that I’ve decried here.
Cuban might be a showman, but I do believe he would tend to the business of improving the team.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Oh, sorry
yeah this entire sale is becoming a side show unto itself
bren - November 7, 2008
That's true, too.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Not Surprised
I doubted the MLB owners would let Cuban buy the Cubs. I didn’t think he was the only owner that could keep the Cubs winning division titles, but I thought he was the best owner to do that. We’ll see what some other group can do owning the Cubs. Maybe, the team can win playoff games with the Ricketts group or somebody else holding the purse strings.
memphiscub - November 7, 2008
What now?
Cuban’s out of the race apparently, but who is the front runner now? I remember reading an article in the tribune over the Summer about the potential buyers, but I don’t remember who they were except for one rich guy from Waukegan or Wilmette.
In Piniella We Trustiella - November 7, 2008
The article says Canning, but I don't believe that.
It’s probably still the Ricketts (Ameritrade) group.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
The "save the day" comment
In the context of the article, it implies that he could enable the Cubs to spend freely despite the current economic conditions. It didn’t strike me at all that it had anything to do with the state of the team.
Canning would likelyi be a disaster, though.
Shanghai Badger - November 7, 2008
I agree.
I think the Cannings seriously underbid, and given the state of the economy, aren’t likely to go any higher.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Maybe he was referring to the fans mentality..
Towards Cuban as our panacea. Obviously, Im in the Pro-Cuban camp, not b/c I think he can automatically win us a WS, though I think he could be the man to get Yu Darvish, but thats a different story.
I just think he can provide consistent and sustained success through his financial clout, but also b/c he isnt afraid to make changes to what might seem like a winning formula.
bren - November 7, 2008
I dont buy it..
There was no reason given in the article why they wouldnt allow him to purchase the team. So I think it all boils down to whether or not Zell wants to play hardball, Im sure he would have a case against MLB.
This is just so stupid, who cares about the guys personality, hes proven he knows how to run a successful sports franchise, Bud and his boys are just afraid of being outshined, so Buds “approved group” will “miraculously” win the bidding…..what a bunch of bull.
I hope Zell digs his heals in on this one and fights to sell to Cuban, who I presume would be the highest bidder-which would make the most sense for Zell in terms of profit and expediency.
bren - November 7, 2008
In the last 28 years MLB hasn't permitted one ownership group they didn't want
Bud Selig and his fraternity of MLB owners always get the owner they want. Always. People can ramble on how the “highest bid” should win in the case of the Cubs or how Sam Zell and Mark Cuban can take MLB to court. Doesn’t matter.
MDBNIU - November 7, 2008
It all depends on how litigious Zell and Cuban want to get
Id really be interested to see their rationale for blocking him though, that should be a wonderful piece of spin doctoring.
bren - November 7, 2008
As much as it'd be bad for the team
I would love to see Zell and Cuban take the rest of them to court. I still don’t understand the rational behind a private owner (or group) not being able to sell something to a buyer of their choice….
chitownhawkeye - November 7, 2008
This sucks!
If it proves to be true. And I’m afraid it will. I believe Cuban wants to win and any diversion he might provide from the 100 years crap would be good I think. It would be nice to see an owner with passion.
iowacubfan69 - November 7, 2008
I don't care about the passion.
Any owner who opens his pockets and lets the baseball people do what it takes to win would be fine with me.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
I agree with Al
TheHawkRules - November 7, 2008
Nailed it
Passion can be a nasty thing for an owner, because it can cloud judgement and as you infer, can get in the way of team management.
StevenABQ - November 7, 2008
Cuban claims he wouldn't let it.
That remains to be seen.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
ballhawk - November 7, 2008
It really is quite unfortunate how long this has taken
…Trib is now reporting that they may retain a 50% stake in the cubs due to the economic conditions in the short term and than eventually give up the stake. I am not sure what that really means other than we will still have the trib monkey on our back.
TheRiot Police - November 7, 2008
Hasn't been a monkey the last 2 years.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Yeah...well was that because they were attempting to flip the "house"
to sell it. I guess it will depend on how the organizational structure shakes out but I am fearful that the last 2 years are more an anomoly than a norm. Money does not buy you anything but at least knowing that you have it helps when making certain decisions
TheRiot Police - November 7, 2008
No, I think it had more to do with...
… MacPhail being dumped and McDonough and Kenney taking over. They were and are committed to winning.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
They can be committed all they want
but if they don’t get the budget to spend, then there was no way they were able to make the moves they made the last two years.
I just wonder if MacPhail was not a clown and wanted money to spend whether he would have been granted that freedom.
TheRiot Police - November 7, 2008
Good question, but...
… from what I hear, MacPhail wanted to run the team like he did the Twins — like a small-market team. His choice, not Tribco’s.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Well...I guess he forgot
that a key to that approach is drafting well…
TheRiot Police - November 7, 2008
Exactly.
But you have to put resources into scouting to do that. MacPhail didn’t.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Bummer
I hope this article is wrong. I thought Cuban would be good for two reasons.
For one, we know that he would keep the spending levels at their current level, if not go higher. The other owners may also do this, however we don’t know for sure like we do with Cuban.
The second is players want to come to the Mavs to play for an owner like Cuban. They love the way he spoils them with flat screens in the locker room and whatnot.
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
Money Talks.....so we'll see
Zell sunk a lot into this purchase, so Im sure hes adamant about getting top dollar, Seligs preferences be damned.
I mentioned this above, but this supposed exclusion makes no sense and has no rational underpinning.
bren - November 7, 2008
Yep
This could end up very ugly when it’s all said and done, which would ultimately be a bad distraction for our team. I can see it now, Cuban get’s shut out despite being the highest bidder, Zell takes it to court and then of course our United States congress decides to step it. Finger wagging, here we come!
