That's the top of today's dead-tree edition of the Chicago Tribune.
Inside are two articles, one by two business section reporters, covering what changes might be made to the ballpark and other possibilities for new revenue, and one by Paul Sullivan discussing the possible changes that might occur to the team itself.
Sullivan mentions something that I've long speculated about:
Mark McGuire, the Cubs' executive vice president of business operations and a team employee since Tribune Co. bought the team in 1981, believes the new owner might bring in more people rather than get rid of those already in place. McGuire told fans at the Cubs Convention last week that the team has one of the smallest front offices in baseball.
I think that's one of the first things you'll see -- beefing up the existing full-time, year-round staff, including both the non-baseball and baseball operations departments. The scouting staff needs help, and I think you would all be surprised at how small the ticket department is, considering how many tickets the Cubs sell.
A lot of the rest of Sullivan's article consists of things we've discussed here, ranging from some guy who pitches for the San Diego Padres to the idea that the team may pitch for more night games (or, at the very least, having the right to play some Friday night games after road trips, which makes sense to me).
The article in the business section discusses ways that the Cubs could generate additional revenue. Many of these things have also been discussed on this site, including the "Triangle Building" that may finally get built:
There also is renewed interest in Tribune Co.'s shelved idea to construct a triangular-shaped building that would include stores and restaurants along Clark Street and create a pedestrian walkway outside Wrigley, similar to Yawkey Way outside Fenway Park, home of the Red Sox.
On game days, Yawkey Way is closed to traffic, and ticket-holders enter it, and the ballpark, through turnstiles. The setup, and wide mix of vendors, is similar to Eutaw Street outside Baltimore's Camden Yards, where the Orioles play, and enables the teams to profit from pregame spending.
Before Yawkey Way, fans were spending pregame dollars in the neighborhood of Fenway, but they weren't coming in.
"People didn't pass through the turnstile until right before the game," said Janet Marie Smith, senior vice president of planning and development for the Red Sox and architect behind the renovation of Fenway and development of Oriole Park at Camden Yards. "In order to stay competitive, we've got to make money."
Similar efforts at Wrigley, which has protected status as an official city landmark and must retain its traditional look, might aid the ballpark but could come at the expense of neighborhood street vendors, restaurants and bars.
"There are a lot of people who make money on the Cubs that are not paying the players," Ganis said. "There is no other team in baseball that has the number of businesses piggybacking on the team that the Cubs do. Increase the pie, but the Cubs have to get a bigger slice."
I wouldn't expect any existing streets to be closed; the pedestrian area they're talking about would probably be created in the area which is now parking for Cubs players and office staff (those people would then park in the triangle building itself).
Some of the other ideas discussed in that article include a Cubs TV network, which I would expect to happen as soon as the economy improves and they can get it carried on cable and satellite nationwide; adding a larger stadium club, and extending the upper deck. And for those of you gnashing your teeth over the possibility of the Cubs selling naming rights to Wrigley Field:
Other revenue-generating opportunities have potential but also may have to wait. The notion of selling some version of naming rights at Wrigley is off the table, sources said.
Finally, an old friend of Tom Ricketts, who used to live with him in that apartment across from the ballpark, says we've got the right guy:
Curt Conklin once lived with Tom Ricketts in an apartment just outside Wrigley Field, and the two were regulars at Cubs games. He knows Ricketts wasn't just a fan, but could recite Rick Sutcliffe's 1984 statistics (20-6, 3.64 ERA).
"The success of his life is that he has done this (built his company) 100 percent on his own," said Conklin, a day after it was announced Tribune Co. selected the family's bid for exclusive negotiations. Without being a meddler, Ricketts' drive and decision-making ability would be good for the team, he said.
"He's really smart, he really loves baseball and he really loves the Cubs," said Conklin, who worked at the Ricketts' family company, TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., and for InCapital LLC, which Tom Ricketts founded.
Sounds perfect to me. We are about to embark on a new Cubs era, where "one of us" is in charge.
0 recs | 133 comments
Hurray! It will remain Wrigley Field
How exactly would they extend the upper deck? That would take serious renovations, but would this allow them to get rid of the poles up there?
Chanman25 - January 24, 2009
Good question.
Neither side of the upper deck extends all the way to the street. Maybe that’s what they are discussing.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
Perhaps ...
… we’ll see extensions that match the angle of the lower deck seating in the corners, bent at an angle to face the infield.
bimi - January 24, 2009
That's possible.
