Ricketts stated "World Series", if he gets his way.

[KBisBack!]

Also the Cubs payroll is roughly $45M less than it was a couple years ago despite the revenues being higher.

What would make you think that more revenue would end up in payroll?

 

[Franko725]

KB, please pull your head out of your ass.

The Cubs, as you like to point out all the time, are not a small market team. So, yes, the tv deal is terrible. You cannot compare the small market tv contracts to what they are getting. But, of course you can, due to your agenda.

When it comes to the previous payroll, yes it was higher, but everyone with half a brain knows that the Tribune Co. was just attempting to make the team look good in order to sell it. Of course, that fact doesn't fit your agenda either.

I don't have an agenda, other than wanting to see a good team year in and year out. I know that will take some time to happen. It doesn't make me happy, but I can at least accept that they have a plan to get there.

 

[KBisBack!]

So, yes, the tv deal is terrible. You cannot compare the small market tv contracts to what they are getting. But, of course you can, due to your agenda.

So you can't compare the Cubs TV deal to the other teams they are directly competing with??

That is flat out ignorant.

When they change the leagues from the American League and National League to the Big Market League and the Small Market League then your ignorance will hold some value.

Not before then.

 

[Franko725]

Sorry, I am ignorant since I don't agree with everything that you believe. Everyone that doesn't think like you either is ignorant or has an agenda. If you are going to be nothing but negative, why even post?

I suppose that you are not being ignorant with your post there, you just like talking out both sides of your mouth when it fits what you want to talk about.

If you want to bring up being a big market teams when it comes to other things, you have to bring it up for all. The tv contract in Milwaukee is not going to be near as big as it will in Chicago. Nor will those in Tampa, or Pittsburgh, or Cincy. I could go on and on, but you get the point. You cannot compare those markets to Chicago. Compare Chicago to New York, or LA, or Boston.

Same goes for the payroll. It is way too low in my opinion for a big market team, but that is on Ricketts. I was not a fan of the Ricketts family buying the team, but Selig was not going to allow Cuban to own the team. He would have been spending a lot more on this team, but there is nothing that any of us can do that will change that situation.

 

[KBisBack!]

If you want to bring up being a big market teams when it comes to other things, you have to bring it up for all. The tv contract in Milwaukee is not going to be near as big as it will in Chicago. Nor will those in Tampa, or Pittsburgh, or Cincy. I could go on and on, but you get the point. You cannot compare those markets to Chicago. Compare Chicago to New York, or LA, or Boston.

OK. I got it.

You can only compare the Cubs TV deal to those that are unfavorable, but none others.

Just as teams in Tampa, Pittsburgh or Cincy will likely never get a TV deal like the Cubs, the Cubs are unlikely to ever get a deal like New York, LA or Boston.

Like I said, when they divide the leagues into big market and small market instead of all teams competing against each other, you compare the Cubs deal to ALL the other teams.

 

[ClydeLee]

OK. I got it.

You can only compare the Cubs TV deal to those that are unfavorable, but none others.

Just as teams in Tampa, Pittsburgh or Cincy will likely never get a TV deal like the Cubs, the Cubs are unlikely to ever get a deal like New York, LA or Boston.

Like I said, when they divide the leagues into big market and small market instead of all teams competing against each other, you compare the Cubs deal to ALL the other teams.

No it's just stupid to compare the media deal of the Chicago Cubs on standard with teams of smaller city and national market as the Cubs.

The media deal isn't like playing games. It's not about comparing teams vs teams. You are comparing them by how much they pull in by looking at market values. You act like you think this is a sports argument when it's a business angle this covers

Sent from Neverwhere using Taptalk

 

[KBisBack!]

No it's just stupid to compare the media deal of the Chicago Cubs on standard with teams of smaller city and national market as the Cubs.

The media deal isn't like playing games. It's not about comparing teams vs teams. You are comparing them by how much they pull in by looking at market values. You act like you think this is a sports argument when it's a business angle this covers

Sent from Neverwhere using Taptalk

It is far less stupid than comparing a TV deal that was signed how many years ago and before the local media revenue boom to deals that were signed in the last off season after the local media boom.