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
I don't care about the passion.
Yes, but dosn’t having passion for the game and being willing to spend the money to get better go hand in hand ?
“this supposed exclusion makes no sense and has no rational underpinning” Personal dislikes often have no rational underpinnings, so I could see it being true.
iowacubfan69 - November 7, 2008
Not necessarily.
You can want to win passionately without mugging for the cameras.
For example, see Don Levin’s ownership of the Chicago Wolves.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
I think the bigger picture here is not Cuban's behavior, but how much
say the other owners should have in the final decision. Should individual owner’s fellings factor into the decision? If a potential owner has the requisite financing in place and has proven to be able to sustain it, should he be eliminated from consideration for perssonal reasons? I realize that we are talking about private owners, but does baseball antitrust exemption come into play?
I realize that pursuing this would involve legal proceeding that the Cubs and potential owners may not want to engage in, but there are bigger issues here than Mark Cuban.
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
Whether or not you think..
… owners “should” have a say, the reality is that they do. And since there is an antitrust exemption, basically, they can do as they please.
Whether or not that’s right is another issue entirely.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
All I am saying is I really don't think MLB wants to risk losing
the exemption at this point in time. Injecting themselves so deeply into the Cubs ownership search could jeopordize losing the exemption. They are probably safe because I don’t think Zell can afford a long protracted legal battle, but they are taking a risk.
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
You really think this would do that?
Congress has shown no inclination to remove the exemption. They have bigger problems to deal with right now.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
I don't know if they would, but why risk it? Funny things happen when the courts
get involved. This whole thing just seems so hamfisted. I realize that some owners, mainly Reinsdorf, have a problem with Cuban. It just seems like too much ego is involved. I like to think these guys are smarter than that, but past history doesn’t exactly support that.
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
Depends on what judge they get, of course.
In this case, I don’t think a pre-emptive block is the right thing to do. But they do appear to have the right to do it.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
They definitely have the right. Many want to see the exemption removed just
because of matters like this. The original intent was to stop owners from packing up overnight and moving if a better offer came along. With todays dollars involved, that kind of barnstorming attitude just doesn’t exists. Personally, I feel there really is no need for the exemption. No other sport has it. Why should MLB have it?
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
I agree with you.
But again, I don’t see Congress getting involved at this moment in history. They have bigger fish to fry.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Much bigger. Like keeping the economy from collapsing.
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
Sure they have bigger fish to fry
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that’ll stop ’em…sadly
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
This might be exactly the sort of thing they would want to step in and "fix" now
it would be easier than the other big issues and it IS the American pastime and a lot of folks in Washington could get a lot of positive spin by being a part of the solution to the old-fashioned, out-dated, elitist, rich-boy club that is MLB owners. I’m just saying. If I were a newly elected Senator or Congressman that would be what I would be working on right now as the first step in my re-election effort. This is not a paid political announcement.
I personally hope politics and baseball stay away from each other always.
Weeghman Park - November 7, 2008
Hmm
If Congress had to step in to help Cuban buy the Cubs, I would be absolutely torn. I HATE when the gov’t gets involved involved in the private sector like this, but at the same time I’m selfish and really want Cuban to own the Cubs!
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
What else is congress going to do?
All they do IS get involved in these private matters, $700 Billion bailout anyone? Congress is at its best when they do nothing.
/Politics
I think Cuban will take this as a challenge, How much time/money has he already put into the Cubs. He will not lay down without a fight.
JPetey - November 7, 2008
I'm not going to argue the merits
of the bailout either way, because this isn’t the forum.
I will argue the merits of your statement, though — the economy is hardly a private matter. It affects everyone. The whole world, actually, but certainly this country.
Shanghai Badger - November 7, 2008
Al's gonna put a stop to this topic
However, you are simply wrong here Badger. The gov’t bailing out a private business is definitely a private matter. I’m not saying it was wrong or right, but at the end of the day it was the gov’t getting involved in the free market.
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
I think we're ok as long as we don't take sides on the bailout itself
Anyway, I’d agree if it was one business. It’s actually an industry — and yes, I can see where you would feel the way that you do. But it does affect the public good. Kind of like when the government intervenes in transportation strikes — the issue is perceived by the gov’t to be a public interest.
I’m no economist, and I don’t play one on tv . . . just an armchair reader on the topic. You’re right that it is the gov’t geting involved in the free market – no argument there. But ours is really a blended market – as are most countries. I can’t think of one that’s 100% free.
Shanghai Badger - November 7, 2008
Agreed
I agree with you on your points, I think we’re just putting it in different terms. While the gov’t is acting on behave of, what it calls the “public good,” one cannot deny that the bailout is the gov’t getting involved in private matters.
n/t
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
I can agree to that
Shanghai Badger - November 7, 2008
The Barnstorming attitude still exists
NBA teams move more often than the Cubs changed managers in the 1990’s.
Rumors are swirling about the Chargers moving to L.A.
I’m not saying that I agree with the exemption, but — teams would move.
Shanghai Badger - November 7, 2008
Frankly....
…I don’t give much credence to any of these stories anymore. I still say this whole thing is going to come down to how much Sam Zell wants to push this thing. I just don’t see him standing on the sidelines while a group of guys are telling him to take 200 million less for his asset.
There is no question the owners can do what the please, but its also a fact that Zell has a history of doing what he pleases. If these two forces are on a collision course with the potential of it costing Zell money, there will be fireworks at some point.
MPH73 - November 7, 2008
This thing has a bad odor to it. The number one issue here should be who
is capable of being the best owner for the Chicago Cubs. The personal likes and dislikes of Bud Selig and the other owners should not figure into the internal workings of the Chicago Cubs. This is a business, not a tea party. The primary decision of who Sam Zell wants to sell to should come from the Cubs own search efforts. If the potential owner has the correct financing in place, personal feelings need to be set aside.
