Ivy Chat

It Keeps Getting Better

2011-11-18T09:12:00.001-06:00

It's been nearly a flawless offseason for the Cubs. Theo Epstein is here and he's brought with him a cavalcade of management stars. Jed Hoyer is the GM to do the dirty work of dealing with the media and the 29 other baseball GMs every day. Jason McLeod will attempt to remove the Hendry from Oneri Fleita and Tim Wilken (aside: what are they still doing here? Weren't we told they were too loyal to Hendry to stay if he left?). And new manager Dale Sveum will babysit the clubhouse as everyone not named Garza, Castro and Cashner consults out of town real estate agents.

This could not have possibly gone any better for Tom Ricketts. His tenure as owner to date was not exactly inspiring. He needed a quick turnaround in the franchise's direction or things could have spiraled down and gone out of control.

Theo's hire, and the hires that followed, reversed that trend sharply. How sharply?

To the point that the press looks at this story and sees money to renovate Wrigley Field as a real possibility.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is dumping all three city members of the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority — including former Mayor Richard M. Daley’s nephew — in a housecleaning that could set the stage to renegotiate the White Sox lease, modify its restaurant deal and, possibly, have the state acquire and renovate Wrigley Field.
...
As a first step, none of the new members will accept the perks that come with the job: discounted tickets; free food and beverages; special parking privileges and access to skyboxes for non-charity events.

Nice to see more of the Daley cronyism fading away. But, how likely is more money for Wrigley Field? The article is pretty silent. It focuses mostly on the White Sox sweetheart lease, a lease that, according to the article, "requires the Sox to pay just $1.5 million in annual rent."

What does it say about the Cubs?

(Emanuel's) board members could attempt to revive a failed 2008 plan to have the state acquire and renovate Wrigley Field. Emanuel wants to find a way to save 97-year-old Wrigley without forfeiting 35 years' worth of amusement tax growth. The mayor has called that Cubs' plan a "non-starter."

So, there really is no plan or structure currently being floated, but Crain's sees turnover at ISFA as a sign of good things for the Cubs.

Just maybe nothing has happened at all yet, but the Cubs new reputation is so good that Crain's just assumes plans are being made? That's a fairly logical assumption.

And it speaks volumes about the good will that Theo Epstein has injected into this franchise.

Staying on a Theme

2011-10-28T09:57:00.000-05:00

IvyChat has come across a recording of Theo Epstein's exit interview in Boston:

Theo Epstein: Last night we said a great many things. You said you were going to do the thinking for both of us. Well, I've done a lot of it since then, and it all adds up to one thing: I’m getting on that plane for Chicago.

Larry Lucchino: But, Theo, no, I... I...

Theo: Now, you've got to listen to me! You have any idea what you'd have to look forward to if I stayed here? Nine chances out of ten, we'd wind up in third place again. Isn't that true, Ben?

Ben Cherrington: I'm afraid Andrew Friedman and Brian Cashner would insist.

Larry: You're saying this only to make me let you go.

Theo: I'm saying it because it's true. Inside of us, we both know you‘ll be better off with Ben. He's part of your work, the thing that keeps the Red Sox going. If that plane leaves the ground and I'm still working here, you'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.

Larry: But what about us?

Theo: We'll always have 2004 and 2007. What we had left, we lost when Papelbon blew the season in Baltimore.

Larry: When I said I would never fire you...

Theo: And you never will. But I've got a job to do, too. Where I'm going, you can't follow. What I've got to do, you can't be any part of. Crane Kenney won't allow it. Larry, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people, you, me and John Henry, don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that.

[Larry lowers his head and begins to cry]

Theo: Now, now... Here's looking at your new kid.

Here's Looking To You, Kid

2011-10-28T09:44:00.000-05:00

Of all the baseball parks, in all the towns, in all the world, he walks into ours. About time.

On Tuesday, the Chicago Cubs introduced Theo Epstein as the guy to fix the organization. He gave a masterful press conference answering most of the questions posed smartly and professionally. Others, ones that related to specific actions he would take in the near term, he deferred deftly and appropriately. In short, not even the most jaded of Cubs fans could listen to Theo and not feel confidence that this 38 year old has the ability to modernize this baseball organization. It was a memorable debut. I remember every detail. The Cubs wore blue, Theo wore gray.

What was the most exciting thing to hear was the focus on development. Scouting will be based on a foundation of metrics, not just a round up of the usual prospects. How refreshing.

Theo and his staff have a ton of work ahead of them. He, new GM Jed Hoyer, and new scouting and player development director Jason McLeod will be shocked, shocked to find baseball mismanagement going on here. They are going to probably have to hire all new minor league scouts and coaches. One hopes the focus on fundamentals will lead to fans being able to watch good, solid, consistent play.

What is also hoped is that the Cub fans will give Theo's team a chance to really build this from a weak team into a strong organization. If you listened closely we were told that there will be no quick fixes. There will be no Prince Fielders or C.J. Wilsons or Albert Pujols in the near future. Aramis Ramirez, Ryan Dempster and Carlos Zambrano may end up in other uniforms sooner rather than later. It will be a tough slog for a few years. But, as time goes by, this will change. The plan is for the "Cub Way" to represent consistency and quality rather than another new way to lose.

Welcome to Chicago, Theo. I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Big Time Move

2011-10-12T08:00:00.050-05:00

At about 6 PM Chicago time last night, all hell broke loose on Twitter (you can follow me there @ivychat) with the cross posting of Steve Buckley's Boston Herald article:

Two baseball sources have confirmed that Theo Epstein is on the cusp of leaving his job as general manager of the Red Sox to accept a position with the Chicago Cubs that is believed to include powers greater than he has in Boston, with an announcement expected to be made "within the next 24 to 48 hours."

Now, this isn't a done deal yet. There's still the possibility that Tom Ricketts will go Full McCaskey and make this McGinnisGate II. But if they don't, this signing will go down as the biggest acquisition for the Cubs franchise since Dallas Green acquired Rick Sutcliffe. That move by Green told the world that the Cubs weren't screwing around anymore.

This move is a little different. If the Ricketts get Theo, it's because they can't afford to screw around anymore. The days of Jim Hendry's lack of organizational development, Crane Kenney's douchbaggery, and Mike Quade's sheer cluelessness are over.

Empty seats always bring change. In 2006, empty seats brought Lou Piniella, Ted Lilly, Jason Marquis, and Alfonso Soriano. In 2011, the empty seats brought the Ricketts something they didn't expect.

Fear.

When they bought the team, the Ricketts believed they had a cash cow. They believed as Tom told his dad: They sell out every game, win or lose. After 2 seasons of ownership and having a winning record for 48 hours of that time, the sellouts were over.

The Ricketts, who want, more than anything else, to be multi-generational owners, discovered they had more risks than they realized. They need to repay debt and they need another $300 million to rebuild their crumbling, outdated physical plant known as Wrigley Field.

With attendance down, cash flow fell and debt became harder to service. Furthermore, with fans avoiding the park, it would be impossible to get new Mayor Rahm Emanuel to sign off on a tax grab. Why give $300 million in a down economy with record city deficits to support a venue, owned by billionaires, that no one is using?

They had to do something.

Were this 2006, the answer would be easy. Albert Pujols in left, Prince Fielder at first and CC Sabathia and CJ Wilson on the mound. That's not possible now. What is?

A face of a winner. This face.

Hiring Theo works for the Cubs and the Ricketts on multiple levels. With the Red Sox, he's built a successful organization. He's won two titles. He's worked with a city to update a landmark baseball stadium. And he's done all this in a major media market.

That means that Theo brings the gravitas, and political cover, to allow Emanuel to give the Ricketts their tax grab. This doesn't mean the tax financing is a done deal, but Andrew Friedman or Josh Byrnes or Rick Hahn don't have the resume to give Rahm the help needed. Only Theo Epstein and Brian Cashman have the background to get this done.

If Theo Epstein is introduced as the Cubs next President of Baseball Operations, the Ricketts have bought themselves more than just a GM. They've bought credibility. And probably a cashier's check in the amount of $300 million.

If they blow this, they better get Cashman. Or they better get ready to run back to Omaha.

The multi-generational ownership plan will likely be determined in the next few days.

Buh Bye

2011-08-19T10:44:00.001-05:00

In what was the Ricketts' family's best move since refinancing some of their bank debt, Jim Hendry has been dismissed as General Manager of the Chicago Cubs.

Now, this move comes two years later than it should have. When the Ricketts got the team in 2009, they should have either fired Hendry on the spot or extended his contract. Instead, they dithered and blew two minor league drafts and millions on Milton Bradley.

That said, if you are going to change GMs, now was the perfect time to do it.

See, the best time to hire a new GM is right after a draft and signing period is complete. If you bring in the new GM just before the draft, the new guy is most likely unprepared and will have to conduct the draft using the scouts and data from the previous regime. That's not a good idea since the new GM will have his own scouting and development people he wants to hire and his own metrics to select new players.

You also don't want to hire the new GM during the post-draft signing period as the old GM will have already talked to agents for the draftees and has managed all the negotiations. A new GM hired post-draft but during the signing period could be a recipe for disaster.

Either way, you could blow a whole draft year by changing close to the draft.

The best time to change is right now. The new GM gets a full year to get his scouts in place for the draft and 8 to 10 weeks to review the organization and determine off-season free agent needs. If you wait to the end of the season, you cost your new GM the chance to see your minor leaguers in play and shorten his free agency prep.

Jim Hendry's disastrous reign is over. Hope once again springs eternal at Wrigley. And the Ricketts finally did something right.

If At First You Don't STIF Us... Try, Try, Again

2011-08-18T14:27:00.000-05:00

Crain's runs with a new story on the Ricketts latest attempts to get public financing to fix Wrigley Field.

The details are really the same as the old story. What do they want? $200 million, same as last time. How do they want it? There's the amusement-tax revenues. This is called Sales Tax Increment Financing or STIF. That method diverts the growth in tax receipts that are used for general municipal purposes into the Ricketts hands. Then, there's the sales or property-tax subsidy. This is actually a bigger giveaway than the STIF as it doesn't just take the growth in taxes, it takes taxes already collected and redirects them from schools and roads to the Ricketts. Lastly, they suggest bonds issued by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority. Why tax bonds? Because those bonds carry a lower interest expense than private bonds. I'm sure a lot of private entities would like that.

The reality is that the State of Illinois, Cook County, and City of Chicago are all running budget deficits. To divert money from public uses to a private enterprise, one that knew that Wrigley needed rehabbing when they bought the team two years ago, is insane.

It's also certain that a guy like Joe Ricketts, who is the leader and primary funder of the Ending Spending Fund, would despise such a project.

The Ricketts are going to smile and talk about how Wrigley is an economic engine that creates jobs and brings in tourist dollars. That's going to be a hard sell given the empty seats this year and little expectation of improvement for next year.

All the news in this story is really that the Ricketts have decided that the time is right to renew their request for taxpayer dollars. Like the decision to change the front office, they've dithered so long that their request looks even more silly now than it did the last time they asked.

Let History Be The Guide

2011-08-03T06:58:00.001-05:00

The conventional wisdom on the Cubs have changed over the past two weeks. The Cubs inability and/or unwillingness to trade even tradable guys (Sean Marshall, Marlon Byrd, Carlos Pena) has certainly flipped a switch amongst even the most forgiving of fans and media types (save Gordon Wittenmyer).

Tonight, Cubs Insider on ChicagoNow (HT: Dave Kaplan) talks about was the inaction due to Jim Hendry's hands being tied? Cubs Insider quotes Bruce Levine, mouthpiece for Jim Hendry:

(T)he Cubs need some direction from above Jim Hendry. Either make a commitment Jim or move on to next management group and let them come up with game plan. Right now Hendry and Co. are in the in-between mode, and you're not going to accomplish very much that way.

I would not necessarily agree on Carlos Pena and Ramirez. I think again ownership has to identify a direction. If Hendry is coming back for last yer of his contract, he should be extended or let go. It's not fair to him or the organization to hold a team in limbo.

Since Levine has a direct line to Hendry, this could mean two things. First, Hendry is making up a story as to why he didn't make a move. "It's the owners who won't let me do anything!"

This fits with Hendry's operating methods from the past. Just look at how he's defended himself from the Alfonso Soriano signing. "It's not me, it was all that John McDonough guy that did that! Don't blame me!"

Another possibility is that this is true and Tom Ricketts can't decide what to do. Unfortunately, the level of Tom Ricketts management skills is largely unknown. We know that he graduated late from college. We know that his company, Incapital, wasn't terribly successful for a long time.

Google also turns up this bit of info from Forbes back in 2002:

Tom Ricketts has a great idea for selling bonds to individual investors. So how come he waited so long to sign up clients?

Thomas Ricketts is a potent argument against sitting on your hands. The onetime marketmaker in options came up with the idea of using the Internet to aggregate supply and demand for a security most retail investors wouldn't think to buy--corporate bonds. (Only 12% of the $3.7 trillion in corporate bonds is in the hands of individuals.) He helped launch the system in 1996 as a vice president at ABN-Amro. It took him three years get up the gumption to quit and start his own company, Incapital LLC.

Ricketts rounded up companies eager to borrow and brought them to brokers, who then sold bonds in blocks as small as $1,000 to investors. Besides tapping new investors, corporations benefited by shaving a point or two off the usual underwriting spread and by offering slightly lower yields than they would have offered on identical issues sold to institutions. Investors liked the system because the bonds were sold at par and at yields that changed daily--and because they could eventually sell them back to brokers at yields comparable to market prices.

All good in theory. Trouble was, Ricketts wasted nine precious months during 2000, haggling over a $1 million-plus grubstake from Bank of America Technology Investments for an undisclosed minority share of the company. And while his backers delayed, his old employer played: ABN-Amro's LaSalle Broker Dealer Services was selling $2 billion in bonds on the Net. "To watch the product go on without you as you're getting ready to come back into the market, it's not a comfortable feeling," he says. "There was an opportunity cost there; I just wouldn't be able to quantify it."

Try $1 billion worth of business--or more.

This is a guy that has a hard time making decisions.

There's a reason why this blog supported Don Levin first, then Mark Cuban after Levin got outbid for the new owner of the Cubs. They know what they are doing when it comes to managing a sports franchise.

:::UPDATE:::
WSCR's Dan Bernstein chimes on on the same article.

Too Late

2011-07-15T09:41:00.000-05:00

Man, Carlos Marmol blows a 2 run lead recording only 7 strikes in the 25 pitches he throws and Cub Nation has finally seen enough. Not that the 37-55 record going into last night was enough. Not that ownership has been silent other than platitudes was enough. Nope. What did it was Marmol blowing a save. And Mike Quade's comment after the game didn't help:

"Now is not the time or place to be making bold statements about changes." - Mike Quade, Cubs Manager Pro Tempore

The Cubs hashtag in Twitter is alight with people upset and referencing the 2003 NLCS Game 6 similarities and calling for massive change. Even the sycophants at the "Cubs Internet Community" were upset by Quade's comments with the ringleader going so far to say, "Quade and his minor-league coaching staff" are "managing to be liked, not to win."

Dan Bernstein, who was snookered by Tom Ricketts two years ago into believing that the new owners knew Jim Hendry was a problem, is now saying that Hendry will be gone at the end of the season. Internal sources from the Cubs front office tell him that Ricketts will be making a change and simply to discount what Ricketts says publicly.

The problem here is that a change at the end of the season is far too late. Barry Rozner correctly notes today:

(Ricketts allowing Hendry to determine the shape of the 2012 roster with moves that Hendry will make before July 31 — or moves that he’ll choose not to make.

Either way, Hendry is putting in place the pieces or removing those he doesn’t believe are necessary.

He’s also holding on to players who might have great market value because he believes they will be a big part of 2012 and beyond. He may be right or he may be wrong with those choices, but whatever the choices are, they’ll be Hendry’s.

So if Ricketts really has it in mind to make major front-office changes at the end of the season, the changes should have been made already.

Not in October, not in September and not even 15 minutes from now. Those changes should be made immediately.

So speak now, Mr. Ricketts, or forever hold your GM’s hand through another winter, spring and summer.

If changes are made after this season, and if Ricketts fires Hendry then after letting him shape the team now, he’s going to look really foolish and will have some serious explaining to do about why the changes weren’t made in June when the season was obviously over.

Barry's close to being exactly right. Yes, Hendry should not be the GM today and certainly not be allowed to make an roster changes that affect the 2012 rosters at any level of the Cubs organization.

But, if Ricketts has decided to make a change, the time to do so was last month after the draft was complete. A change at that point gives a new GM the maximum amount of time to build a scouting staff for next year's draft as well as give the new GM as big a lead time as possible on the trade deadline to evaluate what talent exists within the system.

It's already past the time to make a change. It should have been done two years ago when the team transferred ownership. The opinion here was that Jim Hendry should have been fired in October 2009 or had his contract extended to really show the Ricketts' confidence in him. Since then, with no extension, Jim Hendry has simply been a lame duck.

Cleaning out the Cubs management team from stem to stern wouldn't be "knee herk," it would be well deserved. And already far too late.

Tom Talks

2011-06-16T09:14:00.000-05:00

Tom Ricketts must have finally had enough of people bitching that he doesn’t have a long term plan for the Cubs and the same people bitching that he should say something about it. So, Tom called an impromptu press conference and promptly admitted that he does have a plan and that it’s the exact plan that led to the 27-40 record the team has posted this year.

