Posts: 14,115
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
Between our salary commitments and the costs associated with upgrading facilities, combined with what it will cost for the Ricketts to service their debt resulting from the purchase of the team, it's going to be a real struggle to plan ahead for this team and expand payroll in a meaningful way. This is why the organization needs to get serious about fixing the farm system. Maybe that process has already begun, but we need to keep getting better at developing our own players in-house.
Posts: 3,745
Threads: 78
Joined: Apr 2022
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=58826:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:32 PM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 19 2009, 01:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58822:date=Aug 19 2009, 02:25 PM:name=1060Ivy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Aug 19 2009, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58820:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:06 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 19 2009, 01:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The following list make me want to vomit. The worst part is that our major commitments are not to any of the top tiered talent in the league. It will probably be a while until we contend again unless Ricketts throws money at the problem. We have more than twice the dollars committed in each year than any other Central division team.
Cubs Commitments compared to other NL Teams. (Central team bolded)
2010
<b>Cubs -- 122 M</b>
<b>Reds -- 60 M</b>
<b>Astros -- 54 M</b>
<b>Cardinals -- 50 M</b>
<b>Brewers -- 39 M</b>
<b>Pirates -- 23 M</b>
2011
<b>Cubs -- 96 M</b>
<b>Cardinals -- 44 M</b>
<b>Astros -- 37 M</b>
<b>Reds -- 28 M</b>
<b>Pirates -- 20 M</b>
<b>Brewers -- 7 M</b>
2012
<b>Cubs -- 54 M</b>
<b>Astros -- 21 M</b>
<b>Cardinals -- 14 M</b>
<b>Brewers -- 6 M</b>
<b>Pirates -- 4 M</b>
<b>Reds -- 3 M</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But what if you have twice the revenue base of most of the other teams in the NL Central?
Unless your an owner, the amount of money your team makes really doesn't matter unless it affects your ability to attract and pay for talent.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we had Pujols, Beltran, Johan, Haren, and Howard signed with that money I agree. but since we've spent it on much worse I disagree, VEHEMENTLY!
You fail to understand that I am not against spending money. I am against spending the way Jim Hendry has spent it.
And there is no way we have twice the revenue stream as the Cardinals now that they have a new ballpark.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coldneck is right. Sad, but true. Utterly depressing actually.
Posts: 11,808
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
My guess is Ricketts will be very creative when it comes to generating new revenue streams. A Cubs equivalent of the YES network would be a good start.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=58839:date=Aug 19 2009, 02:57 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 19 2009, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My guess is Ricketts will be very creative when it comes to generating new revenue streams. A Cubs equivalent of the YES network would be a good start.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Put me down for rebuilding. I just think it is a difficult thing to do for a new owner who is trying to win over the fans. I am cautiously optimistic about the Ricketts ownership. I just hope his first move is to gut the front office.
Posts: 14,115
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=58839:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My guess is Ricketts will be very creative when it comes to generating new revenue streams. A Cubs equivalent of the YES network would be a good start.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the team successfully files for bankruptcy, then there might be hope of shedding a bad contract or two. I know it's a longshot legally, but you never know. Please, let there be a loophole somewhere...
Posts: 323
Threads: 24
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
If a player dies do we have to pay them still?
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=58862:date=Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58839:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My guess is Ricketts will be very creative when it comes to generating new revenue streams. A Cubs equivalent of the YES network would be a good start.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the team successfully files for bankruptcy, then there might be hope of shedding a bad contract or two. I know it's a longshot legally, but you never know. Please, let there be a loophole somewhere...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
#1. The Cubs aren't even a part of the bankruptcy proceedings
#2. MLB players union will never allow that to happen.
#3. Even if it did happen the Cubs reputation would be significantly sullied and no top FA would want to sign with the Org. ever again.
Posts: 14,115
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=58866:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58862:date=Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58839:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My guess is Ricketts will be very creative when it comes to generating new revenue streams. A Cubs equivalent of the YES network would be a good start.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the team successfully files for bankruptcy, then there might be hope of shedding a bad contract or two. I know it's a longshot legally, but you never know. Please, let there be a loophole somewhere...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>#1. The Cubs aren't even a part of the bankruptcy proceedings</b>
#2. MLB players union will never allow that to happen.
#3. Even if it did happen the Cubs reputation would be significantly sullied and no top FA would want to sign with the Org. ever again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about the team filing separately. There were media reports 1 month ago about this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aArEAGUlLmS8
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=58838:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:53 PM:name=jeffy)-->QUOTE (jeffy @ Aug 19 2009, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58826:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:32 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 19 2009, 01:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58822:date=Aug 19 2009, 02:25 PM:name=1060Ivy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1060Ivy @ Aug 19 2009, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58820:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:06 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 19 2009, 01:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The following list make me want to vomit. The worst part is that our major commitments are not to any of the top tiered talent in the league. It will probably be a while until we contend again unless Ricketts throws money at the problem. We have more than twice the dollars committed in each year than any other Central division team.
