“It’s like responding to a random blog post, a waste of time.”

I think he just told me my entire life is a waste of time.

To the degree that anything in sports can make me angry, the notion that Mark Cuban would be bad for baseball qualifies. No, he definitely would not be like say, Pirates ownership. If Cuban got the Cubs, I can guarantee he would do the following:

1. Hire an army of scouts. He'd pay whatever it took to get the best ones available.

2. Hire an army of sabermetricians. He'd pay whatever it took to get the best ones available.

3. Establish a baseball academy about every square mile in the Dominican.

4. Go over slot in the draft and take every player that drops due to signability concerns.

I suppose it would be too much to expect Morrissey to illuminate the real reasons baseball wouldn't want Cuban as an owner rather than some tripe about umpires. After all, Morrissey is the same guy that wrote a column about Joakim Noah being soft. After Noah played basketball with a partially torn rotator cuff in the SEC for several months. And then competed in workouts against all comers with said partially torn rotator cuff. How does a guy like Morrissey keep his job? I suppose his best qualification is that he's not Marriotti.

according to Gammons this morning, it's not that "baseball" doesn't want Cuban, it's that Reinsdorf hates his guts from dealing with him in the NBA

and he (Reinsdorf) has enough sway with the other MLB owners

On the subject of the Cubs ownership and Mr Reinsdorf, I found this Mariotti article of great interest. Fra paolo linked to it in a dying thread, so I thought I'd post it again here. It's a cache as the original seems to have been (re)moved.

If Mariotti is pals with Cuban, it might explain the sudden outbreak of good sense on the Most Hated Scribe on Primer’s part.

I don't think Selig wants Cuban owning the Cubs if there are already enough buyers out there, including people he's far more comfortable with. Now if the Pirates ever came up for sale, I can't imagine there would be anywhere as much interest in them, so they might approve selling them to Cuban. And despite 1908 and the "lovable Cubbies" crap, if Cuban could make a champion of the Pirates given baseball'e current economic system -- in which the deck is stacked far more against franchises like Pittsburgh than it was during the Bucs' glory days of the '60s and '70s -- that would eclipse anything he could accomplish on the North Side.

You must be joking, unless you are referring to idealized sabermetric baseball world, and not the actual world.

To the degree that anything in sports can make me angry, the notion that Mark Cuban would be bad for baseball qualifies.

I don't think MLB sees any benefit from Mark Cuban. If you think Schilling's rants on Questec are bad, wait until Cuban is vested enough to cry about any misfortune that befalls the team he purchases.

Moreover, you want to talk about a camera hog. He will make Steinbrenner and Schott look like Pohlad.

If Cuban got the Cubs, I can guarantee he would do the following:

1. Hire an army of scouts. He'd pay whatever it took to get the best ones available.

2. Hire an army of sabermetricians. He'd pay whatever it took to get the best ones available.

3. Establish a baseball academy about every square mile in the Dominican.

4. Go over slot in the draft and take every player that drops due to signability concerns.


I'd take that bet, if there were any way to verify the results. The Mavs are a function of Nellie, not Cuban. Nellie was inherited, not hired. I have no doubt he will overpay the people he does hire, but that does not mean they are the "best".

As for the draft, I'm not sure where you get this at all. The Mavs have the following players on their roster that were actually drafted by the Mavs: Maurice Ager, Nik Fazekas, Josh Howard, and the rights to Renaldas Seibutos. If you want to get real charitable, you can include Devin Harris, Jose Juan Barea, and DJ Mbenga as draft picks.

I don't know any of those people that had "signability concerns". Josh Howard was a steal pick, but I think you would be hard pressed to consider anyone else a steal pick. I'm also not sure how/where you get "international camps" or international scouts. If the best your international program has come up with is Barea and Mbenga, that's not much of a testament. That is especially true, when you let Nellie take guys like Biedrins later than you pick no shot Devin Harris. Your high school scouting isn't that great when Al Jefferson, Robert Swift, and Josh Smith are going later. And your college scouting isn't that superb when Luol Deng is going later and Kevin Martin is going much later (there is your sabr steal).

I think you are once again remembering Don Nelson, who managed to maneavure to Dirk Nowitzki with Robert Tractor Traylor and sign Wang Zhi Zhi for little to nothing. Of course, all of that was before Cuban. Cuban's reward for that talent was to uncermoniously dump Nellie, not pay him, and counter sue him for trade secret infringement because told his new team how to guard Nowitzki.

