Despite all of the assurances from Crane Kenney that the offseason would not be impacted by the change in ownership or Tribune filing for chapter 11, the results from last weeks winter meetings appear to be different. I know there is a lot of time to go this offseason and things can change. But one really has to wonder how big an impact the uncertainties surrounding ownership have had thus far on the Cubs offseason. Maury Brown from bizofbaseball.com speculates the Jake Peavy deal would have went down if this were a normal offseason:
For the Cubs, the best example may be the Jake Peavy deal. In any other free agency cycle, we may have seen the Padres and Cubs consummate a deal. But, with the sale of the Cubs in the balance, the deal was quashed based on concerns surrounding Peavy’s contract which will see him $11 million in 2009 and has $63 million remaining over of his contract. While it was not the only reason the deal has yet to happen (it could occur later toward the trade deadline), there were concerns by those bidding to purchase the Cubs that the added salary, coupled with the backloaded contracts of key players on the Cubs roster, would add more debt for an already tenuous sale process.
So, there were concerns from prospective buyers on adding Peavy’s payroll. Hmmm. This seems to contradict statements from Crane Kenney last week:
But Kenney said the Cubs don’t have to wait for a new owner to make a move.
“All of our efforts here are about improving the team,” Kenney said. “If it means a longer-term contract that fits within the budget, then that’s what it will be. If it means, as Jim has talked about, multi-team deals, we’ll do that. [Hendry and staff] have a very good game plan, and they’re executing it. My role here is to make sure that we get as much as we can within the parameters of our budget.”
There are at least three bidders for the Cubs, and all three groups have been updated on the team’s proposed budget for ‘09 and beyond. Kenney also can contact them if needed.
Well Crane, it appears the transition of ownership may not be as rosey as you paint it. I’d like to say I was surprised. At some point this sale was going to rear it’s ugly head, I’m surprised it wasn’t earlier.
If Kenny was blowing smoke up our ass and the Cubs intead trade for some overhyped, lame prospect or sign some over-the-hill Jacque Jones type LHB, I doubt my “Best Buy Card” will have enough credit to cover the amount of TV sets I destroy this season.
i think cub fans have to ask themselves why they would expect any greater a degree of honesty out of tribco’s appointed lawyer-in-charge now than they have received over lo these many years from the endless chain of stooges who have run the cubs. i understand that many are helpless in the face of optimism, but really — does anyone expect that the trib isn’t spinning this situation as hard as it can to bolster fan optimism?
a lot of people, because they don’t understand the business end of baseball, like to pretend it doesn’t matter much. in truth, it’s all that matters to the club management — winning has only mattered to the extent that it is perceived to bolster the bottom line under tribco and before that under p.k. wrigley. it’s not a coincidence that the cubs first saw signs of a payroll commensurate with revenues only when it became very apparent that media-conglomerate ownership of the source of programming was not an optimal use of shareholder capital. and even when they decided to do that, tribco backloaded all the contracts so that they wouldn’t have to pay the freight.
but because this is, after all, the cubs — or whatever reason you want to presume — the run-up to the sale of the team has resulted in a clusterfuck. not only can’t they get out of the first-round with their newfound payroll strength; they can’t even sell the team properly. and because they can’t, because they’ve instead ended up in administration and all that backloaded payroll is suddenly under the purview of creditors and bidders alike, they took what was already a short window to win of a veteran club assembled from free agency and managed to help close it a little.
could tribune have managed this club any more parsimoniously and foolishly? they’ve seemed to create new ways to fuck this team up. wait until 2010 when this club is paying old, past-prime and injured players ridiculous sums and has insufficient talent coming through the system to mitigate them.
Let’s not forget also about how TribCo has refused to fix the crumbling grandstand, instead being content to stick with those unsightly nets. And now it’s someone else’s problem.
Don’t get me started on that pmayo! That has been an absolute travesty. What is it now, 3-4 years of netting? Yikes.