"I have 100 percent confidence in Jim. He's working very hard to do everything he can to get this season back where we want it to be."

Just where do you want it to be, Tom? And, while you’ve said, full stop, that you have confidence in Jim Hendry, can you tell us why that confidence is warranted?

"And I think Mike (Quade)'s done a great job. Mike's got those guys playing hard. You know they're not giving up, and there's a good spirit in the clubhouse. So those guys' (jobs) are fine."

Yeah, Mike's done about as can be expected with the talent Hendry gave him. He’s also kept a tight control on the clubhouse. No issues there.

"I think we're not going to wear (the "F**k the Goat" shirts) outside. Kind of the language in it, you've got to be careful. But I'm not too worked up about it."

If only there was a guy in the clubhouse who could police or even manage the players before they take the field.

"I've never bought into the [idea that] I should have a baseball guy to watch my baseball guy. And then what do you get? A baseball guy to watch the baseball guy who’s watching the baseball guy? I really haven’t through about an extra baseball guy. I'm not regretting not having an extra baseball guy."

While you don't regret having a "extra" guy, 27-40 suggests you might regret not having a good one.

"Obviously we don't believe it"s a dump."

Ah, faith. Wrigley Religion. Seen this many times before. Always annoying.

"In fact, Wrigley Field is the third largest tourist attraction in the state, generates $600 million for the business in the area. ... It's not a dump."

Using economic value to gauge the quality of a physical plant is not the correct comparative. Waste Management, National Waste Services, Flood Brothers, Recycling systems Inc. and a host of other companies combine to create a lot of business for the Chicago area, and far more jobs than the Cubs do. And those companies are literally dumps.

"That said, we know that it can be improved. We know we've got a lot of work to do to preserve it and improve it for the fans."

So, it is a dump. Thanks for clearing that up.

"There are a couple of factors (in lower attendance) – obviously the economy and obviously the weather. But the most important thing is I’m not worried about the attendance because if we win, we'll be full. And everything we’re doing is to win."

Didn't your dad say that you told him that they "sell out every game, win or lose"? Someone’s getting tee’d up by his father for Who You Crappin'!

What's becoming more and more apparent about the Ricketts' leadership is that he doesn’t really have a plan for the product on the field. He thought, and sold his family, on the idea that the Cubs were a cash cow that they could buy. They could use the cash flow from an inelastic demand for tickets to pay off the debt they incurred to buy the team over a period of 10 to 15 years, and then the family would have a terrific source of income for generations based in the third largest city in the US that would give them huge business and political connections. Hell, we even saw a guy become a US President after using his dad's money to buy him a baseball team.

What they failed to see was that the demand for tickets stopped being inelastic in about 2006, at least on the basis of quality of team on the field. They also haven't seemed to notice that their front office, that has been here for 17 years, can’t develop talent – a key function that the Ricketts said they needed to do. The failure to see what's really going on inside the business of the Cubs has created an environment where Tom Ricketts is the new Mike McCaskey in this town. That's a reputation that's going to be hard for him to shake.

There's a reason this page was nonplussed about the Ricketts owning the Cubs. That's because we had no idea what kind of owners they would be. At least with Don Levin and Mark Cuban, we fans had a basis for measuring their skills as an owner: The Chicago Wolves and Dallas Mavericks. Those two franchises have had solid runs of success.

That certainly is appearing less and less to be something we can expect from the Ricketts.

Much Ado About Nothing

2011-06-03T11:33:00.000-05:00

With Cubs finances in the papers today, it's time to dust off Ivy Chat for a day. The story reports that the Cubs, among other teams, have too much debt:

(N)ine franchises (are) in violation of MLB's debt service rules, according to information presented in a confidential briefing at the owners meetings last month and confirmed to the Los Angeles Times by three people familiar with the presentation.

The Dodgers and Mets have been in headlines for their troubles and find themselves among the nine with the Cubs. Those three are joined by the Orioles, Tigers, Marlins, Phillies, Rangers and Nationals as teams out of compliance with MLB's rules, according to sources, none of whom was authorized to disclose the information.

Why are the Cubs on this list and what does it mean? Let's look at the rule they are in violation of first:

The rules, intended to ensure clubs have the resources to support their financial obligations, generally limit a team's debt to 10 times its annual earnings, although Commissioner Bud Selig has wide latitude to enforce those rules. Selig declined to comment for this story.

Earnings is used kind of nebulously here. Most likely what is meant here is operating revenues. This number is a company’s total revenues less its operating expenses (payroll, cost of goods sold, marketing expenses, etc.). MLB rules limit total debt to an amount capped at 10 times this number. If the Cubs generate $200 million in revenue, but only make $50 million after expenses, they would be limited to $500 million in debt.

OK, now we know the numbers, what does this mean for the Cubs?

Most likely nothing.

When we go back and look at the Cubs debt situation, we see that total debt is about $674 million. But of that amount, $175 million of the debt is funded by the Ricketts themselves. This debt is really equity, but was designed as debt to help the Tribune Corporation avoid paying taxes purposes on the sale. Another $74 million in subordinated debt might also be structured in such a way that the Cubs don’t have to actually make any cash payments on the debt for years.

The MLB debt calculation most likely includes all the debt and doesn’t distinguish between senior and sub debt. And sub debt is more like equity than a real loan.

One supposes that this story does serve as a reminder that the Cubs do have a lot of debt and that a reasonable person would expect much of the payroll runoff the next two years to not be re-spent. But is this story an alarm bell for anything? No.

In short, there's nothing to see here. Move along.

History Repeating

2011-04-22T08:52:00.000-05:00

The Dodgers are a mess. So big of a mess that Bud Selig had to have Major League Baseball take over the team's operations. This means that the Dodgers are now in a position similar to what the Montral Expos were in. How did they get here? Debt, divorce and really stupid management:

McCourt fired his wife, Jamie, from her position as the team's chief executive officer. She filed for divorce days later and McCourt responded by saying she had an affair with her bodyguard/driver and hadn't been doing her job.

That set up an ugly fight over money and control of the Dodgers that went on for months.

Bob Daly, the team's managing partner from 2000 to 2004, said baseball executives knew McCourt borrowed heavily to buy the team but they assumed he would pay down that debt once he took over. The divorce proceedings revealed that he and his wife paid themselves huge salaries and bought a handful of Southern California properties.

McCourt gave himself a $5 million salary and his ex-wife $2 million, according to evidence at their divorce hearing.

Among their many incidental expenses was a six-figure fee they paid Vladimir Shpunt, a self-described scientist and healer in Boston, to send positive energy across the country to the team. Each of the McCourts has since said it was the other one's idea.

All the drama has left some fans wondering whether the Dodgers are a second-tier team in a run-down stadium that has become increasingly dangerous — so dangerous that the Los Angeles police are now plentiful at the stadium to provide security since the beating of the Giants fan.

Too much debt, a .500 team, a run-down stadium.

Just terrible that this could happen.

Never again?

Cutting Spending

2011-04-15T07:30:00.008-05:00

The Cubs need to maximize attendance, and also the value of the brand, is more than just a simple profit proposition. In acquiring the Cubs, the Ricketts took on a massive amount of debt, in the order of $674 million. Our good friend and former 1060 West blogger Gaius Marius provided a link to this summary of the Cubs debt picture. In short, the debt includes:

$250 million in private placement notes due in staggered maturities through January 2022
$175 million in bank debt due October 2013
$249 million in subordinated debt, of which at least $175 million is owned by the Ricketts

The first two pieces have all the Cubs assets, including Wrigley Field, pledged as collateral for the loan.

While it’s impossible to know exactly what the annual costs are for these loans, we can make a reasonable guess. Interest rates are probably somewhere near 5% for the bank debt, 65 to 7% for the private placement debt, and even higher for the subordinated debt.

Since the Ricketts own the bulk of the sub debt, the payments related to this are really irrelevant. If the Chicago National League Ball Club, Inc. has to cut a check every year to the Ricketts Family Trust, the Ricketts can turn that money right around and put it back into the Cubs.

The private placement notes are trickier. The amortization schedules over the 13 year time period could be very irregular. But, we do know they need to be paid in full by the end of 13 years. We can also guess that none of them mature for at least 5 years. If you figure that the notes are interest only for the first 5 years, then begin to paydown evenly over the next 9 years, we can estimate the private placement debt service like this:

Year	Interest	Principal	Total
2010	$15,000,000.00	$-	$15,000,000.00
2011	$15,000,000.00	$-	$15,000,000.00
2012	$15,000,000.00	$-	$15,000,000.00
2013	$15,000,000.00	$-	$15,000,000.00
2014	$15,000,000.00	$27,777,777.78	$42,777,777.78
2015	$13,333,333.33	$27,777,777.78	$41,111,111.11
2016	$11,666,666.67	$27,777,777.78	$39,444,444.44
2017	$10,000,000.00	$27,777,777.78	$37,777,777.78
2018	$8,333,333.33	$27,777,777.78	$36,111,111.11
2019	$6,666,666.67	$27,777,777.78	$34,444,444.44
2020	$5,000,000.00	$27,777,777.78	$32,777,777.78
2021	$3,333,333.33	$27,777,777.78	$31,111,111.11
2022	$1,666,666.67	$27,777,777.78	$29,444,444.44

The line of credit that is due in 2013 is probably interest only which adds another $8,750,000 in annual debt service. It is possible that there are currently some principal reductions required, but not likely given that the banks were already paid down via the private placement notes. All in, it appears the Cubs annual debt service is close to $24 million per year with a major refinance need in 2013. Furthermore, when that debt is refinanced, it will likely be required to start to amortize beginning in 2014. That could escalate the debt service required beginning in 2014 to over $60 million per year, up from $24 million now.

To sum up, while the Cubs can certainly afford the cost of their debt today, the cash flow requirement is going to escalate dramatically beyond 2013. The key risk to the Ricketts is the bank debt that will need to be refinanced. The terms of that refinancing will be dictated by the cash flows available for debt service. The more cash available after paying for operations, the less risk to a lender. The less risk, the better the terms.

So, how do the Cubs improve cash flows if the seats are empty? There are a few ways. The easiest one is also the most obvious. Cut payroll.

Per Cot's Contracts, the Cubs 2011 payroll is $134,004,000. That drops radically over the next two seasons, which happen to be just before the debt needs to be refinanced. Let's see what goes away::

2011:
Aramis Ramirez - $14,800,000
Kosuke Fukudome - $14,500,000
Carlos Pena - $10,000,000
John Grabow - $4,800,000
Jeff Samarzdija - $3,300,000
Kerry Wood - $1,500,000
Reed Johnson - $900,000
Carlos Silva - $9,250,000
Total: $59,050,000

2012:
Carlos Zambrano - $19,000,000
Ryan Dempster - $14,000,000
Marlon Byrd - $6,500,000
Sean Marshall - $3,100,000
Total: $42,600,000

Grand Total: $101,650,000

That’s a lot of free cash flow. Now, clearly the Cubs won’t just replace those 12 guys with guys salaried at the major league minimum (total cost of about $6 million). Some will go to raises for other players (like Geovany Soto and Carlos Marmol). Some of that money will go to replacements, a few of which might get good sized dollars. As you can see, an Albert Pujols level contract is certainly affordable if payroll is kept flat.

But if evil bankers tell the Ricketts that they need to see more earnings before interest and taxes, payroll could easily be cut. If payroll goes down, minor league development is paramount to keep the team competitive on the field. Unfortunately, Jim Hendry's track record in player development is spotty at best.

Now, payroll is only the easiest way to free up cash flow. Another is to raise revenue. The solution here could raise more bitching than discussion of raising taxes does.

Small Attendance, Big Change

2011-04-08T07:56:00.020-05:00

The Cubs season is off to a ho hum start. While .500 is about where many expect the Cubs to finish, there was certainly hope for a faster start given the Pirates and Diamondbacks as opponents. There has been some gnashing over the temporary loss of Andrew Cashner and Randy Wells, but that's really been a side story. With expectations already low for the team's win total, tertiary matters have been elevated to high profile status. What we're talking about here is the massive drop in the Cubs attendance.

Last year, the Cubs first 6 home games were against Milwaukee and Houston. Tickets sold for the 6 games totaled 236,165 or an average of 39,361 per game. That compares to this year versus Pittsburgh and Arizona of 193,600 or an average of 32,267 per game. Furthermore, last year saw the smallest crowd of over 37,000 and 2 crowds of over 40,000. This year has already seen 2 crowds UNDER 30,000 and only 1 crowd larger than any of last years.

It's also very important to note that these numbers represent tickets sold. Total people at the games have been far fewer. It’s been guestimated that the last three days, total in-the-house attendance was certainly under 15,000 and possibly below 10,000. God help newbie Keith Moreland in the Guess The Attendance Game.

Big deal, you say. This only matters to the Ricketts net worth! It has no bearing on the game on the field.

Hardly. The attendance drop, if sustained, could have huge ramifications on multiple aspects of the Cubs operations. This includes the current players, future players, the front office, and even the future of Wrigley Field itself. Why? Because the Ricketts are in this only because they convinced their father this this was a good business investment.

According to Papa Joe Ricketts himself, the way Tom convinced Dad to get into a business which dad knew nothing about was the point that the Cubs, “sell every ticket, every game, win or lose." Furthermore, Tom told Dad, "(Tom) does tell me that, 'We got the ingredients, Dad. We got the management and we got the players, so we've got the ingredients to win a World Series.'"

Well, the team has spent a grand total of 24 hours with a winning record since the Ricketts purchased the team. Tickets are not sold. $12 million is being sent to Carlos Silva to do nothing but sit on his duff. And Wrigley Field sill needs $250 million in renovations with the probability of getting tax money to pay for it somewhere between slim and none.

With all of this happening, it's not a stretch to think Dad will insist on a change in the status quo. The Cubs have cash flow needs. These are not the days of the Tribune where a massively profitable parent company was looking for cheap programming for two of its media outlets and some additional profits to send upstream. The Ricketts have debt to pay. Massive amounts of debt.

According to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_land.html), the Cubs have the highest debt-to-enterprise ratio of any team in baseball at 75%. This debt isn't that much of a problem so long as the team generates enough sales and ancillary revenues to service the debt. But, if cash flow becomes tight, the Ricketts will have to rely on personal net worth to pay back debt. That's easy, you think. They're billionaires. So were the Wilpons and McCourts.

The drop in attendance is only the latest sign that the Cubs brand is suffering through some serious attrition. We also know that the Cubs Convention didn't sell out and that TV ratings were off 39% last year. A deteriorating brand leads to deteriorating revenues which leads to the cash flow problems described above.

Which leads to the need for additional equity in the form of cash.

The Ricketts will certainly look to shield their personal balance sheets from the Cubs' corporate financials. Over the next few posts, we'll try to see how they might do this.

The Beginning of the End?

2011-04-01T08:59:00.002-05:00

Upgrading Your Box

2011-03-07T16:00:00.000-06:00

Things just keep getting tougher for the Ricketts. Not only do they have a hand out to the state for funds to fix up Wrigley Field, but they also are asking their primary customers to shell out more bucks as well. What do the season ticket holdsrs have to do now? Nothing. They aren't the main customers.

The big kahunas for the Cubs are the skybox owners. Why? They are the only people in the park with multi-year contracts for tickets. They also have the deepest pockets.

While the Cubs can only have so much certainty that some shlub will fork over a few thousand dollars to sit in the bleachers every day, there's always the chance that said shlub could lose his job and not be able to afford the luxury that is Major League Baseball tickets.

The better bet is to get a good corporation to sign a three or five year contract to take not only more tickets than the shlub (say 15 per game versus the shlub's 2), but to pay premium rent for the skybox itself. The best part of this deal is that the Cubs don't have to have Tom Ricketts send an apology letter to the skybox lessors every year because these companies are in the box for the long haul.

How much are the boxes? Well, according to one suite holder, "...who asked not to be identified, said his company pays in the neighborhood of $200,000 for the 15-person suite. 'And that doesn't include food,' he said."

What's the problem now? It seems some of the suites have become a little shabby. One renter asked if they could do some upgrades themselves and were granted permission. The Cubs saw the improvements and figured they would ask everyone else if they would like an upgrade too, so long as the Cubs don't pay for it.

It's understandable that the Cubs don't want to spend their own money on upgrades if the State of Illinois might soon decide to pay for it. But with a 5th place finish last year, season ticket renewal rates down, and Opening Day not yet sold out (you can get 4 seats together in section 38 as of this writing), shouldn't the Cubs be giving their best customers something rather than asking for donations?

Through The Years

2011-03-02T08:41:00.015-06:00

Some of the Cubs new marketing is out and it's quite a change from last year's "YEAR ONE" campaign.

See, last year, the Ricketts message was that this was going to be a fresh start. We're not 101 years from a title. We are actually just starting! Everything is going to be new! Fresh! Hopeful!

It was an incredibly arrogant and condescending campaign. First, it made the season all about the Ricketts. It's THEIR first year, see? And it made light of the fans who have been waiting and waiting (and paying and paying) for parts of two centuries. Yeah, you all have been waiting, but so what? It's all new and exciting now! There's hope! Notice that there no talk of the team or the players last year. At least when the Trib bought the team, they had the class to say that the Cubs were "Coming Out Of Hibernation!" The message: Yeah, the team has sucked, but it's going to be better now. With the Ricketts, we're not better, we're just pushing the reset button. All that other stuff doesn't matter. It's Year One!

