PDA

View Full Version : Gammons: Tribune will own Cubs one more year


Fenway
10-10-2007, 03:12 PM
Gammons is reporting on ESPN-Boston that the Tribune now does not expect to have the paperwork needed for the possible new owners to be done in time to sell the team before the 2008 season.

He says his sources in Chicago indicate a delay of up to a year.

MCHSoxFan
10-10-2007, 03:19 PM
Is this advantange for the Cubs. I am pretty sure because doesn't this mean they can make trades now?

spiffie
10-10-2007, 03:21 PM
If this is true, and my name is Jim Hendry, I am on the phone to Scott Boras the second Rodriguez opts out, and offering him the most back loaded contract in the history of sports. Then I'm offering the entire farm system to the Twins for Johan Santana.

Kogs35
10-10-2007, 03:46 PM
Gammons is reporting on ESPN-Boston that the Tribune now does not expect to have the paperwork needed for the possible new owners to be done in time to sell the team before the 2008 season.

He says his sources in Chicago indicate a delay of up to a year.

is gammons sources sportsbusinessdaily which had the story yesterday?
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.preview&storyId=SBD2007100914

Soxfest
10-10-2007, 03:51 PM
Tribune will spend someone else's money like a drunk sailor if true.

It's Time
10-10-2007, 03:51 PM
If this is true, and my name is Jim Hendry, I am on the phone to Scott Boras the second Rodriguez opts out, and offering him the most back loaded contract in the history of sports. Then I'm offering the entire farm system to the Twins for Johan Santana.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/1224623127_e7afc655d7.jpg?v=0
"Scott, We'll have lunch next week".


I actually think part of the reason Hendry signed Lou was because he knew that he and A-Rod are very close (Father/Son relationship) and that A-Rod would be leaving NY after this year.

Not a doubt in my mind that Lou talks to A-Rod and he probably told him he wants to play for him again. Lou then takes that info to Hendry behind closed doors and it stays there until A-Rod walks.

Not a doubt in my mind that the Cubs will be huge players in this, if not the front-runners for him.

Fenway
10-10-2007, 03:51 PM
is gammons sources sportsbusinessdaily which had the story yesterday?
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.preview&storyId=SBD2007100914

more than likely

The same thing happened to the Red Sox when they announced the team was for sale in late 2000 but it didn't close until 2002.

gobears1987
10-10-2007, 03:59 PM
If this is true, and my name is Jim Hendry, I am on the phone to Scott Boras the second Rodriguez opts out, and offering him the most back loaded contract in the history of sports. Then I'm offering the entire farm system to the Twins for Johan Santana.
And then it is win next year or else the team is ****ed for a decade.

JermaineDye05
10-10-2007, 04:14 PM
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/1224623127_e7afc655d7.jpg?v=0
"Scott, We'll have lunch next week".


I actually think part of the reason Hendry signed Lou was because he knew that he and A-Rod are very close (Father/Son relationship) and that A-Rod would be leaving NY after this year.

Not a doubt in my mind that Lou talks to A-Rod and he probably told him he wants to play for him again. Lou then takes that info to Hendry behind closed doors and it stays there until A-Rod walks.

Not a doubt in my mind that the Cubs will be huge players in this, if not the front-runners for him.

I doubt it, the Cubs spent so much money this off season on Soriano and mediocre pitching. I really don't see how they can spend almost all of what they spent last year or more on A-Rod. The Cubs have no place to put him, they have 'Rodrigo' Ramirez at 3rd and Theriot at short. If A-Rod opts out I see him headed to the west coast.

thomas35forever
10-10-2007, 04:15 PM
Hooray! The Cubune headline thread can last for another year!

spiffie
10-10-2007, 04:16 PM
The Cubs have no place to put him, they have...Theriot at short.
That might be the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.

It's Time
10-10-2007, 04:18 PM
they have 'Rodrigo' Ramirez at 3rd and Theriot at short. If A-Rod opts out I see him headed to the west coast.