The day-to-day operations of a business must be tended to internally. Major League Baseball has a set of rules that an owner must conform to in order to be a member of the league. Anything over and above that is not germaine to this effort. I fail to see why the personal feelings of other owners have anything to do with who ulimately becomes the owner of the Cubs.
Mark Cuban is not the issue here. I see this as quickly becoming a legal matter. Many of the workings of professional sports franchises involve public funds and as such, certain legal restrictions must be held. I suspect that Bud Selig and Major League Baseball may be coming seriously close to violating antitrust statutes in injecting themselves so intently in the selection of a new owner of a private entity.
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
Nail on the head
I said the same thing in the above post. I’m not an expert on anti-trust laws, but this sounds a lot like what I understand it to be. Especially considering the amount of money we are talking about, hovers around the $1 billion level. This is going to get ugly before it’s all said and done.
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
The question at this point is whether anyone has the fortitude and resources to pursue
this in court. We are moving past the point where words like “just” and “fair” are being replaced by “legal”. While I agree with BlueMikes observation that owner’s have never accepted anyonein their ranks that they didn’t want, the prevailong reasoning behind those decisions usually had to do with potential candidates having questionable financing in place to actually own and run a team.
With Cuban, there seems to be a vindictive element that involves other matters. Those types of actions usually don’t hold water with judges. If League Baseball has a legitimate reason for perferring one ownership over another, that is a different matter. If personal feelings are involved, the Cubs would have solid legal ground in asserting that decisions made outside the bounds of the previous requirement constitute undo interference and as such may have standing to move forward with legal proceedings.
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
However.
And keep in mind I am not advocating here — but remember that MLB still has an antitrust exemption. Congress has never gotten around to removing it. Given that, I suspect the courts won’t hear such a case.
IANAL, etc etc.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
You are correct, but to maintain that exemption, certain caveats must be adhered to. MLB
has to be careful in conducting their business that they don’t violate the spirit of the exemption. I am not saying that refusing to let a particular group participate in the process violates the exemption, it’s just that they are treading on shaky ground by conducting the proceeding in this manner.
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
What's the "spirit" of the exemption?
Define it. And what’s the “shaky ground” you speak of?
I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I’d like to hear what you mean.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
The original intent of the exemption
was to keep teams from pulling up stakes and moving at the whim of the owners. That’s what I was referring to as the spirtit of the exemption. In Piazza v. Major League Baseball (1993), Vince Piazza sued baseball after it blocked San Francisco Giants owner Bob Lurie from selling the team to Piazza, who planned to move it to St. Petersburg, Fla. MLB then approved a sale, for $15 million less, to Peter Magowan that kept the team in San Francisco. A federal judge ruled that baseball’s restrictions on team relocation were not protected by the exemption. However, the judge then ordered a trial to further explore whether he was incorrect about the scope of baseball’s exemption. On the eve of trial, Piazza reportedly received a $6 million settlement from MLB and the hearing never happened.
Many believed that if allowed to proceed, this case would have reversed the exemption. The shaky ground I was referring to is the attempt by owners to regulate who purchases Cubs. Since the courts have been rumored to apply the exemption narrowly only to moving of teams, it is believed that if a lawsuit is pursued, actions such as the Cuban affair would cause the courts to throw out the exemption completely.
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
OK, point taken.
Still, the exemption DOES give the owners the right to pretty much do as they please. I doubt there would be a suit, unless the difference in offers was so great that it would cost less to pursue the suit.
I don’t think that’s the case here.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
I don't think it will get to court either. Zell can't afford
to drag this out and I don’t think he cares one way or the other who buy’s the team. The only thing that would tip things is if Cuban offered significantly more than the other bidders. I don’t think that is the case.
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
Agreed.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Good stuff WMHG
That was the most interesting thing I’ve read on here for a long time. Thanks for the info.
Now with that being said, how do you feel about Peavy? Kidding.
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
Peavy? What team is he trying to buy?
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
Maybe that is the answer to all these dilemmas
Just give the team to Peavy and keep everyone else on the roster.
Weeghman Park - November 7, 2008
At the rate the Cubs are adding high-end pitchers,
the pitching staff will own the team.
willie mays hayes' gloves - November 7, 2008
I knew Peavy would get mentioned in this thread eventually.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
We've known from the beginning that Bud Selig and the MLB owners would NEVER permit Mark Cuban into their fraternity
Therefore this is no longer news. Lets face it, Selig wants John Canning to be the owner. In the end that will most likely happen. I’ll root for the Ricketts family of Ameritrade fame but it’s a longshot that they make it.
MDBNIU - November 7, 2008
Let's take the Cuban Personalilty out of it
and Focus purely on his pocketbook…
Let’s assume that he has a deeper pocketbook than anybody else who can buy the team and most existing owners today.
If you are a team in the National League or American, specifically the NL central, do you want to approve an owner who can grossly outspend you if he needs to. They would have introduced a Steinbrenner like Character into the National League.
If I am an Agent or the MLBPA, I would want to get involved in this discussion. Cuban creates more competition and probably has a positive affect on Salaries from an agent/player perspective.
TheRiot Police - November 7, 2008
Good point
C’mon MLB, let the invisible hand do it’s work.
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
Using that logic alone
Selig is well into conflict of interest territory, wouldn’t you say?
chitownhawkeye - November 7, 2008
I don't know how or if this plays in
but the Tribune company, as we all know, has seen better days. Assuming that Cuban is the highest bidder, and by a lot, the sale could have a huge impact to the remaining pieces of the Tribune company. The more money they have the better it is for them to become a solid company. Now, I’m not saying that MLB has any concerns about the Trbune company, but there could be a large public relations hit that MLB could take if they are seen as being contributors to the demise of the Tribune company (and, more importantly from a PR side, jobs). If they are seen as the petty stumbling blocks to the Tribune’s recovery, I could see Congress getting involved.