Cubs Commitments compared to other NL Teams. (Central team bolded)
2010
<b>Cubs -- 122 M</b>
<b>Reds -- 60 M</b>
<b>Astros -- 54 M</b>
<b>Cardinals -- 50 M</b>
<b>Brewers -- 39 M</b>
<b>Pirates -- 23 M</b>
2011
<b>Cubs -- 96 M</b>
<b>Cardinals -- 44 M</b>
<b>Astros -- 37 M</b>
<b>Reds -- 28 M</b>
<b>Pirates -- 20 M</b>
<b>Brewers -- 7 M</b>
2012
<b>Cubs -- 54 M</b>
<b>Astros -- 21 M</b>
<b>Cardinals -- 14 M</b>
<b>Brewers -- 6 M</b>
<b>Pirates -- 4 M</b>
<b>Reds -- 3 M</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But what if you have twice the revenue base of most of the other teams in the NL Central?
Unless your an owner, the amount of money your team makes really doesn't matter unless it affects your ability to attract and pay for talent.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we had Pujols, Beltran, Johan, Haren, and Howard signed with that money I agree. but since we've spent it on much worse I disagree, VEHEMENTLY!
You fail to understand that I am not against spending money. I am against spending the way Jim Hendry has spent it.
And there is no way we have twice the revenue stream as the Cardinals now that they have a new ballpark.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coldneck is right. Sad, but true. Utterly depressing actually.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is... only two players really stick out as potential suck-asses over the duration of their contracts and that's Soriano and Dempster IMO.
Ramirez, Lee, Fukudome, Bradley, Zambrano, and Lilly are all worth at least most of what we're paying them. Fukudome may be paid too much for his production, but the Cubs had to outspend other teams at the time to get him. It was a risky venture and all-in-all it's not a terrible payout. On top of that, Fuku give the Cubs an opportunity to take some of the pie from the Asian market (although I don't have any idea how beneficial that is for them).
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
BTW, I didn't even realize it but Fukudome is putting up an .851 OPS right now. That's damn good production from a center fielder so I may have to reconsider the over-payed label.
I know it seems like the sky is falling and next year may be really rough. But, it's not a ridiculous suggestion to think that some of our guys that have had terrible years will bounce back at least a little bit next year. After next year, the Cubs will be getting some help from their prospects at the major league level and a few guys will be coming off the books.
I agree that the Cubs are in a very bleak time, but there is hope for overcoming the hole they're in.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=58867:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58866:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58862:date=Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58839:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My guess is Ricketts will be very creative when it comes to generating new revenue streams. A Cubs equivalent of the YES network would be a good start.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the team successfully files for bankruptcy, then there might be hope of shedding a bad contract or two. I know it's a longshot legally, but you never know. Please, let there be a loophole somewhere...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>#1. The Cubs aren't even a part of the bankruptcy proceedings</b>
#2. MLB players union will never allow that to happen.
#3. Even if it did happen the Cubs reputation would be significantly sullied and no top FA would want to sign with the Org. ever again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about the team filing separately. There were media reports 1 month ago about this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aArEAGUlLmS8
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I recall correctly this was to protect the Cubs from being assets subject to liquidation under the Tribune bankruptcy.
Posts: 14,115
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=58884:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:54 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 19 2009, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58867:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58866:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58862:date=Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58839:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My guess is Ricketts will be very creative when it comes to generating new revenue streams. A Cubs equivalent of the YES network would be a good start.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the team successfully files for bankruptcy, then there might be hope of shedding a bad contract or two. I know it's a longshot legally, but you never know. Please, let there be a loophole somewhere...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>#1. The Cubs aren't even a part of the bankruptcy proceedings</b>
#2. MLB players union will never allow that to happen.
#3. Even if it did happen the Cubs reputation would be significantly sullied and no top FA would want to sign with the Org. ever again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about the team filing separately. There were media reports 1 month ago about this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aArEAGUlLmS8
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I recall correctly this was to protect the Cubs from being assets subject to liquidation under the Tribune bankruptcy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, it was to help speed up the sale, which could get held up in case the Trib bankruptcy judge decided to be a douche.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=58885:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:56 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58884:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:54 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 19 2009, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58867:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58866:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58862:date=Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58839:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My guess is Ricketts will be very creative when it comes to generating new revenue streams. A Cubs equivalent of the YES network would be a good start.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the team successfully files for bankruptcy, then there might be hope of shedding a bad contract or two. I know it's a longshot legally, but you never know. Please, let there be a loophole somewhere...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>#1. The Cubs aren't even a part of the bankruptcy proceedings</b>
#2. MLB players union will never allow that to happen.