Theriot would just move to 2nd and Derossa to right. No way the Coob keeps J. Jones in RF again.

It's Time
10-10-2007, 04:21 PM
That might be the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.

:hawk
"Where would he play?". :roflmao:

JermaineDye05
10-10-2007, 04:23 PM
That might be the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.

Well obviously you take A-Rod over Theriot, I'm not that dumb. I'm just saying they don't have a need for a shortstop or another right handed power hitter. The Cubs need a left handed power hitter, another starter probably and much improved outfield. I just feel teams who really could use a power hitting 3B/SS would bid more then the Cubs for A-Rod, teams like the Angels or Dodgers.

voodoochile
10-10-2007, 04:41 PM
And then it is win next year or else the team is ****ed for a decade.

Two things...

First, it would drive the price of the franchise through the roof. Rich dumbasses would be salivating to own a team with those two players on it, especially ones who simply want the status of owning a team and don't really understand baseball that well.

Second, since when has long term planning and building a farm system been a flubbie priority and if they were truly able to add those two players with no loss of current talent then next year they'd be the shoe in favorite to win it all.

It's Time
10-10-2007, 04:43 PM
if they were truly able to add those two players with no loss of current talent then next year they'd be the shoe in favorite to win it all.

:?: VC,

How do you figure this?

tebman
10-10-2007, 04:45 PM
Two things...

First, it would drive the price of the franchise through the roof. Rich dumbasses would be salivating to own a team with those two players on it, especially ones who simply want the status of owning a team and don't really understand baseball that well.

Second, since when has long term planning and building a farm system been a flubbie priority and if they were truly able to add those two players with no loss of current talent then next year they'd be the shoe in favorite to win it all.

And there you have it. The Tribune might hit the billion-dollar mark on their Cubs auction if that happened.

Then they could pay their tax bill. :redneck

voodoochile
10-10-2007, 04:50 PM
:?: VC,

How do you figure this?

Well their starting rotation would be Santana, Zabrano, Hill, Lilly and whogivesa**** and their offense would be massively bolstered by adding the best bat in the majors.

Past that it might take a few minor tweaks, but they'd definitely be a favorite for the NL pennant at least.

WSox73
10-10-2007, 04:51 PM
I doubt it, the Cubs spent so much money this off season on Soriano and mediocre pitching. I really don't see how they can spend almost all of what they spent last year or more on A-Rod. The Cubs have no place to put him, they have 'Rodrigo' Ramirez at 3rd and Theriot at short. If A-Rod opts out I see him headed to the west coast.


They probably could move 'Rodrico' to the west coast. Maybe they would
even move Lee with him.

WizardsofOzzie
10-10-2007, 05:37 PM
Please lord let them go on a spending spree of epic proportions, miss the playoffs and be massive screwed for years to come :praying:

TDog
10-10-2007, 06:50 PM
... next year they'd be the shoe in favorite to win it all.

I'm sure they would be, without question. One must consider, though, what that would be worth. Certainly neither remaining National League team this year was the favorite to win it all. The Cardinals were the favorites last year. The White Sox weren't the favorites in 2005. The 2003 Marlins or the 2002 Angels weren't favored to win it all. Keeping with the pattern, in 2004, oddly enough, the Cubs were the favorite to win it all, as documented by a Sports Illustrated cover that occasionally resurfaces in WTS threads.

I don't believe the Cubs can afford to simply add Rodriguez. Trading for Santana wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility, but such a trade with the Twins wouldn't free up salary space for Rodriguez. The Twins don't want to drive up their payroll, and the highest paid Cubs probably have at least limited no-trade clauses.

I'm not sure the Cubs would be more attractive to buyers if the team were committed to a Yankee-esque payroll. Potential buyers who might buy the team for purposes of ego with willingness to lose potentially millions in order to have a winner would be the sort the other owners in baseball would not want to join their club. One George Steinbrenner is bad enough, and in recent years, he has been pushed to the limit and can't afford to build a Yankees team without holes. Players would want another ownership willing to drive up salaries, but rejecting such a potential owner would be the only legal collustion collective baseball management could exercise.