Gm, I think you are probably right. The Tribune has shortened the Cubs window of opportunity to win. Hell, the window may already have closed and we don’t realize it. I think they have 1 or 2 years to compete for a title. At that point the Cubs will be in major need of a rehab. With the backloaded contracts it won’t be pretty. Maybe not making the Peavy deal will wind up being a good business decision. Still you hate to see the Cubs miss out on a player of his caliber in his prime.
thoughtful and long comment from maddog.
to the selling-optimism-to-the-optimists point — i wouldn’t assume as much rationality as does maddog in the parties under discussion.
first, public opinion is notoriously volatile. the cubs understand, i suspect, that to presume fan optimism or — more importantly — fan interest is to risk it. most any activity or even rumored activity can be positively spun, so keeping fan attention is the critical aspect. to be honest, i think even failed rumored trades help immensely — “hey, they’re trying! remember when they didn’t even try?” people are only let down if the spin machine fails to do its job.
second, the cubs, like any company, sell for a living. their reflex is to generate positive interest in the team, as that is prelude to sales. generating interest is as easy as being rumored to be doing something big. the cubs then spin positivity to materialize interest into sales out of institutional habit — particularly when season ticket forms haven’t yet been returned. to the extent that any institutional thought goes into it, in a severe economic downturn i’m sure the club is particularly sensitive to getting as many renewals as possible because they are already planning for a fairly dramatic pullback in revenues gained from corporate sources this year (which will include many small business and corporate non-renewals).
none of this is unusual for any company. but most folks aren’t so credulous when they’re talking about microsoft as they are when talking about their favorite ballclub/fantasy/escape/recreation.
in other words, i think there’s as good a chance that the cubs will stop trying to generate positive interest, well-grounded or specious, in their club in the offseason as there is that any other company will quit trying to sell its product — regardless of how well received it has been, that just ain’t gonna happen. general mills still advertises cheerios, after all, and coca-cola still buys scads of attention. selling optimism to willing optimists keeps people coming to the park, or so goes the b-school mantra, and the cubs know that. those optimists might be a small percentage of all fans, but they are by orders of magnitude the most lucrative fans for the club. karl rove has made a political career on “exciting the base”, particularly the donor base, and that’s what the cubs (and any sports team, really) does first and best to make money. it’s their basic business.
to see how true that is, consider the contra — “the cubs are indifferent to how they are perceived by their core customer base, particularly in the offseason when most of them make advance ticket purchasing decisions”. would anyone agree? of course not — indeed the reason they bother with a fan convention is to boost sales among people who care enough to attend or read about such a thing.
now — on the peavy deal in particular — was it all just a plant? i can’t say that, of course. there’s a good chance hendry was more surprised than i was when tribco went belly up. he could very well have thought that he had the liberty to close such a deal. but the events of the business have changed things materially, and i do think kenney is being either disingenuous or naive (and, as is typical, it could conveniently be either) when he implies that nothing has changed.
Selling coca-cola is different than selling the Cubs though. There are several competing markets already advertising all over the place. A company like that has to advertise just to keep up. But what are the competing markets with the Cubs? The White Sox? Maybe the Cardinals? Perhaps the Royals? Brewers? How many fans are they going to lose by doing nothing? Probably not enough to affect their bottom line.
People aren’t fans of Pepsi like they are sports teams. Some prefer one soda over another, but other things enter the mind when someone chooses to buy a product. Also, these companies have marketed their product to everyone. The Cubs understand that their product is limited in desirability. Sure, they’re going to do whatever they can to keep the customers they have and even attract new ones. They wouldn’t be a good business if they weren’t doing that.
But ask yourself this: would talking to a small group of fans, fans who are already interested, be as prosperous as finding new markets for WGN or WGN Radio? Would raising fan optimism be as prosperous as actually signing a valuable player to a contract?
I don’t disagree that the Cubs do some kind of marketing. They’d be certifiably insane if they didn’t. I just don’t think they care about the optimism of the fans who pay attention this time of year. I doubt they want to turn all those who listen into pessimists, but you seemed to imply (maybe I misunderstood you) that the Tribune was spending a lot of time trying to control the optimism of the fan base. For a business to decide to spend money (any money!) doing this it would have to prove to be financially worthwhile. It’s very hard for me to believe that any team is going to spend that much time worrying about something as volatile as fan interest or optimism when there are numerous other ways the team can seek to make additional money or even get additional interest in the team.
Obviously the Cubs don’t want those who are paying attention now to disappear, but they surely now that even if they did, it would have only a marginal impact on their bottom line. The cubs are relatively safe from this volatility. 42% of fans actually voted on cubs.com this past year that they’d no longer be Cubs fan if the Cubs moved away from Wrigley. I believe 20% or more said they would no longer be a fan if they changed the name. Surely those numbers are much higher than reality, but you know as well I that being a Cubs fan isn’t solely about baseball. Sadly! There are fans who love the Cubs for Wrigley and some who even love them for losing.