It all depends on whether the architects can design something that is functional, safe AND fits in the existing footprint.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
Isnt Wrigley a protected landmark?
so how would all this reconstruction be possible?
bren - January 24, 2009
I'm not sure that the grandstand is considered a landmark
I do know that the bricks and ivy, scoreboard, and marquee are. I don’t think the bleachers are because they completely renovated them in the winter of 05-06
Chanman25 - January 24, 2009
The ivy wall and its shape are landmarked.
Obviously, they wouldn’t have been able to renovate the bleachers if the seating area itself had been landmarked.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
and so is the sweeping view of/from the grandstands
Don’t remember the exact wording but my guess is they can’t just interrupt the flow of seats from one section to another by putting something else in between. In other words I interpret this as a meaning that they have to make a change such that it looks like it’s always been there. It’s what makes the bleacher renovation such a huge success. It’s almost like it’s been there since 1937/38.
blackhawk24 - January 24, 2009
would have to get permission from the city
can’t imagine it would be an issue as long as they didn’t change/remove the essential elements like the scoreboard, ivy, and marquee. Plus they could easily make the arguement that the renovations are needed for safety and to increase the longevity of the park.
DC Cubbie - January 24, 2009
Also, more seats
means more amusement tax for the city.
cowsarecool220 - January 24, 2009
Years ago,
I recall talk about wrapping the upper deck seating around to the foul poles- would add several thousand seats, but not interfere too much with the outfield, wind and views. Maybe that’s what they have in mind.
I still think they have to rehab the entire park, and envision the granstand teardown and rebuild at some point.
tommy veryzer - January 24, 2009
No poles removed with the existing structure
It’s simply not viable with the upper deck over so many rows (20-28) of the terrace section beneath. My guess is they canteleiver the upper deck a half dozen rows or so over portions of Clark and Addison.
The reason these newer parks don’t have the support poles is that there are no significant seating areas beneath them. The best indoor example comparison I can give is the difference between Chicago Stadium and United Center. In the new arenas and stadiums the support poles are there, they just don’t block any seats’ view because there’s not seats behind them.
Going further down the sidelines towards Waveland and Sheffield poses two logistic hurdles. 1. Seats would be facing the bleachers instead of the field. Anyone having been to Fenway knows what I mean about the RF side seats there. 2. Extension of the upper deck towards Waveland and Sheffield (even curved inwards towards the field) would block some rooftop views. They’d then have to enter some legal agreement in that arena now, given the 20-yr agreement struck a couple years ago.
blackhawk24 - January 24, 2009
Some of the new ballparks DO have posts...
… they did this so they could bring the seats closer to the field rather than farther away, as they are in the Cell.
I don’t know whether the agreements the Cubs have with the rooftops preclude them adding seats that would block views.
One other thing Ricketts could consider is buying out the rooftops so that he’d own them and pocket all the revenue.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
But the posts do not
obstruct views from rows and rows of seats. There’s just enough canteleiver to push the 300-level/suites and the 500-level a few rows closer. You’ve sat in the 20th+ rows in the terrace reserved. I know I’ve had to do the giraffe-neck to see the play.
Buying the rooftops; what a concept. TribCo could have done that. Let’s see the Bud-bldg went for about $8.5M last year. That’s effectively a double lot. And they didn’t have a rooftop business. So what’d it take do you think? Knowing there’s a couple more clubs up there now since the original 13. I figure it’d take over $100M.
blackhawk24 - January 24, 2009
Probably right about the cost.
Tribco probably could have bought every single building on both Waveland & Sheffield back in the early 80’s for about $2-$3 million. They’re probably kicking themselves for not doing that.
Ricketts could afford it, I believe — and those prices might come down in the current economic climate.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
You been up there to any of the bldgs recently?
I was p/o a group to the “Glen Allen Hill” bldg back in April against the Mets. They go all out, nice tickets in a plastic protector hung from a neck strap, promotional stuff, bathroom access at the rooftop level, drinks available up top; pretty cool.
Just imagine if TribCo did buy those places. Wrigley I bet would be in the 47k-50k seating capacity.
blackhawk24 - January 24, 2009
Probably not.
I estimate about 100-150 seats max on all of those buildings. IIRC there are 17 of them.