Does Congress have bigger fish to fry? Well, yes, but this could be a very high profile case to show to the American people that they are on thier side.
I think this is a dumb issue for MLB to fire up, but they’ve done stupid things in the past.
jerry morales rules - November 7, 2008
I wasn't crazy about
Cuban at first but I had warmed up to the idea of him owning the Cubs. I feel so let down now.
sue369 - November 7, 2008
Is he really likely to make that much of a difference than any other group?
sackings108 - November 7, 2008
Canning will make MacPhail look like Steinbrenner when it comes to spending
Shanghai Badger - November 7, 2008
He was my preferance is
that alright with you?
sue369 - November 8, 2008
The Packers Model
How about if the Cubs were owned by shareholders/fans with a governing Board of Directors, like what they’re doing up in Green Bay?
CaliCub - November 7, 2008
Let's see if we can get in the bidding as the BCB National League Baseball Club Wannabe Owners LLC
We can borrow the money from Cuban and give him season tickets in the bleachers in return, and let him throw out the first pitch at every game and sing Take Me Out to the Ballpark everyday. Then we could all collectively decide here what to do about Peavy,
Roberts, Furcal, Soriano, Theriot, et al.
Weeghman Park - November 7, 2008
The Packers model...
…gets tossed out a lot when discussing ownership situations, especially with smaller-time sports leagues like Arena Football and MLS. It doesn’t work because fellow franchise-owners (who must approve the transfer) don’t see a community entity as offering the financial stability of a corporation or one really rich guy. More importantly, attempts by fan groups to raise money to bid on teams have always fallen dismally short.
Remember that the Packers ownership structure evolved over many decades in age when the financial realities of operating a sports franchise were very different.
LaddieRenfroe - November 7, 2008
Then you may all send me your money and I'll run it myself!
:-D
CaliCub - November 7, 2008
Sports Properties Acquisition Corp.?
They supposedly made the last cut but never get mentioned except in passing. I know very little about that bidder, other than it’s a pretty big group of smaller investors (including Hank Aaron, Jack Kemp, Mario Cuomo) and that it’s a publically-traded company. Does anyone even know who’s directing that bid? Do they have the ability to make a realistic bid approaching a billion dollars? I’d like to put a face on that bid just because the corporate name sounds like something out of 1984.
Who were the original five serious bidders exactly? Canning, Ricketts, Cuban, Sports Acquisition…that’s four, who’s the fifth? Levin? Pink-hat guy? Roman Abramovich?
LaddieRenfroe - November 7, 2008
For what its worth...
…Mike Murphy just had an attorney on his show who is familiar with baseball and the anti-trust exemption.
Murphy basically asked the same question; “what could Zell or Cuban do if major league owners blocked a sale, when Cuban clearly had the best offer for Zell”
Interesting response; the attorney said there was a case involving Mike Piazza’s father in which they wanted to buy the Gaints and move the club some years ago. The league blocked this quickly and Piazza sued MLB in federal court. His suit basically said the anti-trust exemption only partained to owning players rights and not so much as it relates to an owners right to sell to whomever. As it turned out, a federal judge agreed with Piazza and against MLB in this matter. At that point, MLB got scared and quickly settled the issue out of court for a certain dollar amount.
In summary, this particular attorney feels Cuban (and especially Zell) would have a legitimate legal argument if MLB was blocking a potential sale to Cuban, when blocking the deal would cause financial hardship to Zell. The attorney also felt, the leaked info that Cuban would never be approved could have been a scare tactic to get Cuban to back out, but he also added Zell and Cuban were the last folks that would back away. So, there appears to be federal court precidence, in which these matters have not been found in MLB’s favor.
MPH73 - November 7, 2008
That post was so 1 hour ago....
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
Really...
…I summarized it about 10 minutes after the guy was on the radio.
MPH73 - November 7, 2008
It's buried way up in the thread
So I’m sure plenty of people appreciated having it posted again. I was just messing with ya. The Piazza situation is very interesting.
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
Sounds good to me...
These guys are both Billionaires who know a good investment when they see it, Cuban would be fantastic for this club and would enrich the league as a whole b/c healthy big market teams are beneficial to their sports as a whole.
You dont get to be a billionaire by being shy and easily intimidated, now I want Cuban even more.
Anti-trust exemptions are a privilege, so like I said previously, I really want to see Seligs explanation on this one, barring one of his owners from selling his property to the person of his choice.
bren - November 7, 2008
Cuban knows how to work the media
If he’s smart he’ll get the court of public opinion on his side by whooping it up on any channel that will take him….and really, who’s gonna turn down a Mark Cuban interview?
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
That summary is pretty accurate...
Here’s the text of Piazza decision.
The Piazza decision doesn’t necessarily control what a court, presumably here in Illinois, would do in a new case involving the Cubs. It does however, as MPH and the radio lawyer pointed out, open up a legal path for a bidder that a) submitted the highest bid but was 2) blocked from purchasing a franchise by MLB. It also should give MLB pause if they want to reject the highest bidder for non-monetary reasons. The non-monetary reason for rejecting the group that Piazza was a part of was that MLB didn’t want the Giants moving to Tampa but, in a scenario involving the Cubs, MLB wouldn’t even have that ground to fall back on.
