Trades I Wish the Cubs Never Made

[2323]

I disagree to a point that its all about WF as to fans showing uo..
It was WF pre Harry Carey when it was empty and those bars were there to hang out at.

Harry, a decent team , and a star attraction like Sosa is what mainly filled the seats not WF.

Attendance has dropped the last couple yrs cause the team got bad and there no attraction to draw tge fans out.. so the whole theory of fans will go to WF because they just want to go there to drink beer and hang out is hogwash.

The true fans and fans who just come out for good teams and star players will go to a new stadium just as well..

Cubs are the cubs , baseball is baseball..
Fans will go to watch

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

Where's Harry Carey? Where's Sammy Sosa? Absent the deliverables, you're pretty much relying on Wrigley Field.

Seriously, everyone. Please stop with the inane spitballing.

 

[beckdawg]

And it is indeed a relatively safe assumption. Why? If it wasn't they'd move the team.

I mean the white sox are still in business and they don't have wrigley field...

 

[2323]

I mean the white sox are still in business and they don't have wrigley field...

They don't make as much as the Cubs. Again, the Cubs were the most profitable team in baseball a couple of years ago when they lost 100 games. If you're suggesting the Cubs ownership would be ok giving up that for what the Whhite Sox have, that's absurd.

Just stop spitballing nonsense.

 

[beckdawg]

They don't make as much as the Cubs. Again, the Cubs were the most profitable team in baseball a couple of years ago when they lost 100 games. If you're suggesting the Cubs ownership would be ok giving up that for what the Whhite Sox have, that's absurd.

Just stop spitballing nonsense.

And that profit isn't entirely tied to attendance that you keep making it out to be. Their attendance isn't even half of their estimated revenue. They have stated they don't plan to do any renovation until signs go up in the outfield because they are using that ad revenue to pay for the renovations. A new stadium would not only get rid of their maintenance issues but it would give them stadium naming rights that they don't currently have as well as tons of areas they can add advertising that they don't currently have as well potentially adding more luxury suites/other premium tickets. That's also before considering the ability to potentially save on development around the stadium they plan to do.

Again, I want to be clear. I don't know for a fact that they would make more money with a new stadium because clearly none of us have access to a full financial picture. I'm saying it's not clear cut. Even if a new stadium caused a 20% drop in attendance from last year at $50 a ticket you're talking about something like $25 mil. That would put them around 2 mil in attendance which would be around 250k more than the sox had last year. Given the difference in popularity between the two teams I think that's a fair estimate for how low attendance could reasonably drop. That's like 3k per game in attendance difference. If your paying $13 mil in maintenance, get say $3-4 mil in naming rights you're only having to find $10 mil in additional advertising per season to make up that difference and you then avoid all the headaches with the city and rooftop owners.

So, to suggest it's not an option is naive in my opinion.

 

[2323]

And that profit isn't entirely tied to attendance that you keep making it out to be. Their attendance isn't even half of their estimated revenue. They have stated they don't plan to do any renovation until signs go up in the outfield because they are using that ad revenue to pay for the renovations. A new stadium would not only get rid of their maintenance issues but it would give them stadium naming rights that they don't currently have as well as tons of areas they can add advertising that they don't currently have as well potentially adding more luxury suites/other premium tickets. That's also before considering the ability to potentially save on development around the stadium they plan to do.

Again, I want to be clear. I don't know for a fact that they would make more money with a new stadium because clearly none of us have access to a full financial picture. I'm saying it's not clear cut. Even if a new stadium caused a 20% drop in attendance from last year at $50 a ticket you're talking about something like $25 mil. That would put them around 2 mil in attendance which would be around 250k more than the sox had last year. Given the difference in popularity between the two teams I think that's a fair estimate for how low attendance could reasonably drop. That's like 3k per game in attendance difference. If your paying $13 mil in maintenance, get say $3-4 mil in naming rights you're only having to find $10 mil in additional advertising per season to make up that difference and you then avoid all the headaches with the city and rooftop owners.

So, to suggest it's not an option is naive in my opinion.

I know tv contracts are where major sports teams make most of their money. Now that we've established that, stadium revenue is hardly insignificant. Even with the expenses you're droning on about, again, they were the most profitable team in baseball in spite of losin 100 games.

If the stadium revenue is so insignificant , they'd move to Rosemont and risk learning the hard way that Wrigley was a bigger attraction than the crappy teams the Ricketts have been putting on the field. If life is so much better in Rosemont, the Ricketts would simply move the Cubs out there instead of leaking stories in an attempt to increase their leverage. And what's this all about? Greed. They were the most profitable team in baseball two years ago. They don't need to have the money for improvements tied to some "improvement" they want.

I know many here feel the Rosemont Cubs would be a better situation but until the behavior of ownership does something to back this up, you're blindly throwing darts.

 

[beckdawg]

I know many here feel the Rosemont Cubs would be a better situation but until the behavior of ownership does something to back this up, you're blindly throwing darts.

And if you read my initial comment you jumped on you'd see that I'm questioning whether or not them doing that is a good indication of future business savvy. I never suggested it was a foregone conclusion that they were doing it. To reiterate

It's still too early to say on this front office from a business standpoint. I do wonder if staying in wrigley long term is a mistake. I get why you wouldn't want to move but 28 other teams are not sticking to "tradition." Boston has made it work after years of mistakes. However, another historic franchise in the Yankees choose to build new. I think it's a bit difficult to say at this point which decision is better long term.