The Mavs have followed the same arc that all of Nellie's teams have followed from the Bucks to the Warriors. They also have had the same glaring weakness, namely a post scoring option. Cuban likes to take the credit, but I haven't seen where he has done much to add to the sport, other than the money he's contributed in fines. Cuban gains all this support b/c he's snarky and kids think that is cool.

If you're looking for the sabe-friendly franchise, you need to look north. Its the Sonics that tend to be more experimental and math friendly.

I suppose it would be too much to expect Morrissey to illuminate the real reasons baseball wouldn't want Cuban as an owner rather than some tripe about umpires.

He did. He illuminated how he's a PITA, and a particular PITA to Reinsdorf. Do you have some other secret reason that no one else knows about.

Do you have some other secret reason that no one else knows about.


He will end Bud Selig's run atop the Baseball's Worst Haircut leader board.

As for the draft, I'm not sure where you get this at all. The Mavs have the following players on their roster that were actually drafted by the Mavs:

While I ultimately agree on a lot of your points, I don't really think you can compare how the Mavs draft to how a potential Cuban-owned MLB team would (or wouldn't) draft. There are so many differences between the two systems that the comparison is pretty much moot.

If anything, I do agree that Cuban is inclined to draft the best players and pay them whatever it takes (as the Yankees have been doing lately) since it would involve his two favorite activites: Spending Money and Defying League Authority.

The answer is clear: The Cubs need to hire Don Nelson as their GM.

While I ultimately agree on a lot of your points, I don't really think you can compare how the Mavs draft to how a potential Cuban-owned MLB team would (or wouldn't) draft. There are so many differences between the two systems that the comparison is pretty much moot.

I agree the systems are different, but I see no basis in any of the points about Cuban getting the "best" of anything, or substantially increasing spending in those areas. That has not been his modus operendi in Dallas. He leaks talent, including talent that is not constrained by any league deal, like his front office.

If anything, I do agree that Cuban is inclined to draft the best players and pay them whatever it takes (as the Yankees have been doing lately) since it would involve his two favorite activites: Spending Money and Defying League Authority.

But he hasn't done this with the Mavs. He's released a useful player in Finley for Cap concerns, usually fills out the last 3 slots on his roster with scrubby players for cap concerns, and did not play ball with Steve Nash. How different would the last two years teams have been if instead of Harris flailing toward the goal looking for a bailout foul, you had Nash running the team.

I agree, he would be about, "Defying League Authority" but that would take the form of blog posts and interviews where he would ##### about where the money was going. He wouldn't write that check. He still hasn't paid Nellie.

I think he'd end up spending money, but he would do it like Tom Hicks as he did with Finley. He'd sign some bright and shiny player, realize it constrains him too much, and let him go to only keep paying parts of his salary.

The answer is clear: The Cubs need to hire Don Nelson as their GM.

MLB has had that, his name was Whitey Herzog. I bet Whitey would listen if the Cubs would call.

But he hasn't done this with the Mavs. He's released a useful player in Finley for Cap concerns, usually fills out the last 3 slots on his roster with scrubby players for cap concerns, and did not play ball with Steve Nash

Fair enough. My impression as it comes to Cuban is merely what I discern from the media, since I'm not really a basketball guy. It's possible I have him misjudged, so mea culpa.

It would be fun to have Cuban around to watch him mope when the team loses. I can only imagine with glee the faces he would have made if he'd owned the Cubs in the Steve Bartman Era. And the litigation against Dusty! Awesome, awesome stuff.

he has, at least in the regular season, kicked the crap out of most of the NBA in a non big-market town (not that that makes much of a difference in the NBA).

To summarize the pros, he will care about the team; he will be passionate about it; he will spend money to win. As a non-Chicago person, I fear this, as they will quickly become the Yankees; Angels; Red Sox.

While you make some good points Backlasher, I still think you are underestimating the degree to which Cuban had an impact on the Mavs. The Mavs were a wasteland when he took over. Sure, as far as personnel he got lucky regarding Nelson and Nowitzki. But that doesn't change all the efforts he made in making everything about the team state of the art, from the locker rooms, to trying to insure proper nutrition for his players, to hiring shooting coaches (along with computer analysis of shot arcs, which Nash in particular benefited from), to computer based analysis of defense. Some things worked out better than others. But he was willing to try, and he wanted to win, and he was willing to spend money.

