View From The Bleachers

Talking Cubs Baseball Since 2003

Friday

1

November 2013

33

COMMENTS

Friday News Roundup

Written by , Posted in General

I hope everyone had a great Halloween. I had a dentist appointment yesterday – worlds colliding or worlds aligning?

  • The Cubs installed another mock-up of the proposed sign in right field at Wrigley. The Cubs contend it doesn’t block rooftop views – and of course the rooftop folks contend that it does. Check it out for yourself here. A couple of caveats: it doesn’t look like the sign was completely in place when the photo was taken, and the sign will be 15 feet closer to the rooftops once the extension to the outer wall is complete (which should lower the sign from the rooftops point of view). Obviously, there is money to be made (and potentially lost) on both sides here, so I expect this issue to remain contentious. Maybe the Ricketts could put an end to this issue once and for all and just buy the rooftops in question. (http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2013/10/24/source-cubs-could-buy-rooftops)
  • Free agency has begun, and we should all expect the Cubs to be relatively inactive. The only moves I can see the team making are minor – filling out the bench, minor league depth, etc.. I agree completely with this approach, since a) it’s not a smart way to build a team for long-term success,  b) there’s really no one out there worth pursuing anyway, especially for the cost, c) the young “core” isn’t ready, so it doesn’t make sense to load up on free agents for a team that is a few years away. I wouldn’t mind seeing the Cubs go hard after Masahiro Tanaka, though. His age and position make total sense for the club at this point (and how often do you get a change to acquire a proven – albeit in the Japanese league – starting pitcher and give up none of your prospects in return?). For what it’s worth, the Cubs free agents are Scott Baker, Kevin Gregg, Matt Guerrier, and Dioner Navarro. (meh)
  • In case you missed it: THE CARDINALS LOST THE WORLD SERIES
  • Speaking of the Cardinals, there have been whispers that they are looking for a shortstop and could be interested in Starlin Castro. This was apparently discussed on MLB Radio, but I’ll do some more digging and report back if I hear anything more substantive. The guys over at Cubs Den are looking into it as well. I don’t see this having legs – but we all know that if he is traded to the Cardinals, he’ll be a surefire first-ballot Hall of Famer.
  • AC0000000

    Hahahaha I was going to say the same thing about Castro to St. Louis. With Cardinals luck vs Cubs luck it would be the next Brock for Broglio trade. Your link on buying the rooftops article doesn’t work.

    • Pierce

      I was able to get the link to work.

      But as for rumors on Castro trade, if the Cardinals are interested in Castro, that’e enough for me to want to keep him. After all their luck with new guys and free agent deals and trades in the past decade, them wanting Castro makes me want to keep him. Yes they coaches they have in the minors may be better at developing players, but hey, you never know.

  • PLCB3

    Ricketts should just let the rooftops sue. He ultimately has the upper hand no matter what happens: The rooftops are out in 2023 when the contracts expire.

    • You should run for alderman.

      • PLCB3

        1 person, 1 vote. And Ricketts doesn’t even live in Tunney’s ward. The rooftop owners have the votes Tunney needs

      • Tunney is in the middle of this fiasco.. imagine that. Worst alderman ever.

      • PLCB3

        I don’t understand how these rooftop owners can be so stupid. If the Cubs are gone, they make zero money. If the Cubs stay, they make some money, but not as much as they used to.

      • Is that a trick question? Tunney and his alderman thugs have those guys brainwashed. They are going to rake it in…mark my word.

      • AC0000000

        I don’t understand how these rooftop owners can be so stupid. If the Cubs are gone, they make zero money. If the Cubs stay, they make some money, but not as much as they used to.

      • Is that a trick question? Tunney and his alderman thugs have those guys brainwashed. They are going to rake it in…mark my word.

    • You should run for alderman.

    • Doc Raker

      It would depend on what the contract says. Why should the city even be involved in the first place? Again, this is a property rights issue but we have been brainwashed into thinking the city should have a say in what a private owner can do with his own property. Zoning laws have grown to powerful as has many other aspects of our government. Go Cubs, do what you want with your property.