Well, Year One led to 5th place. And the hope and change the Ricketts brought with them turned into the exit of the manager. Lou Piniella was replaced by Mike Quade, a guy already here. And the front office management that took a team from 97 wins to 76 wins in two years all remained in place.

So much for change.

Realizing this, the Ricketts now realize that they can't sell hope and change when there is none. Given their statements about growing confidence in Jim Hendry who has twice turned playoff teams into disasters in only two seasons, there's little reason to believe change is coming (and how could there be when Dad Ricketts was told by Kid Tom that the players and management was in place to win).

What's the response?

New marketing. The focus?

Did she really say 100 years? Isn't this Year Two?

Number Two sure sounds right.

Spring Training Workouts

2011-02-17T14:41:00.000-06:00

SportsDome is in the Cubs camp and focusing on efforts to improv Alfonso Soriano's play.

Onion SportsDome

Let Get This Started Again

2011-02-16T07:20:00.000-06:00

Spring training is underway. Baseball news is abundant! That mean that Cubs baseball blogging should get going again, right?

Well, we could discuss the Carlos Marmol contract. Good signing. 'Nuff said.

We could review Matt Garza joining the Cubs. Nice, and he'll be here a while. Anything else? Nope.

People have speculated that Alfonso Soriano could be traded to the Rangers for Michael Young. That would be a really exciting prospect, but then you realize that the speculation comes from Phil Rogers. And you ignore it after that.

Albert Pujols speculation is running rampant that he could join the Cubs in 2012 as a free agent. Can the 2012 talk wait until at least the day after Opening Day?

It seems there's not much to discuss with this Cubs team since they finished in fifth place a year ago and Jim Hendry's "three of four solid moves" ended up being only one. If only management would say something about what their expectations were.

Jim Hendry did come out this week and say that they "expect to contend" for the NL Central title. Man, he has to lower expectations so much he can't even say that he expects to win.

What are the Ricketts saying? Well, Tom did grant an interview to a salivating Cubs Game Fan. It was torn to shreds over at Desipio in three parts (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3). But Tom did say one interesting thing:

Q: What would you say your goals are now for the next year?

Tom: First and foremost, we want to start wrestling this Wrigley issue to the ground. I think we owe it to everyone to take these issue head on and try to get through them. Obviously, always improving as a team on the field. Looking at ways that we can get better; I think that's something that just never ends. With respect to the in-game experience that's sort of a thing that never ends. Obviously, the Ambassadors, we tried a lot of stuff. We did a lot of surveys for the first time. We're really trying to understand what we can do better in the park on an ongoing basis.

Not one word about winning. Not one. All of it focused on the Wrigley Experience.

Now, let's just hope Tom knew his audience and interviewer and knew just how to suck up to this part of the fan base (the part that buys season tickets win or lose - the kind of fans Tom told his Dad the Cubs had when he got Dad to pony up to buy the team).

But it's been 16 months since the Ricketts bought the team. So far, they've talked bathrooms and bonds. Not baseball.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Sadness

2011-02-07T08:51:00.000-06:00

As the NFL heads to hiatus, possibly for a long time, a familiar face continues his battle.

William Perry used to make everyone smile. Not so much anymore.

Sometimes the Headlines Write Themselves

2011-01-18T14:47:00.001-06:00

If only it were a Photoshop...

Conventional Wisdom

2011-01-14T15:40:00.000-06:00

This writer (well, not much of one the last few months - at least in terms of volume) will be forced to miss the Cubs Convention this weekend. It just as well, Paul Sullivan tells us that at the Convention, "Cubs players and executives meet with the Chicago media in a social setting for interviews and small talk. Fans and bloggers are not allowed, with the exception of the blog that lauds every move of the Ricketts and the Cubs' higher-ups."

Frankly, the Cubs aren't very interesting right now, especially with the prospect of a Bears playoff game with the potential future of a Bears-Packers NFC title game.

Excitement for this weekend's Bears game seems to be light. Everyone seems to be waiting for the next game. Perhaps they see Seattle and aren't interested because Seattle is a poor excuse for a playoff football team. Perhaps they look at this team and see a flawed team and coaching staff and aren't getting their hopes up.

Well, the reality is that teams that people didn't think were good enough to win Superbowls have gone and just won them anyway. It's happened many times. Even as recently as the Giants defeating the BEST TEAM EVAR Patriots.

Why not the 2010 Bears?

Sure seems to be more interesting to see if this team gets lucky than mucking around an undersold hotel, especially if you aren't a suck up.

25 Years Ago Today...

2011-01-12T14:15:00.002-06:00

Yeah, this site has been dark for a while. Hopefully, that ends soon. Until then, enjoy...

From "World Champions: The Story of the 1985 Chicago Bears"

I Just Want To Wish Him Luck. We're All Counting On Him

2010-11-30T21:32:00.002-06:00

Leslie Nielsen (1926 - 2010)

A very belated tribute to one of the all time funny men who had a magnificent second act to his career.

Papa Ricketts Speaks

2010-11-24T12:02:00.002-06:00

A friend alerted Ivy Chat to a speech Joe Ricketts, patriarch of the Ricketts fame, gave a while ago. It was recorded and the video was posted on YouTube for posterity. In the speech, Joe gave some very revealing information on the new ownership of the Cubs. Very troubling information.

First, we learn that Tom Ricketts screwed around while at the University of Chicago. And he screwed around at Wrigley Field.

"(Tom) did not graduate in four years. He did not graduate on time."

Not only didn't Tom graduate on time, but he didn't bother to tell his parents who showed up at graduation that he wasn't going to graduate! "I'm not going to get my sheepskin!" said Tom to Dad. Thank goodness for Brother Pete getting it for Tom and delivering it as a Christmas present.

Why was Tom late getting his piece of sheep? Well, he was at too many baseball games.

"I'm listening to my son tell me all of the games he went to and how he got sucked in and I said, 'Tom! It just occurred to me I paid a fortune for you to go to school and you came over here and watched baseball.' 'Yeah dad, but it turned out OK, right?'"

Yeah, Tom. It turned out just fine. As it would for anyone else who had a billionaire for a father.

Now, Dad starts to talk about the sale.

"Why would I want to buy a baseball team? Or any sports team. I'm not a fan. I'm not a spectator."

So, Joe not only doesn't know what he’s getting into, he also says why would *I* want to buy a team. Not "we" or "the family" as Tom is so fond of saying. Joe knows that this is his team. Sure, maybe the kids will run it, but this is his investment. What this tells us is that major decisions about the team, at least those requiring outlays of cash, are going to have to be cleared through dad.

So, how does Tom get Dad's attention? Money.

"Let me tell you dad. They sell every ticket, every game, win or lose."

Let's ignore whether or not this is factually correct (it really isn't and Aisle 424 has a decent breakdown of the historical attendance). What got Dad’s attention was cash flow.

Huge red flag if you are a Cubs fan. If you are a fan who wants the team to win, you want an owner who wants winning first and cash flow second. You want the guy who owns the team as a plaything. As his fancy yacht that costs him far more than he makes on it but he gets to show off to his friends. The minute you have an owner who is first concerned with profits, you have... well, an owner like the Tribune.

Joe then discusses the negotiations. Long, hard, arduous, and ultimately to the point where Joe and eldest son Pete said, "We're done. Tom, we're not behind you anymore. You either draw the line in the sand and they come over and settle and take this thing or you have to give up." Joe says that this was on a Friday. Tom understood, went back to the Trib, and on Monday they had a deal.

So, the deal got done because the patriarch and the eldest son got firm with the younger, too-busy-watching-baseball-instead-of-going-to-class son. And that got the deal done. Makes you see how Tom got so easily faced by Illinois politicians a few days ago.

Now, one of the things many people have wondered about Tom is how strong his own business is. There are lots of bond traders out there. You would think that a guy who starts a firm to be an underwriter and wholesale distributor of fixed income securities and structured notes would be able to do pretty well considering his family connections to the TD Bank Financial Group. Such a company should be able to get good access to new issues of bonds and securities and make a decent profit. Seems like things weren’t so easy for Tom:

"He loves it and it's just starting to do well now. He’s been at it 10 or 15 years."

It took him THAT long to finally be successful at something he should have had not only a decent bit of knowledge about but plenty of access to deal?

Well, Dad told him to choose between bond trading and the Cubs:

"If you take my money, and you start this business, you buy this baseball team, you have to go over and run it. Because I don't, I don’t want to be exposed to risk. … I don't want you to be distracted by your first love."

Again, Dad states very clearly that the Cubs are being bought with his money. Dad also tells how Tom sold part of his stake in the bond firm so that Tom could be "sort of financially independent." Wouldn't a guy who is the son of a billionaire with a U of Chicago degree, 10 or 15 years in bond brokerage who now owns the Cubs already be financially independent? And it's pretty obvious who Tom is depending on.

But the last 30 seconds of the video is the most revealing about future of the Cubs. First, Dad notes that everyone loves Tom. This video appears to have been taken on April 22, 2010. Of course everyone loved Tom then. The season was three weeks old. One wonders if Dad still thinks this way.

Then Dad ends with this quote from Tom:

"(Tom) does tell me that, 'We got the ingredients, Dad. We got the management and we got the players, so we've got the ingredients to win a World Series.'"

This speech makes a bunch of things clearer, specifically why Crane Kenney and Jim Hendry still have their jobs.

Joe Ricketts knows nothing about sports and is only interested in the Cubs as an investment. An investment of HIS money. Tom is a goof who wanted to buy the Cubs, but could only convince his dad to give up the cash if the business made sense.

Would the Joe Ricketts who gave this speech give his son $400 million to buy a team if Tom told him, "We have to fire the president, the general manager, the minor league director, and unload half the players. We’re going to eat a lot of money to do this and the team will probably have a lousy record for a few years while we clean house. Oh, and the last time the Cubs had a lousy record, seats went empty and they were only refilled by overspending on players."

No chance in hell.

Ricketts Try to STIF Us

2010-11-17T10:14:00.001-06:00

If you haven't heard, the Cubs are trying to get public financing for the rehab of Wrigley Field. The method by which they want to get the financing paid for is slightly confusing, so let's see if it can be explained.

Tickets to Cubs games (and Sox, Bears, Bulls, Black Hawks and Bears, too) are subject to a special sales tax called an Amusement Tax. This adds 12% to the cost of a ticket. These taxes, when collected, go to the general funds of the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois. Once there, they pay for salaries of municipal workers, roads, schools, and every other expense a municipal or state government can think up.

What the Cubs have asked for is this: To have the state issue $200 million in bonds with the repayment coming from the amusement tax specifically on Cubs ticket sales. Now, the Cubs know that the city and state already have uses for that money. They have thus proposed that the city and state keep the exact amount the collect today and that the bonds be repaid only by the increase in Cubs amusement tax collected over the next 35 years.

In other words, if the Cubs sell a ticket in 2010 for $100, the amusement tax is $12. If in 2011, that same ticket goes for $110, the amusement tax would rise to $13.20. Of that $13.20, $12 would still go to the general funds and $1.20 would go to the bonds being issued.

This plan is very similar to a real estate development program called Tax Increment Financing or TIF financing. Since this is a sales tax increment financing package, let’s call it a STIF.

There are so many problems with this proposal from a taxpayer perspective that it makes the proposal ludicrous. These include:

1) The proposal assumes that sales tax revenues are going to continue to go up. What happens if the Cubs start having attendance problems and ticket prices can’t continue to rise? Where does the shortfall for the bond payment come from then?

2) Why should the city and state kick in the growth from the taxes? It’s not like the cost for services won’t go up. If the taxes project to generate $1 million in new money for the state and the state needs the money, but the money id dedicated to pay Wrigley Bonds, then the state has to raise other taxes to cover the needs.

3) If the cost to pay for the bonds is coming through ticket prices, why does it have to be the tax part of the ticket price? Why can’t the Cubs just raise prices and dedicate the increase to pay for private bonds in a private placement transaction? Sure, the interest cost for that would be higher than state-backed bonds, but so what. Every company would like to borrow at the lowest possible rate. Do the Ricketts think that every private company should borrow from the state and not from commercial banks? How socialist is that!

4) It’s irrelevant that the Sox and Bears got public money. Beyond that neither of those projects should ever have happened, that was then and this is now. There is far less public money today than there was when either of those buildings were financed.

The Ricketts already hornswaggled the people of Arizona and got them to sell public lands to benefit the Ricketts family’s personal wealth (instead of selling the land to benefit all the taxpayers). They bought the team for about $200 million less than they probably initially planned. Take that savings and spend it on your stadium. Put your STIF away and try something else.

Waning Interest

2010-11-09T13:39:00.000-06:00

It's really hard to write about the Chicago Cubs these days. Why? Because most of us are concerned with on-field performance and all the news tells us that there will be no changes in that part of the product forthcoming.

What news is there?

The new owners are seemingly doing everything possible to remove any confidence fans have in their leadership. Despite needing "three or four solid moves", the GM will not be spending big dollars this offseason. The citizens of Arizona agreed overwhelmingly to sell their publicly owned land and use the proceeds to build the billionaire Ricketts family a new training complex for the Cubs. And the Cubs are surveying fans to see if we want a jumbotron.

So, given all this, one guesses the Ricketts think their fans' interest in the team continues to grow, right? Any data points we can check?

The Cubs convention normally sells out the first day tickets go on sale. They went on sale last week. They didn't sell out.

Uh oh...

It's pretty hard not to see that the Ricketts are blowing all the goodwill they got by replacing the Tribune as owners just over a year ago. Most fans expected change for the better. What we see is one hour of CBS prime time with yet another chapter in the clean bathroom saga.

What's the response of fans to all this?

We're not giving them as much money.

If it's this hard to write about them, how hard must it be to cut the Cubs a check?

Finally, Some News

2010-10-20T07:00:00.000-05:00

Mike Quade is no longer the interim manager of the Cubs. He gets a two year deal, neatly matching the remaining time on Jim Hendry's contract.

What does this move tell us? A lot.

First, it tells us to expect massive payroll cuts over the next few years. Tom Ricketts stated clearly that they want to go with a guy that can handle younger players: Read cheap. If you are going cheap with players, might as well go cheap with management as well.

Second, it tells us that Jim Hendry hated Ryne Sandberg. Hendry has been under fire for a few years now. Hiring Sandberg would have at least gotten the meatballs off his back.

But, most importantly, it tells us that the Ricketts family is living up to the worst fears. Since taking over the Cubs, a team with bad contracts, a disgruntled fan base, a declining record, and failure spanning 2 millennia, they have made the following changes in management of their operations:

...

It's so bad a Wrigley that Lou Piniella gave back a million dollars to just go home 6 weeks early.

The hope with new ownership for fans everywhere was that the new people would change things. Now, the changes might be a crap shoot. They could work, or perhaps they would be disastrous. But we really thought there would be change. Significant change. Major change.

Change so far is the promotion of the third base coach.

Now, maybe the Ricketts are baseball smart and they already know that 2011 will be a rebuilding year and that the manager in Wrigley couldn't get the team to 82 wins even if he was Aqua Buddha. Given that, might as well go cheap and give Mike Quade a dream job for a year.

But if they are going young, they really need to do better than Jim Hendry. His track record since joining the Cubs in 1995 as Director of Player Development has been... what's the word? Awful, awful. He crashed a team that was playoff ready in 2003 and 2004 and fixed it by spending a few hundred million dollars. That option is no longer available. That has the added bonus of not allowing Hendry to go all Milton Bradley on us again.

The hire of Mike Quade tells us that, after three years of due diligence and oneyear of direct management, the Ricketts still haven't figured out where the problems are in their organization.

That's a massive disappointment.

Let's Do Lunch

2010-09-17T14:37:00.000-05:00

There was a lunch yesterday. At that lunch, Tom Ricketts talked into an open microphone and pleased the fans who "get it."

"We have to have a manager who really understands ... the scrutiny you get and (must) be able to handle those periods in June when you lose three games in a row and people start talking about Year 103 of the curse," Ricketts said. "We have to someone who understands what they're getting into."
...
Ricketts also said the team has to have a manager who's "still engaged in being a coach" and is willing to teach fundamentals.

"We're going to have a younger team going forward," Ricketts said.

There are two bits here. The first, if taken at face value, is that Tom Ricketts thinks the Cubs need a manager who understands curses. If that's what Tom thinks makes for a good Cubs manager, then this team is screwed.

Now, perhaps what he meant is that the manager needs to know that some fans and media dopes are going to start asking "Year 103" questions and that the new manager must have a thick enough skin to ignore such inanity. If that's what Tom meant, he both spoke poorly and is also correct.

But for those fans thinking that 2011 would be a quick turn around, the second bit threw hope into cold storage.

Going young is a polite way of saying "cheap."

That also has implications for the managerial search. You don't need an expensive guy to let the kids play and distinguish themselves on the field. You need a manager who will fill out a lineup card and teach.

You don't need a Point C guy like Phil Jackson. You need the Point A to B guy.

Like Mike Quade.

Mike will do anything for the job, and, given he won't have any other offers, he'll be cheap. The second is important both in terms of cash flow and in terms of firing him when 2011 goes in the crapper (as Andy Dolan has already projected).

Besides. The manager is irrelevant so long as Jim Hendry is the GM.

If Ricketts really wants to fix this what he should do is this: Make Jim Hendry the manager and get a new GM who will fire Hendry after 2011. Hendry's already under contract and he's been a coach of young players before (at Creighton).

This would work. To bad the Ricketts have shown themselves to be family owners more Mike McCaskeyish than Rocky Wirtzish.