That’d make the increased “official” seating capacity about 43,000-44,000, which is right in line with all the other new parks being built.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
Budweiser house does indeed have a rooftop business - it's just not like the others
The ad on the roof generates a significant revenue stream for the house owner(s). No idea how much exactly, but the number I heard several years ago was $750K a year. Granted, that was just street talk from a bunch of us on the corner, but it was from those same folks that I heard the $8.5M selling price before it was made public.
ballhawk - January 24, 2009
Meant selling tix, having the bleacher seats, supplying...
food and drink etc. Yes this is a “business” too but just like the old Torco now Miller sign bldg on Sheffield.
If that $750k a year number is close, then given the limited amount of work they have to do, it’s certainly in line – if not more – than the net profit the other owners are haulin’ in.
blackhawk24 - January 26, 2009
It's such a relief
to know that the franchise will transfer into such good hands. One less thing to worry about in these most worrisome of times.
Emelie - January 24, 2009
It seems like a great pick and in hindsight will probably look better than Mark Cuban
The difference is Mark Cuban isn’t really a Cubs fan and I don’t think has the passion that Rickett’s displays to win a World Series here in Chicago. I think he’ll definitely open up his wallet to help fund for payroll, renovations, etc.
Chanman25 - January 24, 2009
That Is Ridiculous
Do you seriously believe Mark Cuban was a “real Mavericks’ fan?”
Owners have business plans, which hopefully evolve over time to reflect the revnue stream. Their personal feelings for the club does not correlate to team payroll, etc. I have no doubt that Reinsdorf loves the White Sox, but that has had zero impact on how he ran the club during its low revenue years. Similarly, Turner spent a lot of his own money on the Braves during the dark ages, but only up to a point.
Sandberg Icebar - January 25, 2009
Exactly how I feel.
sue369 - January 24, 2009
Please List Even One Fact...
..in support of this completely incredibly stupid statement, because you can’t.
The sheep like you make me sick. Cuban has literally spent 80 million of his own money against the luxury tax to make the Mavericks competitive. Cuban often shows his ass in the name of making sure his team is not jobbed by the refs. So what?
Cuban was born in 1958. The Mavs entered the NBA in 1980. Obviously, he didn’t grow up as a Mavs fan in Pittsburgh.
Claiming that Mark Cuban couldn’t be “a real Cubs fan” is infantile. Obviously, he is 100% behind the Mavericks, even at the risk of incurring fines for acting like a fan.
Double Standard? I think so.
Sandberg Icebar - January 25, 2009
IMHO, people view him in a negative light
because he is so much different than other owners. There is this preconceived notion that an owner should “act” a certain way.
Personally I don’t really care. I didn’t care if he was in the bleachers sitting with the fans, drinking beer and “selling” his angle on the dancing show. I couldn’t care less.
Sure having a “fan” own the team is the cinderella-in-the-making kind of story. But it doesn’t mean cash expenditures will be any larger and/or more wise than anyone else. Money talks, bullshit walks.
With that said though, I am still happy for the Ricketts family and I hope they can do well. And since their bid appears to be more than half CASH (cha-ching!) it bodes well for their immediate test with the creditors / Ch-11 judge.
With Ricketts work at continuing to bolster revenue streams – some of those not yet realized by TribCo – that is so OVERWHELMING important, I’m confident they’ll do what it takes to weather this economic storm. A storm I believe will last into the middle of 2012.
I cannot comment on whether or not Cuban or anyone else would have done, so it’s unfair to him for anyone here to comment; using his boistrous behaviour as a reason he wouldn’t be a good owner.
blackhawk24 - January 26, 2009
Cuban might have been a huge distraction
like he is at Maverick’s games. We’re better off this way- I think this is about the best possible outcome.
tommy veryzer - January 24, 2009
Cuban is NOT a Huge Distraction
Have you ever been to a WC game? Cuban is not a distraction, because the crowd noise is too large. When Cuban shows his ass, over 80% of the American Airlines Center is also raising the roof.
Cuban has benefitted the NBA. Without his public criticism, I woud hate to consider the probable state of officiating in the NBA today.
Sandberg Icebar - January 26, 2009
Agree
That is very good news for Cub fans. I hope he keeps it Wrigley Field as well.
wccubfan - January 24, 2009
Why?
Sandberg Icebar - January 26, 2009
why hope he keeps it as Wrigley Field?
because tradition matters for something.
Why is it good news? Well, at least it means the ownership situation is resolved. I liked Cuban too, but I think either of them would have been good.
drewishdrewid - January 26, 2009
Interesting story.