That is what I was referring to about the draft. The baseball draft is a different animal than the NBA draft. I find it hard to imagine that Cuban would abide by Selig's de facto slotting system in the MLB draft. There are no signability concerns in the NBA draft, other than buyouts for players in Europe, etc. There is also a much greater volume of draft picks in the MLB draft. Its apples and oranges. Given Cuban's history, I find little to suggest that he would not throw money at draft picks that fall in the draft, like the Tigers for example, only on a grander scale.

As for the Nelson as victimized employee, well... Its not the first time he's had issues with compensation from an employer. Cuban has reacted like a petulant child, but that doesn't mean that Nelson behaved in an above board fashion either. Nelson likes Maui. He more especially likes being paid to be in Maui.

As for Nash, Cuban thought he would break down. A reasonable thought given the fact that Nash has significant problems stemming from a fractured back. He also used the money to get Dampier, a bad move, but one that nonetheless was championed by Avery Johnson because he believed they needed a big man. As for filling out the roster with scrubs, he hates the luxury tax. That isn't a secret. He's stated many times he hates the luxury tax because it rewards ineptitude. Something that DOES transfer nicely to MLB rather than a comparison between the respective drafts of each league. I very much doubt Cuban would be willing to give tax dollars to the Nuttings, but he would quite gleefully go the Japanese posting route, for instance, similar to what the Red Sox did if it did not mean contributing to corporate welfare.

I do not like Cuban because he's snarky. Snark implies some level of intelligent insult. The insults Cuban throws around are more of the 5th grade "my dad is stronger than your dad" variety. I don't like his propensity for grand standing. But in the context of MLB owners, I would be hard pressed to name very many current MLB owners I'd rather have than Cuban should he become one.

I don't doubt that Reinsdorf hates Cuban. I don't doubt that Reinsdorf has Selig's ear. But I think its much more likely that Selig doesn't want Cuban as a MLB owner because he would disregard many of the gentleman's agreements among owners. Depending on your point of view, I suppose that would amount to the same thing as Cuban being a PITA. From a fan's perspective, I'd like to see him be a PITA to baseball owners.

Cuban isn't without flaws, but he does spend money, and he does try to win. Tribune milked the Cubs for years. It'd be a welcome change.

If Cuban puts in the highest bid and is rejected, is there a lawsuit?

If Cuban puts in the highest bid and is rejected, is there a lawsuit?

No -- MLB persuades Nutting to sell the Pirates to Cuban as a consolation prize.

Cuban isn't without flaws, but he does spend money, and he does try to win.

My concern is that he'd be more early-90's-Yankees than early-00's-Red Sox. However, I'd still like to see him get the chance to try.

If Cuban puts in the highest bid and is rejected, is there a lawsuit?

Yes. The Cubs are owned by a publicly held corporation (IIRC) and there are fiduciary duties to minority stockholders. This would involve maximizing profit on a sale. The issue would be how Selig & MLB are allowed to tie TribCorp's hands.

I don't know the outcome but there would be lawsuits aplenty, I'm sure.

Cuban isn't without flaws, but he does spend money, and he does try to win. Tribune milked the Cubs for years. It'd be a welcome change.

Sorry, but I ain't buying this. Under Tribco ownership - the Cubs actually set multiple new highs in salary threshholds (both Sutcliffe and Sandberg's contracts in the 80s were then records). The only significant homegrown player they let get away was Maddux - and that was more a Himes-Boras test of wills than a strict $$$$ issue. They went hard -- and thanfully came up short -- on Mike Hampton. They did extend Sosa. They've not shied away from any 'signability' picks (Prior, for example) in the ammy draft. Perhaps you can say they should have been in the A-Rod sweepstakes -- but it's hard to criticize the Tribune for skinflintery beyond that.

The Cubs problem under the Tribune was absolutely NOT a problem with money -- you're thinking of Wrigley ownership (Madlock, Sutter, etc).

The Cubs problem under Tribune ownership has been that they haven't spent their money WELL nor has the organization been well-run. Perhaps you can lay that at the feet of the Tribune, perhaps not.

