Trump Field? Trumpville?

Donald Trump has almost certainly given the city of Chicago a collective shiver with the following statement:

“I would certainly be interested in the Cubs”

And he is not just saying as a team he would be interested in taking out for some movie, burger, backseat action… he’s saying as an aqcuisition.


10 Comments so far

  1. Bill V (unregistered) on July 24th, 2006 @ 4:30 pm

    Mark Cuban, yes. Trump, noooooooooo.

  2. RisingSunofNihon (unregistered) on July 24th, 2006 @ 4:32 pm

    Oh, man. While I wouldn’t mind seeing the Cubs under new ownership, I definitely don’t want it to be The Donald! As Bill V said, Cuban would be cool, but not Trump!!

  3. Dave! (unregistered) on July 24th, 2006 @ 4:41 pm

    I’ll jump on the bandwagon, too.

    Cuban? Outspoken and charismatic, some would love him, some would hate him, but he’d be good for the team and the city.

    The Donald? The charisma of a pet rock. Would creep out everyone.

  4. steven (unregistered) on July 24th, 2006 @ 5:34 pm

    Who cares who owns the Cubs, as long as they’re willing to shell out the dough to put a winning team on the field. And last time I checked, Trump has loads of it.

  5. Khyle (unregistered) on July 25th, 2006 @ 7:34 am

    Really? People don’t want Trump as an owner? Could he possibly make the Cubs worse? Are you rooting for the suits at the Trib to keep eeking out a profit instead of making a concerted effort at putting a winning team on the field?

  6. erik (unregistered) on July 25th, 2006 @ 11:30 am

    The Cubs actually spend quite a tidy sum on their players. See this:

    The problem isn’t in spending the money. The problem is that the Cubs are seeing less return for their dollar than they should. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the Feds should be investigating the Trib more than the Mayor, because nobody is so dumb as to actually believe that their hiring practices are in the best interest of anybody but themselves. $3.2mm for Eyre? Really?

  7. khyle (unregistered) on July 25th, 2006 @ 12:51 pm

    I would judge the Cubs expenditures more along the lines of % of revenue spent towards players. The Cubs sell out most every game, have a very lucrative TV deal (that hides Cubs revenue and shifts it to WGN TV), have the whole self-scalping ticket thing going on, among other things.

    They would probably be 3rd in revenue, and they are 7th in payroll. Again, I’m making an educated guess, but I think they easily could have spent $15m more and still made a profit.

    They have been put in difficult positions recently (sometimes of their own making) with the Sosa contract and now the Wood contract. Lots of money with no production.

  8. erik (unregistered) on July 25th, 2006 @ 2:58 pm

    I’ll aggree that the Cubs have been put in hard spots with contracts lately, but if they did better scouting and managing (instead of listening to the Tribune/WGN hype of how great Wood and Sosa were and would always be, for example), they might not have those problems.

    BTW: The World Champion 2005 White Sox payroll was just over $75mm. That’s over $19mm less than the Cubs are spending this year.

  9. khyle (unregistered) on July 25th, 2006 @ 3:28 pm

    What does last year’s Sox payroll have to do with this years Cubs payroll?

    This year, the Sox, with less revenue (I’m sure) are spending $8m more than the Cubs. And even last year, when the Cubs were spending more, I am sure the Sox were spending a higher percentage of their income. As the Sox’ income went up, so did their payroll (if your numbers are correct by $28m).

  10. erik (unregistered) on July 25th, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

    The point I was trying to make is that the amount of money the Cubs are and have been throwing around is enough to afford a world-class team. If they spent less for these guys (who obviously didn’t turn out to be as great as the Cubs seem ot have thought), then the record wouldn’t sting quite as much.

    Yeah, I’m a Sox fan and the Cubs record stings me. Maybe I’ve been reading too much history of 1906.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.