I know both Conklin and Ricketts and can attest to both men’s devotion to the Cubs (though Conklin’s devotion is irrelevant, his knowledge of Ricketts is not). This is going to be a very exciting time for the rest of us Cubs fans! Now if this pesky winter would just go away already…
Goodie1969 - January 24, 2009
I was never a Cuban guy
so this move I like. Sounds just by reading a good person to be in charge. He appears to be no an empty suit.
Good move, Lets go Spring Training.
Grockcubs - January 24, 2009
Finally
Seems like we have the right person in place finally.
I am curious how long it would take to renovate the upper deck (a much needed thing).
Might they have to schedule a summer in US Cell with all games opposite (home/road) with the White Sox while WF is given a make over.
Cubbie-Tim - January 24, 2009
They have talked about..
… doing some of it over an offseason, with the rest done during road trips, so they wouldn’t have to move out for a year. I’m not convinced that they could do this, but they might give it a shot.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
so then....what would happen when the Cubs played at home?
Chanman25 - January 24, 2009
What do you mean?
They’d stop the work project and play.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
yeah, but that would mean the upperdeck would be unsafe to have fans sit in
therefore, the attendance to those games would be much lower, right?
Chanman25 - January 24, 2009
Depends on exactly how they do the project.
I’m not an architect or a construction engineer, so I can’t really answer the question.
It would probably be easier if they played a year at the Cell, but we’ll see what happens.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
I believe they'll play at the Cell for half a season, maybe a full year
The revenue lost while whole portions of the seating bowl are closed would be too much to bear, and the atmosphere at the park would be, to say the least, less than optimal with parts of the park resembling a war zone.
bimi - January 24, 2009
Probably so.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
I like the half-season closure
I haven’t heard it mentioned, but closing the park through the All-Star break would give them seven full months to complete the project, and would have the added benefit of lessening the strain on the neighborhood businesses as well as ensuring that any postseason games would be played at Wrigley.
bimi - January 24, 2009
Plus
Allows the work to be done 24/7 during that stretch instead of having to stop wortk during games, and with that stop, have to also safe guard the area from fans coming and going. The game day prep work alone to continue working during the season would extend the renovation a few months.
Cubbie-Tim - January 24, 2009
It'd be weird...
… to have the Cubs have two different home parks in a single season. Better, if they have to close down Wrigley, do it for one full year and do it right.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
Exactly
no more hanging nets to catch falling concrete. enough band aids have been put WF, and it is time for the surgery to repaid her corretly.
Cubbie-Tim - January 24, 2009
Irony
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Cubs won the world series the year they were out of Wrigley?
Better the cell than Milwaukee easier to get to.
puckishcubsfan - January 24, 2009
Either there, or Wrigley North
I seem to recall when they were talking about this issue months ago, they were talking about taking home games to either Sox park or Wrigley North (Milwaukee).
dansram - January 26, 2009
As much as I'd love it to be Milwaukee because I live in SE WI
It wouldn’t be right to ask the season ticket holders to travel that far. Maybe a handful of games when both Chicago teams are at home — since the schedulers have shown a lack of ability…
Shanghai Badger - January 26, 2009
It's also not feasible...
… to schedule the Cubs and Brewers so that neither is home at the same time. It would be MUCH easier to do that for the Cubs and White Sox.
Al Yellon - January 27, 2009
Unthinkable
Don’t even suggest the Cell it makes me ill.
Maybe Soldier Field…we’d draw 5 mil
Clutche - January 24, 2009
Oh, please.
It’s just a ballpark. It’s still your team.
Soldier Field is not suitable for baseball. You wouldn’t “draw 5 million” because at least 20,000 of those seats would have terrible sightlines.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
OK OK
I’ll suck it up and hire a bodyguard
Clutche - January 24, 2009
LOL
You won’t need one. If the Cubs did play at the Cell, the place would be filled with Cubs fans. You’d be among friends.
The weird part would be the Cubs/Sox series where the Cubs would be the home team.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
Cubs/Sox w/ Cubs at home
In Milwaukee? WF North
Cubbie-Tim - January 24, 2009
Nah.
Remember, if the Cubs were the “home” team at the Cell for a season, it would be CUB season ticket holders who would get most of the seats for those ‘home’ games.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
Cub vs. Sox fan
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com2Fwatch3Fv%3Ddvg6n_cZxn8
Clutche - January 24, 2009
The Cell
I actually kind of like the Cell. My only problem with it is the loud music.