LaddieRenfroe - November 7, 2008
Cuban is not going to be approved to purchase the Cubs
You guys can talk about potential lawsuits and the antitrust exemption all you want. The past three decades every single ownership change in MLB has been non-controversial. Bud Selig and the owners have significant power to pick who they want. Plus a VERY IMPORTANT point that continues to go ignored is that none of us have any clue who is willing to produce the ultimate “highest bid.” If Sam Zell says somebody (lets say Mark Cuban) is prepared to produce $1.1 billion then Bud Selig and company can engage in “backdoor negotiations and manueverings” to make sure the ownership interest THEY WANT magically gets to the $1.1. million mark. Sam Zell is happy, Bud Selig and the onwers are happy, the new owner is happy. And there ain’t a damned thing Mark Cuban or anybody else can do about it.
There was an interesting story published several months ago. Since 1980 there has been not a single contested ballclub sale in MLB. That’s because the Commissioner and the MLB owners set the rules on how the game shall be played, and it is thus played that way. There is no way Sam Zell is going to take on MLB. He’s got much bigger fish to fry in his tenuous financial empire these days. Plus MLB would most likely win. Like I said the new owner of the Cubs will have produced the “highest bid,” but trust me it will be submitted by the group Selig and company want. They’ll make damned sure of that in their closed door “dealings.”
MDBNIU - November 7, 2008
I don't know
…what your definiton of controversial is, but the transfer of ownership of the AZ Diamondbacks franchise a few years ago to a group that included a top player’s agent, Jeff Moorad, certainly was viewed with a lot of suspicion by a lot of people in the game, including the MLB office and the owners.
There are still people who have major heartburn over an agent being an owner, although Moorad has been circumspect in removing himself from negotiations with players that he formally represented.
I don’t see how anyone could say that wasn’t controversial…certainly more controversial than an owner who already owns a major sports franchise, is a brilliant business man and who may or may not be a bit of a showboat, depending on your perspective.
azjazzman - November 7, 2008
Wasn't controversial in the eyes of Bud Selig and the MLB owners
They swiftly and enthusiastically embraced the Jeff Moorad’s group purchase of the Diamonbacks. Moorad and company met with great support from Selig and company.
MDBNIU - November 7, 2008
Nice try, Mike
But you don’t know what you are talking about. It was initially VERY controversial with Selig, et al, and especially the owners. Moorad had to write a letter to the MLB office agreeing to a bunch of dos and don’ts that no other owner, before or since, has ever had to agree to. And even then, the support he received was hardly enthusiastic. They gave their okay, but with a jaundiced eye.
The hurdles Cuban would have to clear to get approved as a potential owner would be no worse.
azjazzman - November 7, 2008
Here's a quote from an interwiew
Bizball: When you became General Partner, you created quite a precedent in that a former player agent had never been part of an ownership group. Do you feel that given that background, the state of relations within MLB at the highest levels has changed over the years?
Moorad: I recognize that the move I made had some controversy to it, especially at the time. It’s my sense as time has gone on; the seriousness of my commitment has been viewed and in some cases filled by others in the industry, that there has been a warming to my involvement. That having been said, I owe much to Commissioner Selig, as well as my partner Ken Kendrick, for helping me navigate the appropriate path, over the last three and a half years.
azjazzman - November 7, 2008
If you want to believe Mark Cuban has a shot then fine
I could care less. The Moorad bid to by the D-Backs was unanimously and swiftly approved by the MLB owners once they were able to get comfortable with a former agent purchasing a team. They did thorough homework on Moorad and came away giving the guy a green light.
They aren’t going to do the same for Cuban. Selig and Jerry Reinsdorf are saying no on Cuban.
MDBNIU - November 7, 2008
Well
Your perception of the Cuban issue and mine are different and that is fine.
But, you are flat out mistaken when you say that proposal for Moorad to be a part of the Dbacks ownership group was swiftly approved. Selig had objections, the owners had objections, the player’s union had objections…and they sorted through that for months with a protracted and sometimes acrimonious negotiation that ultimately resulted in a lot of concessions that made it possible for MLB to approve.
Moorad originally wanted to take over in August of 2004 and it took until May of 2005 for everything to get worked out. Whether Cuban would want to go thru a process like that is something only he knows, but there is a precendent.
azjazzman - November 7, 2008
BTW
A change in ownership does not require a unanimous vote from the owners, it only takes 3/4ths approval. So, theoretically, Cuban could win approval without Reindorf’s support.
azjazzman - November 7, 2008
So you don't think the sale of the Red Sox to the John Henry group was controversial?
Not to mention all the Montreal/Florida Lurie/Henry shenanigans…
ballhawk - November 7, 2008
If I were Zell, I would go to any measure I could right now to execute this sale.
And, if that involves federal court, so be it.
Right now, in a credit crisis, Cuban has proven to be one of the few, if not the only, bidder actually capable of purchasing this team for Zell’s asking price.
SackMan - November 7, 2008
We don't know that...
We have no idea the true bids of Mark Cuban, the Ricketts family, the Canning group or the conglomerate group of the Wall Street and LaSalle Street names.
MDBNIU - November 7, 2008
Your right...
…we don’t know for sure whether Cuban will end up with the highest bid, and the circumstances we are discussing would only apply if his bid was substantially higher (say 100 million) than the other ones.
Also, for those that think Zell would sit quietly while others tell him he can’t accept more money for his asset, I recommend you read up on the man and get a feel for how he does business.
MPH73 - November 7, 2008
Well that's fine, but what will Zell do once the owners don't approve Cuban?
sackings108 - November 7, 2008
See above...
…there are legal experts who feel he would have recourse. Is he the type of guy who will fight to get all for his asset? I think his history is pretty clear in this area.
MPH73 - November 7, 2008
You could be right, that would be pretty interesting to see.
sackings108 - November 7, 2008
Anything inovling Zell...
…is interesting to watch, and he is clearly the natural opposite of your typical MLB owner.
MPH73 - November 7, 2008
Isn't it funny
That Zell’s greed was denounced by all of us when he suggested he’d sell the naming rights to Wrigley, however now his greed is working for us. Of course that is assuming that Cuban put in the highest bid for the Cubs.