Year One Feels 5771 Years Long

2010-09-10T09:22:00.000-05:00

New Years, no matter what calendar you follow, is a time to reflect back and look forward. On the lunar calendar, that time also coincides with the end of the baseball season. Looking back and looking forward at the Cubs only yields one thought: Disappointment.

While the thinking Cubs fans out there saw 2010 as a transitional year with likely minimal success on the field, none of us saw it going this poorly. Moreover, those who saw a poor season coming certainly hoped that trade chips like Derrek Lee and Ted Lilly might yield some stuff of real value. Even that didn't happen.

So, the record was poor and the Cubs didn't really reload for the future. But there was still reason all fans could have hope for the future.

The reason for that hope was the new ownership of the Ricketts family. Tribune ownership was only ever interested in upstreaming profits from the Cubs to the consolidated income statement and ensuring WGN TV and radio had hundreds of hours of programming.

Perhaps a billionaire family would be less interested in cash flow and more interested in showing off their shinny new yacht. Perhaps they might even think of winning a race with that yacht.

Yeah, we were disappointed in 2010, but we saw that coming. 2011 is going to be better, right? Even the Ricketts themselves knew this. Their first marketing campaign, "Year One," even tried to separate themselves from the previous 101 years of failure. They knew they needed to change things. That's where fans could have hope.

So far, they've not only changed nothing, but they've become buffoons in the process.

The ownership changed hands on October 30, 2009. To date, there have been no front office changes of the ownership's choosing (Lou Piniella was smart enough to quit on his own). What has there been?

- Lawsuits against rooftop owners
- Outfield signage to block rooftop signs
- Hastily arranged open houses for season ticket holders
- New bars
- Bison Dogs
- Noodles
- Reality TV
- Statues. With more to come!

A few days ago, two of the Ricketts early cheerleaders, Terry Boers and Dan Bernstein, went off on the Ricketts for nearly an hour (you can hear the whole thing here).

They were spot on with one exception. They, for some reason, had a lot of confidence that the Ricketts knew what they were doing. Why they would have confidence in a family that has never owned a sports franchise, they have never explained. That confidence is certainly out the window now.

And there's disappointment ahead as far as anyone can see.

Plenty of Seats Here!

2010-09-10T08:37:00.002-05:00

Thanks, Lou!

2010-08-22T12:55:00.000-05:00

You always kind of figured that Lou Piniella was too smart to actually take the job as Cub manager. With the kind of organizational enema that was needed here after the 2006 season, Lou could easily have gone all Sargent Hulka and said, "I'm too old for this shit!" and remained with Fox doing color commentary.

But the lure of actually winning with the Cubs, and the open wallet the Trib was going to have needing to fill empty seats ahead of a sale, Lou took the job.

Oh, and $16 million helped, too.

Lou started shoving sodium phosphate up the Cubs sphincter right after Carlos Zambrano and Michael Barrett came to blows. Barrett was always a Hendry favorite. Only 20 days after the fight, Barrett was gone. And Lou was in control.

The result? Back-to-back division championships. It all fell apart when Jim Hendry's minor leagues were unable to generate fresh talent to fill in gaps, gaps that no longer could be filled via free agent spending.

The team spiraled down and now is so bad, Lou no longer cares to watch it anymore:

"When I previously announced my intentions to retire at the end of the season, a primary reason for my decision was that it would allow me to spend more valuable time with my family," said Piniella. "That time has unfortunately gotten here sooner than I could have ever expected. As many know, the several weeks since that announcement was made have been very difficult on a family level, requiring two leaves of absence from the club. While I fully intended to manage this club the rest of the season, a family situation at home now requires my full attention."

...

"My family and I respect Lou's decision to retire from the game he loves and thank him for his years of dedicated service." (said Tom Ricketts)

So, Lou is retiring now. That suggests he's giving up the last $1 million of his salary.

If you asked Lou, "Would you watch this shitty team for six weeks if we gave you a million dollars?" we know how he answered.

That makes him smarter than the 40,000 dopes who will be out at the game today.

Thanks, Lou. You gave us 3 wonderful seasons (we won't discuss the fourth). Go take care of your family. You were good and did the best you could here.

Since that wasn't enough, God knows possibly could be.

So Long, Johnny

2010-08-20T11:06:00.000-05:00

Johnny Bailey 1967-2010

Just Wondering...

2010-08-19T09:45:00.002-05:00

"We have a history of having a bad year and fixing it rather quickly and rebounding." - Jim Hendry

Aren't you supposed to have NO bad years?

The Dismantling Continues

2010-08-18T16:33:00.001-05:00

The Cubs lost their third in a row at home, losing 5-1 to the Padres. Tom Rickett's $850 million investment just lost their 71st game, but he just saved a bundle on his first baseman.

Derrek Lee is about to be an ex-Cub. This will save the Cubs about $3.4 million this year and will end the tenure of a player who was about as loved as player in recent Cubs history. This love was despite his never winning a playoff game in Wrigley Field.

Well, at least as a Cub.

This page was quite excited when Derrek Lee first arrived in exchange for Hee Soep Choi.

This page is also excited to see him go. Not only wasn't he as good anymore as he was a few years ago, but his defense of certain ex-Cub players (LaTroy Hawkins comes to mind) always rankled.

Regardless, Derrek Lee is an ex-Cub. For the Cubs to ever win a World Series, this is a positive step forward.

Let the speculation begin on who plays there next year. The guess here is Tyler Colvin. He's young, cheap, and left handed. How the Cubs use Colvin over the last 6 weeks of the season bears watching.

Rebuilding Internally

2010-08-06T14:33:00.000-05:00

Cubs general manager Jim Hendry spoke to the media before today's game. He laid out the plan for 2011:

"I'm here to tell you it's not some kind of a major rebuilding job," Jim said. "When you start seeing the improvement in the young people that we have and the type of young arms that we have and the arms that we have coming, you make three or four solid moves in the off-season and your young guys keep developing, then you're right back to being a contending team, and that's the way we're going to go about it."

Only Jim Hendry would have the chutzpah to tell us that major renovations to over 10% of the roster isn't major rebuilding. Then again, you really can't fault Hendry for not suggesting that the Cubs are going to stink in 2011. That's not a great season ticket holder retention strategy.

But the key part of Hendry's talk was in the second sentence: "the young people that we have."

It's been pretty obvious since before 2010 started that a youth movement was coming, and not simply because Hendry thinks he has some young players ready. The youth movement is coming because the young players are cheap. They'll play even if they aren't ready because the Cubs have some serious debt service to pay off.

Ted Lilly is gone and Derrek Lee is leaving because the Cubs need to cover private placements more than they need the mound and first base covered.

When Hendry says that three or four moves are all this team needs, he means ON TOP of the young players he plans to promote of give more playing time. He wants us to count only players acquired from outside the organization are the only solid moves.

When you consider all the changes this roster will see over the next 7 months, it's going to be hard to call it anything but a rebuild.

Right Story, Wrong Team

2010-08-03T11:25:00.000-05:00

Has anyone been following the story of the sale Texas Rangers? It's strangely similar to the Cubs from a year ago. Like the Cubs, the team for sale and he team was placed in bankruptcy. Unlike the Cubs, the courts have stayed involved and all hell is on the verge of breaking loose.

Maury Brown over at Fangraphs sums up the situation:

The group led by Chuck Greenberg and Nolan Ryan is, of course, going to be there, but beyond that, official bidders have until 8pm CT on Tues. night to file for the Weds. auction that begins at 9am CT and will be overseen by the Honorable Russell F. Nelms. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has filed documents with the court in attempts to gain access to the club purchase, and Houston businessman Jim Crane has been involved with mediation sessions with William Snyder, the chief restructuring officer in the case. Dallas businessman Jeff Beck is a possibility, as well. What is unknown at the time of publication is whether Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. will be preapproved by MLB for bidding on the club, as well. If so, there could be as many as 5 groups anteing up for the purchase of the club.

What happens when the auction is over? Well, MLB owners still have to approve of the new owner, right? Yes. What happens if the new owner is unacceptable to 75% of current MLB owners?

If the league does not approve the winner of the auction, one could surmise that the club would become “wards of the state”, with MLB taking over the operations of the club until the smoke had cleared in the courts. The last time this occurred was with the then Montreal Expos in Nov. of 2001. The Lenders would most assuredly challenge MLB’s league constitution saying that the bankruptcy process to pay back lenders supersedes that of the league.

What happens if the judge doesn't pick the highest bidder? Again, any creditors who would be left with outstanding debts post sale could sue and ask the court to take the higher bid to generate more cash and cover more of the creditor's debts.

This could have happened to the Cubs last year. Instead, we may get to see this in Texas instead.

Too bad.

Take Me Out To The Movies...

2010-08-01T22:41:00.001-05:00

Look Who Wants A Baseball Team

2010-07-22T15:04:00.000-05:00

Dateline Forth Worth:

FORT WORTH, Texas – A bankruptcy judge has ruled that the Aug. 4 auction of the Texas Rangers won't be delayed, and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban may be among the bidders.

Angry creditors argued Thursday that other interested buyers would not have time to secure financing and suggested a Sept. 30 auction.

The starting bid will be from the group led by Hall of Fame pitcher Nolan Ryan and sports attorney Chuck Greenberg. Major League Baseball endorsed the Ryan-Greenberg group after it was selected in the original bidding process last year, but the $575 million deal has been stalled by creditors.

Cuban's attorney said his client has been approved by MLB and hopes to submit a bid.

Creditors forcing an auction? A high net worth guy rushing to take advantage to bid? Courts all over this?

There's no way anyone could have predicted this!

You Have Been Banned from MSNBC

2010-07-21T09:42:00.000-05:00

We haven't discussed much in the way of current events around here of late. Hell, we haven't discussed much of anything. But there was a story that caught my eye that is certainly worth commenting on.

It seems Markos Moulitsas, one of the founders of the SBNation blog sites, had a dust-up with MSNBC's "Morning Joe" anchor Joe Scarborough. The details are not overly clear, but it seems that Scarborough and MSNBC got mad at Moulitsas for bringing up an old point of contention. This led both sides to descend into name calling, the end result of which is that Moulitsas was blacklisted from presenting his views on MSNBC.

So, let's see here. Moulitsas was banned for making snarky comments? Where ever would MSNBC get the idea to react like that?

Cubs Are Interesting Again... At Least For A Day

2010-07-21T08:00:00.000-05:00

In a move that was only unforeseen by people who fail to see winter coming every year, Lou Piniella announced that he will not return to the Cubs as their manager next year.

A few words about Lou. He was exactly what this organization needed in 2007. When Carlos Zambrano lit into Michael Barrett back on June 1st of that year, it was Lou that made sure that it was Barrett who was traded and not Zambrano. That event started the most successful season and a half the Cubs have had since the 1906 to 1908 seasons. He set a tone for a moribund franchise.

Granted, this current season, Lou has seemed asleep at the switch. The view here is that is largely due to Lou knowing what most of us knew: This year was going to be a washout. The roster was loaded with overpriced, aging talent and new ownership was locked into hundreds of millions in debt that would eliminate Jim Hendry's most consistent way of improving a team - massive spending.

As Andy Dolan wrote today, Lou's successor will probably be worse at the job than Lou was. But the 2010 Lou is not the 2007 Lou. This team needs the original Lou and not the one that's here today.

Thanks for the effort Lou, but it's time to go. Thanks again, and see 'ya.

What was very interesting was the varied reactions to Tom Ricketts words:

"Jim is our general manager full stop," said Ricketts, whose ambiguous statements on the last road trip led to speculation about Hendry's future. "He will be leading the effort to find our new manager and will be our general manager going into next year, yes."

What does this mean? Dave Kaplan, Bruce Miles, ESPN and Comcast took that to mean that Jim Hendry is back for 2011. Phil Rogers, Terry Boers and Dan Burnstein saw plenty of wiggle room in that.

Miles does have a point on his blog that it would be a bad idea to have Jim Hendry help hire the new manager only to replace Hendry as GM soon after. A GM should pick his manager and they work together over the next several years to build and maintain a major league roster.

What's confusing is that a new manager is going to expect a contract of three to five years. Jim Hendry only has a two year contract.

If Tom Ricketts and his siblings have decided to retain Hendry for 2011, doesn't it make sense that they would also have decided to extend Jim Hendry's contract to match that of a new manager? If so, why the phrasing "going into next year"? Why not announce today that Jim has a new, 3 year extension. Lou's leaving isn't a surprise and the Ricketts have had plenty of time to discuss an extension with Hendry if they desired to keep him. That this hasn't happened just suggests more and more ambiguity where there should be none.

The more and more you hear from the Ricketts, the more and more you fear that these kids don't know what they are doing. The fear of the Ricketts coming in as owners always was that they didn't have a record to review as owners (which is why Don Levin was always the preferred choice of this page).

Hope is held out that Tom was just parsing his words carefully and that Hendry will indeed be gone before the new manager comes in. Because if Tom and his family really think that Jim Hendry is good at his job, then these people are really idiots when it comes to running a professional sports franchise.

This has all the feel of the McCaskey's and the hiring of Jerry Angelo when they told him that he had to retain Dick Jauron.

Ugh.

Well, Looks Like The Owners Are Interested

2010-07-09T14:19:00.000-05:00

With the Cubs irrelevant to the sports conversation, Tom Ricketts has finally shown up and told everyone where ownership stands on this season:

...it is expected that the team's ownership will address the media soon to assess the club’s direction, especially if the team continues to struggle before the trading deadline.

"It has been very difficult for the family and the team the first half of the season," Tom Ricketts told season ticket holders Thursday at Wrigley Field. "This is not where the family wanted to be in the first half of the season"

That's terrible that it's been hard on his family. Musta put a damper on that photo safari in Africa.

And, frankly, the fans don't want to hear platitudes about "making it better," and "creating the best franchise in major league baseball." They want results.

Hey, Tom. How many press conferences did Rocky Wirtz between the time he took over the Black Hawks and the time he hired new management?

Moreover, just how long did Wirtz take to hire new management?

And Now For Something That Could Have Been Said On Opening Day

2010-06-29T09:18:00.001-05:00

The Dead Cubbies Sketch

The cast:

MR. SHLABOTNIK
BROADCASTER RON

The sketch:

A customer enters a pet shop.

Mr. Shlabotnik: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.

(Broadcaster Ron does not respond.)

Mr. Shlabotnik: 'Ello, Miss?

Broadcaster Ron: What do you mean "miss"?

Mr. Shlabotnik: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

Broadcaster Ron: We're closin' for lunch.

Mr. Shlabotnik: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this baseball team what I watched not half an hour ago from this very stadium.

Broadcaster Ron: Oh yes, the, uh, the Cubbie Blue...What's, uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Shlabotnik: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'Ere dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Broadcaster Ron: No, no, 'Ere uh,...ere resting.

Mr. Shlabotnik: Look, matey, I know a dead team when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Broadcaster Ron: No no ere not dead, ere, ere restin'! Remarkable team, the Cubbie Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Mr. Shlabotnik: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

Broadcaster Ron: Nononono, no, no! 'Ere resting!

Mr. Shlabotnik: All right then, if ere's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at the batting cage) 'Ello, Mister Ramirez! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...

(Broadcaster Ron hits the cage)

Broadcaster Ron: There, he moved!

Mr. Shlabotnik: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage!

Broadcaster Ron: I never!!

Mr. Shlabotnik: Yes, you did!

Broadcaster Ron: I never, never did anything...

Mr. Shlabotnik: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO DERREK!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes team out of the cage and thumps it on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

Mr. Shlabotnik: Now that's what I call a dead team.

Broadcaster Ron: No, no.....No, ere stunned!

Mr. Shlabotnik: STUNNED?!?

Broadcaster Ron: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Cubbie Blues stun easily, major.

Mr. Shlabotnik: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That team is definitely deceased, and when I watched it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged energy burst from Carlos Zambrano yelling at them.

Broadcaster Ron: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

Mr. Shlabotnik: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did they fall flat on their back the moment they got home?

Broadcaster Ron: The Cubbie Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable team, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

Mr. Shlabotnik: Look, I took the liberty of examining that team when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in First Place was that it had been NAILED there.

(pause)

Broadcaster Ron: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that team down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its bat, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

Mr. Shlabotnik: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this team wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'Ere bleedin' demised!

Broadcaster Ron: No no! 'Ere pining!

Mr. Shlabotnik: Ere not pinin'! Ere passed on! This team is no more! He has ceased to be! Ere expired and gone to meet 'is maker! Ere's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'Ere rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'em to the perch 'ere'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! Ere off the twig! Ere kicked the bucket, Ere shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-TEAM!!

(pause)

Broadcaster Ron: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (He takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of teams.

Mr. Shlabotnik: I see. I see, I get the picture.

Broadcaster Ron: I got a Cardinal.

(pause)

Mr. Shlabotnik: Pray, does it play left field?

Broadcaster Ron: Nnnnot really.

Mr. Shlabotnik: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

Broadcaster Ron: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)

Mr. Shlabotnik: Well.

(pause)

Broadcaster Ron: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?

Mr. Shlabotnik: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

They "Get It"

2010-06-25T09:31:00.000-05:00

A Cubs season ticket holder (known has flannj), recently received the following letter from the Cubs:

Dear Mr. flannj,

Throughout the long, storied history of Wrigley Field, millions of fans have walked through its gates, taken their seats, and cheered on their beloved Cubs. Many, like you, decided to make a commitment to the team by purchasing Season Tickets and to you we want to say a special thank you.