I'm sure more than a couple of current baseball owners feel this way.

A more acceptable ownership group -- one looking not to lose money -- would have to factor in the backloaded contracts.

KyWhiSoxFan
10-10-2007, 06:57 PM
I would much rather see them owned by an inept owner (see Tribune Co.) than one who is skilled, shrewd, and baseball savvy and can take the team to a championship. Let the 100-year rain(clouds) continue.

cws05champ
10-11-2007, 11:18 AM
:?: VC,

How do you figure this?

Wouldn't any half-way decent team that added Santana and A-Rod be the favorites? I'm mean, if this were bizzarro world and the Sox added both of those guys; you don't think we would be the favorites with that Lineup and picthing?
Bizzarro world lineup: Owens, Fields, A-Rod, Thome, Konerko, Dye, AJ, Crede, Richar
Bizzarro rotation: Santana, Vasquez, Buehrle, Garland, Contreras

Flight #24
10-11-2007, 11:22 AM
Wouldn't any half-way decent team that added Santana and A-Rod be the favorites? I'm mean, if this were bizzarro world and the Sox added both of those guys; you don't think we would be the favorites with that Lineup and picthing?
Bizzarro world lineup: Owens, Fields, A-Rod, Thome, Konerko, Dye, AJ, Crede, Richar
Bizzarro rotation: Santana, Vasquez, Buehrle, Garland, Contreras

You think any team with Carlos Vasquez as their #2 starter is a legit WS contender?

russ99
10-11-2007, 12:17 PM
What makes anyone think the Twins are interested in dealing Santana and/or the Cubs having anyone decent enough in their system that the Twins would want?

Pie & a starter won't get it done.


A-Rod would be a possibility, but I forsee a fire-sale of Marlins-like levels with a new owner if the Cubs fold with A-rod on the team, which could be likely.

russ99
10-11-2007, 12:20 PM
Maybe they would even move Lee with him.

That would be a mistake on an epic scale. If the Cubs want to get rid of Derrick Lee, I'm sure there's 29 other teams that would love to have him, the White Sox included.

johnr1note
10-11-2007, 01:57 PM
And isn't Soriano's and Lilly's contracts already heavily backloaded? How much of this can the Tribune pawn off on the future ownership? A-Rod is going to want big money, as in highest-paid-player-in-baseball-history money, and even if he gets it backloaded, it will cost the Cubs plenty. The lure of bringing the Cubs their first title might be tempting, but is it THAT much of pull? My guess is the Tribune will stay the course, and prepare to transfer power over as soon as practicable.

cws05champ
10-11-2007, 03:44 PM
And isn't Soriano's and Lilly's contracts already heavily backloaded? How much of this can the Tribune pawn off on the future ownership? A-Rod is going to want big money, as in highest-paid-player-in-baseball-history money, and even if he gets it backloaded, it will cost the Cubs plenty. The lure of bringing the Cubs their first title might be tempting, but is it THAT much of pull? My guess is the Tribune will stay the course, and prepare to transfer power over as soon as practicable.

I just don't get A-rod...I know he is the best hitter in baseball, and he is probably the best player in his generation. But how much is enough? Is $27 Mil a year not enough? He has already set up his family for generations to come. Has he learned nothing from the $250M contract he signed....that any other team other than the Yankees or Red Sox will be strapped to add any other quality players around him because of his salary. Just two years ago he was asking the Players Assoc. to take less money to go to the Red Sox and now he wants to break the bank again! Borassss is bad for baseball.

spiffie
10-11-2007, 03:53 PM
I just don't get A-rod...I know he is the best hitter in baseball, and he is probably the best player in his generation. But how much is enough? Is $27 Mil a year not enough? He has already set up his family for generations to come. Has he learned nothing from the $250M contract he signed....that any other team other than the Yankees or Red Sox will be strapped to add any other quality players around him because of his salary. Just two years ago he was asking the Players Assoc. to take less money to go to the Red Sox and now he wants to break the bank again! Borassss is bad for baseball.
Yes, its all the fault of Scott Boras. Alex Rodriguez would play for free if it weren't for that evil bastard.