My entire point is it very well could be the better business move(not having to deal with annoying outsiderss such as city/rooftops..etc) but they are worried about taking the inevitable pr hit of moving out of wrigley. Staying in wrigley is probably the "safe" move but not necessarily the best move for reasons already stated. If it were me, I would want no part in outside parties having any say on how I ran my business. The cubs are literally the only team in the majors who might get sued if they put a sign up on their ball park. If I owned a team that would be unacceptable to me. Wrigley obviously is a cool venue but at the end of the day outside forces are having an impact on how you do business. The rooftop owners are holding up a $300 mil renovation. That's not a situation any team wants to be in. That's why I question them staying.

 

[Boobaby1]

And if you read my initial comment you jumped on you'd see that I'm questioning whether or not them doing that is a good indication of future business savvy. I never suggested it was a foregone conclusion that they were doing it. To reiterate



My entire point is it very well could be the better business move(not having to deal with annoying outsiderss such as city/rooftops..etc) but they are worried about taking the inevitable pr hit of moving out of wrigley. Staying in wrigley is probably the "safe" move but not necessarily the best move for reasons already stated. If it were me, I would want no part in outside parties having any say on how I ran my business. The cubs are literally the only team in the majors who might get sued if they put a sign up on their ball park. If I owned a team that would be unacceptable to me. Wrigley obviously is a cool venue but at the end of the day outside forces are having an impact on how you do business. The rooftop owners are holding up a $300 mil renovation. That's not a situation any team wants to be in. That's why I question them staying.

You don't move a landmark. You proceed with your plans now and deal with them later in court. It isn't as if the Rickett's are going to lose the Cubs.

Rickett's needs to put the big boy pants on and quit trying to appease everyone.

 

[beckdawg]

You don't move a landmark. You proceed with your plans now and deal with them later in court. It isn't as if the Rickett's are going to lose the Cubs.

Rickett's needs to put the big boy pants on and quit trying to appease everyone.

Even if they get past the issues with the rooftops the city of chicago is always going to delay their plans because of the historic status of wrigley. They have approved the current renovation plans but what I mean is if they decide to do something new in the future they have to deal with the city again. I get why people are hesitant but at the end of the day Cardinals fans go to new Busch, yankee fans are going to new yankee stadium and on and on. As I said before, if wrigley field is the reason you're going to see the cubs play then there's far bigger problems with the team.

 

[patg006]

And it is indeed a relatively safe assumption. Why? If it wasn't they'd move the team.

Now you're just hamster-wheeling around an already faulty position.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with using frivolous things such as intelligence and logic around here. Those go more wasted than Cub runners in scoring position.

Five teams lost 96 games last year.

Houston lost 111 games and drew 1.65M fans.
Miami lost 100 games and drew 1.58M fans in a what, two year old stadium?
White Sox lost 99 games and drew 1.76M fans.
Minnesota lost 96 games and drew 2.47M fans.
Cubs lost 96 games and drew 2.64M fans.

So the Cubs drew almost 200k more fans than any of the other bigger losing teams in baseball.

Why?

Wrigley Field.

My point is that the tribune's actions have left them in a situation where they spend more like a mid-market team such as the cardinals rather than a large market team like the Red Sox, Dodgers, or Yankees. Staying in wrigley as long as they have is part of that problem.

Oh my.

Yet another beauty to put in our Hall of Shame of Stupid Cub fan quotes.

 

[patg006]

but at the end of the day Cardinals fans go to new Busch, yankee fans are going to new yankee stadium and on and on. As I said before, if wrigley field is the reason you're going to see the cubs play then there's far bigger problems with the team.

Because old Busch stadium was a shithole with no historic significance and the new Yankee Stadium is across the fucking street from the old ballpark. Not 30 miles away in the suburbs.

 

[2323]

And if you read my initial comment you jumped on you'd see that I'm questioning whether or not them doing that is a good indication of future business savvy. I never suggested it was a foregone conclusion that they were doing it. To reiterate



My entire point is it very well could be the better business move(not having to deal with annoying outsiderss such as city/rooftops..etc) but they are worried about taking the inevitable pr hit of moving out of wrigley. Staying in wrigley is probably the "safe" move but not necessarily the best move for reasons already stated. If it were me, I would want no part in outside parties having any say on how I ran my business. The cubs are literally the only team in the majors who might get sued if they put a sign up on their ball park. If I owned a team that would be unacceptable to me. Wrigley obviously is a cool venue but at the end of the day outside forces are having an impact on how you do business. The rooftop owners are holding up a $300 mil renovation. That's not a situation any team wants to be in. That's why I question them staying.

Didn't you also make a comment deferring to mgt based on the assumption they have access to better information than you? So, on one hand you say you can't criticize them on the basis of not having enough information, but on the other hand, you're asserting a timid criticism which conflicts with your idea of not having enough information. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth and trying to have it both ways.

If you cant defend a position without contradicting yourself, just fall on the grenade and spare everyone the hamster wheeling.

 

[nwfisch]

 

[Zvbxrpl]

Fisch!!!!!!!!!!

:fap:

 

[Ari Bear]

Trades I wish the Cubs have never made:

1. Andrew Cashner to San Diego Padres
2. Chris Archer to Tampa Bay Rays
3. Josh Hamilton to Cincinnati Reds

If we still kept Cashner and Archer, the rotation will probably look like this:

1. Jeff Samardzija
2. Andrew Cashner
3. Chris Archer
4. Travis Wood
5. Jake Arrieta

As good as Andrew Casher is we still got the better end of the trade in Anthony Rizzo.