If anything, I suspect the Tribune may have actually prevented a 'real' rebuilding project because they worried about justifying a temporarily low payroll.

Right, the Cubs didn't go after Beltran, but they paid big money to Soriano. So they've been willing to spend the money, but it seems like they only care about the public face: "See, we've spent money, we're trying! Come to the park!" Cuban will spend money, but actually care about winning.

Whether that would translate into pouring money into building a foundation (scouting, coaching, Latin America, etc.) or blowing money on over the hill free agents is unknown.

He'd clearly be more of a change for Pittsburgh in that he'd care about winning AND throw money around, but he would represent a change for the Cubs as well.

Yes. The Cubs are owned by a publicly held corporation (IIRC) and there are fiduciary duties to minority stockholders. This would involve maximizing profit on a sale. The issue would be how Selig & MLB are allowed to tie TribCorp's hands.

I diagree. The Cubs franchise agreement with MLB likely has a prohibition on assignability without the consent of MLB. That's a valid and enforceable contractual provision. The franchise agreement with MLB is the most valuable asset the Cubs have. No buyer would purchase the Cubs unless that condition has been satisfied. In essence, unless MLB consents to a particular purchaser of the Cubs, there is no legitimate offer by that purchaser to consider. The Cubs have bargained away their right to sell themselves unfettered by the input of MLB, and they were smart to do so. The Cubs (including the shareholders) can't undo that deal just to make a few extra bucks. Fiduciary duties have nothing to do with it.

The Cubs (including the shareholders) can't undo that deal just to make a few extra bucks. Fiduciary duties have nothing to do with it.

My money, then, is on John Canning.

Cuban announced that he submitted an application to buy the Cubs.

I think it will be interesting to see whether the next Cubs owner is a person or a corporation (I understand one of those online brokerages is in the mix now, too).

We saw a BIG move away from 'family'/individually owned teams and towards corporate ownership in the 80s and 90s (Wrigleys, O'Malleys, Ted Turner) -- most likely because despite the constant owner bellyaching about salaries, it was a good fiscal move to buy a major league team... Fox, the Tribune Company, Rogers Communications, etc -- these people weren't morons.

I wonder now if owning an MLB team has become less of a safe bet, as in recent (say...last 5-6-7 years) - the corporate owners seem to be divesting and it would seem at a glance that MLB teams have gone back to becoming a billionaire's toy.

I diagree.

I only said that there would be lawsuits because somebody would be mad. I didn't say they would succeed.

Don't force me to file my own lawsuit just to prove myself right.

I think Pops is right... Didn't someone file a suit around the contraction discussion timeframe because he wanted to buy the Twins or someone but wasn't deemed 'financially viable' by MLB?

I only said that there would be lawsuits because somebody would be mad. I didn't say they would succeed.

Don't force me to file my own lawsuit just to prove myself right.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Unless MLB acts in bad faith in exercising their consent right though (and if MLB has the right to consent in their sole discretion as I imagine they do, I'm not sure that the concept of bad faith is even applicable), I just don't think there are lawsuits on any grounds that present a colorable claim.

Didn't someone file a suit around the contraction discussion timeframe because he wanted to buy the Twins or someone but wasn't deemed 'financially viable' by MLB?

Does anyone know the wording behind the "MLB must approve the sale" in the contract (or wherever it is)? It seems likely to me that MLB probably has to have a reason to reject the sale. Now of course, they may have a lot of leeway, but if they have to provide a reason, then there are probably grounds for a lawsuit.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Unless MLB acts in bad faith in exercising their consent right though (and if MLB has the right to consent in their sole discretion as I imagine they do, I'm not sure that the concept of bad faith is even applicable), I just don't think there are lawsuits on any grounds that present a colorable claim.

For us non-lawyers, just to be clear, let's say John Canning's group offers 600 million for the team (my guess is this # has been leaked as the sell price for the Cubs for a reason) but Cuban or George Soros (2 guys MLB has no love for) go ape-#### crazy and offer 850 million. If MLB decides in their infinite wisdom that they'd rather take the Canning bid, then are the Cubs are stuck with that decision without redress?

