I wouldn't mind if Cuban bought the team. He may be an attention hog, but he would continue to spend the money and do what it takes to keep the Cubs winning.
> I wouldn't mind if Cuban bought the team. He may be an attention hog, > but he would continue to spend the money and do what it takes to keep > the Cubs winning.
At least Cuban is pre-approved by MLB which means they aren't interested in rigging the bid so that it goes to Selig's boy who got washed out of the bidding in the first round. Zell will have none of these shenanigans that Selig must have tried to pull albeit unsuccessfully. IMHO, Cuban looks to be the best of the bunch wrt the Cubs becoming a winning franchise. I was concerned MLB would have blacked balled him simply to keep the Cubs as perennial losers. From an MLB perspective, that the Cubs don't have to win to fill its stadium allows other teams, teams who absolutely need to win in order to fill the stands, to win more often (I.e. Atlanta Braves).
> > I was concerned MLB would have blacked balled him > > simply to keep the Cubs as perennial losers.
> Sorry, but that makes no sense.
My fingers got ahead of me -- I meant black balled, not blacked balled. The other MLB owners have the right to veto someone from becoming an owner of a team. Teams in the NL Central directly benefit by having a nincompoop become owner of the Cubs because it increases their chances of winning a division each year. Apparently all bidders were pre- approved so Cuban is in if he wins fair and square. Methinks Zell wanted no funny business and probably could have used his legal arsenal to bring up that anti-trust business that MLB falls under should the rest of the ownership block a potential lucrative bidder like Cuban. So everything worked out.
Mark Anderson <m...@nospambrandylion.com> wrote: > In article ab...@blink45.com says... > > > I was concerned MLB would have blacked balled him > > > simply to keep the Cubs as perennial losers.
> > Sorry, but that makes no sense.
> My fingers got ahead of me -- I meant black balled, not blacked balled. > The other MLB owners have the right to veto someone from becoming an > owner of a team. Teams in the NL Central directly benefit by having a > nincompoop become owner of the Cubs because it increases their chances > of winning a division each year. Apparently all bidders were pre- > approved so Cuban is in if he wins fair and square. Methinks Zell > wanted no funny business and probably could have used his legal arsenal > to bring up that anti-trust business that MLB falls under should the > rest of the ownership block a potential lucrative bidder like Cuban. So > everything worked out.
No, I got what you said (I'm not a grammar nazi). It is just that I do not see the logic that: 1) anyone would want the Cubs to stay a losing franchise... very hard to see that anyone would profit from that scenario. 2) anyone other than Cuban as an owner means that the Cubs stay a loser (or that Cuban is the only one that cold make the Cubs a winner).
> Mark Anderson <m...@nospambrandylion.com> wrote: >> In article ab...@blink45.com says... >>>> I was concerned MLB would have blacked balled him >>>> simply to keep the Cubs as perennial losers. >>> Sorry, but that makes no sense. >> My fingers got ahead of me -- I meant black balled, not blacked balled. >> The other MLB owners have the right to veto someone from becoming an >> owner of a team. Teams in the NL Central directly benefit by having a >> nincompoop become owner of the Cubs because it increases their chances >> of winning a division each year. Apparently all bidders were pre- >> approved so Cuban is in if he wins fair and square. Methinks Zell >> wanted no funny business and probably could have used his legal arsenal >> to bring up that anti-trust business that MLB falls under should the >> rest of the ownership block a potential lucrative bidder like Cuban. So >> everything worked out.
> No, I got what you said (I'm not a grammar nazi). It is just that I do > not see the logic that: > 1) anyone would want the Cubs to stay a losing franchise... very hard > to see that anyone would profit from that scenario. > 2) anyone other than Cuban as an owner means that the Cubs stay a loser > (or that Cuban is the only one that cold make the Cubs a winner).
> How many titles have the Mavericks won?
> G
Why would the other owners want the Cubs to be a strong franchise? Would it be good for the rest of the National League if the Cubs were to become like the powerhouse Yankees of the 50's? Those owners want their teams to win. They don't necessarily want a strong competitor in Chicago. Currently the Cubs are selling tons of tickets whether they win or lose. They won't be making more (or much more) money from the Cubs if they are dominant.
Is Cuban the only owner that could keep the Cubs competitive? Probably not, but he is the best known of the candidates and his passion for his teams is a known quantity whereas it is a question mark with the other candidates.
Have the Mavs won any titles? If you mean the NBA title, the answer is zero. I believe they have won a Western Conference title as well as winning their division a number of times. They have been in the playoffs 8 consecutive seasons. And the team was pretty awful before Cuban bought them. So he has been a difference maker with the Mavericks. Could he make a difference with the Cubs? We'll just to have to wait and see if he gets the chance.
In article <260720080637114467%ab...@blink45.com>, ab...@blink45.com says... <snip...>
> I do not see the logic that: > 1) anyone would want the Cubs to stay a losing franchise... very hard > to see that anyone would profit from that scenario.
Anyone who's owned the Cubs have been profiting from them being a losing franchise for YEARS AND YEARS. How many times over the last 40 years have the Cubs managed to sell out Wrigley Field despite only going to the playoffs, what, five times??
> 2) anyone other than Cuban as an owner means that the Cubs stay a loser
So what? The ownership has profited no matter how the Cubs have done, and it's absolutely absurd to think otherwise.
> (or that Cuban is the only one that cold make the Cubs a winner).
> How many titles have the Mavericks won?
> G
While the Mavs haven"t won an NBA title yet, the Mavs won their division twice ('87 and '07), and won their conference in '06. How many times have the Cubs won their division or the National League pennant in the last forty years, you ask?? They've won their division four times ('84, '89, '03 and '07... they also had a wild card berth in '98). They've not won an NL pennant since '45, and a World Series since 1908. Meanwhile, Wrigley Field has drawn consistently sold out or near sell- out crowds.