I don’t think fan optimism is as big a priority for the Tribune as you seemed to imply. Particularly right now when the Tribune is selling the team. They’d be fools to not take advantage of a situation to not spin the news in a positive way, but I don’t think they go out of their way or actually spend much time at all thinking about pleasing fans like you, me, ccd, and Al.
This is a good conversation. You both bring up some good points. I believe the Cubs are very concerned with what their season ticket base thinks. When you are passing along a price increase during hard economic times it is important to have some positive spin in the media involving the team. That’s just good business.
As far as cherry-picking from your post MD, I am guilty as charged. I will make no bones about the fact that I do not like Tribune ownership of the Cubs and have not for the last 15 years. If at times you feel like my writing is too anti-Tribune you are correct. It will continue to be that way until the Cubs are owned by another person. The way in which they have botched this whole sales process pisses me off to no end.
So anyways, that is where I am coming from on this post and most of my anti-Tribine Cubs ownership crap. I may be right, I may be wrong but one thing is for sure somewhere in the middle is an area of grey that is probably the truth. I hope, this thing ain’t as dark as I paint it at times.
The window of opportunity that I speak about is not just from me, but in a recent news article the Cubs brass admitted such. Now I cannot tell you what they are thinking. I will tell you what I am: it is a window of opportunity with the current core of players and Piniella. What happens beyond that time is anyones guess.
My personal opinion is at some point the Cubs will have to restock and rebuild their minor league system and that will come at the expense of pursuing guys like Peavy.
Anyways, win the division the next two seasons and get lucky in the tournament one year and it won’t matter if the Cubs are shitty after that. (ahhhhh one can dream)
I don’t feel you’re too anti-tribune. I think we have a right to be. They’ve fucked Cubs fans over for years, or at least that’s my biased opinion on the matter.
For what it’s worth, ccd, it was an “unnamed source” within the cubs that spoke a 2-3 year window. That’s rather vague. Could be the peanut vendor. Even if it’s Jim Hendry himself, that just means the organization has a sense of urgency, which I think we’ve wanted to see for some time.
I just don’t think the numbers (dollars) match up with a 2-year window barring some HUGE reduction in payroll.
Could be the peanut vendor.
Just remember, this organization once put the guy in charge of concessions into the general manager role — one Salty Saltwell!
I just don’t think the numbers (dollars) match up with a 2-year window barring some HUGE reduction in payroll.
I don’t think any of us know what will happen with payroll under new ownership. I hope it stays in the top echelon of the NL, but that is really difficult to predict or say. Teams change philosophies from time to time and an ownership change is many times a catalyst for that change.
You and I have commented in the past that we have no idea what type of owners Ricketts, Klaff or Utay would be. (I think that was what many of us liked about Cuban, he had a good track record). When you combine the ownership uncertainties with the issues of rebuilding the grandstand and the global economic issues it really is impossible to predict where any of this will go. I have thoughts and hopes, but those are nothing but guesses.
I agree, ccd. I don’t have any idea what new ownership will do. I’d guess the odds are in favor of him raising payroll, with keeping the payroll the same a bit behind, but as we saw from the odds of the Cubs getting swept by the Dodgers, it happens.
I would say that the economic uncertainties likely won’t have much of an impact in that it’s all relative. The Cubs will still (most likely) be outspending the Pirates and Brewers no matter how bad the economy gets.
Like you said, I don’t know. I just think with what we know today, saying there is only a 2-year window is most likely incorrect. A 2-year window to win with guys like Lee and Ramirez who are main parts to the team? Sure. I’d buy that. I just think you can most likely easily replace their production with the money the Cubs SHOULD have available.
I’m gonna add one more thing. I think one of the reasons for my apprehension on alot of this is the fact that the Tribune basically ran the Cubs at a profit throughout the 90’s without fielding winning teams. The precednt is there. A new owner could come in and do the same thing.
I am not saying that happens or anything. Sorry for my pessimism today. These short winter days in this dreary town really brings me down. Maybe I’ll be fuzzy and happy tomorrow (or whenever the Cubs sign someone).
The Cubs will still (most likely) be outspending the Pirates and Brewers no matter how bad the economy gets.
LOL. I sure hope so. The Cardinals at some point may decide to spend and I have no reason for saying this, but I think at some point the Reds could become real players in the NL.