One thing they have over Wrigley is tailgaiting.
I usually go to at least one Cubs/Sox game every year as well as at least one game with my Chicago Baseball internet groujp.
puckishcubsfan - January 24, 2009
My bet on the music is...
you won’t be hit with what I call “sensory overload”. It’ll be scaled back, significantly.
blackhawk24 - January 24, 2009
Oh, yeah -
Doesn’t anyone else see the sweet ‘stick it to you-ness’ that would come with the Cubs winning the WS while playing a lot of their games across town?
Hee hee hee . . . . :)
Edgewood - January 26, 2009
New Soldier Field is just about impossible
closeness of the sidelines would make the LF and RF foul poles less than 250’.
blackhawk24 - January 24, 2009
I would bet that since they want to use
the BoSox and Fenway as a model (boy has that area changed since 2002), they would put in place, a plan that would allow them to make changes during the off-season for some 3-5 years in a row. A 5-year plan starting next offseason would put them right on target with Kenney’s “Wrigley-2014” concept.
blackhawk24 - January 24, 2009
That sounds possible.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
Hmm expanding the front office ?
Somebody who might be HIRING. Guess I had better polish that resume. I always said ( even before I lost my job) that the only way I would ever leave New York would be to work for the Cubs. I think there should be a new job, Director of Fan Relations. Sounds a bit more full time than Coordinator of #31 retirement & appreciation day.
Doggie Stalker - January 24, 2009
Better get that res.
in there QUICKLY!
blackhawk24 - January 24, 2009
I think
I think we all will be keeping an eye out for openings.
In the old days to get a non baseball job with the Cubs (secretaries and such) most were employees elsewhere in the Tribune Co. and would apply when the inter corporate listings were posted.
In 1997 I worked for a division of the corporation and as an April Fool’s Day joke they made a post
Division
Chicago Cubs
Position
Third Baseman
puckishcubsfan - January 24, 2009
And all they got out of that job posting was Kevin Orie.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
Funny thing
I actually worked with a guy at the time who could pass for Kevin’s identical twin.
He left on April 2nd that year.
New job in Texas? MY FOOT!
puckishcubsfan - January 24, 2009
Al, I'm dissapointed in you...
No attempt to figure out what day the scoreboard picture was taken?
sanantonecub - January 24, 2009
it must be old
either Astros of Pirates are in 1st
Cubbie-Tim - January 24, 2009
Yup.
I figured someone with a better (read: less lazy) investigative mind then me could pinpoint this down to a specific day or at least weekend based on the information we have:
Day game
Astros/Pirates in 1st place
Other divisional standings
Night games taking place
sanantonecub - January 24, 2009
1993 or later
Rockies in league
Clutche - January 24, 2009
#7
Did Theriot and DeRosa both wear #7 different in seasons?
If the Cubs are batting
Clutche - January 24, 2009
Todd Walker?
Cubbie-Tim - January 24, 2009
No, see below.
It was Craig Biggio, leading off for the Astros.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
I decided to stop being lazy
The picture was taken the weekend of July 13, 2007, as far as I can tell.
All the scoreboard games match up. However, that’s the Brewers flag up top. Division standings that day otherwise match up:
Brewers, Cubs, Cards, Pirates, Astros, Reds
sanantonecub - January 24, 2009
BTW, the Cubs swept the Astros that series...
6-0, 9-3, and 7-6.
sanantonecub - January 24, 2009
Had to be on Friday, July 13, 2007.
Note all the games at the top are night games — that makes Friday the most likely date.
The clock says 1:20 — that would be game time on a Friday. Saturday games have started at either noon or 3 pm the last two years.
This boxscore matches the scoreboard. If it was taken at game time, and #7 was leading off — that’d be Craig Biggio of the Astros. The Friday game was the only game he led off in that series.
Case closed!
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
I think this thread proves
Just how much of baseball geeks we are.
Or; that opening day can’t get here soon enough!
sanantonecub - January 24, 2009
Both!
n/t
blackhawk24 - January 24, 2009
This Day In Cubs History
July 13, 2007 Recalled catcher Geovany Soto from Iowa of the Pacific Coast League (AAA); optioned outfielder Felix Pie to Iowa.
Mark Cuban joined the ranks of people looking to buy the Cubs.