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
I had a thought...
…and it may be off the wall, but I’ll say it anyway.
Let’s assume this sale gets put on the back burner because economic conditions will not allow Zell to get the price he would like for the asset. With Bud just telling ownership at the GM meeting to “watch spending” because of the economy, I could see Zell telling Kenney to raise payroll just to fu*k with Selig and the other owners. I’m not saying he will do that, but it would fit with his personality and it wouldn’t really have a negaitive effect on the price tage when the market loosens up.
MPH73 - November 7, 2008
A fun thought
Not likely, but a fun thought, nonetheless.
Shanghai Badger - November 7, 2008
I disagree
Mark Cuban is a non-starter. It’s not going to happen. And I’ll bet the ranch Sam Zell doesn’t raise a peep of protest in the matter either. All he wants to do is sell this team for the best possible sum, meaning the best possible sum that is offered AND can be approved by Selig and his fraternity members.
Basically what this is all about right now is MBL telling Mark Cuban to go away. If he wants to hang around in the process then I imagine Sam Zell will tell him relatively soon to go away too.
MDBNIU - November 7, 2008
yeah, that MBL must really put fear into Cuban..
sackings108 - November 7, 2008
If
that were even remotely true, why wouldn’t MLN/Zell have told Cuban to go away before this? It’s not like this process just started last week, it has been going on a long time.
azjazzman - November 7, 2008
Interesting
Thanks for the recap!
BMoney79 - November 7, 2008
For what it's worth... for opinion's sake...
Would any of you be opposed to a foreign owner of the Cubs?
Let’s say, hypothetically… a Japanese group put together a bid, and had enough cash to avoid any credit problems that could crush their bid.
Would, you, as fans accept Japanese ownership?
Would the MLB owners allow foreign ownership into their fraternity? Would they see this as another opportunity to expand MLB interest across the globe?
SackMan - November 7, 2008
I'm anticipating here
…but I’m thinking that a lot of BCBers would say they would be fine with a Japanese owner…as long as they have deep pockets and are willing to take Fukudone back. smile
azjazzman - November 7, 2008
I would accept ANYONE
That was committed to winning a WS. If the group happen to also be a inroad to a foreign market (player wise and brand wise), that is just icing on the cake. Interesting idea, but I suspect it’s too late at this point.
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
I agree with this completely.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
The Mariners' lead owner is a Japanese businessman from one of their large corporations. (Sony?)
DeRoMyHero - November 7, 2008
Does the new political landscape...
change matters as well? The outgoing President is a former team owner, while Obama is from Chicago. I know he is a Sox fan (boo) but Zell may have some favors to call in as the Trib endorsed him. The new Administration will probably want Chicago to to look like a Golden city and winning Cubs teams can’t hurt. Baseball looked really bad after the steriod controversy, and maybe the Obama administration would like to give it a slap.
ChicagoRobb - November 7, 2008
No way
I’m sorry but you are WAY off on this one. The first 100 days of a presidency are typically some of the most productive. Obama will not even think about the Cubs sale, let alone act on it. Moreover there is zero chance any kind of connection is made from Zell, to the Tribune editorial endorsement, to the MLB. That is simply ridiculous.
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
I'd say busiest, not necessarily most productive
Same as anyone starting any new job. There’s a lot to learn — even when you don’t have to hire a bunch of people. The real productivity starts later.
You’re right, though — no way does any president touch this with a 633 mile pole.
Shanghai Badger - November 7, 2008
Um no
Look at history. The first 100 days of a new Presidency are typically the most productive of their term. This is hardly the same as you or I starting a new job.
It has to do with mandates, a feeling of good will between the Congress and the Executive office to “get things done” and also the historical nature that is “the first 100 days.”
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
Can you provide examples?
Not arguing, just asking.
And you’re right — it’s hardly the same. It’s much more complex. There is a hell of a lot to learn and a lot of jobs to be filled. Much bigger learning curve.
Shanghai Badger - November 7, 2008
Well most poli sci geeks
Give the FDR the credit behind “the first 100 days” theory. Shortly after he entered office he introduced The New Deal to America. It depends on how much political capital one has entering office, but historically this is the most productive time for a President.
Try googling “the first 100 days of a presidency” and I’m sure you’ll come up with way more examples than you care to know haha.
cubswynn - November 7, 2008
I might actually do that just for fun
An armchair historian, too!
Shanghai Badger - November 7, 2008
The Economics of MLB, Mark Cuban and Michael Kay
Today on the way to work, I l heard Michael Kay from ESPN’s 1050 radio made a very compelling point. His arguement on why Mark Cuban will not be allowed to purchase the Cubs is due to one thing that is important over all others. ECONOMICS.
Sure, Mark Cuban may bring a brash style to MLB in the form of: giving the umps hell during games and not kow towing to Bud and Co., however, the more important aspect is Economics.
In Michael Kay’s estimation, if Mark Cuban were allowed to purchase the Cubs, his buying power alone would exorbitantly increase player payroll througout the league because Mark Cuban wants to win at any cost. Due to Mark Cuban’s ability to pay players more, players would demand more and as a result, player salaries would sky rocket. And I think we all know what that means:
Bud Selig doesn’t want that either. Bud Selig has witnessed what a Steinbrenner can do to player salaries. He can’t afford to have another Steinbrenner in baseball. The fans can’t afford it either. It’s an incredibly interesting discussion
LOUtheMETandNATSfan - November 7, 2008
Here's the other thing.
I heard that Cuban’s bid involved about $300 million worth of promised ad buys on WGN. I’m not sure Zell liked the way Cuban’s offer was structured. So like him or not, his bid might not have made the most financial sense to Zell.
Al Yellon - November 7, 2008
Good info.