As TerpNat pointed out... You'd think there would be a few viable candidates to buy the Cubs. I would much rather see Cuban own his hometown Pittsburgh Pirates.

think Pops is right... Didn't someone file a suit around the contraction discussion timeframe because he wanted to buy the Twins or someone but wasn't deemed 'financially viable' by MLB?

I'm not familiar with that one. I know the AG tried to find a good angle for suit on the Sox sale, and as billyshears stated its pretty unassailable.

But with Cuban, Pops is probably right. He'll try to sue no matter what.

I wonder now if owning an MLB team has become less of a safe bet, as in recent (say...last 5-6-7 years) - the corporate owners seem to be divesting and it would seem at a glance that MLB teams have gone back to becoming a billionaire's toy.

You will see a lot of people divesting in these cycles b/c you lose most of the tax benefits from the original purchase (depreciation of the player contracts); and you have held long enough to get capital gains and cg treatment. Plus you have probably reaped whatever benefits you have from the collateral purchases (real estate, TV rights) and either moved them out of the new deal, or discovered they weren't quite what you thought they would be.

Nevertheless, the deals still involve multiple investors, and are still structured for all the same benefits.

... But he was willing to try, and he wanted to win, and he was willing to spend money.

I have no doubt that Cuban would geekup any business he bought. As we discuss between those posts, the ROI on that would be questionable. Hell, stick me at SS for the Cubs and I promise you I would try to win just as much as anyone else. The issue would be, what could he bring to the table to win.

Based on MLB's existing structure, I don't think he would give much to the Cubs b/c he would consider it a matter of principal not to pay luxury tax. That means he has to be smarter with his payroll dollars, and I don't see any evidence he would do that.

I'll agree with some of the other posters, he along with many others, could benefit a franchise like the Pirates (or the Marlins) b/c there is money to spend on payroll pre-luxury tax. But then we aren't talking about Cuban as much as we are talking about anyone that can infuse capital.

McCoy said Cuban has announced his intention to buy the Cubs. Here's the AP story link.

For us non-lawyers, just to be clear, let's say John Canning's group offers 600 million for the team (my guess is this # has been leaked as the sell price for the Cubs for a reason) but Cuban or George Soros (2 guys MLB has no love for) go ape-#### crazy and offer 850 million. If MLB decides in their infinite wisdom that they'd rather take the Canning bid, then are the Cubs are stuck with that decision without redress?

Well, it all depends on the language of the franchise agreement or other contract between the Cubs or its parent and MLB that gives MLB the right to consent to any sale of the Cubs. I haven't seen any such agreement, but I'm nearly 100% positive that an agreement with such a provision exists.

Such provision might say that MLB has the right to consent to any sale "in its reasonable discretion." If that's the case, the Cubs would have a pretty good argument that it is unreasonable for MLB to refuse consent to a sale that is $250 mil higher than the next highest bidder. Unless the highest bidder was a terrorist, I think that's a winning argument. But $250 mil is a big number. If the difference is only $10 mil in a $650 mil deal, "The guy is a royal PITA" may be a legitimate reason to withhold consent.

On the other hand though, I think it's highly unlikely that the consent to assignment provision is limited to "reasonable discretion." This is a huge point for MLB and they have the leverage to demand whatever terms they want - the owner of the Cubs gets a tremendous asset in return for his assent. I think the provision probably says something to the effect that MLB has the right to consent to any sale or assignment of the Cubs "in its sole discretion, for any reason whatsoever." If that's the case, then the Cubs are pretty much out of luck. They bargained away the right to be freely assignable in an arms length transaction and received substantial consideration in return. Without knowing what else is in the deal, that's a pretty rock solid contract.

The one caveat is good faith, which is an implied provision in every contract. If MLB rejects a sale in bad faith (potentially, any kind of bribery between MLB and an alternative buyer or racism, sexism, etc.), then the Cubs would have a legitimate suit. But bad faith is a pretty narrow limitation. Generally, if you even have to argue about whether certain conduct constitutes bad faith, it's not bad faith.

The real question, though, is whether it would be considered "bad faith" -- or even arbitrary and capricious -- for MLB to refuse a sale to a higher bidder simply because they didn't want to deal with that particular owner.

These aren't easy issues and most likely *would* end up being decided in a court or arbitration hearing. My personal, uneducated guess would be that an MLB rejection would not be considered to be acting in bad faith, but that opinion and $2 might get you a cup of Starbucks.