Cubbie-Tim - January 24, 2009
now this is GEEKY...Ump #'s match as well
HP – Greg Gibson #53, 1B – Larry Vanover #27, 2B – Tony Randazzo #59, 3B – Charlie Reliford #18.
Clutche - January 24, 2009
Change
lexmarklover - January 24, 2009
This is an exciting time
This is an exciting time for the Cubs.
Tom Ricketts is a good man, a good fan and an astute businessman.
I also think he will not fire people just to fire people. If they deserve to keep their jobs they will.
puckishcubsfan - January 24, 2009
Not a full-blown Cubs TV per se, but Kenney says Cubs video on demand will be available this year
Just heard Crane Kenney on Talking Baseball (ESPN1000) and he talked about having a Cubs video on demand “channel” in place this year. He described it as MLB.tv for the Cubs.
Obviously no realtime game coverage, but just as obviously there’s plenty of other content they could be making available. He mentioned archive footage, in depth interviews with players & coaches, etc. Talked about how they filmed 25 minute segments with each player and coach during the Cubs convention.
Didn’t get into the technical aspects of it – probably would’ve confused the ESPN guys anyway – but he sounded very optimistic they’d have something in place by Opening Day.
ballhawk - January 24, 2009
Not yet at least
I would look for a YES-like network being formed over next off season. It’s that type of thinking that will put the Cubs into the highest ranking of TV revenue teams.
blackhawk24 - January 25, 2009
I agree that it would take that much time to set up such a network.
I do think that the radio interview he gave, speaking of that “on demand” channel, might be something they could put in place right away, with the things they mentioned. Technology does exist for such things.
Al Yellon - January 25, 2009
If they go this route
with a Cubs network, I hope they dont make it “Chicagoland” exclusive. That would hurt their following. I am sure they wont make it such, but it is a (very minor) concern.
Cubbie-Tim - January 25, 2009
You can bet
that it will be a regional sports network similar to CSN.
It should be available nationally via satellite.
bimi - January 25, 2009
Thank God
for DirecTv and family in Chicago. I might not get locals on it, but by using a family members address I never get blacked out on CSN
Cubbie-Tim - January 25, 2009
i agree. not chicago exclusive
but it should be allowed to be gotten all over the country, blackouts be damned!
you could add the bears on that network too (i know, nfl has dealswith nbc/fox etc), but bears programming and sports talk could be done.
laidbackliam - January 25, 2009
Bears
Wont do it, they own 25% of CSN Chicago as well
Cubbie-Tim - January 25, 2009
No, they don't.
The partners in CSN Chicago are the Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks. The Bears have nothing to do with it.
Al Yellon - January 25, 2009
i thought wrong
brb i need to go eat some crow
Cubbie-Tim - January 25, 2009
So wait, if they do make a Cubs network
That means good bye WGN national games, right?
Chanman25 - January 25, 2009
or WGN games in general?
Chanman25 - January 25, 2009
maybe
Bye Bye WGN, CLTV, WCIU, CSN………………..hello “View Cubbie Blue”
Cubbie-Tim - January 25, 2009
huh, then I don't want a Cubs channel then
Unless it was available nationally. If not, then I won’t be able to see my Cubs games on Superstation WGN!
Chanman25 - January 25, 2009
They won't do it unless it can be available nationally.
Al Yellon - January 25, 2009
huh, then I don't want a Cubs channel then
Unless it was available nationally. If not, then I won’t be able to see my Cubs games on Superstation WGN!
Chanman25 - January 25, 2009
sorry about the double post, my computer is acting up..
Chanman25 - January 25, 2009
I can't speak to the apparent impact on WGN
but they have to go national with whatever the endeavour. The revenue opportunities are significant and would put the Cubs on the same stage as the Yankees.
Look, nothing would make me happier to see all 162 games on WGN-CH9. That won’t happen though. The days of the best TV coverage – as well as cameramen and the late great Arne Harris running the show – are gone forever.
blackhawk24 - January 26, 2009
PSL stadium funding?
It seems PSLs are the quickest and easiest way to pay for the Wrigley renovations. The way I understand PSLs is it gives the season ticket holder the right to buy season tickets every year. The season ticket holder can also sell the PSL at any time simliar to a stock. Do any other baseball teams use PSLs? And would this then eliminate the waiting list for season tickets?
chipwood23 - January 24, 2009
How would it eliminate the waiting list?