I can’t speak to all of the aspects of the financing that may be going on behind closed doors. I can only speak about some broad generalties of what I’ve heard and what I know. It seems to be incredibly complex and incredibly interesting.
LOUtheMETandNATSfan - November 7, 2008
Not being in broadcasting I have no idea what $300 million of advertising buys
can you quantify that in any time scale? like hours or minutes of ads? Seems like a lot when the purchase price is “only” around a billion.
Weeghman Park - November 7, 2008
It is a lot.
But it doesn’t help Zell with his debt payments.
Al Yellon - November 8, 2008
But,
It might help him reduce his tax. I’m not an accountant, but a contractual agreement to buy ads rather than forking over straight cash might give Zell the same amount of net profit with a lower capital gains tax (and less of a debt burden to Cuban). The lower Zell’s tax liability, the easier it is to make his debt payment.
DeRoMyHero - November 8, 2008
If the owners are scared of themselves...
…than they should have fought (and stuck to their guns) until a salary cap was approved years ago. Hockey, football and basketball have one, but these goofballs haven’t even come close to getting one done.
MPH73 - November 7, 2008
The inflation of the salaries
contributed to the inflated value of their franchises… I don’t think they were too worried about it.
But, now… under the credit crisis, you may see some wallets get hit hard, especially for those owners who financed new ball parks recently
SackMan - November 7, 2008
Inflation of salaries happened...
…because enouph teams where making enouph money to pay them. The money has to come from somewhere, and most owners don’t like to lose their shirt. If the revenues were not there to pay for the inflated salaries, club values would not have gone up.
I get a kick out of baseball owners. They have gotten their ass kicked in every labor dispute/negotiation, when other sports have been able to create a system which creates some sort of balanced playing field for all teams to compete. Then, on top of it, you have had a myriad of teams (in the last 10 years) outperform those with double, triple and quadruple their payroll, because they actually know how to scout, evaluate and develop their own talent.
The owners have gotten themselves into a situation which puts several teams at a significant disadvantage when it comes to buying players or holding on to their own stars, and their biggest concern is allowing a guy in who may spend more of the massive revenues the Cubs are making.
MPH73 - November 7, 2008
If they're so worried about escalating payrolls
Then they should look within at Steinbrenner… who spent $209 million last year and continually sets the market every year with his high offers.
And, they didn’t have any problem allowing John Henry and his group to buy the Red Sox… who spend upwards of $130 million to keep pace with the Yankees.
SackMan - November 7, 2008
That's funny.
Owners said the same thing about George Steinbrenner in the early 1970s — he will ruin the small market teams, drive up prices, etc. — and now many praise his vision of how much money can be made in baseball.
And his $180M team sat and watched the Tampa Bay Rays play in the World Series, while the Brewers also made the playoffs. The Rockies made the playoffs last year. And almost every team is making money from the larger TV contracts that the big teams are able to secure.
DeRoMyHero - November 7, 2008
Hmmmmm.....
Who does this describe? The New York Yankees!
Doesn’t seem like the small market franchises are suffering if they are run properly. It’s not about how much money you have, it’s about how you spend the money you do have.
The Yankees choose to overpay virtually every player they have and frankly, it’s hasn’t gotten them what they covet, a championship. Since they started signing the likes of Giambi, Mussina, Matsui, etc, the Yankees have not won a World Series. Since then, the D-Backs, Marlins and Cardinals have all won the WS.
cowsarecool220 - November 7, 2008
One thing to keep in mind about how the Yankees continue to make so much money.
According to the 2007 U.S. Census, the population of the metro New York / New Jersey / Pennsylvania (east) area was 22 million people. Granted, not all of them are Yankee fans OR EVEN sports fans. So, we can deduce that the one thing that certainly helps themin their ability to make money, is sheer numbers. The only other team they have to share the population with is…my beloved METS.
Sheer numbers, tradition / history, pride, and love of the game by the fans will always ensure the Yankees survival and economic domination.
LOUtheMETandNATSfan - November 8, 2008
It will end up in court...
Mark my words…
The second highest bidder is a group led by friends of Bud Selig…
This is just another dirty back room deal by Selig…
and I would also put good money on not only Cuban filing a lawsuit but Sam Zell as well…
Endrick - November 7, 2008
One question...
What would happen if Sam Zell were to sell Mark Cuban the entire Tribune Co.? Cuban would become the owner of the ChiTrib, WGN, the Cubs, the LA Times, etc. and he could sell back to Zell some of the assets he wants, minus the Cubs and Wrigley Field. How could Selig prevent that?
DeRoMyHero - November 7, 2008
league/owners must approve purchase and sale of entire Trib co.
or any other holding company.
joeschmitt - November 7, 2008
So your saying...
…if Sam Zell wanted to see the entire Tribune company, he would need major league approval?
I don’t think so.
MPH73 - November 7, 2008
Now I'm confused.
Sam Zell bought the Tribune Co a couple of years ago and MLB didn’t have a say in approving the deal. The reason he is looking to sell the Cubs is to make the debt payment next year on the money he borrowed to buy the Trib.
cowsarecool220 - November 7, 2008
The Cubs were a relatively small part...
…of the Tribune umbrella when Zell bought the entire company. I can’t believe for a second, that MLB could have blocked Tribune company from selling their company to whom ever they damn well pleased.
MPH73 - November 7, 2008
I agree.
If Cuban bought the entire Tribune Company from Zell, neither MLB nor anyone else could say a word.
