2014 Cubs Catch-All Thread

[caulfield12]

Cubs with their two "Paulino-esque" moves.

 

Note no Santana/Jimenez.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Cubs with their two "Paulino-esque" moves.

 

Note no Santana/Jimenez.

 

 

Nope. Santana and Jimenez will be sitting for awhile. This new system is really screwing players. If I were players I would start accepting the QO immediately to try and deter teams from doing them.

[Dick Allen]

LOL. The Cubs sent a lackey on the radio today to float the possibility of the rooftop owners making them leave Wrigley.

[ptatc]

LOL. The Cubs sent a lackey on the radio today to float the possibility of the rooftop owners making them leave Wrigley.

Smart business move. If the city/state can't be the villan they need to find one somewhere.

[Jake]

Cubs ought to move to Iowa

[HuskyCaucasian]

Bernstein said he was told by a source in the Cubs organization that it's still a VERY slim chance the Cubs would move, but it' becoming an increasing possibility. Previously, there was ZERO chance they'd move.

 

What are the Cubs legitimate options?

• Rosemont? I dont think it would work since the ballpark would be RIGHT in like with Runway 4R. And, the overall noise level would be too loud.
• Arlington Heights? Barry Rozner floated replacing the Race Course there, but I dont see that happening anytime soon. However, i'd LOVE to see that turn in to a sports complex. A new Cubs home and maybe space for a future Bears stadium. AH would bring a TON more tax revenue with a sports complex there. That being said, it's near a major expressway and has a train station.
• Schaumburg? not likely. But, they do have room to replace their current minor league stadium with a pro stadium. There is room to add more parking. It's located next to a train station, and once the Elgin-O'Hare is expanded, there will be a more direct ink between Schaumburg and the city. One problem is that the stadium is right in-line with the Schaumburg airport. Planes already buzz the stadium as it is. Either they's have to limit takeoff and landing paterns, or move the stadium further north and butt up against the expressway
• Elk Grove? The Bears almost moved there, and the land they were looking at is still available.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

Dan Bernstein ‏@dan_bernstein

Sources: #Cubs frustration w/rooftops' intransigence is high enough that they are discussing "unavoidable prospect" of options elsewhere.

[maggsmaggs]

Dan Bernstein ‏@dan_bernstein

Sources: #Cubs frustration w/rooftops' intransigence is high enough that they are discussing "unavoidable prospect" of options elsewhere.

I am very dubious of Bernstein and his sources. His sources always say something vague and obvious, making me question if he really has sources or is just trying to make himself look important.

 

Regardless, this is a leverage play by the Cubs. They have put so much money into that area in the last few years, that they are not going to move. The Cubs entire value is tied in with Wrigley and Wrigleyville. They can't leave. They won't leave. They don't want to see their franchise valuation tank by moving to Schaumburg.

[southsider2k5]

If the Cubs want to move, I would pay to drive their moving truck.

[Harry Chappas]

If the Cubs want to move, I would pay to drive their moving truck.

 

Did you never go to a cub game and see the Allied Van Lines truck races? The races as recently as 2005 had 1970's technology behind them. They got the move all covered.

[LittleHurt05]

The Cub

s

game

s

cheduled for

S

unday, June 29, again

s

t the Wa

s

hington National

s

at Wrigley Field ha

s

been moved to

S

aturday, June 28, a

s

part of a

s

eparate admi

s

s

ion, day-night doubleheader. The fir

s

t game of the doubleheader will be played at 12:05 p.m. The

s

econd game i

s

s

cheduled to

s

tart at 6:15 p.m. There will be no game

S

unday, June 29. Thi

s

change wa

s

made at the reque

s

t of Ald. Tom Tunney and in con

s

ideration of neighborhood traffic and conge

s

tion in connection with the annual Pride Parade in Chicago June 29.

 

 

it'

s

no coincidence that the Cub

s

s

pecifically mentioned Tom Tunney'

s

name in the relea

s

e.

[Dick Allen]

Again, if the only other option was moving, why wouldn't the Cubs just buy the rooftop owners out? In the end it would save them a lot of money. The Cubs anywhere else suddenly have the White Sox attendance issues.

 

If Ricketts moved the Cubs, he would have to be considered the worst owner in the history of Chicago sports.

[Balta1701]

Again, if the only other option was moving, why wouldn't the Cubs just buy the rooftop owners out? In the end it would save them a lot of money. The Cubs anywhere else suddenly have the White Sox attendance issues.

 

If Ricketts moved the Cubs, he would have to be considered the worst owner in the history of Chicago sports.

You know, there's a decent chance they're also thinking "man, it'd be so nice to have a shiny new ballpark with luxury boxes to bring in the real money and we can do so without losing much on ticket sales".

 

They might not even be wrong, 22,000 fans coming in the suburbs but the luxury boxes sold and advertising all over teh park compared to 30k and the current limitiations?

[Dick Allen]

You know, there's a decent chance they're also thinking "man, it'd be so nice to have a shiny new ballpark with luxury boxes to bring in the real money and we can do so without losing much on ticket sales".

 

They might not even be wrong, 22,000 fans coming in the suburbs but the luxury boxes sold and advertising all over teh park compared to 30k and the current limitiations?

Still, it wouldn't be as lucrative as what they are thinking they will get if they stay. The White Sox get advertising. They pay little rent. They draw 22k, and if you draw 22k and aren't the lovable loser darlings, the ad revenue decreases, their ticket prices most likely can't be top 3. Ricketts bought a rooftop a few years ago for $5 million. I don't know how many there are, but there can't be more than 10. He would only have to buy out the rooftops who would have their views compromised by the boards. Say that is 8. I think they make that $40 million up quickly. At their convention, they said the wrangling with the rooftop owners has somehow already cost them $20 million. I don't know how, but that is the Cubs claim.