On Thursday, July 8, you and a guest are invited to experience the Friendly Confines, both on and off the field, at our first Season Ticket Holder Appreciation Day.

Walk along the outfield grass. Run the bases. Take a swing or two in our Batting Tunnel Arcade. Relax in our exclusive PNC Club. And take pictures in front of our famous ivy.

Along with these activities, your Season Ticket Account Representative, as well as the rest of our front office staff, will be available for questions, comments and conversation. Some of you have been Season Ticket Holders for almost a half-century. You have seen years of success and years of disappointment. You have seen some of the best players that have taken the field and players whose names are forgotten. For others, this is Year One, just like the Ricketts family. Your name made it to the top of the waiting list and you decided to make a very tangible commitment to supporting the team.

But no matter how long you have been a Season Ticket Holder, you all share one common trait – a passion for the Cubs. For that, we are grateful. We look forward to thanking you in person on July 8.

To reserve your spot, please contact your Season Ticket Representative or call the season ticket holder hotline at 773-404-4080. We are taking reservations for the 9:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 2:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. time slots.

My family and I look forward to spending time with you on July 8th.

Tom

Man, are these guys scared. Scared of what?

Empty seats.

The Cubs have been playing to well less than full houses this year. And, without a dramatic influx of talent this offseason, the expectation would be for even more empty seats next year. This letter and event is the first attempt by the Ricketts to try to reduce the number of season ticket holders who say, "You know, the economy sucks and the team isn't very good. Maybe now is the time to do something else with my money."

The Tribune recognized this in 2006. The empty seats led to the firing of Andy MacPhail, the non-renewal of Dusty Baker, and the massive spending on Alfonso Soriano and Tedd Lilly. The Trib recognized that the ability to sell the Wrigley experience was waning and on field product was paramount. They spent and put butts in the seats. Who cared if the team would be any good in 2010, they thought. Just don't let potential buyers see empty seats. It worked.

This letter shows that Ricketts know they are in trouble here. The product on the field stinks and the only way to improve it rapidly would be another huge round of payroll spending. They also know that they already have some big payroll obligations and the still have $425 million in debt that needs to be repaid. One bets they also are going to have to go to their father and explain how the return on investment of 1/3rd of the family's net worth is doing.

The possible silver lining here is that the empty seats will result in major changes in the way the Cubs run their baseball operations. That means changes from Jim Hendry on down.

The fear is that the Ricketts don't understand this. To date, all the changes we've seen have been cosmetic (clean bathrooms and Ricketts Buffalo Hot Dogs) and revenue enhancing (Toyota sign, buying a rooftop). There's nothing there that gives a fan any confidence that the Ricketts have a concept of how to run the baseball side of a baseball team.

If only there was a local model of a sports franchise that changed ownership that the Ricketts could copy...

So, Where Are We?

2010-06-22T23:34:00.000-05:00

It's really hard these days to write about the Cubs. The only people who seem to be doing it consistently are the professional media (God bless them for dealing with this team daily), the professional bloggers (there are a few), and Bad Kermit.

Kermit doesn't has never wasted his time doing recaps of games. Makes sense. Recaping this dreck means they actually were foolish enough to spend time watching the Cubs.

But as dreadful as the Cubs are in 2010, there is one upside to their performance:

We're going to find out what kind of ownership the Cubs have in the Ricketts family.

There was a lot of hope in what an ownership change would mean for the Cubs. The biggest reason why was because it was understood that the Tribune viewed the Cubs as programming for their media outlets (WGN-TV, WGN Radio, Chicago Tribune newspaper). Winning was subordinate to profit in their view. Perhaps a new owner would treat the Cubs as their personal yacht. Something to be shown off and bragged about, no matter what the cost.

Well, the early returns are in on the Ricketts. And, no. It's not measured in wins and losses on the field. There was very little they could do beginning the day they took over on October 30, 2009 to change the on-field 2010 team. But there were huge things that could have been done to change things for all the years thereafter.

Over the next few posts, we'll look at what they've done with the Cubs and if the hope that came with them has translated into trust earned.

The Dagger

2010-06-09T22:38:00.000-05:00

The 2010 Chicago Blackhawks have the Stanley Cup and are NHL Champions.

That sentence is surreal.

There's only one team in Chicago that has not lifted a championship trophy in the last 25 years.

That sentence is not.

The End Or The Beginning

2010-06-09T10:53:00.000-05:00

We watched game five of the Stanley Cup Finals from the comfort of a friend's couch. The crowd consisted of 3 adults and 5 youths ranging in ages from 5 to 14. While the game progressed, I asked the kids how much hockey they had watched in previous years.

The Murtons had watched some. The others, not much. I asked them why they were following this edition of the Chicago Blackhawks if they'd never really watched before? "Well, because they are winning," was the collective response.

So, would you watch next year? Regular season? On a Tuesday night?

The response was a "Maybe." They probably wouldn't sit down and watch it instead of a movie or DVD?

"Probably not."

While tonight represents the culmination of what seemed impossible just three years ago, it also has the possibility to be a launching pad the for this franchise. They have a opportunity to actually make an inroad into the sports consciousness of a whole generation of kids. And build a fan base from that that will last a generation.

How Rocky Wirtz and John McDonough follow up on this success will be the key if this run is merely a fun little blip on the screen or the resurgence of a team that was once as popular as any other franchise in this town.

They have a lot of systemic issues to overcome in terms of a sport that most kids don't play (or even know the rules - offsides and icing had to be explained in the 2nd period to one of the kids) and a league that has no clue about national media.

But this is a hell of a way to start.

The Orchard

2010-05-29T18:36:00.000-05:00

It's about 30 minutes until the puck drops for Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals. The Blackhawks crowd is probably getting good and riled up.

If you haven't been to a game in recent years, one of the cool moments from the pre-game is a video shown on the scoreboard celebrating the team's history.

Here it is.

"Hawks To The Finals"

2010-05-27T07:00:00.001-05:00

With those words, Mike Emrick closed out Game 4 of the NHL's Western Conference Finals and the Chicago Blackhawks sweep of the San Jose Sharks.

Completely unremarkable that this supreme collection of talent has advanced to play for the Stanley Cup. Unfathomable that they are wearing an Indian head on their red sweaters.

Just 3 seasons ago, you couldn't give tickets away. Four seats, three rows off the glass between the blue line and the goal line were left to be used by two young boys, their father and their uncle.

As the national anthem started, tepid applause and scattered cheering rose from a sparse crowd of maybe 6,000. The father leaned to the uncle and said, "These kids will never know what used to happen here. It's gone and it's never coming back."

Man, was that wrong.

The finer points of hockey is barely known to this writer. For informed opinions on things like center zone traps, please head to Hockee Night, Fifth Feather, or Second City Hockey (just be sure to avoid any BCB bashing at that last site).

But, for the next few weeks, the still-under-.500 Cubs will be ignored (as they still deserve) and the focus will be on Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Antti Niemi, Patrick Sharp, Dustin Byfuglien, Kris Versteeg, and the championship trophy that will soon call Chicago home for the first time in nearly 50 years.

Tunney's Rooftop Ties

2010-05-20T22:20:00.002-05:00

Alderman Tom Tunney has taken a lot of heat in the FanPress the last few weeks. Our good friend CCD (who has done a solid job in filling the gap of reviewing the business side of the Cubs) and Tim at Aisle 424 have been leaders in feeding the flames.

This site was of the opinion that the sign would get done easily, just on a schedule to show the Ricketts who really is the Boss.

As this issue has dragged out, Greg Hintz has exposed the real reason for the delays:

Mr. Tunney says he feels strongly about this issue because he wants to preserve the view from inside of the ballpark into the neighborhood. The view is not only unique but good publicity for the Lake View neighborhood, he says.

But Mr. Tunney doesn't exactly deny that he's also trying to protect the view from outside in -- say, from those rooftop clubs. The owners "have invested millions of dollars" and reached "an understanding" with the Cubs in which the team gets 17% of their revenues.

Would the good alderman hold that view because the rooftoppers have given his political campaign fund at least $80,000 in cash and donated services in just the past three years?

"Both sides have contributed to our campaign," he replies.

That's true. But I didn't see anything in Mr. Tunney's disclosures anywhere near the size of the $27,500 that 3639 (N. Sheffield Ave.) LLC reported donating on April 21, 2009, for "food, drink and rooftop for event" for Mr. Tunney. Or the even bigger $37K Sheffield-Waveland Rooftops reported dropping on June 13, 2008, for "food, drink and baseball event" for Mr. Tunney.

So, Tunney is holding up a good business deal for his billionaire constituents and their multi-million dollar business, constituents who drive the economy in his ward and who make it possible for the Rooftops to even make their donations to Mr. Tunney, all for a measly $26,667 per year?

Tunney has to be a Sox fan. He only seems to know how to play small ball.

What To Watch

2010-05-18T09:36:00.000-05:00

With today's game, the season reaches the 25% complete mark. The team continues to founder with a losing record, struggling to score runes, despite above league average starting pitching and hitting statistics.

Empty seats are springing up at Wrigley Field with regularity.

The Carlos Zambrano experiment has worked about as well as anyone with half a brain could have predicted.

(This debacle does have the singular upside of knowing how bad this makes people who supported moving Z to the pen look)

Lou Piniella is answering questions about his own job status and Jim Hendry is giving out votes of confidence.

But the one thing we all need to know about this team, the thing that has the greatest long term effect on the team, hasn't even been broached:

What kind of owners are the Ricketts?

Are they going to do nothing other than sit with Len and Bob in the bleachers?

Or, are they going to get their hands dirty and make some changes to set the team up for the next 20 years according to their vision?

Hell, do they even have a vision!

On the day the family took over control of the franchise, Tom Ricketts said one key thing:

"...in my business experience, the way I've been successful, is hire the right people, support them, and hold them accountable to the results."

Agreed.

So, Ricketts family, who is being held accountable and when are you going to actually hire some people? Everyone here is holdovers.

In business, when leverage buyouts occur, the acquiring company usually has a set management team in mind and installs those people as soon as the acquisition is complete. History is littered with mergers where new management is announced the same day. How can owners do this? Well, they've usually had months to review the company and decide who stays and who goes.

The Ricketts have had three years to do their due diligence. Time for them to do what they've said: Hold people accountable and hire the right people.

To see if they actually do this will likely be more important than what actually happens on the field.

Un-Repeal the 18th Amendment

2010-05-13T15:38:00.000-05:00

Andy Dolan goes to town on Al Yellon again. You generally have compassion for baby seals because they are defenseless. Not so much when the baby seal is in its 50s and puts up with dissent as well as Jake and Elwood put up with Henry Gibson.

In short, Yellon is upset that people drink in the bleachers at Wrigley Field. He then states, with his standard catch-all caveat of "I believe" (which he uses all the time to mean, "Ignoring all factual evidence, I choose to think that..."), the Cubs and the Ricketts really don't want this kind of reputation.

The Cubs don't want to embrace alcohol? Does Al even know where he chooses to sit?

Time for Al to protest and leave.

Starlin Castro, Come On Up!

2010-05-07T09:27:00.003-05:00

ESPN Deportes is saying that Starlin Castro is on the way to the Cubs.

Another panic move.

How this helps Aramis Ramirez or Derrek Lee play better is still unknown.

Let's hope that Starlin does well and that, despite him doing well, Jim Hendry still loses his job.

:::UPDATE:::
Confirmed by a source with inside access. Chad Tracy to the minors.

Can We Just Leave Starlin Castro Alone?

2010-04-30T08:57:00.000-05:00

Over at the Chicago Sun-Times, Gordon Wittenmyer jumps on everyone's favorite meme right now. Starlin Castro can save the Cubs:

"There's no doubt he'll be here sometime this year," Hendry says, "but it won't be anytime in the next couple of days."

Whether that means he's leaving the door open for next week's series in Pittsburgh, maybe he should.

...

With so much trouble hitting anybody who doesn't pitch for Milwaukee, and the team sputtering three games under .500 at the end of the first month as a result, why not take a look at Castro in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati next week -- against the two worst pitching staffs in the National League and away from the media fishbowl of Wrigley Field?

It doesn't have to be considered long-term at this point. Just enough to give him a taste, just enough to give the Cubs a look, just enough to shake things up a little.

Do it for two weeks or so and give Xavier Nady (.194) some DL time to focus solely on a surgically repaired elbow he can't use at game strength for another month anyway. Or make room for him by sending out a pitcher and keeping Castro until Esmailin Caridad's ready to return from the DL.

Yeah, this sounds like a decent idea. It's a reasonable way to break a guy into the majors (against two weaker opponents), but is it a way to improve a team playing under .500 ball this year?

Wittenmyer answers his own question with a big, fat, "No":

Not that a Castro move would reflect a particular need at shortstop. Fourth-year starter Ryan Theriot is hitting .340 (.392 on-base percentage) and had two of the Cubs' six hits even on Thursday. He's also done the job in the field.

Good job, Gordon, You want to help the Cubs offense by fixing a non-need. Sure, Theriot isn't going to be benched, he would move to second and Mike Fontenot would have a seat. Fontenot who is hitting .309 (.350 on-base percentage).

The Cubs don't need Starlin Castro right now as he doesn't solve any problems. Why start the arbitration / free agency clock on him? Why rush him up to the majors?

Here's an idea, Gordon: Let him play in the minors for a while longer and focus your writing on how the Cubs can fix the things that need fixing.

Like Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez and Alfonso Soriano.

Everything is Fine and Dandy

2010-04-27T09:15:00.001-05:00

Last night, nearly everyone was happy.

The Black Hawks 5-3 win over Nashville advanced the to the second round where the Vancouver Cannucks await.

The Chicago Wolves won Game 7 of their playoff series to advance another round in their quest for another Calder Cup (or whatever they play for these days).

Bloggers are raising money for Ryan Dempster's charity at $1.50 per donation while pocketing $1.00 in fees for themselves as they go. (But you get a keen t-shirt that advertises the guy making the profit!)

The Chicago Cubs won their fourth in a row to get back to a .500 record.

And Carlos Zambrano is happy about his role as a long setup man in the bullpen.

Well, kinda:

"I'm not 'happy’'happy about this decision, but I feel good," he said. "I feel good to help my team and to do everything to help us solve whatever the problem is."

We can be glad Carlos is not "happy happy." That could be bad if he was.

Can you imagine what would happen if Carlos was, "more than happy"? How can you be "more than happy?" This sounds like a dangerous medical condition! "We had to put Carlos away in the home today....he was...well....MORE THAN HAPPY!"

If Carlos ever gets more than happy, Carlos will need to be locked up and then we'll have to throw away the key, the Cubs will go down the tubes, fans will be read the riot act, and Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella will be handed their walking papers in the greatest thing since sliced bread!

All Kinds of Dumb

2010-04-26T09:08:00.000-05:00

If you haven't heard yet, you soon will heard about the new Cubs-Sox City Series Trophy:

Multiple sources tell the Tribune that during a Monday morning news conference, the Cubs and White Sox will announce a new tradition -- a trophy (and the public bragging rights) to the club which wins the annual city series between them. We're told a tiebreaker is in place should the teams split the six games 3-3.

Yes, that's what will spice up this series: A trophy that no fan will ever see save for when it sits on the winner's dugout steps for 20 minutes at the end of each year's series ends.

The whole Cubs-Sox thing has certainly lost some luster over the years and the creation of this faux award certainly is an acknowledgment of such. See, now you will watch not just to see who wins, but who can raise the trophy over their heads.

The Trib already has its suggestions for what the trophy should look like (see below). These suggestions are the funniest things to come out of Tribune Tower since Sam Zell told his staff to do things that are anatomically impossible.

If the Cubs and Sox really want to spice this series up, the way to do it is to play fewer games, not more. MLB should get rid of the annual "Geographic Rivalries" in favor of a true inter-league rotation that has every team play every other team on a three year cycle, not one team every year and all the rest kind of haphazardly.

A Cubs-Sox series every three years would be an event, not just an excuse for the Ligue's to get drunk with the Trixies.

But owners need to sell tickets every year, not every three years. Alas, we're going to be stuck with this stupidity.

When Chuck Talked To Kaplan

2010-04-25T17:54:00.001-05:00

Why Z

2010-04-22T09:40:00.002-05:00

There's only one way that yesterday’s panic decision to move Carlos Zambrano to the bullpen makes any sense. With Ted Lilly set to return from the disabled list this weekend, one of the current starters must exit the rotation. The person to move to the bullpen is the player who will have the lowest Wins Above Replacement value to the team.

If the Cubs project that Carlos Zambrano will have a lower WAR in 2010 than everyone in the group of Ted Lilly, Carlos Silva, Tom Gorzelany, Randy Wells and Ryan Dempster, then the move makes sense.

If not, Lou Piniella and Jim Hendry have allowed themselves to stop being professionals and are now simply raving nut bags.

Now, for the second question: Does anyone honestly believe that Zambrano will indeed have a lower WAR in 2010 compared to everyone else in that list?

If anyone believes that, then they also are raving nut bags. There is nothing in the career histories of Carlos Silva and Tom Gorzelany that could make a rational person conclude that they will generate more wins for the team as starters than Carlos Zambrano would.

Given that, outside of Cubs' management, only irrational people seem to be supporting this move, that further supports the case.

On the other side, some people are using Zambrano's salary to be against this move. That argument doesn't hold water. Once a player is on the roster, the salary is irrelevant. The only issue is how to engage that human capital to generate the highest return. Dollars are a sunk cost.

Everyone is Panicking -- Why?