Al Yellon - November 8, 2008
comments re: antitrust exemption
antitrust laws do not apply to baseball. many antitrust rules also don’t apply to the other pro sports. for example, a salary cap, or an agreement among owners to only pay employees so much, is a horizontal restraint and likely a per se violation. yet, every league has one.
the antitrust exemption was not created by congress, but rather was a long understood benefit of being a game (and, back in the day, the game) rather than an industry producing commodities for people to buy.
although not created by congress, it is correct that congress can take it away by passing a law stating that the sherman act applies to baseball. would they really do that though? we would lose revenue sharing, many free agency/arbitration/contract rules, and many other rules considered very important to the game. i highly doubt congress would be so short-sighted.
sure it doesnt seem fair that zell cant sell to whom he wants. but he, and all the other owners, knew that when they purchased. it would be a windfall to him to buy the asset for x, get rid of a rule that made the price much lower, then sell it for x + y because of the rule change. assets come with all sorts of valid restrictions attached; it’s up to the buyer to determine the effect of the restrictions on the asset’s value.
joeschmitt - November 7, 2008
DeLuca's been wrong before, and his scooping the story is a nice catch
That said:
Selig = no fun
Cuban = fun
I agree with you Al, the important part of the transaction can be read in the box scores.
scottsdalecubs - November 7, 2008
Screw bud Selig go to hell you bastard!
sanks - November 7, 2008
how do you really feel?
Shanghai Badger - November 7, 2008
Cuban and Dempster correlation
I have a strong suspicion that Dempster not being definite on a return to Cubs and Cuban not owning the team have a lot in common.
Not sure how many know this but Cuban won the bid at Kerry’s charity for a dinner with Dempster. Cuban can win ANY bid that night he wants but chose that one.
Just saying…
ak123 - November 7, 2008
Not a chance
If Dempster wants to stay a Cub, he’ll do it regardless of who the owner is.
You think he has a relationship with any of the other 29 ownership groups? Why would he care who owns the Cubs? He might like it more if it was Cuban, but that won’t make him leave.
Shanghai Badger - November 8, 2008
Antitrust exemption
isn’t the only thing holding the sale up. Besides, if Zell wanted to play hardball there are numerous other legal roadblocks he or stockholders could throw at Selig and his cronies. Imagine the baseball owners being dragged through a number of courts for a number of years trying to legalize their piracy of free trade. While the antitrust exemption has dealt with the relocation of clubs, it has never been challenged over a sale. The one time that was imminent when Piazza tried to buy the Giants, the baseball owners caved in so they wouldn’t have to try the case on its merits.
Zell is up against it and needs cash. Notes are coming due and the Trib lost $3.8B in the 2nd Q. He needs another $593M in June and he’s running out of things to sell. Unless baseball gives him a sweetheart loan, I can see him playing hardball.
tharr - November 8, 2008
Cubans response, albeit a short one
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-081107-mark-cuban-chicago-cubs,0,5829530.story
bren - November 8, 2008
cuban
we all knew this from the beginning.mlb is too old fashioned and staid to allow a guy like cuban to come aboard.i think he would have been good for this team.so much for looking out for the best interests of baseball.
NOMAR - November 9, 2008
Bruce levine reported that the reason MLB(Selig and Reinsdorf)
will not allow Cuban to own the Cubs is because it would be the death of the White Sox in this town. He said the White Sox could not compete financially with Cuban. The Cubs would win every year and the White Sox fans would slowly move over to the Cubs. So, he thinks this has more to do with Cuban’s money than Cuban’s personality.
Rick B - November 9, 2008
That is bullshit...
…and if the White Sox had a farm system worth a shit, they could win with a payroll far less than the Cubs, but they have been as bad as the Cubs in that department.
MPH73 - November 9, 2008
I don't agree either. The Sox would survive, just like the Mets have survived, competing with the Yankees.
But I did find it interesting that a Sox fan, like Levine, would “out” Reinsdorf for blocking Cuban because he would make life harder on the White Sox.
Rick B - November 9, 2008
Agreed.
If Selig and Reinsdorf really think that any Sox fan would become a Cubs fan because of Cuban, they simply do not understand Sox fans.
Al Yellon - November 10, 2008
The Cardinal fans, at viva el birdos, were happy to read this.
Rick B - November 9, 2008
My 2 cents...
I don’t like owners,(or players) who insist on being in the limelight all the time. But I was rooting for Cuban and his deep pockets. Am I wrong, or isn’t Seligs involvement a bit of a conflict of intrest?
I worry that most new owners will sit on their hands and count the cubby faithful cash.
I always said that owning the Cubs was like owning a diner that put out crappy food, but had a great atmosphere, and people were lined up to get in. What incentive was there to improve?
O'Cub - November 9, 2008
That's a decent anaology
Eventually, though, the people will want good food.
Look at late 2006 or the late 1970’s/early 1980’s.
Shanghai Badger - November 9, 2008
It's a huge conflict of interest
But ‘ole Bud is honorable, so we’ll just have to trust that he’s doing what’s in the best interests of MLB…
Anyone actually buy that?
Brett Taylor - November 9, 2008
*chuckles*
I’m surprised your fingers didn’t fall of from typing that…
The words Selig and Honorable is a complete oxymoron…
Like… Jumbo Shrimp, Military Intelligence or Honest Politician…
Endrick - November 10, 2008
Selig is not a true commish...
…he is an owners agent. Do you ever recall any other sport putting a former owner in Selig’s position?
MPH73 - November 9, 2008
It's tough to say who would be a good owner.
I liked Al’s argument for the Wolves owner because he has experience running a team and always being in championship contention. I don’t know if he is still in the running? The two main things any successful sports franchise needs are capital and smart management to get the right players with that money.
I think Mark Cuban is smart enough to not be a Jerry Jones/Al Davis type, he’ll let baseball people make the baseball decisions. At least I know Cuban will spend the money, the majority of the other groups in the running I hope will be willing to spend.
If there are good enough teams to get into the playoffs consistently, eventually the Cubs will win it all
slocs55 - November 10, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.