      • Sean Powell

        Yes, but there is also that revenue-sharing contractual agreement between the rooftop businesses and the Cubs. If there were no rooftops overlooking the field with associated businesses that entered into an agreement with the team, there would be no issue with the signage. The historical designation of Wrigley does make it a zoning issue – so, you’re right, the city is involved much more than it should be. I think there has to be a balance between letting businesses do what they want with a property – and rational zoning laws that make sure those physical changes don’t impede on other properties (in a tightly-packed urban area, it would be foolish to think that what one property does can’t affect adjacent properties in an unfairly adverse way) – and there’s definitely benefits of logical urban planning (Portland is a much more pleasant, logical, easy-to-navigate, and aesthetically pleasing city than Houston, for example). There has to be a balance, though, and the rooftops are really making much more off the Cubs than they should be. Also, the amusement tax that the city levies on Cubs tickets is absolutely ridiculously high – especially when you consider that the city is not reinvesting one cent of it back into the main revenue-generating entity of the area (the Cubs). It’s certainly unfair that the city won’t reinvest any of that tax revenue back into Wrigley, is expecting the Cubs to pick up the entire tab for renovation/revenue improvement, AND is being stingy with the zoning/approvals/etc. I’m optimistic, however – what we’ve seen from the mayor’s office is encouraging. Rahm knows that if the Cubs can increase revenue (and thus tax revenue) for the city without the city paying for any of it – that will be a nice feather in his political cap. I see the Cubs prevailing with this one in the end – even if Ricketts has to buy some of the rooftops himself. By the way, don’t get my started on the hypocrisy of the city paying for the freaking DePaul basketball arena!

      • Doc Raker

        I agree with you. That is why I prefaced my statement as referencing the contract between the Cubs and rooftops. That contract should be upheld. But when governments become to powerful people will try and use government power to obfuscate legally binding contracts.

      • PLCB3

        The amusement tax fund is a joke. The trash got a ballpark built from it thanks to the tax the Cubs pay. When Ricketts was asking for public money, he was asking for some of that money, and that money would be paid back from the increased revenues created. Ricketts needs to get tough and say he’s going to take that deal in Rosemont. If the Yankees can leave old Yankee Stadium, then the Cubs can leave Wrigley. I won’t bat an eye. Sucks to tradition. Real Cubs fans will come out no matter what. Real Cubs fans want a World Series championship.

        These rooftop owners can go screw themselves. They said the signs will block our views. Okay. We’ll move the walls out so they don’t. They still want to complain. They’re just upset because Ricketts refused their offer to put the signs on their buildings, give all the money to the Cubs in return for resetting the contract. They see that this is the beginning of the end, that they’re going to be cut out in 2023. If Ricketts were to buy out the rooftops right now it would probably cost a quarter billion dollars. I hope Ricketts eventually sticks it to everyone. The Cubs make everyone’s money and they can’t make some more money on their own product. I hope after he gets his renovations, and builds his hotel and renovates the park that he comes to the city and gets to build that bridge. I understand the concerns of a drunk fan dropping a beer on a car. Just enclose the bridge!

      • PLCB3

        Well originally the Cubs wanted city land to push out the walls and for the bridge. Even a private home, you have to get permits for certain things. My parents wanted to build a fence on our property because the old one got damaged and we needed approval from the village. You also have to have licensed construction workers doing work on your property in regards to plumbing, electricity, gas, etc. The Cubs are the only MLB team that has these restrictions on them. Who cares if they play in a residential neighborhood? The people who live there know dam well what they’re getting themselves into when they move into Wrigleyville. You know parking will be tough and there will be congestion because of the Cubs. Either you deal with it if you really want to live in Wrigleyville, or you don’t live there. I would love to live in Wrigleyville, but the troubles it would create just aren’t worth it. You can’t have everything.

    • Doc Raker

      It would depend on what the contract says. Why should the city even be involved in the first place? Again, this is a property rights issue but we have been brainwashed into thinking the city should have a say in what a private owner can do with his own property. Zoning laws have grown to powerful as has many other aspects of our government. Go Cubs, do what you want with your property.

      • Sean Powell

        Yes, but there is also that revenue-sharing contractual agreement between the rooftop businesses and the Cubs. If there were no rooftops overlooking the field with associated businesses that entered into an agreement with the team, there would be no issue with the signage. The historical designation of Wrigley does make it a zoning issue – so, you’re right, the city is involved much more than it should be. I think there has to be a balance between letting businesses do what they want with a property – and rational zoning laws that make sure those physical changes don’t impede on other properties (in a tightly-packed urban area, it would be foolish to think that what one property does can’t affect adjacent properties in an unfairly adverse way) – and there’s definitely benefits of logical urban planning (Portland is a much more pleasant, logical, easy-to-navigate, and aesthetically pleasing city than Houston, for example). There has to be a balance, though, and the rooftops are really making much more off the Cubs than they should be. Also, the amusement tax that the city levies on Cubs tickets is absolutely ridiculously high – especially when you consider that the city is not reinvesting one cent of it back into the main revenue-generating entity of the area (the Cubs). It’s certainly unfair that the city won’t reinvest any of that tax revenue back into Wrigley, is expecting the Cubs to pick up the entire tab for renovation/revenue improvement, AND is being stingy with the zoning/approvals/etc. I’m optimistic, however – what we’ve seen from the mayor’s office is encouraging. Rahm knows that if the Cubs can increase revenue (and thus tax revenue) for the city without the city paying for any of it – that will be a nice feather in his political cap. I see the Cubs prevailing with this one in the end – even if Ricketts has to buy some of the rooftops himself. By the way, don’t get my started on the hypocrisy of the city paying for the freaking DePaul basketball arena!

