Aaron;

Very insightful well argued post. I am not happy to say I agree with what you have said. I do agree with SuzyS that maybe you have a transition period with the current management but it worried me that Tom said Jim was the right guy and the team had the talent to get to the finish line. I would have like to see more of the Alpha dog posturing and some anger at the failure of the franchise to be considered seriously over the last 64 years. I would have like to see a glimpse of the roadmap of how things are going to change on the field instead of the tired old platitudes we've heard forever in this town with no results. Its okay to wait and see but I am alot less confident than I was before Friday.

OK Aaron...It's 3am...I just woke up and checked the sight...and your posts...(along with JimK's), were conspicuously absent. So I knew something was up...and then scrolled down without reading, to see how long your post was...kicked my head back, smiled, and said "He's back".

And then reading the meat of your post...

have several thoughts.

1)Overall, your concerns are valid...but

premature. This can be argued both ways

ad nauseum...but I think JimK was right

when he said we wouldn't see major changes until next October....But actually the August trading deadline

will tell us alot if we are close.

2)Huge fan that I am, If I were the new owner...facing 30 million plus interest

payments alone...Revenue streams would

have to be high on my list of priorities...no matter how badly I wanted to win.

3)There are many things Ricketts said that I liked...at the top were:

3a)They were willing to reinvest the bulk of the profits into the franchise.

...That says they are committed to making the Cubs strong.

3b)Accountability and excellence. (actually discussed yesterday) It means

that JH/Lou and anyone else not up to par

will be gone.(It is a stated goal...we'll see how it translates...but if not publicly stated...thyere;s nothing to reach for.)

3c) Re Baseball operations...upgrading the minor leagues is the number 1 priority...(How many times have we harped

on that?)

4)While I am not a Crane Kenney/JH/Lou

supporter at this point...it makes more sense to keep them in place for ONE season...if that..from a new owner's perspective...and make no mistake this was about ownership...not field play, not who the GM/manager...But ownership.

The day will come soon when we'll be discussing those changes...but not today.

2)Re Kenney...My deeling is that he is there solely for his inside the issue knowledge of the triangle building...and previously done plans to upgrade Wrigley.

I may be wrong...But when he said he would have a direct working relationship

with Hendry...which basically cuts Kenney

out of the baseball operations side.

So Kenney is a non-issue to us.

In any business, when a takeover occurs

some of the prior management remains for a short time to bring the new management up to speed on the inner workings of the organization...and once they fulfill that function...are usually gone shortly thereafter...depending on contract status.

Aaron, I could go on...I know we've wanted to see heads roll NOW...but

there are valid reason's for keeping

most everyone in place at this point

in time....but not for long.

Let's see how it goes...and give them the benefit of the doubt for now....

We're going to have the Ricketts around to bash or praise for a long time...God Willing...no matter what...it is a new day.

I've withheld some commentary in recent days to see what would come of this announcement.

I'm skeptical by nature...mostly because I've come to learn there's a hidden agenda with almost everyone. Do the Ricketts really want to win a World Series? Absolutely! But is it really #1 on their priority list? Maybe not...all you have to do is read between the lines. Tom discussed many things today (and in recent interviews). He spent a LOT of time discussing revenue streams, improving the fan experience, etc., and hardly any time discussing the play on the field.

Here's why I'm really worried about this ownership team...Just think about this for a second. If this team were owned by a Mark Cuban, or George Steinbrenner, or Jerry Jones, do you think for a moment they'd be focusing primarily on revenue streams?!? Hell no! They'd be throwing people under the bus left and right, establishing a sort of alpha dog presence in the franchise, putting everyone on alert that they better start producing, or get out.

The problem I have with a lifelong Cubs fan owning the team is just that..."lifelong Cubs fan". I'm not trying to say that we're all zombies, but if you think about it, we kind of are okay with mediocrity, otherwise there's no logical explanation why we're all fans of such an abysmal franchise.

For those of you who are new to this website, or to the few kool-aid drinkers left, please understand that I'm merely posing a question. I'm not trying to say any given Cubs fan (like myself) is mis-informed, or under-informed, etc. about the baseball landscape...I'm merely trying to say that it's quite possible that having a lifelong Cubs fan might be the worst possible thing for this franchise.

I'll give the Ricketts family the benefit of the doubt thus far, because I also recall the time they spent reviewing the Red Sox formula for success, and I also could sort of read between the lines of what Tom has been saying, virtually putting Piniella and Hendry on notice without directly coming out and saying it bluntly. He basically said they're staying hands off this year to see if he can fix what he messed up, and if he can't, then they have something to go off of, and can hold everyone accountable from there, and I think that's a fair...and somewhat wise statement, because 9 times out of 10, in any equal scenario that statement would reasonate with the fan base and they'd understand the precipus of his argument for keeping Hendry on board.