A 2-year window to win with guys like Lee and Ramirez who are main parts to the team? Sure. I’d buy that.
That’s all I’m saying. Two year window with this core of players.
I just think you can most likely easily replace their production with the money the Cubs SHOULD have available.
That’s where it get’s tricky. Whether some fans like it or not the core of Soriano, Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano has been this teams most succesful core since the team of the late 30’s with Hartnett, Herman, Cavaretta and Bill Lee. This is a really good club as constructed now. How Hendry replaces these guys as they age will not be easy. Doing it before they are not productive won’t be easy either.
(Wow, I’m a real fucking downer today!)
re future payroll — a lot will depend, i think, on how the cubs sale is ultimately financed. if its capital-heavy, then relatively little cash flow will be impeded by debt service and the ownership can spend. if its debt-heavy, then a considerable part of the cubs revenues will be directed to funding/paying off the obligation, particularly in the first few years. that one reason potential suitors are concerned about free agent signings — either way, they will be more highly levered into the cubs than tribco was, and will have to direct cash flow to financing in ways the cubs currently don’t have to.
so if you believe that the cubs cash flow has not been diverted in the past by tribco to cover other corporate sins, the natural expectation should be for a smaller payroll going forward.
i tend to think that a share of the cubs revenues were diverted until more recently, when the team began to boost its obligations to players. so maybe payroll will recede somewhat from current levels for a few years in the event of a private partnership owner, particularly if it isn’t a well-capitalized partnership. but we’ll see.
re the impact of the economy — it wouldn’t at all surprise me if attendance were down 10% or even 15% across baseball this year as the depression deepens. as reference, attendance dropped from 10.6mm in 1930 to 6.1mm in 1933, down 42% in three seasons. in terms of revenue, MLB bought in $17mm in 1929 and $10.8mm in 1933 — but the relative drop the effect on revenues will be even more pronounced, though, as baseball is much more dependent on corporate sponsorship, advertising and luxury box revenues than in the 1930s. moreover, the leverage of ownership is quite a bit higher than then — it wasn’t easy or necessary to borrow to own a ballclub in those days — so more ownership groups may find themselves in trouble even if this isn’t the Great Depression 2.0.
some teams will obviously be hit harder than others — housing-crushed san diego is already dumping salary, for example, rather like connie mack’s a’s did.
the hardest squeeze will be in the early part, when clubs are obligated to boom-time player contracts as revenues evaporate. unfortunately, the cubs are uniquely positioned to be clobbered by this effect as all the backloading comes due over the next few years — and with a new, levered owner coming in, the effect could be amplified.
takeaway point: don’t be sanguine about the financial condition of the club. these *could* be some really lean years for the cubs.
sorry — i didn’t amalgamate that well. where i said
so maybe payroll will recede somewhat from current levels for a few years in the event of a private partnership owner, particularly if it isn’t a well-capitalized partnership.
i meant relatively to what tribune might have spent. but with the economic conditions, i’d plan for revenues to crash out 20% or more in 2009 — and there’s no means for payroll stability there, particularly with such considerable previous obligation to soriano et al. the cubs would be daft to add payroll into this disaster, bankruptcy oversight or no.
Teams that are reacting to the economy in general by dumping or lowering payroll are not reacting to the economics of mlb itself. MLB has been making record profits through new revenue streams the last few years and the current tv contracts are not expiring. The Padres owner wants to dump salary due to his divorce and it’s not a reaction to the broader economy in general. Baseball may eventually feel the effect of a long term economic downturn but it’s too soon to estimate at what level.
It is pure speculation on Brown’s behalf to say that the Cubs quashed the Peavy deal due to economic concerns. Hendry said he didn’t feel comfortable giving up 6 or 7 guys to get one in return. I happen to believe Hendry. Economics do enter in when you consider that you are paying Peavy $63 MM plus sacrificing players that could contribute to your team. If Peavy were a free agent and you didn’t have to give up the players Hendry may have done that deal without a second thought.
I also question how much input any potential owner has in the club’s current operations. There is no way for the current management to know which group will be approved so which one do you listen to? All three may be giving different input. Hendry has to do what he thinks will put the team in the best position to win this season with little regard for the whims of potential owners. Does anyone think he can do his job by getting the consensus of 3 separate groups before he makes a decision?
if its debt-heavy, then a considerable part of the cubs revenues will be directed to funding/paying off the obligation, particularly in the first few years. that one reason potential suitors are concerned about free agent signings — either way, they will be more highly levered into the cubs than tribco was, and will have to direct cash flow to financing in ways the cubs currently don’t have to.