2010-04-20T09:39:00.000-05:00

A team loses three in a row to two of the worst teams in the National League and people start freaking out. And some of the people actually matter.

Bruce Levine suggests trading a 20 year old #1 pick in the name of Josh Vitters for 32-year old Padre reliever Heath Bell.

Al Yellon, a guy known as much for rational baseball thought as Kuma's Corner is known for low cholesterol food also suggests trading (actually, "cutting bait") Vitters. But Yellon wants to acquire Bell, or a pitcher who is already injured and hasn't even pitched in the majors this year. Yes, let's bring back Kerry Wood! Al goes further and says he doesn't want to replace Carlos Marmol as closer (exact quote: "If you're looking to replace Marmol as closer (I'm not)"), but only 200 words later says that Carlos Zambrano should replace Marmol as closer.

I guess Al doesn’t read what he writes. Note taken to do the same.

Lou Piniella looks at his team and sees them scoring more than 4 runs only 5 times so far this year and starts messing with his lineup.

Fans you talk to are wondering if Tom Ricketts is going to be willing to pony up more dollars to fix this team.

This all makes you want to ask these dopes the following question: This performance actually surprises you? What did you think was going to happen to the team the way it was constructed?

Coming into the year, the book said: Good starting pitching, good closer, weak bullpen, questionable offense with its best players aging.

Isn't that exactly what we've seen?

The people freaking out over the performance of the Cubs must be the same people who, every year, fail to see winter coming.

Working on Sitting

2010-04-15T13:07:00.000-05:00

Bruce Miles blogs on Alfonso Soriano's travails in the outfield:

Lou was asked by an Internet columnist if the Cubs are teaching Soriano the subtleties of the game and whether Sori is "resistant" to learning. Lou handled it well.

"Sori's working very hard," Lou said “He works every day with Mike Quade. Mike Quade is an excellent outfield instructor. He works with him every day. He'll get better. He's working hard, like I said, and that's all you can expect from a player.

"I've got to feel that way as a manager. Look, he wants to do better. That's No. 1. He's working at it. That's No. 2. And I've got confidence that he will. And I'm the one that makes out the lineup."

Lou is so confident that Soriano will do better that the lineup Lou made out today doesn't have Soriano in it.

That's the real #1: Soriano isn't good enough right now to be in there every day.

One wonders if the lollygagging approach Soriano made yesterday on the ball Rickie Weeks hit had anything to do with it.

It's bad enough that Soriano can't do anything in baseball other than hit, which he only does sporadically, but would it be that much of an inconvenience for himto show some effort in the field?

All the time?

Chill Out

2010-04-14T10:43:00.000-05:00

Coming into the home opener on Monday, Cubs fans were showing a lot of angst. The team hadn't been hitting. Carlos Zambrano hadn't exactly induced a lot of confidence in his first start. The Cubs bullpen had already imploded a few times. More men had been left on base in Cincinnati than there were fans in the seats. Geovanny Soto looked lost at the plate. Ryan Theriot was still screwing up on the base paths. And Alfonso Soriano, this page's least favorite player since Corey Patterson, was doing everything possible to show how the $90 million dollars remaining to be paid to him might as well be dropped down a well with Desmond Hume.

On the plus side, Derrek Lee was off to a hot start. The starting pitching outside of Big Z's first start was very good. And it was only 6 games. A 2-4 record can easily be chalked up to small sample size.

So, why all the angst?

Probably for one big reason: Regardless if you are the kind of fan that treats the Cubs with blind optimism or open skepticism, we all know that this is a flawed team. Not only is it flawed, but it did little to improve its chances of winning more games in the off-season.

Now, the start of the baseball season is "Hope Springs Eternal," right? We all want to have some fun before reality sets in.

To see the team looking so sloppy right out of the gate threatens to have our hopes cast asunder even before the end of the spring allergy season.

We want to cling to the fantasy that 2010 will be a good year.

A strong dose of reality would be good for everyone.

Year One, Not Won

2010-04-05T07:06:00.027-05:00

Here we go again, friends. Another season launches today. But this one is different. For the first time since Ronald Reagan was still learning his way around the West Wing, the Cubs have a new owner. And that is, most likely, the biggest story that Cubs fans will have to focus on this year.

The 2010 season will likely be the last season in Chicago for several long time Cubs who were heavy contributors to the Cubs modicum of success since 2003. While it is unlikely that all of Derrick Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Ted Lilly, Carlos Zambrano and Lou Piniella will be in different locations next year, it is almost a certainty that at least one of the above names will be elsewhere come 2011.

And how the Ricketts family allows this transition to occur will tell us volumes about how much trust we fans should have in new ownership. There are some out there who are tickled Grizzly Pink to have a local owner (by way of Omaha) who is a fan like the rest of us (albeit without a parent who made a billion dollars).

There are others, the smarter ones, who don't take non-relevant resume and assume things are wunderbar.

This page has significant doubts about the team's prospects on the field for 2010. Age and middling talent at too many positions does not create a huge amount of optimism for crossing the 90 win threshold.

But there is a huge amount of optimism tied to the exit of the Tribune's bottom line focused ownership. The 2010 season will tell us a lot about whether that optimism will turn into actual trust.

Let the 162 game marathon begin.

Tom Talks

2010-03-26T10:38:00.000-05:00

As the grind of spring training wears on, all the news out of Cubs camp seems to be on the business side. Crain's publishes this piece on Tom Rickett's presentation to the Executives' Club of Chicago where Tom tried to make the case for more signage at Wrigley:

Addressing hundreds of business people at an Executives' Club of Chicago breakfast Thursday, Mr. Ricketts used a PowerPoint presentation to show that Wrigley is one of the city’s top tourist attractions: It generates nearly $400 million a year in spending and funnels $59 million in tax revenue to city coffers. More than one-third of fans are out-of-state visitors.

Then he flashed the next slide: an image of the 60-foot, lighted Toyota sign he's seeking to install behind the left-field bleachers, which would likely bring the ballclub more than $2 million a year.

"So I don't think it's too much to ask," he deadpanned amid laughter.

First, let's stipulate that Tom is not asking too much. He and his family should be allowed to monetize his investment. Just because Wrigley Field is a historical landmark doesn't mean that the Ricketts shouldn’t be allowed to make non-permanent changes to the look and feel which will provide the capital to maintain the actual physical plant.

But there is a major problem with Tom’s logic. As has been noted here and many other places before, sports franchises and stadiums are not an economic engine for a city. They are for a small neighborhood, but that’s it. Why? Simple.

People have a finite number of dollars to commit to leisure activities. If they spend it on baseball tickets, that means they won’t spend it on other entertainment venues. Every dollar spent on a baseball ticket reduces the amount spent on movie tickets. Or restaurants. Or amusement parks. The list goes on. Entertainment spending within a metropolitan area is a zero sum game. Yes, Wrigley is an engine for Wrigleyville, but not much else.

But Tom's smart. He understands this. That's why he said that one-third of fans come from out of state. Out of state spending isn’t necessarily zero sum. It's possible that some people actually come to Chicago specifically because of Wrigley Field and wouldn't were it not here. But many of the people who come from out of town are also coming for Michigan Avenue and the lakefront and trade shows and to see family. They are not driven here by the Wrigley engine. Furthermore, logic suggests that the number of "one-third" of Wrigley attendees is way too high. One million people per year visit Wrigley Field from out of state? That doesn’t seem possible. You would think that the Executives’ Club of Chicago would know this.

The answer is that they do. What Tom is really doing is speaking to the politicians. To the Tom Tunney’s. He's making a public argument to give political cover to Tunney to approve what the Ricketts want to do (and need to and should).

Frankly, it's pathetic that Tom needs to do this. Tunney should be doing it for him. As should the owners of the Cubby Bear, Murphy’s, Salt & Pepper, Sports Corner, Sports World, Harry Caray.s...

I No Longer Spy

2010-03-24T20:46:00.001-05:00

Robert Culp (1930-2010)

Looks like a bad week to have an August 16th birthday.

50,000 Watts of Indifference

2010-03-23T19:19:00.000-05:00

Late on Sunday evening, a text on my cell phone appeared. The message alerted me that David Kaplan was, once again, requesting Andy Dolan, Bad Kermit and me to grace WGN's airwaves with our voices and opinions.

Last time, WGN provided food, beverages, and 90 minutes of airtime. This time, we were treated to 20 minutes in the Comcast WGN Green Room. Other than a couch and two chairs that Steve and Johnnie probably sleep, the room has an old radio to listen to whomever is on air and a card catalog of WGN's record albums. A card catalog? You'd think Sam Zell would have sold these by now to raise cash.

At 7:57 PM sharp, we were paraded into the Showcase Studio and the three of us took the same seats as we had back in December.

And off we went.

If anything, it's easier the second time around. And, if things go well, the "All Star Blogger All-Star Break Report" will be in the offing.

If you haven't heard the jocularity, it can be heard by clicking below or by going directly to the WGN website.

Part 1

Part 2

Let's Get It Going Already

2010-03-22T10:04:00.000-05:00

It's been a tough spring to write about the Cubs. Very little of interest has happened at Ho Ho Kam. Sure, the Sterling Castro watch was fun for a while, but there was no way he was going to break camp with the big club when sending him to Iowa for a few weeks can defer the club spending a few million bucks. Yes, keeping an eye open for Ted Lilly has its merits. But having done this five years ago with Mark Prior, doing so is just too tiring.

There was some mild interest in what the batting order would be. Will Ryan Theriot lead off or will Kosuke Fukudome? In reality, if that's your best two options for leadoff, you probably don’t have a real option at all.

All the starting position players were pretty much set as soon as Marlon Byrd was signed to play center field. No battles here.

On the management front, Lou Piniella has done solid work in his time here and seems to be jockeying for a contract extension. But, like Castro at short, there’s no real reason to make a decision on Lou right now. The people who will decide if Lou stays weren't here when Lou was hired. The Ricketts will make their decision based on 2010, not 2007 through 2009.

What this team can do will be shown on the field from April through July, not in Arizona. Once those four months are in the books, we’ll know that the Cubs are either contenders, or if the Ricketts have the courage and the smarts to start dismantling the core of an aging ballclub while there is still value for some of the parts.

Spring training can't end soon enough as it hasn’t told us a thing about this club.

Smart Guys

2010-03-09T17:08:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, on the 5 minute commute from office to home, Boers and Bernstein were discussing Jumbotrons and blowing up the Cubs roster this year.

And they absolutely nailed it.

Not only are the expectations for the Cubs in the tank nationally (except you know where), but the time to do it may be during the season this year. And they pulled back the curtain on Jim Hendry:

"I don't want him making those deals." - Terry Boers

Exactly.

There is no basis to know that Jim is the guy to build a team by identifying young talent. Sure, he can fleece the Pirates. But Jim saw a team go from 5 outs from the World Series to a team that lost 96 games. How did he turn it around? Hendry got the Trib to unzip the the wallet to re-fill an empty park.

They, appropriately, take Hendry to task for giving out no trade clauses. They note that $140 million payrolls are a thing of the past.

And Bernstein also says that the Ricketts clan has already thought about this. And they have a plan.

The confidence in the Ricketts is welcome, if yet unwarranted and undeserved. Let's hope Dan is right, because Derrek Lee, Ted Lilly and Aramis Ramirez could be the key to the Cubs winning a World Series.

It will just take someone other than Jim Hendry to make it happen.

Take a listen to the first 15 minutes. Dead solid perfect.

Cubs 2014

2010-03-02T09:42:00.000-06:00

While the physical plant of Wrigley Field is planned to be spruced up for it's 100th anniversary, there's going to be major changes on the field by that time as well. Those changes on the field are likely going to have to pay for the cost of fixing Wrigley (and paying down debt). How do you do that? Bruce Miles has some insights:

(Outfielder Tyler Colvin, followed by third baseman Josh Vitters, right-handed pitcher Andrew Cashner and center fielder Brett Jackson are) all No. 1 draft picks of the Cubs - the four most recent No. 1 picks - and they're all at big-league spring training in Mesa, Ariz.

It's believed to be the first time the Cubs have had four consecutive No. 1 picks in big-league spring training at the same time.

"It says a lot about the confidence in our scouting director, Tim Wilken, our international director, Paul Weaver, and the confidence Jim (GM Hendry) has instilled in all of us as well as (manager) Lou Piniella, to invite them all to camp and give them an opportunity," said Cubs farm director Oneri Fleita. "You know what's fun about watching them when they're young? You can watch them grow daily and weekly and monthly."

Yeah, we'ev heard this story before, right? Andy Sisco, Bobbie Brownlie, Felix Pie, Bobby Hill. The list goes on of young "can't miss" prospects. Why is this group different?

Because, unless the Ricketts family commits personal cash to the team, the team can't afford to fill these positions with high-priced free agents anymore. Look at these players and you can see where the Cubs intend to slot them in.

Ted Lilly is a free agent after this year, and, with his current unknown health statuts, the likelihood of his returning in 2011 is pretty minimal. A good slot for Cashner, no? Tyler Colvin seems slotted to replace either Kosuke Fukudome (expiration date of 2011) or Alfonso Soriano (expiration date 2008). Brett Jackson will step in as soon as Marlon Byrd goes away. And Josh Vitters may be needed as soon as next season if Aramis Ramirez exercises his option and leaves the Cubs this winter.

Are these guys going to be any good? Who knows. Are the Cubs going to try harder than ever to get them into the lineup and save millions on salary?

Certainly.

Playing the Percetanges

2010-02-23T09:07:00.000-06:00

Alfonso Soriano is still hurt. Maybe. Maybe not:

"I say in my mind I'm 80 percent because I'm not doing anything like playing the field, just more like running and doing some exercises for my knee," he said. "The work that I do in the Dominican is very hard for me. I hope that my knee feels better than I think because I think it's like 85, 80 percent. Maybe when I test it, it's 100 percent.

"I'm just running 75-80 percent, and I don't feel anything at all. When I start running 100 percent, I'm going to know how I feel."

Yeah, no one else knows what this means either.

Meanwhile Ted Lilly is on the Mark Prior regiment. No one seems to know when he's going to pitch again.

The answer seems to be: 3 to 4 weeks after he first takes the mound in a spring training game.

Or extended spring training game.

Or minor league rehab assignment.

Job Growth

2010-02-23T08:58:00.000-06:00

While the Cubs on the field are pretty much the same as last year (well, 85% of the same in left field), front office changes continue to be made:

The Cubs today announced two front office hires for newly created positions within the organization. Jahaan Blake has been hired as the club's director of fan experiences and Kevin Saghy has been named the club's public relations and marketing specialist.

...

Blake will be responsible for creating and maintaining an outstanding fan experience for visitors to Wrigley Field and for those interacting with the Chicago Cubs through all fan forums. She will also oversee a team of proactive fan service representatives responsible for monitoring the Wrigley Field experience before, during and after games and responding to fan requests for information or suggestions.

...

With the Cubs, Saghy will be responsible for monitoring and creating exposure for the marketing, community affairs and additional business efforts of the Cubs. He will work closely with the organization's corporate and community partners to enhance awareness of the Cubs brand, the partners' brands and their collaborative efforts.

So, the Cubs have hired a person to take care of the Cubs as a brand and another person to take care of the fans in the stands.

The first hire sounds like a great business decision. The second sounds like a euphemism for "Well, the game on the field sucks, but how can I help you have more fun in the ballpark?"

Yeah, there are plenty of Cub fans who are satisfied with a great day in the sun, and one supposes hiring a person to cater to such mopes isn't the worst thing in the world. After all, these are the fans the buy tickets no matter what. Giving them a baby sitter makes a good deal of sense, especially given that the Ricketts just might have to earn some trust.

But isn't the best way to give the fans a satisfying day simply to win?

Fun Game

2010-02-22T15:36:00.000-06:00

Some advice to the NHL and Garry Bettman: Cancel your stupid all star game and just do this every few years.

Let There Be Light!

2010-02-17T06:45:00.020-06:00

As pitchers and catchers report, Ivy Chat returns from the darkness to discuss the issues of the day.

- Bruce Miles is in first with the Cubs spring training roster. Expect Starlin Castro to move up in his paragraphs going forward.

- Miles' fellow Daily Heralder Barry Rozner was on the radio today blasting Tom Ricketts for not making a bigger splash in the off season in terms of adding talent. What Barry refused to say is where on the roster Barry thinks the Cubs should have cut and who Barry thinks the Cubs should have added. Unless he thinks that benching someone who plays left, right, first, third or catcher makes sense, there was really not much out there to make the Cubs better at center, second or short.

- Waxpaperbeercup went off on the Cubs for grossing up ticket prices by the amount of the City of Chicago Amusement tax in 2010 instead of just including the tax in the face value of the ticket. Here's an unused ticket stub from last year. Weren't the Cubs already doing this, or does he mean that the same ticket today would cost $38.75?

- Let me see if I understand this: I can use my ATM card with a Visa logo on it anywhere in the world to buy a TV set and have the money debited almost instantly from my checking account. But the Illinois primary system can't determine who is the Republican nominee for governor for over two weeks after the election? Time to completely modernize our voting system.

- Ryan Theriot looks like he is going to press to arbitration and force Jim Hendry to actually hold a hearing. Sounds like Ryan isn't scared of what Hendry will have to say, either because Hendry doesn't have many bad things to say or because Hendry won't be around as long as Theriot will.