But here's where that logic is flawed:

no-trades to: Z, ARAM, Lee, Soriano, Fukudome, and Dempster. Ill-advised FA deals to Soriano, Burnitz, Lee, Dempster, Miles, and Bradley, all coming off career years when their respective deals were signed (which is a cardinal sin in baseball to do so, and it'd be bad enough if you were burned once, but he's essentially been burned 6 times now, and still hasn't learned...though Dempster did have a decent season last year, and Lee FINALLY had a good year 4 years after signing his extension). Apparently Tom and the rest of his family has overlooked the HORRIBLE job of player development under Hendry. So, I ask again, what in the last 8 years at the helm gave them good reason to believe that Hendry could make the team into a consistent winner? Do they know who Pat Gillick is?!? Now, THAT is a true winner, and a guy that knows what he's doing to turn franchises around, and into winners. Awful seasons such as 2002, 2005, and 2006, coupled with the horribly mismanaged seasons of 2004 and 2009 where there was absolutely no accountability among players and management alike...so basically it's hit or miss with Hendry. Either you have an abomination of a season like '02, '05, and '06, or you have piss poor personnel decisions in seasons you clearly should've made the playoffs if you just would've made the moves the whole world knew you should've made.

So, I guess I don't get it. Kenney might be an excellent businessman, but since when does that qualify anyone to run a franchise effectively. Some might say Dan Snyder of the Redskins is an excellent businessman, or the brothers that own the Sacramento Kings (or maybe it's the Clippers...either way it's the same point), but they've done a HORRIBLE job producing a good product on the field/court. So, if you were building a culture of winning, why in the world would you want losers like Hendry and Kenney weighing down your franchise. Both of them have equally puzzling histories of poor decision-making where the whole world is questioning, "what in the world was he thinking?"

As I've said before, Hendry's previous 8 seasons were a good sample size for his audition for the new owners, and he failed miserably. About the only season where every move he made seemed to turn out well was 2003, and it has been well documented that Hendry wasn't even trying to add Aramis Ramirez, but he fell into his lap once Patterson went down with the knee injury and Hendry needed to add a CF, and Lofton was on the market...ARAM at the time was thrown into the deal because he was a malcontent in Pittsburgh, and was seen as a lazy player (who ended up turning into gold for us...but PLEASE...PLEASE stop painting Hendry as a genius for this, because he simply was NOT). Fact is, in the 6 years after 2003, the only personnel moves (FA/trades) that have turned out well for Hendry and the Cubs has been DeRosa and Lilly. Initially, you might say, "but Aaron...what about Harden?" I'd say, he helped us in 2008, but did hardly anything for us this year. Additionally, Hendry failed when he had the chance to trade him this season, and now comes word he won't even offer arbitration, nor will he attempt to re-sign him. This results in yet another FAILURE!!!!!! Then, you factor in the trade for Gregg this year who was set to be non-tendered, and essentially we traded away 4 of our top 10 prospects in the last 2 years for nothing (Gallagher, Donaldson, Eric Patterson, and Jose Ceda)...then, combine that with the fact Heilman might not even be back, and was worthless this past season for us, and we'll have traded what would've been 6 of our top 10 prospects (Pie and Cedeno) in recent years. In fact, I believe in one of the last 3 seasons, almost all of them appeared on the same top 10 list.

So, again, I ask you...if this were the Yankees...or Red Sox, or outside of baseball...the Cowboys or Patriots, or the Mavericks...would Hendry stand a chance of coming back?!? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!! Why? Because they all demand excellence out of their staffs, or you're gone. In most cases, if you don't make the playoffs, you're out immediately. In some cases (Yankees), if you don't make the championship, then you're forced out after a couple years (even if you make the playoffs).

So, Tom Ricketts talks about wanting to win a championship, and realizing that you have to make the playoffs consistently to do so, and yet, since the 1920's and 1930's, we haven't made the playoffs consistently. When the question was posed about what makes them any different from the Tribune, he very cleverly deflected the question, and said something to the effect that corporations operate differently. Well, that's all good and well, until you examine where their roots are based....indeed, the Ricketts are deeply rooted in the corporate world to begin with, and when you expand a front office (which I'm not saying we don't need), it becomes even more corporately structured, and the fact that he spent a good chunk of time discussing revenue streams and the "fan experience" (which conveniently left out the product on the field), he sounded even more corporate-like. So, exactly how are they any different than the Tribune?!?