The original plan proposed by Zell was for most of the Cubs sale to be leveraged so he could avoid paying taxes (Sam Zell hates paying Uncle Sam). Not sure where that stands now. He’s probably getting a bit desperate.
so if you believe that the cubs cash flow has not been diverted in the past by tribco to cover other corporate sins
no offense gm, but why on earcth would I believe that. LMAO.
i tend to think that a share of the cubs revenues were diverted until more recently, when the team began to boost its obligations to players.
I spoke too soon. You don’t believe it either! gm, we are two cynical sob’s when it comes to this lot.
re the impact of the economy — it wouldn’t at all surprise me if attendance were down 10% or even 15% across baseball this year as the depression deepens. as reference, attendance dropped from 10.6mm in 1930 to 6.1mm in 1933, down 42% in three seasons. in terms of revenue, MLB bought in $17mm in 1929 and $10.8mm in 1933 — but the relative drop the effect on revenues will be even more pronounced, though, as baseball is much more dependent on corporate sponsorship, advertising and luxury box revenues than in the 1930s. moreover, the leverage of ownership is quite a bit higher than then — it wasn’t easy or necessary to borrow to own a ballclub in those days — so more ownership groups may find themselves in trouble even if this isn’t the Great Depression 2.0.
Those numbers are grim. Another thing that must be considered is the number of season ticket plans that are corporate in 2008. That was not an issue in the 30’s.
Those numbers are grim. Another thing that must be considered is the number of season ticket plans that are corporate in 2008. That was not an issue in the 30’s.
yep. i think those few sportloving people who were somehow oblivious to the depth of the trouble heretofore are going to be in for a hell of a shock at the number of empty seats come next spring.
Does anyone think he can do his job by getting the consensus of 3 separate groups before he makes a decision?
No way Melissa. If that’s the case the team won’t be able to make any moves.
One would hope they have a good idea which offer they are going to accept. But what one would think hasn’t happened in this sale…
As far as season ticket plans held by corporations. In respect to Wrigley this should not be an issue. Wrigley will be sold out regardless of the current economy. Chicago is a large enough market that plenty of corporations will be willing to purchase available seats. There may be a time when there aren’t people in the seats because the team is bad but it won’t be because there aren’t enough fans or businesses that can afford to attend the games. The ad revenue could be affected but there is limited ad space in Wrigley so I don’t believe the club will have any problem selling available ad space. At this point across MLB a great deal of teams’ revenue is derived from outside the park, (internet and tv money) thus even if attendance does drop teams are still able to operate at a profit. I realize that this recent economic crisis is the worst since the depression but since that time economic downturns have had little affect on MLB.
How Hendry replaces these guys as they age will not be easy. Doing it before they are not productive won’t be easy either.
I think it will be really easy for what it’s worth. There’s really no secret in replacing talent. You replace talent by adding talent. Lee of 2005 was a fluke. Considering the money you’d save, you could probably be a more productive team RIGHT NOW if you let Hoffpauir take over and added to the team elsewhere. I’m not suggesting the Cubs do that by any means. I’m just pointing out that it’s actually relatively easy replacing someone like Lee. Lee, nor Ramirez, have ever been as good as Cubs fans like to say they are. For a few years they were among the 5 best at their position, but neither have been for a couple of years and neither will be from this point forward. They’re both just really good ballplayers. Overpaid ballplayers at that!
The key here is money. As long as the Cubs have money, replacing those 2 will be easy. Soriano is another matter. The long contract and the value of it makes it next to impossible to replace him. Jake Peavy was available this offseason and would have been a good replacement for Zambrano. Had Peavy pitched his entire career away from PETCO, the asking price would have been significantly less and probably would have gotten done, but Peavy isn’t as good as people think. Bedard is reportedly available. Ted Lilly’s are available each offseason. And Zambrano is under contract for several more years and by the time his production is worrisome, he’ll be a free agent so I’m not that worried about that.
Even if you add up the value of Soriano, Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano, you get about 10 WAR. $50 million makes that up and with at least that much available (assuming the payroll remains the same), it won’t be as difficult as you think.