- And finally, there's still a chance the Cubs will move to Florida and vacate Arizona. It seems The King of Corporate Wellfare, Jerry Reinsdorf, is leading the objection to having ticket prices for the White Sox (and all other Cactus League teams) raised by $1 to help pay for the Cubs to build a new stadium. Let this page be one that hopes the Cubs run and dont walk to Naples. No, it's not because teams that play in Florida win a lot of World Series (although that doesn't hurt) It's because no such decision, short of ripping down Wrigley Field, would announce to Cub fans that the Ricketts are really changing the way the Cubs operate.

The franchise needs big, bold changes. Naples would be a big, bold change.

I Know The Answer!

2010-02-07T15:17:00.001-06:00

Do people really not know what Burn Notice is?

She Went into The Light

2010-01-27T23:03:00.000-06:00

Zelda Rubinstein (1933-2010)

Last Expo In The Hall

2010-01-27T09:21:00.000-06:00

Andre Dawson, Hall of Famer. Expo.

That's the right decision. For those of you "annoyed" by this, get over yourselves.

Managing Ambiguity

2010-01-26T09:45:00.001-06:00

As we bide our time between the end of the Bears season and the start of the Cubs season (wouldn’t now be the perfect time for the Stanley Cup?), there's very little activity for us to follow.

That's why small issues get magnified. Issues like the Bears Dave McGinnis-like search for an offensive coordinator.

The latest is that Baltimore Ravens quarterbacks coach Hue Jackson changed his mind and canceled his interview today. Why? Well, one Brad Biggs suggests that Jackson wants nothing to do with Lovie Smith’s death march. Biggs also suggests that Jackson may not want anything to do with Jay Cutler, either.

What are the chances that the team ends up unable to hire a coordinator for a few weeks. Lovie goes back to Jerry Angelo and says, "I've interviewed everyone. Only Mike Martz will do."

Jerry says back to Lovie, "I told you 'No,' on him already." (as reported by Terry Boers)

The two of them get into a pissing match and Jerry fires Lovie.

Now, that would be a fun to fill the gap between sport seasons.

Oh, to have a copy of Michael McCaskey's book.

A Mistake Has Been Made

2010-01-13T09:15:00.095-06:00

The Ricketts family has done a very good job of setting the capital position of the Cubs for the long term. They will have the ability to set both capital construction and payroll budgets going forward for the next 13 years due to the actions they have taken during the past 10 weeks since taking over the club.

Reality check: The Ricketts have had control of the Cubs for 10 weeks. That's it. Before then, they had no decision power on club actions for multiple reasons, the biggest of which was that there was no lock guaranty that the deal would close.

Deals fall apart at the 11th hour all the time (and it's really ugly when that happens).

Without 100% certainty that a deal would close, there's no way that the Tribune would let a non-executive of their corporation have decision making power over any business transactions related to the team. If they had allowed a prospective owner such power, and the deal cratered, the Tribune could open themselves to major problems, not the least of which could be lawsuits from all sorts of sources.

All that changed on October 30, 2009.

So, why hasn't the prediction of this page, that Jim Hendry and Crane Kenney would be canned, occurred? Well, there are a couple of reasons.

First, Hendry and Kenney's multi-year contracts were transferred to the Ricketts along with every other contract that the Cubs have executed. Firing them and hiring replacements would be tantamount to creating additional debt in the form of paying their salaries for the next several years. The Ricketts are looking for less debt, not more.

Second, look at the sports world. No one is getting fired these days. The NFL saw 7 coaches change in 2008 and another 9 coaches change going into the 2009 season. Major League Baseball saw 8 managers change jobs in 2008 and 5 managers in 2009.

This year? Hardly any changes. Why? A big reason is the economy. Teams have seen their franchise values drop. In MLB, one third of teams saw enterprise values fall, while, in the NFL, 25% of teams saw their value fall.

With cash flows tightening, and economic uncertainty, professional sports teams are trying to save money.

How capitalistic of them!

Now, the finances of keeping Crane and Hendry makes sense, but does it from a business case?

Well, believe it or not, keeping Crane Kenney probably makes sense. The guy is a lawyer from a media company. He's probably very competent at negotiating media contracts, something the Cubs now have to do for themselves. He would be a good representative for the Cubs at league meetings. And, he could probably be a good sounding board for pending capital improvement projects (e.g. the Triangle Building project).

That said, the guy has no business being anywhere near a blade of Wrigley Field grass, much less attending the Winter Meetings as he did this year. It's up to the Ricketts to lay out a job description for Kenney that clearly defines limits to his role.

With well defined limits (which should be very limited), Kenney can be an effective member of Cubs management.

Which brings us to Jim Hendry.

The case for Jim Hendry's inability to create a major league roster and develop a strong minor league system has been well documented. Jim's only sustained success (sustained for 2 consecutive years) has been at the major league level, and that required an unlimited budget to cure team ills.

As we all well now know, that budget is no longer unlimited as cash flow is committed elsewhere.

Should Jim be fired? Certainly. But, he hasn't been so far. But, as they were joking around on WSCR this morning, it's not a secret that Jim has to "get it done" this year or he's out. So, it's in Jim's interest to place the 2010 on-field performance ahead of all other interests. Not a good idea. People who fear for their jobs have an incentive to make decisions that enhance the short term benefit at long term detriment. Strong business do not allowed decisions for an organization by people under duress.

Tom Ricketts can immediately fix this situation and not fire Jim at the same time. How?

Ricketts can hold a press conference and announce Jim Hendry's contract has been extended.

Such a move would give Jim a clear path to set a long term plan for the team on the field. This move would make the new manager brought in after Lou Piniella leaves at the end of the 2010 season certain who his boss would be. It give agents a signal that Hendry wasn't negotiating contracts out of desperation.

A lot of uncertainty about the Cubs would be removed.

This page does not endorse the return of Jim Hendry. But allowing Jim Hendry to make roster decisions for 2010 and beyond with the possibility that he could be fired very soon, is potentially a worse scenario than bringing him back.

Tom Ricketts has been a fan for at least 20 years, and has been doing due diligence on the team for the last three years. One hopes he already has a feeling for Jim Hendry's work.

Leaving Jim Hendry's status as uncertain beyond the 2010 season is the biggest mistake the new owners have made so far. They need to fix this very quickly.

The Real Payroll Number

2010-01-12T07:00:00.049-06:00

Today, we're going to try to explain why the Cubs didn't do a lot so far this off season in terms of payroll additions. Hopefully, this will explain to many of you why players like Rich Harden, Matt Capps, and Curtis Granderson are not here.

First, you need to draw a circle around the date of October 20, 2009. That's the date the Ricketts closed on the purchase of the Cubs. That's also the date the Cubs took on $425 million in bank debt.

All transactions that happened before then need to be viewed through the lens of a team that was still under the delusion that it could compete for a divisional title. That's why guys like Rich Harden and Tom Gorzelany were not traded. Jim Hendry was unwilling to White Flag the 2009 season. The decision to offer arbitration after the season to these players was tabled until the season was over. It had to be. You can't offer a player arbitration until the World Series is over. On October 30th, the Yankees and Phillies were still engaged.

On October 30, the Cubs became the proud owners of $425 million in floating rate bank debt with a maturity date 48 months later. In other words, the Cubs had to be out of debt BEFORE Alfonso Soriano's contract was over.

How does $425 million in band debt affect the Cubs? Look at it like this: Before the debt, the Cubs were free to spend all their available cash on operations, payroll included. The team was saddled with no debt. All of it was on the books of the parent company, the Chicago Tribune. Yes, the Tribune could have forced the Cubs to upstream cash to support parent operations. But remember the Cubs free cash flow was a pimple on the behemoth that the Tribune once was.

After the debt came on? Imagine this. October 29, 2009. The Cubs have a payroll for 2010 of $140 million. The next day? The Cubs have a payroll for 2010 of at least $161 million. What's that $21 million bump?

Interest expense (assumes $425 million at a rate of 5%).

And, unlike a player contract, that number wasn't fixed. If interest rates rise (as expected), the "payroll" goes up by another $4.25 million for every 1% rates rise.

If the Federal Reserve Bank normalizes interest rates, the Cubs could have a "payroll" of over $170 million.

But wait, there's more.

Crain's characterized the $425 million in bank debt as a "term loan." Most term loans are like mortgages. They require you to pay not only the interest, but the principal as well. How much principal?

If the banks were requiring principal reductions in the debt over the life of the loan (4 years)m that could have bumped the "payroll" up to, get this, as high as $260 million to $270 million.

You read that right.

Do you now see why the Cubs didn't offer arbitration to Rich Harden? Do you now see why the Cubs didn't go after Aroldis Chapman?

Do you now see why the refinance of the debt last week was such a big, positive development? The interest rates are now mostly fixed. The principle repayments are now over a much longer period of time.

The Cubs are now stable financially from a capital structure perspective.

Yes, the sale screwed up this offseason and, quite probably, the 2010 season.

I'll sacrifice 2010 if it means the Cubs can set themselves up for long term success.

Yes, this sounds like the "Keep the faith" crap you hear elsewhere. That's not what this is trying to say. What is being said is to give the new ownership some patience. There's plenty of time to decide if they really know what they are doing.

In fact, they've only made one mistake so far.

The Plan

2010-01-07T06:19:00.000-06:00

There's been a lot of bitching among Cub fans and the professional media about the Ricketts approach to owning the team. Why aren't they spending more? Why buy the team if you can't afford to spend on it? Let's go already!

Well, there is a plan and it's pretty clear what it is. And some fans aren't going to like it. The key point is understanding what the plan does include and what it doesn't include. Let's start with what it doesn't include:

The plan does not include an all out effort to win in 2010.

Deal with it, Cub fans. Barring some sort of unnatural intervention, 2010 will not be the year we make contact with a pennant. The team isn't good enough as it stands and there weren't / aren't enough good players available to make the team better enough to win.

Here's what the plan the Ricketts have does include:

1) Multi-generational ownership
2) Winning many times during those many generations

Make no mistake, point #1 is their primary goal. How do we know this? Well, they said so at their opening press conference.

Then, there is their approach to finance. Crain's has the details:

Let's summarize. At the time of acquisition, the Ricketts took on $425 million in bank debt and put up another $249 million in subordinated debt. The subordinated debt is money that really is equity put in by the Ricketts, but is structured like a loan to allow the Tribune to get better tax treatment of the "transfer" (don't call it a sale!).

The terms of the bank debt are now a little more clear. The debt had a floating rate and a 4 year maturity. That placed the Ricketts at substantial risk in 2013 to the whim of their bank syndicate.

What they have done now is start to retire that short term, floating rate debt with long term, fixed rate debt.

There is a term for what they have done.

Smart.

According to Crain's, the Ricketts have already reduced the bank debt from $425 million down to $125 million and replaced it with $250 million in other debt that is due in various dates through 2022.

What the Ricketts family has done is locked in the capital structure for the next 13 years. This will allow them to set proper long term budgets and invest back into the team without worrying that changes in interest rates, or banks being unwilling to refinance, would put the product on the field at risk.

Next, they are trying to raise another $100 million for working capital, capital improvements, and cash reserve to cover the remaining short term debt.

And to watch over all this? They are hiring a CFO.

The Ricketts have a plan and they are executing it smartly.

The plan just doesn't include major on-field improvements.

In 2010.

Hot Defense on a Cold Night

2010-01-06T10:10:00.004-06:00

Georgia Tech had 14 three-and-outs this season before the Orange Bowl. They had 4 of them on each of their first four possessions last night.

A nice finish to Iowa's season. Too bad the Orange Bowl moved from New Year's Day, when everyone watched it, to a random Tuesday night. I'm sure the TV ratings were good in Atlanta and Des Moines, but why anyone else would watch, one wonders.

With so many players returning next year, Iowa is probably a lock to be a pre-season Top 5 pick.

If only Rick Stanzi hadn't hurt his ankle against Northwestern, they could have finished that high this year.

Easy Come, Easy Go

2010-01-04T22:24:00.002-06:00

Regular posting returns tomorrow. Until then, an update to the start of Wayne's World by the Muppets.

Happy New Year / Decade - 2010

2010-01-01T00:21:00.000-06:00

May your best day of 2009 be your worst day of 2010.

The End of the "Now" Decade

2009-12-31T08:27:00.000-06:00

Well, the decade of the Aughts ends tonight at Midnight. How do you sum up the past 10 years? Well, the following song seems to make perfect sense. It speaks to all those who want everything immediately. It speaks to the spoiled brats who don't do anything yet feel entitled to everything.

And it tells you all where you belong.

Good riddance to the 2000's.

Remotely Safe

2009-12-27T00:54:00.002-06:00

One of the best things about being 1,800 miles from Chicago with minimal internet access is that you get removed from the spasmodic reactions of the Chicago fans on websites and the talk radio hosts that stoke the communal angst. Certainly there have to be fans on the ledge because the Cubs still haven't upgraded their team since the end of the 2009 season.

How many teeth were ground to dust over the Matt Capps to the Nationals signing?

How many gigs of message board space were filled with bitching that Curtis Granderson isn't a Cub? Same with Marlon Byrd. And even Reed Johnson, for that matter.

How much moaning is going on over the expected upcoming thrashing that the fans are expecting the Vikings to lay on the Bears and lame duck coach Lovie Smith (if he's not gone in 2 weeks, he's gone in 54 weeks)?

In the Decade of the Ought's, we as a society have come to expect instant gratification, no matter if that makes any sense or not. We all live on Internet Time. Even microwave ovens are sluggish for us.

How peaceful it is to be away from all this and be able to wear short sleeves, no jacket, and avoid e-mails.

Merry Christmas to those of you who celebrate. I'll bet you wish you were where I am, even if you don't realize it.

Honeymoon Over?

2009-12-17T10:13:00.003-06:00

It getting kind of clear that some people are already getting frustrated with the Ricketts' stewardship of the Chicago Cubs. The "Tradition" fans (read: those that like to go to the games and don't want anyone to mess with that experience) are already mad that the Cubs may move their training base to Florida from Arizona.

I've had an e-mail debate with one good fan who is upset that the Cubs haven't signed anyone yet.

But, now a professional media person is getting in on the act. Barry Rozner starts drawing a line in the sand:

The problem is that while Ricketts watches this little play unfold, the theater's on fire, and the audience is screaming for the fire department.

Yet, Ricketts stands with a cup of water in hand, takes a sip, and watches it happen.

...

Everyone knows the family overpaid to get the franchise and its broken-down ballpark, but if they didn't have enough cash to find a new center fielder, maybe they shouldn't have bought the club.

And if they do have the money but are waiting to see what Hendry can do, enough is enough already.

What's going to happen when Ricketts doesn't win the World Series by June?

DH Designated for Assignment?

2009-12-17T06:17:00.002-06:00

Phil Rodgers is on the case of Bud Selig's new competition committee:

Is the designated hitter rule finally on its way out with Major League Baseball?

To be fair, it's premature to ask such a potentially provocative question. But thanks to Commissioner Bud Selig's decision to turn recommendations for on-field matters over to a newly created version of the NFL's Competition Committee, the DH rule could face its first real threat since the American League accepted it permanently for the 1976 season, after a three-year experiment that began as a way to create run scoring and increase attendance.

So, why now? What could possibly be driving the removal of the DH now? Read on:

La Russa, like the other three managers on the committee ( Joe Torre, Jim Leyland and Mike Scioscia) has seen the DH rule play a major role in World Series play involving his teams. It is used in the AL park and not the NL, creating two different styles of games in determining championships.

Forced to build deeper rosters because of the DH rule, the AL has had an upper hand against the NL in recent years -- a trend borne out in results from the All-Star Game, the World Series and in interleague play. AL teams have been bigger spenders than their NL counterparts.

Oh ho! Bigger spenders? Amazing!

The reality of the DH is that it gives longer careers to marginal players. And what happens to a player's salary as their career extends? They get paid more.

DH's are high paid, one dimensional players - exactly the kind of player that teams really don't want to pay. With attendance high and juiced players scoring plenty of runs, the need for the DH as a augmentation to the offense has been basically removed.

The league wants the DH to go away, not because Tony LaRussa now no longer sees it as a benefit to the game. They want it to go away to save American League teams a lot of money.

How do they get the union to agree to this? The last thing the MLBPA wants is to see salaries go down Here's one idea. Go to a 26 man roster with a 1-man inactive slot. From the MLBPA's position, the league is going to take away 14 high paying jobs, but they will be replaced with 30 brand new jobs. Those 30 minor leaguers who are union members but stuck in AAA are certainly going to vote in favor of no-DH and yes-extra roster spot.

From the owners place, the 30 new jobs will probably earn less than the 14 players who had been filling the DH roles.

And for the fans? Well, the use of the 26th slot should go to the previous day's starting pitcher. Benches have thinned out over the past twenty years as teams migrated from a 4-man pitching rotation to a 5-man rotation. That extra starter came at the cost of a bench player. With teams carrying 11 or 12 pitchers, benches are awfully thin. Solution: Extra bench player, inactive yesterday's starter.

Does this suggestion have a chance of being adopted? Probably not. But the owners are going to have to give the players something to get them to give up 14 DH jobs. Thirty new jobs is not a bad way to do just that.

Live From the Showcase Studio on Michigan Avenue

2009-12-16T08:44:00.005-06:00

For those of you who listened to WGN's Sports Central last night, you were treated to 90 minutes of wry repartee on the Cubs from David Kaplan, Andy Dolan and Bad Kermit. Kaplan was a very gracious host and did a great job moving the conversation around amongst the four of us.