Unless people cancelled their season tickets because they didn’t want to pay the PSL price.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
After all the PSLs had been sold to season ticket holders
there would no longer be a need for a waiting list (the way I understand it). A waiting list wouldn’t be needed since the only way to get season tickets would be to buy a PSL from somone.
chipwood23 - January 24, 2009
nah... if they go the PSL route, I'm sure it's only a matter of time...
…before they figure out how to charge for some sort of PWLL, i.e. Personal Waiting List License.
p.s. I’m only half-kidding…
ballhawk - January 24, 2009
correct..
And certainly many current season ticket holders would be unwilling or unable to pay the psl..
wicubfan - January 26, 2009
I think you are spot on here Chip..
The PSL’s can be bought and sold after they are issued. I’m sure ownership can place limits on the exchange if they choose.
I think PSL’s are definately comming, though probably not year 1 as the new owner would not want to anger too many of his faithful..
wicubfan - January 26, 2009
Yes
I have a very, very good feeling about this guy. Rickets, just like the fans, wants to win more than anything.
CUBSfaninYANKEEcountry - January 24, 2009
Spellcheck
Clutche - January 24, 2009
OT - Is it just me or are funny things happening with FanPosts sidebar on the front page?
For awhile there, no fanposts were showing up at all – just an empty section. Now at least they’re all showing up, but I’ve lost the Recommended sub-section at the top.
How’s it look to everyone else?
ballhawk - January 24, 2009
yeah me too
Its not just this site to, it might be a server issue, because it was happenning on Windy City Gridiron as well
Chanman25 - January 24, 2009
There is a technical issue that is...
… temporarily preventing recommended posts from showing up. They are going to apply the fix sometime overnight tonight. It does affect all the SBN sites.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
yup seems to be working now
Chanman25 - January 25, 2009
ballhawk-mine looks fine
No problems on my screen anyway.
CUBSfaninYANKEEcountry - January 24, 2009
I loved the quotes about people/businesses adjacent to the park "piggybacking" on the Cubs...
…Really? Does he mean that the Cubs are prohibited from setting up similar businesses and competing head-to-head? Or that the Cubs are prohibited from buying those businesses? Maybe the Cubs are waiting for the taxpayers to fund their can’t miss investments?
DudeVf11 - January 24, 2009
Piggybacking
Means that they are in business as a perihpery to the Cubs. It doesn’t imply that the Cubs are at a disadvantage because of that. Why do you think that?
Incidentally, I’m no Tribco apologist, but they’ve had exactly $0 taxpayer funding for ballpark improvements.
Shanghai Badger - January 24, 2009
No, of course they're not prevented from competing...
… in fact, that’s exactly what the article argues that Ricketts will probably do, and I doubt he’ll ask for any tax dollars.
Al Yellon - January 24, 2009
Is this a Mafia mentality?
Sounds to me like a line from the Saprano’s.
LOUtheMETandNATSfan - January 25, 2009
This Is All Very Premature
Tom Ricketts once lived across the street from Wrigley Field and met his wife in the bleachers. “My family and I are Cubs fans,” Ricketts said in a statement Thursday night. “We share the goal of Cubs fans everywhere to win a World Series and build the consistent championship tradition that the fans deserve.”
I once lived across the street from an art gallery. It didn’t make me an artist.
Sandberg Icebar - January 25, 2009
I can't imagine a brand new owner saying anything else.
It’s not like he’s gonna come out and say: “Buying this team was a great investment for me because, no matter what happens, you fans are extremely loyal, and will come spend your money, which makes it’s way to my pockets.” A new owner has to say the crap quoted above. Does that me he wasn’t sincere in that statement? We have no way to know. But to read that quote and assume he’s genuine is fairly ignorant in my opinion.
philadelphiacub - January 25, 2009
LSA
Rec’d
scrappywhiteguy - January 25, 2009
The point is NOBODY (yes, nobody) knows what he is going to do. Some of assertions and predictions are just silly. He could turn out to the worst owner in the history of sports. Its going to take time to decide what kind of owner he is.
Lets not go and make him the second coming of Jesus Christ just yet.
I’m going to take a wait and see approach
scrappywhiteguy - January 25, 2009
You are correct...
…no one really knows what philosophy he will have and time will tell us all how he will go about trying to bring a championship.
All the stuff about the park is interesting, but what I am most curious about is the front office. IMO, I would love to see him take the same path that McDonough has with the Hawks (bringing in Scotty Bowman) and pry away Dallas Green from his consultant gig with the Phillies. Green may not be possible, but someone like him to lend an experienced opinion on baseball operations is needed in my opinion.