I think the most difficult thing for fans to realize is that replacing players isn’t that difficult. We get attached to certain players and think they are better than they really are. The fact is that all 3 of them are just good players. The Cubs don’t have an Albert Pujols who they have to replace (Pujols is the equivalent of 2 superstars). Those guys are irreplaceable.
To make up for some of those declines, we’ve got Soto who will improve (or would based on age anyway).
gm, if you had to guess, do you think it will be a capital-heavy or a debt-heavy transaction? Any ideas?
I hope it’s as easy as you think MD, I am not as confident as you are. I’m still haunted by the # of thirdbaseman the Cubs have had between Santo and Ramirez. (Remember this club tried to sell us Cole Liniak as the third sacker of the future at one point.)
Well, I am talking about an organization that doesn’t have its head up its ass. Those clubs did and the team really seems more competent in building a big league team these days. You couldn’t get worse so that’s not saying much. I do think we have to give Hendry credit for the teams he has put together. I also think the organization seems to be looking at things more objectively since they hired Lou. I doubt it’s entirely because of him, but I do think he’s moved this organization’s thinking forward. It has a long way to go (all teams do).
I’m merely speaking theoretically. Whether or not they actually have the people who can do it is yet to be seen of course. It is more than possible though. To be honest, I think you’d really have to screw shit up for this team to not contend for the next 5 years. And there’s no doubt if there’s any team that could screws hit up, it’s the Cubs.
I also think it’s important to note that the Cardinals and Astros farm systems are every bit as bad as the Cubs and they don’t have the money the Cubs have. The Brewers system is better, but their beat reporter said that the team would only be interested in Fuentes if they could trade Cameron. I think the money they had earmarked for Sabathia won’t be spent, or at least with Melvin doing the spending, it won’t be spent wisely.
I agree with you that I think the Reds are going to become an interesting team in the division, but that’s if Dusty doesn’t fuck them up before that’s possible. We may also overrate the Reds as well. MGL’s true talent level for the 2009 season (assuming same personnel as 2008) for the Reds is among the worst in baseball. The Cubs and Mets lead the NL at 87 wins. Reds are 16 back.
Do they really have that much young talent?
maddog, i’d guess capital-heavy simply out of a lack of available financing. but that’s a relative concept — any new owner is going to have more debt service cost than the cubs do today. capital-heavy might finance half the cost of the club.
an example: on a $700mm purchase price, maybe $350mm is partners capital and $350mm financed at 7% plus fees. that would be about $24mm a year to the banks. add in debt retirement, and it’s a chunk of change for a team that has a $125mm payroll allowance. this, mind you, is the capital-heavy version — zell’s tax dodge plan would’ve been considerably more punitive.
then further consider a 15%, 20%, 25% reduction in revenues related to the depression. contra melissa, i don’t see how it’s possible that the team on the field won’t be affected, particularly with the backloading of no-trade contracts acting an an albatross over the next couple seasons.
peter bernstein wrote an excellent short bit for the four-letter on the interaction of recession and baseball late last season — highlighting both baseball’s corporate-customer dependency and huge real price increase over the years that have made attending expensive, which are both critical issues that drove revenue growth in recent seasons and make baseball more economically sensitive. attendance figures to be hit much harder this year than in previous recessions. again, down 10-15% in 2009 would not be surprising — this isn’t a recession, it’s a depression and people should expect to underperform every recent precedent.
*DISCLAIMER–I am not an economist and don’t claim to be. The comment below should be read with that in mind. This is only my opinion.*
I’m with gm on the severity of this whole thing. This is bigger than the Cubs or MLB. This is an economic time that will impact most businesses and more people than any of us fathom. I also think it will last for a longer period of time than most anticipate. (This will not go away in 6 mos.) Despite all of the governement intervention, the one thing that alot of these things need to sort the whole thing out is…time.
I hope for all of our good that I am wrong about this, but that is how I view it. (Maybe this explains some of my pessimism in regards to the club beyond 2010.)
I don’t think it will go away anytime soon. I’d guess a few years at least. I just don’t think baseball will suffer much of an impact for a year or two.
I may be wrong. Like ccd, I’m no economist so take what I say with a grain of salt. I just think MLB is somewhat protected (for a short period of time anyway) from the economy.
[...] of payroll at this point. We can speculate on the reasons. Lord knows, I’ve done so in the recent past. Still, the Cubs being maxed out at this point is news to me. I had not heard that before today and [...]