I think it's safe to say that Mark Cuban has a better track record than the likes of the Tribune Company in fielding a winning franchise.
> While the Mavs haven"t won an NBA title yet, the Mavs won their division > twice ('87 and '07), and won their conference in '06. How many times > have the Cubs won their division or the National League pennant in the > last forty years, you ask?? They've won their division four times ('84, > '89, '03 and '07... they also had a wild card berth in '98).
Which BLATANTLY shows that the Cubs have done *much* better in a similar time-frame. You're proving my point, not yours.
> They've not won an NL pennant since '45, and a World Series since 1908.
Now you can't even think of comparing dissimilar time period and get a fair comparison. Either you have to compare the time that the Mavericks have been in existence (1980 - present) with the Cubs record from 1980 thru present. OR The results of Mark Cuban (2000 - 2008) with the Cubs results in the same period. OR The winning percentage of the Tribune Co.'s tenure (1981 - present) vs. the winning percentage of Cuban's tenure. [which isn't overly fair, since baseball percentages are always lower than other sports]
Otherwise, what you are doing is akin to saying "The Cubs have had NINETY-SEVEN losing seasons, and Dallas only has twenty, so OF COURSE the Cubs suck worse!"
> Meanwhile, Wrigley Field has drawn consistently sold out or near sell- > out crowds.
You... obviously have a short-term memory. I went to many games in high school and college that were far less than sold out, and I'm only 37. IIRC, 18,000 or so was a fairly common sight
Unless, of course, you are referring to the fairly recent Cubs attendance figures.
Which seems to somehow correspond with their recently improved and more consistent winning percentages and playoff appearances. [In 1984, they only averaged 26,182/game. In 2007, they averaged 40,153]
> I think it's safe to say that Mark Cuban has a better track record than > the likes of the Tribune Company in fielding a winning franchise.
You... don't see the evidence disputing that? Evidence you yourself posted?
Frank Sereno <fserenonos...@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote: > The G, no C wrote: > > Mark Anderson <m...@nospambrandylion.com> wrote: > >> In article ab...@blink45.com says... > >>>> I was concerned MLB would have blacked balled him > >>>> simply to keep the Cubs as perennial losers. > >>> Sorry, but that makes no sense. > >> My fingers got ahead of me -- I meant black balled, not blacked balled. > >> The other MLB owners have the right to veto someone from becoming an > >> owner of a team. Teams in the NL Central directly benefit by having a > >> nincompoop become owner of the Cubs because it increases their chances > >> of winning a division each year. Apparently all bidders were pre- > >> approved so Cuban is in if he wins fair and square. Methinks Zell > >> wanted no funny business and probably could have used his legal arsenal > >> to bring up that anti-trust business that MLB falls under should the > >> rest of the ownership block a potential lucrative bidder like Cuban. So > >> everything worked out.
> > No, I got what you said (I'm not a grammar nazi). It is just that I do > > not see the logic that: > > 1) anyone would want the Cubs to stay a losing franchise... very hard > > to see that anyone would profit from that scenario. > > 2) anyone other than Cuban as an owner means that the Cubs stay a loser > > (or that Cuban is the only one that cold make the Cubs a winner).
> > How many titles have the Mavericks won?
> Why would the other owners want the Cubs to be a strong > franchise? Would it be good for the rest of the National League > if the Cubs were to become like the powerhouse Yankees of the > 50's? Those owners want their teams to win. They don't > necessarily want a strong competitor in Chicago. Currently the > Cubs are selling tons of tickets whether they win or lose. They > won't be making more (or much more) money from the Cubs if they > are dominant.
> Is Cuban the only owner that could keep the Cubs competitive? > Probably not, but he is the best known of the candidates and his > passion for his teams is a known quantity whereas it is a > question mark with the other candidates.
> Have the Mavs won any titles? If you mean the NBA title, the > answer is zero. I believe they have won a Western Conference > title as well as winning their division a number of times. They > have been in the playoffs 8 consecutive seasons. And the team > was pretty awful before Cuban bought them. So he has been a > difference maker with the Mavericks. Could he make a difference > with the Cubs? We'll just to have to wait and see if he gets the > chance.
We're getting a bit off-track, methinks. I'm not (necessarily) disputing that Cuban would be a good owner (and how you qualify good, I'd *love* to hear everyone's opinion).
My primary query is how, if Cuban is not 'allowed' to purchase the club, it would then make the Cubs "perennial losers".
> We're getting a bit off-track, methinks. I'm not (necessarily) > disputing that Cuban would be a good owner (and how you qualify good, > I'd *love* to hear everyone's opinion).
> My primary query is how, if Cuban is not 'allowed' to purchase the > club, it would then make the Cubs "perennial losers".
> G
How would I qualify someone as a good owner? That would be an owner who puts in a good management team with the direction that the Cubs must not only be competitive each year, but that the main objective of the team is to win the World Series. The owner must give that management the funds and resources necessary to accomplish this task. This doesn't mean just money for player payroll on the big league team, but also includes properly funding player scouting and development. It doesn't mean just spending lots of money, but spending it wisely.
I can only guess how the majority of Cub fans feel, but I think that many fear that the next owner of the Cubs will view the team as only a business and that he will only care about the bottom line rather than winning championships. I don't have access to the data, but it's entirely possible that the best way to maximize an owner's profits on the Cubs would be to turn them into perennial winners. On the other hand, even though the Cubs can only put together two winning seasons in a row, they have over the last 25 years had very good ticket sales and are near the top in sales of licensed merchandise. So a bottom-line type of owner will have to be convinced of the value/profit o