About the only thing I see as being different, is the Tribune never really had a figure-head for fans to direct criticism/suggestions to, but that's precisely their reasoning for hiring Andy MacPhail in the 90's, so that argument only holds water for the 80's. Now, how about the assertion that the family is concerned about the fan experience, and so "that's why the franchise is in good hands". Well, I'm pretty sure that's precisely what the Tribune had in mind when they hired Harry Caray, and started putting butts in the seats, which led to increased profits, etc. The Tribune also said all the right things when they took over, didn't they? Remember the comments about being hands-off in baseball related matters, and they'd leave the baseball decisions up to Dallas Green. Remember that? So, how exactly is that any different than what they just said today?

In fact, the Ricketts are far more savvy business-wise than the Tribune ever was, and Tom even mentioned that payroll will remain about the same (even though we have major holes to be filled like CF, RF, 2B, and at least one pen arm).

But wait...it gets worse. After Dallas Green made a quick turnaround, and got the Cubs winning again, and Harry was drawing fans out to the ballpark, the Tribune refused to open up the vaults to sign/retain quality players and coaches, and went strictly to a business operation rather than a sports-related operation where winning is always front and center and revenues are a byproduct of that (increased memorabilia sales and ticket revenues).

I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but it sure seems that the Ricketts intend to operate the franchise from a business perspective and NOT as fans, for if they were true fans, they'd want the best possible product on the field as quickly as possible, and would make all the necessary personnel decisions to accomplish that goal. Tom Ricketts spoke of that at the outset of the discussion. He talked of his parents influencing their lives, and how they always had goals, and then he related it to winning a World Series.

Well, I'm sorry to say it, but if you were really intent on winning a championship, and you'd been a fan your entire life, and through the discovery process of your bid for the franchise, met with the Red Sox to learn the baseball side of the business even more, I'm pretty damn sure you'd have an idea of what it would take to win it all aside from "better player development." He made me smile with his "hope is no longer good enough" comment, but everything else he said made that seem like lip service. If you're the owner of a franchise as wildly popular as the Cubs, and your goal is to win it all, then you better have a backbone to do it.

I don't feel the Ricketts family has the backbone to make the tough decisions in order to get it done. If they did, Hendry would've been fired by now, and so would Rothschild, and probably even Piniella, and they would've contacted LaRussa, Duncan, Pat Gillick and others in order to turn us into a winner in quick fashion. Why would you spend $800 million+ for a team that failed so badly with the 3rd highest payroll in the game, then maintain the status quo after the purchase goes through if you were really serious about winning?!?

I have a distinct feeling that the Ricketts want to own the Cubs for personal reasons. Perhaps they want to show it off for their friends and family like they did when they rented the 3 rooftops for their family/friends reunion a few years ago that Tom talked about in the conference. Perhaps that's all the purchase was...just for bragging rights amongst colleagues, family, and friends. This is why I was so nervous a Cubs fan was purchasing the team. Hell, I'd even admit that if I was blessed with the opportunity to own the Cubs, I'd want to show it off as well in similar fashion, because I am such a huge fan.

But make no mistake about it...if a guy like Mark Cuban owned the team, it'd be ALL about winning. Those type of owners are rare. It's like a sense of pride to them. It's what drove Henry and Lucchino and others to make all the moves they did to win it all. You look at job listings for things like sales positions, and a vast majority of people want winners that have proven it. They want people that thrive off competition. They don't want people to join their organization just so they can say, "I work for ______ Fortune 100 company", and like I said, it sure seems the Ricketts want to own the Cubs as a sort of bragging rights situation.

I hope with every ounce of my being that I am wrong about all of this...but just call it a hunch. I think I'm right. In fact I know I'm right. We all can pretty much agree that due to the major holes in the franchise, we don't have any immediate fixes on the horizon (Burke, Flaherty, LeMahieu, Ridling, etc. are all 2-3 years away from helping), while the only immediate help might come from the 19 year old Starlin Castro who might be the next Hanley Ramirez...or, in all likelihood, will be the next Corey Patterson surrounded by hype and nothing more. With the payroll at $120 million without arbitration raises due to the likes of Baker, Gorzelanny, Theriot, etc., it's quite possible with just our arbitration raises, we'll be in the $130 million range, and with what he called a "slight increase" in payroll, about the best you could hope for is one definitive impact bat like a Holliday or Bay, and just fill the rest out with rookies, because we sure as hell don't want another repeat of 2009, where we filled holes with cheaper options like Heilman, Gregg, Miles, and Gathright, and ended up in disaster.

Am I off base? I hope I'm not pissing anyone off by the statements I just made. Maybe I read everything completely wrong...let's have respectful and healthy debate about it...

Agreed.

Impressive.