His producer and intern also deserve a shout out as they actually came through and had pizza ready for us when we arrived. That really hit the spot after a few Billy Goat Lagers.

You can hear the full broadcast here (via mp3 download) or simply click on the player below to listen with the commercials deleted.

FYC, indeed.

:::UPDATE:::
Bad Kermit with some detailed play-by-play.

Legitimacy

2009-12-15T08:38:00.002-06:00

Lovie Smith gave his press conference yesterday, during which he said that of his team's eight losses, "three of them were legitimate losses. ... To say we're that far away, I wouldn't necessarily say that."

Smith is saying that the Begnals (loss by 35 points), Vikings (loss by 26 points), and Cardinals (loss by 20 points) were the only ones where the Bears were not in the game.

By that logic, only 3 of the Bears' wins were legitimate as well. If Lovie is saying that his coaching has the team only a couple of plays away from a 10-3 record, then he has to admit that the opposing teams' coaches are only a couple of plays away from the Bears being 3-10 right now. In fact, Pittsburgh's problems were more to do with field goal kicking rather than coaching.

Dave Wannstedt was a lousy coach on so many levels. But what used to be the most bothersome was his refusal to take responsibility for his suckitude. "We're only a few plays away," he'd say. And he was right.

What he misunderstood was that EVERY losing team is only a few plays away. That's the difference between good teams and bad teams. Good team consistently make key plays, bad ones don't.

It's not bad luck that you are losing and you aren't close because the losses are close. If you are stacking losses, there's a reason.

When you've been stacking losses for 3 consecutive years, it's time to go away.

Hard To Believe

2009-12-14T09:31:00.002-06:00

When Jay Cutler came to the Bears, you figured that, at the very least, the Bears would be entertaining. You figured, "Young, Pro-Bowl quarterback. Decent young running back. Yeah, the D-line may be declining as Tommie Harris is now down to only 1 leg, but the offense will make this fun." It was going to be like watching the Dolphins in the Marino years. Yeah, they wouldn't really be contenders every year, but you wouldn't be bored for three hours every Sunday.

Man, was that wrong.

Lovie Smith has evolved into another Dave Wannstedt. He coaches scared. How frustrating is it to see, on 3rd and 12, a short swing pass? Isn't this QB a guy who is supposed to be able to gun it over the middle?

"Oh, but Cutler throws a lot of pics," some will say. The swing pass is the safe play.

At 5-7, what's the reason left to play it safe?

There is none.

It's not easy to tell if Lovie Smith thinks his job is in jeopardy. But going conservative instead of giving the fans something to potentially cheer about sure seems to be a way of trying to save one's own butt over treating the playing customers to an actual entertaining spectacle.

On the plus side, the next three weekends just found three extra hours for doing other stuff. If enough other people agree, just maybe the McCaskey's will realize that their brand is faltering again.

Enhanching the Stream

2009-12-09T09:23:00.005-06:00

Last Saturday, the day when news stories people don't want talked about are talked about, Paul Sullivan ran a piece in the Tribune on ticket price increases for the Cubs in 2010:

Club box outfield seats will increase by nearly 19 percent for so-called "platinum" games, a new ticket price tier that was introduced in 2009, and will nearly double from 14 games to 26 next year.

The most expensive seat will be a platinum club infield box, which was raised by $12, or a 12 percent increase from $100 to $112. The cheapest tickets will be $9 for an upper deck outfield reserved seat for one of the six "bronze" games on weekdays in April, May and September.

The Cubs maintain that half of the ticket inventory will remain about the same, while the average price increase will be $2 for "gold" games and $5 for "platinum" games. A 1 percent rise in the city amusement tax, from 11 to 12 percent, also figured into the price hike.

In essence, the Cubs hiked the prices on their most expensive seats and said they believe many of them will be re-sold by season ticket holders. Meanwhile, they held the line on most "cheap" seats that generally go to individuals when tickets go on sale to the public in February.

The best Cubs-Business blogger out there, Wax Paper Beer Cup, has some fun with a Crane Kenney comment:

"We understand our season ticket holders in particular use the secondary market as a way of underwriting their ticket purchases," Kenney said. "It's a fact of life. We’re over that. That’s fine. So we did the $5 (average) increase on those premium games as a way of trying to push the burden of our ticket price increase on those games, leaving the ticket prices flat for most of our games, for most of our seats.”

So Kenney decides to run the 'move the blame to the ticket brokers play', it's a play that's almost as tiresome as a Bears screen pass. Kenney doesn't have to run this play and truthfully the Cubs should thank the secondary market for being an easy scapegoat every year the Cubs raise ticket prices. I guess it's easier to blame ticket brokers than it is to tell the fans: 'the team has a shitload of debt and you will pay for it. That may not go over so well.

You never want to slap down anger directed at Kenney (aside - just why is he at the Winter Meetings? What the hell kind of value is he capable of adding to actual baseball discussions?), our friend CCD kind of misses Kenney's (shockingly) correct point.

The reason the Cubs are raising ticket prices is not because of the brokers. It's because the brokers demonstrate that Cubs tickets have a higher market value than their face value.

As we all know, the Ricketts now are responsible for debt service on $425 million in loans. If they have a way to increase total revenue, they should do it. If the equilibrium price for tickets is higher than the face value of the tickets, then, by gum, raise prices.

What no one seems to have noticed here is that this has been the case for quite a while. Remember Premium Ticket Services? The Cubs have been trying to get extra money for years out of their tickets.

So, why didn't they just raise prices like this directly the last few years? Simple.

The team was for sale. What do you do when a sports team is for sale? Maximize attendance and show a buyer the inherent potential for new revenue. What do you NOT do? Do anything that creates even one more empty seat.

What this means is that prices have been lower the past several years in an effort to facilitate a sale.

This isn't really a price increase. It's a price recovery.

Toews' Insane Goal

2009-12-08T22:23:00.003-06:00

This rare goal is getting kinda common from this guy.

There were two problems with this goal: 1) It was at the other end of the ice from where we were sitting; and 2) It was the Hawks' only goal of the night and they needed 5.

Jonathan Toews just keeps getting better and better and better...

The Ellipses...

2009-12-07T11:09:00.002-06:00

...Jim Hendry managed to unload a bad player who was signed to too long of a contract on another team. Aaron Miles is an A. The A's gave up two non-prospects and gave the Cubs $1.7 million in salary relief. Why would they do that? Hendry handed Billy Beane Jake Fox. For once, Hendry realized some sort of positive value for a "prospect." If only he'd realized this much value with Bobbie Brownlie. Or Donnie Veal. Or Andy Sisco. Or...

...If the Bears had still owned their #1 pick in 2010, wouldn't yesterday's 17-9 snoozefest win over the Rams be the kind of game that the organization would have been better off for losing?

...Iowa goes to the Orange Bowl to play a game on a Tuesday night. The Orange Bowl Committee is certainly betting that the Iowa economy is doing well enough not only for their fans to travel to Florida, but for them to take off part of the week after New Years as well.

...The Chicago Blackhawks' crowd was pretty tepid last Friday night considering how well the team is doing, how strong the road trip was, and that it was Marian Hossa's first game in a Hawk uniform. Then again, other the Jonathan Toews' Hall of Fame caliber goal, there wasn't much to cheer about.

...Mike Cameron for the Cubs strikes me as a decent idea, but do we really want Jim Hendry setting the terms of the contract? New ownership of Tom Ricketts (et al) sure didn't do much oversight on the John Grabow negotiations.

Chip Off The TBS Block

2009-11-30T15:48:00.003-06:00

Chip Caray was fired today. He didn't quit, he was fired. How do we know it wasn't mutual? From the article:

Caray had some time left on his contract with Turner, where he also called Braves games on the Peachtree TV cable network. Levy said the company was looking at a "number of candidates" to replace Caray at both positions.

TBS is paying Chip to stay away. Smart move.

If only Milton Bradley worked for TBS.

The Winds of Change, Perhaps?

2009-11-30T08:45:00.004-06:00

This page has long held the opinion that Lovie Smith is a good coach when it comes to motivating his players and getting the most out of their performances. These good skills have been nearly offset by his stubbornness to adapt his game plans to the talent he has available to him. Additionally, he has shown time and again that he is a poor tactician when it comes to adjusting his game plan once a game has started.

None of those will be the reasons Lovie stays or gets fired after the 2009 season. As with nearly everything, especially with the McCaskey's, it all will come down to money.

Yes, Lovie Smith is owed $10 million more dollars through 2011. And his coaching staff is probably due another $5 million combined on top of that. Furthermore, there is really no reason to unload Lovie unless you completely clean house and remove Jerry Angelo, the architect of this house (which is in need of foreclosure). That means another $5 million or more.

So, to start the process of fixing the Bears, it's going to cost well over $20 million or more. They'll never do it, right?

Most likely not. But don't be too sure.

The question the McCaskey's have to weigh is if retaining this regime will cost them more money than firing them and replacing them. There is certainly a probability that the cost to retain is greater than the cost to fire.

First, as mentioned previously, this team has $40 million invested in Jay Cutler. If Lovie can't get value out of that $40 million, a team could see that there's money to be saved by finding someone who can get that value out. And, beyond Cutler, there's value in the rest of the roster. Can value be generated out of Johnny Knox, Devin Hester and Lance Briggs or will this regime simply burn their salaries and talent in the fires of wasted seasons?

And then there is the question of franchise value. What does a disgusted fan base do to the value of the franchise in a sale. Make no doubt about it, the Bears will eb the next team sold in Chicago, and that day comes not long after Virginia McCaskey decides she prefers a harp and a halo to a sky box.

The Bears have a lot of family members that own stock who want to monetize that stock. What's better for the value? Lovie Smith, Jerry Angelo and rapidly de-evolving quarterback or Bill Cowher?

It was no accident that Hub Arkush let slip last week that the Bears have reached out to Cowher. The McCaskey family floated a trial balloon to see what fan reaction would be. Word on the street was that the fans were pretty receptive to the idea.

The McCaskey's are going to do what they need to do to protect the value of their investment. Unlike nearly every other owner, this is all they have. If they deem that firing Lovie will improve their value, the regime will be dumped very quickly after this season ends.

The only remaining question is: Can the final 5 games of the 2009 season influence that decision.

Well, back in 2006, with another team up for sale, waning fan interest and empty seats resulted in the spending of a few hundred million dollars on Lou Piniella, Alfonso Soriano, and Ted Lilly.

The telltale for the 2009 Chicago Bears will be the same. Watch for empty seats.

Donna Needs More Education

2009-11-26T05:27:00.001-06:00

Normally, we go with Les Nessman. As a change, we go with Jed Bartlett.

Happy Turkey Coma, everyone!

What He's Really Saying

2009-11-19T08:26:00.002-06:00

For the last few days, the radio talk shows have talked about little else than what Dr. Dan Grossman, ophthalmologist from Bloomington, IN, had to say about Jay Cutler, Rex Grossman and the sad state that is the Chicago Bears:

"You know this young man can really play the sport and that position. It borders on the ridiculous. And the media wants to continually rip the player. And they are missing the point. It's not the player. It's the organization.

I'm not even going to rip the coaches. It's not even the coaches. The coaches are given a clear, strong message: 'We're not building an offensive passing team; we're building an offensive running team.'"

What the media has focused on are the direct points Dr. Grossman made (why is Jay struggling and why did Rex struggle) and the "journalistic" angle (why did Fred Mitchell even go and contact Dr. Grossman).

There is some merit in the journalism angle. Is it good for society to have newspapers, in this specific case the Chicago Tribune, continue to try to stave off extinction by creating stories and not simply reporting them? Does it even matter in something as trivial as sports? If this practice is accepted for sports, does it have ramifications for how news organizations will cover hard news?

All good discussions to have.

But Dr. Grossman makes an accusation that fans of sports teams need to understand. Dr. Grossman has directly accused the McCaskey family of directly controlling the style of on field play to the detriment of the product. Listen to what he says:

"I believe that the NFL is a passing league. It has been for the last 20 years. Chicago continues to use the phrase, at least Lovie Smith continues to use the phrase, 'We get off the bus running.' They need to abandon that concept. Running is obviously a very important part of the offense. But the best teams in this league are prolific passing teams."

The good doctor is saying that ownership is guiding the "run first" mentality when the league has moved on to become a passing league.

No one in the professional media has asked Mike McCaskey to comment on this as far as this page knows.

Do the Bears make general manager and coaching hires based upon on-field styles as directed by ownership?

Does ownership get involved in game decisions in other ways?

Are player personnel decisions still influenced by ownership?

This is what Dr. Grossman is saying. About time someone asked if his accusations have merit.

And, Cub fans, let's hope Tom Ricketts is paying close attention to this as well.

Picked Over

2009-11-13T08:43:00.003-06:00

When the Cubs signed Milton Bradley, he was already clearly a loon, but a talented loon. His numbers were good, he got on base, he had decent power. One figured that in a decent lineup, if he could stay healthy, Milton would be a good player for the Cubs. Hell, he could even be the Cubs #3 hitter.

Boy was scouting wrong.

That's what you get when you scout a player via the press and not by watching him regularly.

When the Bears traded for Jay Cutler, you looked at the numbers and listed to the analysts. Here was a franchise QB. Young, proven, ready for the next ten years. People who didn't agree were lambasted by the Boers & Burnstein types with them saying, "You've had plenty of chances to see this guy. Denver's been onllocal TV plenty the last three years. He's great. Don't worry about it."

Sounded good. These guys are paid to watch every game so we gave their opinion the benefit of a doubt. Some of us have non-sports lives and can't watch 16 NFL games a week, much less 15 MLB games a day. Therefore, we've learned to give some credence to their opinion.

Well, one wonders what they saw in Jay Cutler before, because we aren't seeing it here.

Jay is a good quarterback, but he clearly has some serious flaws. Those flaws that are being exposed as a Chicago Bear are some combination of three factors:

1) His receivers are beyond awful. Often it seems that Jay expects Bear receivers to behave like NFL receivers. That's a mistake. While the Bears have some guys that have the talent to catch and the speed to run, they don't seem to have guys that know how to play.

2) The play calling can be brutal. How many third and longs where the play is a three yard swing pass are going to be called before someone suggests that they should try something different?

3) Jay just doesn't see the defenders bracketing his receivers. This seems to be his red zone problem. The less field there is to defend, the more the defense can surround the wide outs, the more Cutler tosses a ball into the gut of a defender.

Interestingly, all this is fixable. Better WRs who are better coached would be a help. A GM who drafted and signed better offensive linemen would help.

The question is if this staff can do the fixing? The McCaskey's have more money tied up in Jay Cutler than they do in Lovie Smith and Jerry Angelo. At what point do they spend money do defend other money?

A few more losses and we just may find out.

After 40 Years, Days Still Sunny

2009-11-12T21:35:00.000-06:00

Happy 40th to Sesame Street.

Upon Further Review

2009-11-11T09:36:00.003-06:00

It's been like the 1980's around here. The Cubs have new ownership and there are real, honest-to-goodness leveraged buy outs to work on. The latter has taken up the bulk of the time of this writer. Regardless, everything seems like a replay of decades ago.

Speaking of replay, it's interesting how much instant replay has been the focus of the sport world of late. The Major League Baseball playoffs were littered with obvious mistakes that would take one quick glance to overturn on instant replay. Alex Rodriguez had a double that was turned into a home run via replay in the World Series. The Iowa Hawkeyes were saved a loss to Indiana by a questionable reversal of a touchdown call. Then, just last night, the Bulls were denied a potential win via a ten minute review of a potential game winning shot by Brad Miller.

In the MLB General Managers meetings this week, replay was glossed over:

Upon further review ... baseball general managers like instant replay the way it is.

GMs failed to take a vote Tuesday on expanding instant replay following a postseason filled with blown calls by umpires.

"I know there are some who have talked off line about the expansion of instant replay," said Jimmie Lee Solomon, executive vice president of baseball operations in the commissioner's office. "Right now, the commissioner doesn't see any reason to consider it."

Bud Selig doesn't see any reason? I guess he didn't watch any of his sport over the months of October and November.

What's true is this: Bud, you opened the door to replay already. It's in your sport. That you use it in only the most rudimentary way on calls that could become undisputed by simply installing Wrigley Field-like baskets in every stadium only shows how unthinking you are.

But you opened the door. To say you only like replay for somethings and not for others is not only dumb, but it suggests you have an outside influence preventing you from implementing replay further.

The thing about replay is you either do it fully loaded or not at all. You know the old joke that says if you won't sleep with me for $10 but you will for $1,000,000, then we know what you are, we are just haggling over price?

How much more do you need to be paid, Bud, to get replay done the right way? We know what you are, we just want to know your price.

Checking the Appendix

2009-11-06T09:46:00.000-06:00

I just want to know how long Stewart has been practicing the Glenn Beck imitation.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The 11/3 Project

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Remebering Sweetness

2009-11-02T09:20:00.003-06:00

Yesterday, at halftime of the Bears boring win over the Cleveland Browns, the Chicago Bears played a tribute to Walter Payton. Now, unless you saw the late news or read the papers and blogs this AM, you'd never have known about the tribute given ~~Fox's~~ CBS' ignoring the event.

It seems there was a six minute video tribute. The Bears have done their fans a service by posting the video on line. If you haven't seen it, the tribute can be found here.

I was 8 years old when Walter played his first game as a Bear. I have no recollection of watching the Bears before him. Could simply be that they were so bad that there was nothing worth remembering.

Walter Payton is worth remembering.

Hard to believe it's been 10 years.