#3. Even if it did happen the Cubs reputation would be significantly sullied and no top FA would want to sign with the Org. ever again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about the team filing separately. There were media reports 1 month ago about this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aArEAGUlLmS8
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I recall correctly this was to protect the Cubs from being assets subject to liquidation under the Tribune bankruptcy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, it was to help speed up the sale, which could get held up in case the Trib bankruptcy judge decided to be a douche.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the story:
"A brief Cubs bankruptcy would be a legal maneuver to clear the team from any future liability in the Tribune bankruptcy, according to two of the people familiar with the matter. Sam Zell, chief executive officer of Chicago-based Tribune, pledged the company’s interest in the Cubs as collateral when he negotiated the deal to take the publisher private in 2007, according to one of those people."
Posts: 14,115
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=58893:date=Aug 19 2009, 04:25 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 19 2009, 04:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58885:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:56 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58884:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:54 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 19 2009, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58867:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58866:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58862:date=Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58839:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My guess is Ricketts will be very creative when it comes to generating new revenue streams. A Cubs equivalent of the YES network would be a good start.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the team successfully files for bankruptcy, then there might be hope of shedding a bad contract or two. I know it's a longshot legally, but you never know. Please, let there be a loophole somewhere...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>#1. The Cubs aren't even a part of the bankruptcy proceedings</b>
#2. MLB players union will never allow that to happen.
#3. Even if it did happen the Cubs reputation would be significantly sullied and no top FA would want to sign with the Org. ever again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about the team filing separately. There were media reports 1 month ago about this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aArEAGUlLmS8
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I recall correctly this was to protect the Cubs from being assets subject to liquidation under the Tribune bankruptcy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, it was to help speed up the sale, which could get held up in case the Trib bankruptcy judge decided to be a douche.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the story:
"A brief Cubs bankruptcy would be a legal maneuver to clear the team from any future liability in the Tribune bankruptcy, according to two of the people familiar with the matter. Sam Zell, chief executive officer of Chicago-based Tribune, pledged the company’s interest in the Cubs as collateral when he negotiated the deal to take the publisher private in 2007, according to one of those people."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That statement actually makes very little sense. All assets of the Trib would be considered collateral in the event of a default, not just the Cubs, unless of course the team was left out of the bankruptcy filing, which it was. Also, in the original purchase, how could an asset that Zell didn't already own be pledged as anything? Intent to sell the asset, yes. Pledge as collateral, nope. The writer is a boob.
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=58976:date=Aug 20 2009, 12:04 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Aug 20 2009, 12:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58893:date=Aug 19 2009, 04:25 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 19 2009, 04:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58885:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:56 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58884:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:54 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Aug 19 2009, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58867:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58866:date=Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Aug 19 2009, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58862:date=Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Aug 19 2009, 04:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=58839:date=Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Aug 19 2009, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My guess is Ricketts will be very creative when it comes to generating new revenue streams. A Cubs equivalent of the YES network would be a good start.
Let's see how things play out with new ownership before we start freaking out about next year and the year after. It might require eating a lot of contract, but we could shed some of that salary if Ricketts plans on rebuilding.
Yes -- it might hurt for the next couple of years, but it's been painful for my whole life. What's a few more years of misery?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the team successfully files for bankruptcy, then there might be hope of shedding a bad contract or two. I know it's a longshot legally, but you never know. Please, let there be a loophole somewhere...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>#1. The Cubs aren't even a part of the bankruptcy proceedings</b>
#2. MLB players union will never allow that to happen.
#3. Even if it did happen the Cubs reputation would be significantly sullied and no top FA would want to sign with the Org. ever again.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm talking about the team filing separately. There were media reports 1 month ago about this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aArEAGUlLmS8
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I recall correctly this was to protect the Cubs from being assets subject to liquidation under the Tribune bankruptcy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope, it was to help speed up the sale, which could get held up in case the Trib bankruptcy judge decided to be a douche.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the story:
"A brief Cubs bankruptcy would be a legal maneuver to clear the team from any future liability in the Tribune bankruptcy, according to two of the people familiar with the matter. Sam Zell, chief executive officer of Chicago-based Tribune, pledged the company’s interest in the Cubs as collateral when he negotiated the deal to take the publisher private in 2007, according to one of those people."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That statement actually makes very little sense. All assets of the Trib would be considered collateral in the event of a default, not just the Cubs, unless of course the team was left out of the bankruptcy filing, which it was. Also, in the original purchase, how could an asset that Zell didn't already own be pledged as anything? Intent to sell the asset, yes. Pledge as collateral, nope. The writer is a boob.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, that's as may be but the article you posted says the Cubs bankruptcy is to protect the Cubs from the Trib's creditors. Now that may be wrong but I didn't post the link.
|