      • Doc Raker

        I agree with you. That is why I prefaced my statement as referencing the contract between the Cubs and rooftops. That contract should be upheld. But when governments become to powerful people will try and use government power to obfuscate legally binding contracts.

      • AC0000000

        The amusement tax fund is a joke. The trash got a ballpark built from it thanks to the tax the Cubs pay. When Ricketts was asking for public money, he was asking for some of that money, and that money would be paid back from the increased revenues created. Ricketts needs to get tough and say he’s going to take that deal in Rosemont. If the Yankees can leave old Yankee Stadium, then the Cubs can leave Wrigley. I won’t bat an eye. Sucks to tradition. Real Cubs fans will come out no matter what. Real Cubs fans want a World Series championship.

        These rooftop owners can go screw themselves. They said the signs will block our views. Okay. We’ll move the walls out so they don’t. They still want to complain. They’re just upset because Ricketts refused their offer to put the signs on their buildings, give all the money to the Cubs in return for resetting the contract. They see that this is the beginning of the end, that they’re going to be cut out in 2023. If Ricketts were to buy out the rooftops right now it would probably cost a quarter billion dollars. I hope Ricketts eventually sticks it to everyone. The Cubs make everyone’s money and they can’t make some more money on their own product. I hope after he gets his renovations, and builds his hotel and renovates the park that he comes to the city and gets to build that bridge. I understand the concerns of a drunk fan dropping a beer on a car. Just enclose the bridge!

      • AC0000000

        Well originally the Cubs wanted city land to push out the walls and for the bridge. Even a private home, you have to get permits for certain things. My parents wanted to build a fence on our property because the old one got damaged and we needed approval from the village. You also have to have licensed construction workers doing work on your property in regards to plumbing, electricity, gas, etc. The Cubs are the only MLB team that has these restrictions on them. Who cares if they play in a residential neighborhood? The people who live there know dam well what they’re getting themselves into when they move into Wrigleyville. You know parking will be tough and there will be congestion because of the Cubs. Either you deal with it if you really want to live in Wrigleyville, or you don’t live there. I would love to live in Wrigleyville, but the troubles it would create just aren’t worth it. You can’t have everything.

  • Doc Raker

    I just watch the 2004 World Series Film on MLB Network, what a great ALCS and WS. It was so uplifting to see the Red Sox come back down 0-3 verse the Yanks and then sweep the Cardinals in the WS. Mike Matheny was catching for the Cardinals in that series, I am wondering if he is starting to believe he is cursed against the Red Sox. A Cardinal Curse, how awesome!

    • PLCB3

      I’d die a happy man if the White Sox and Cardinals never win another World Series in my life. (Of course, I want a Cubs World Series championship)

    • Doc Raker

      ARoid flunked a drug test in 2006. So how corrupt is this game? Why wasn’t he disciplined in 2006? Did the Yankees and or the MLB hide the failed test so as not to hurt either brand, the Yanks, MLB and or the ARoid brand. Is this why ARoid has been so bold in his fight against the most recent findings of drug misuse, he knew MLB was an accomplice in hiding his 2006 failed test and he was betting MLB would drop the most recent allegations for fear of the full story getting out?

      • PLCB3

        It was for amphetamines

  • Doc Raker

    I just watch the 2004 World Series Film on MLB Network, what a great ALCS and WS. It was so uplifting to see the Red Sox come back down 0-3 verse the Yanks and then sweep the Cardinals in the WS. Mike Matheny was catching for the Cardinals in that series, I am wondering if he is starting to believe he is cursed against the Red Sox. A Cardinal Curse, how awesome!

    • AC0000000

      I’d die a happy man if the White Sox and Cardinals never win another World Series in my life. (Of course, I want a Cubs World Series championship)

  • Waiting for a Tough Mudder recap…

  • Doc Raker

    ARoid flunked a drug test in 2006. So how corrupt is this game? Why wasn’t he disciplined in 2006? Did the Yankees and or the MLB hide the failed test so as not to hurt either brand, the Yanks, MLB and or the ARoid brand. Is this why ARoid has been so bold in his fight against the most recent findings of drug misuse, he knew MLB was an accomplice in hiding his 2006 failed test and he was betting MLB would drop the most recent allegations for fear of the full story getting out?

    • AC0000000

      It was for amphetamines