We’ll see what happens, but I would guess he keeps everything status quo for 09.
MPH73 - January 25, 2009
Scotty Bowman
is a problem in the current Blackhawks organization. He needs a definite role/position. To date, it’s not clear who really fired Savard, etc.
I wouldn’t wish this on the Cubs without some clear demarcation of roles. For example, I would be comfortable with Dallas Green handling minor league development, and Hendry could handle the MLB club. That would play to both of their strengths.
Sandberg Icebar - January 25, 2009
I strongly disagree...
…that Bowman is a problem with the Blackhawks. Also, I believe his role is very clear and that is to use his vast knowledge about how to build a winning hockey club.
Who was responsible for Savard getting canned? There is no question it was Scotty Bowman and as they should have, Tallon and McDonough took responsibility. People often wonder about the goofy timing of firing Savard after four games, but the answer is simple – Bowman was not hired until late summer and it took him time to understand that Savard did not have the experience necesary to take a young club where it needed to go. It turned out to be the right move in the near term and it will also be the right move in years to come.
Hendry has his strengths, but player development is not one of them. Green in a similar role as Bowman would be one of the smartest things new Cub’s ownership could do and it certainly would put the club in a better position to not have to rely on signing FA’s every year to fill holes.
MPH73 - January 26, 2009
$Bill Wirtz
was why he got canned. $Bill gave him the coaching gig on a promise years ago, and didnt make him first learn how to coach. No different than rushing a pitcher to the bigs before he is ready
Cubbie-Tim - January 26, 2009
um, just a guess here, but I believe somebody does know what he is going to do
and that somebody would be Tom Ricketts.
ballhawk - January 25, 2009
The Definition of a Waste Post
Thank you, my entire view of sports management has been revolutionized!
Sandberg Icebar - January 25, 2009
Excellent! Glad I could help!
ballhawk - January 25, 2009
"One of Us" Indeed
That sounds like a recipe for disaster. God forbid someone with a history of sports franchise ownership like Mark Cuban actually owned the Cubs.
Cuban turned around a Mavericks franchise with a 40% winning percentage into a team that has a shot to make the WCF every year, precisely by exceeding the cap and spending his own money to the tune of a $19 million luxury tax in 2007-2008.
Despite all of the real, documented evidence on Cuban, people here are convinced that Ricketts is somehow better, based on exactly ZERO evidence.
The internet is a wonderful tool for education. Please use it properly.
Sandberg Icebar - January 25, 2009
Who Doesn't "Get It"
Our family got basic cable (WGN and WTBS) back in 1980 or so. I have no idea what made me a Cubs fan over the Braves, unless it was Ryne Sandberg. (I kid, it was Sandberg.) I do know that I virtually worshipped Ryne Sandberg until my graduation from high school. I played 2B on the varsity squad for two years and most of my years in Little League and Babe Ruth League.
For me, when it came out that Sandberg was unhappy with the Tribune Co. for failing to put a winning team on the field, my days of bleeding anything but my own #$%^ blood were fucking over.
Anyone who wants to claim some sort of moral superiority over the TV fans on account of BLEACHER season tickets is a complete ass-clown who doesn’t "get it."
Guess what? A cable dollar spends just like a season ticket dollar.
Sandberg Icebar - January 26, 2009
You're kinda angry, aren't you?
Shanghai Badger - January 26, 2009
However less of that
cable dollar gets to the team than a season ticket dollar.
Hence the reason to reach 100x or more cable viewers than ST holders.
I get what you’re saying and you’re a microcosm example of why the Cubs are so popular nationwide; out of town fan that linked their lives to the Cubs through WGN. The media landscape is different now and I fully expect Ricketts to exploit what is necessary to get the Cubs in the next stratosphere of media revenue generation.
The key to everything Ricketts is going to do (revenue generation wise) is by the statement that he wants to mimic the BoSox in how they increased revenue in and around the ballpark, and the Yankees with the YES network. This is not rocket science but it takes an organization with big enough cahoonas to pull it off on the business side; especially with an economy that could collapse in the next 6-12 months.
blackhawk24 - January 26, 2009
Right on the comments re: the economy.
I’m not as pessimistic on that front as you apparently are, but those conditions could and would apply to any owner, whether it be Ricketts, Tribco, or Mark Cuban.
Al Yellon - January 26, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.