 

If you owned a rooftop, If Ricketts offered you a decent price or you could hold on a pay lawyers for a process you may or may not win, but ultimately when your contract runs out, will lose, I think you take the money and run. Let Ricketts make the "limited view" rooftops part of his capacity.

 

I do know one thing, they aren't moving. No one could be that dumb.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Jake]

If I'm the rooftop owners, I'm pricing myself unbelievably high. I would be calling their bluff on moving perpetually. I would make them go very far down the process of moving before I'd budge unless they met an obscenely high demand, something like my next 30-50 years of projected profits

[HuskyCaucasian]

If I'm the rooftop owners, I'm pricing myself unbelievably high. I would be calling their bluff on moving perpetually. I would make them go very far down the process of moving before I'd budge unless they met an obscenely high demand, something like my next 30-50 years of projected profits

The problem is that the contract runs out in 2019. After that, they could easily put a giant wall up around the park and completely block the rooftops. So, they only have legitimate expectations of income between now and 2019.

[Balta1701]

Still, it wouldn't be as lucrative as what they are thinking they will get if they stay. The White Sox get advertising. They pay little rent. They draw 22k, and if you draw 22k and aren't the lovable loser darlings, the ad revenue decreases, their ticket prices most likely can't be top 3. Ricketts bought a rooftop a few years ago for $5 million. I don't know how many there are, but there can't be more than 10. He would only have to buy out the rooftops who would have their views compromised by the boards. Say that is 8. I think they make that $40 million up quickly. At their convention, they said the wrangling with the rooftop owners has somehow already cost them $20 million. I don't know how, but that is the Cubs claim.

 

If you owned a rooftop, If Ricketts offered you a decent price or you could hold on a pay lawyers for a process you may or may not win, but ultimately when your contract runs out, will lose, I think you take the money and run. Let Ricketts make the "limited view" rooftops part of his capacity.

 

I do know one thing, they aren't moving. No one could be that dumb.

The key to this is that you're assuming people who took out a hugely-leveraged purchase of the Cubs seemingly on the assumption that ticket sales wouldn't decline couldn't be dumb enough to make another potentially huge mistake.

[Dick Allen]

The problem is that the contract runs out in 2019. After that, they could easily put a giant wall up around the park and completely block the rooftops. So, they only have legitimate expectations of income between now and 2019.

That's the key. You can tie them up in the courts, but once that contract runs out, the city has already given the OK for the blockage, and the rooftop owners are SOL. They would basically have to make their buildings taller, and that most likely isn't going to happen.

 

I would think they would be somewhat motivated sellers, and Ricketts, if he claims it costs $20 million a year to delay the renovation for fear of a lawsuit, should be a motivated buyer. Even if another town built him a new stadium, it wouldn't be ready until what the rooftops would probably cost him to buy has already been lost if you believe the Cubs.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I am very dubious of Bernstein and his sources. His sources always say something vague and obvious, making me question if he really has sources or is just trying to make himself look important.

They were just talking during cross talk between Mac and Speigs and BandB. There is a few, but one in particular, that s flat out refusing to negotiate. Speigs confirmed it. So, there's some truth there.

[Dick Allen]

The idea that a group of rooftop owners can force the Cubs to move is so ridiculous. It is the Cubs trying to make them look like the bad guys.

[Balta1701]

The idea that a group of rooftop owners can force the Cubs to move is so ridiculous. It is the Cubs trying to make them look like the bad guys.

They...kind of are, to my eyes.

[southsider2k5]

The best part is if the Cubs hadn't have been greedy bastards and tried to get as much revenue out of the rooftops as possible, they wouldn't have to give a s*** to what they think right now. By negotiating a contract with them, they legitimized their rights to Cubs baseball.

[Dick Allen]

They...kind of are, to my eyes.

If they didn't have a contract with the Cubs to legitimize them, thus IMO they are not "stealing" the product, I would agree. But they are running a business, and since the Cubs gave them a contract, they dump a lot of money into their business, and I think are entitled to the view they had when they signed the contract.

 

The Cubs legitimized their business. Now they have no control over the state of the team which can increase or decrease their bottom line. But putting up a scoreboard and blocking their view while in the middle of this contract isn't right IMO. Think about it, if you owned a rooftop building and had this contract and dumped a bunch of money into it only to have the Cubs erect a scoreboard rendering your vantage point worthless, would you consider a lawsuit against the Cubs being a bad guy?

 

The Cubs realize they have a legitimate point or why would a potential lawsuit scare them so much?

Edited February 6, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Harry Chappas]

If they didn't have a contract with the Cubs to legitimize them, thus IMO they are not "stealing" the product, I would agree. But they are running a business, and since the Cubs gave them a contract, they dump a lot of money into their business, and I think are entitled to the view they had when they signed the contract.

 

The Cubs legitimized their business. Now they have no control over the state of the team which can increase or decrease their bottom line. But putting up a scoreboard and blocking their view while in the middle of this contract isn't right IMO. Think about it, if you owned a rooftop building and had this contract and dumped a bunch of money into it only to have the Cubs erect a scoreboard rendering your vantage point worthless, would you consider a lawsuit against the Cubs being a bad guy?

 

The Cubs realize they have a legitimate point or why would a potential lawsuit scare them so much?

 

The thing to remember is that these are not your mom and dads rooftop these are essentially skyboxes and the rooftop owners sunk a ton of capital into them. Some of them are no longer apartment buildings.

[Balta1701]

The thing to remember is that these are not your mom and dads rooftop these are essentially skyboxes and the rooftop owners sunk a ton of capital into them. Some of them are no longer apartment buildings.

Which is pretty much why I think theyr'e scum.