I suspect his contract will be lower than last time though if it is true the Yankees have no interest in bidding on the open market. However, I don't truly believe that for a second.

jortafan
10-11-2007, 04:52 PM
is gammons sources sportsbusinessdaily which had the story yesterday?
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=sbd.preview&storyId=SBD2007100914

For that matter, Crain's Chicago Business had the story on Monday.

johnr1note
10-12-2007, 10:21 AM
As I was thinking some more about this, another "wild card" in the whole Cubs sale came to mind.

I'm not an accountant. I'm an attorney by trade, and I'm involved in a lot of industrial type real estate development. Its my understanding that there have been some recent changes to the rules involving depreciation connected with the sale of a business and property connected with a business, and the lease back of property involved in that business.

I know I'm mumbling, but I discussed this with some accountants I work with.

I understand that the Tribune wants to sell the Cubs, but NOT Wrigley Field. Is this true?

If it is true, then I would expect the Tribune would lease the ballpark back to the Cubs as a revenue source.

The rules on depreciating this asset as retained by the Tribune require that the amount of the lease be based on the existing revenue for that asset prior to the sale. My accounting buddies looked at Cubs' revenue connected with the entire team, and then with just Wrigley Field, and he estimated that under the new rules, the amount the Cubs would have to pay to rent Wrigley could potentially exceed the debt service on everything else.

I'm trying to explain something i don't really understand -- but the reality is, if the Cubs are sold and the Tribune retains Wrigley Field, the Cubs could be hard pressed to pay for free agents for years to come.

tebman
10-12-2007, 10:36 AM
I understand that the Tribune wants to sell the Cubs, but NOT Wrigley Field. Is this true?

If it is true, then I would expect the Tribune would lease the ballpark back to the Cubs as a revenue source.

The rules on depreciating this asset as retained by the Tribune require that the amount of the lease be based on the existing revenue for that asset prior to the sale. My accounting buddies looked at Cubs' revenue connected with the entire team, and then with just Wrigley Field, and he estimated that under the new rules, the amount the Cubs would have to pay to rent Wrigley could potentially exceed the debt service on everything else.

I'm trying to explain something i don't really understand -- but the reality is, if the Cubs are sold and the Tribune retains Wrigley Field, the Cubs could be hard pressed to pay for free agents for years to come.
If this turns out to be true it would further confirm the rapacious nature of the Tribune's management. The Tribune is in the advertising and deal-making business, with journalism as a side interest that's used as a fig leaf to cover a lot of what it does. The Columbia Journalism Review said the same thing (http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2007/1/editorial.asp) earlier this year in an essay that said the Tribune should get out of the newspaper business because the "Tribune has great resources, but those resources arenít doing much public good."

But I don't think would the Tribune would let the Cubs choke on the rent. The company has invested too much energy promoting them for the last 25 years.

Lip Man 1
10-12-2007, 01:30 PM
Early in their tenure, Jerry Reinsdorf and company actually sold Comiskey Park to some of his investing partners and then rented the use of it from them at a very resonable rate.

If memory serves it had something to do with a tax break by doing this.

Don't know if that is still true but that could play a factor in this (if acceptable to both parties.)

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
10-13-2007, 10:48 AM
But I don't think would the Tribune would let the Cubs choke on the rent. The company has invested too much energy promoting them for the last 25 years.

Well, they've done more to promote the "Wrigley Field experience" than the actual team itself.

gosox41
10-14-2007, 01:26 AM
Tribune will spend someone else's money like a drunk sailor if true.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Trib will now be owned by Sam Zell, so won't he also own the Cubs until he sells it to pay down some of the debt?

I think Zell will do what is necessary to enhance value to the team as he needs to sell the Cubs for as much as possible.



Bob