I posted this a couple weeks ago, but keep in mind that Cuban has shown restraint since about the time the cubs went up for sale- no fines; no on court incidences; fewer compulsive roster moves. He is a smart guy and I wouldn't put posturing past him.

My opinion of Cuban went down a bit with the Avery Johnson firing, but he'd still make a lot of Cubs fans happy.

he'd still make a lot of Cubs fans happy.

How so? It's not like the Cubs are currently cursed with a penurious ownership group; the Trib. Corp. spends lots of money on the Cubs.

Is the theory that Cuban would spend Steinbrenner-esque levels of money? Because otherwise, I don't get it.

I would love to see Cuban own an MLB team (not my favorite team necessarily, though to think of it he'd probably be an improvement over the Wilpons...) just for the entertainment value.

What people seem to forget is that MLB's ability to veto a franchise sale in some ways makes ownership of an MLB team analogous to ownership of a Co-op as opposed to a condo. People buy Co-ops for two reasons- 1 is the ability to pick and choose your neighbors, 2 Co-ops are cheaper because of the inability to simply sell one to the highest bidder.

What happens is that many Co-Op owners, after a few years may want to sell, and at that time they want to be able to sell to the highest bidder, and many, ignoring the fact that they bought cheaply because the prior owner simply couldn't sell to the highest bidder, are pissed when the Co-op board won't let them sell to that Russian mobster who is offering 2X as much as anyone else.

MLB in the past has vetoed potential owners for a variety of claimed reasons, frequently claiming (sometime with justification/sometimes not) that the potential owner was not financially able to run a team, that the purported offer was really not as good as advertised (that's was part of their rationale for steering the Sox away from the Dolans and to Henry- they claimed the Dolan's offer was less than Henry's- independant observers tended to disagree).

But now we may have a situation where a current owner wants to sell, and couldn't give a rats ass with regard to whether the prospective purchaser is good for MLB, and a prospective purchaser who is likely unacceptable to the Commish, but whom in all likelihood can pass any objective "test" MLB can think up.

If Cuban offers a substantial amount more than the next highest bidder, and his offer is real, cash on the barrelhead so to speak, Selig is going to have a hard time vetoing it. The man currently in charge of the Cubs will not let it meekly drop like many owners before him, and a public media examination of MLB's ability to dictate who can and cannot be an owner, and the realization that no amount of $ can let an owner buy a team if Bud (or Bud's predeccesor) says no-
well that will reduce franchise sale values for ALL teams
and you can bet that more than one owner intends to, or can see himself selling his team sometime- and he'll want the best price possible.

An owner may think letting in Cuban is bad, he may also think that turning Cuban's money down will also be bad- what Cuban has to do is convince enough owners that turning down his money will be worse for their financial interests, then letting Cuban in and running up the Cubbies payroll will be.

Selig might persuade McClatchy to sell the Pirates to Cuban as an end-around of sorts, so that Bud can sell the Cubs to the guy he wants. Whether Cuban would be satisfied with the Bucs -- who desperately need his acumen far more than the wealthy Cubs do -- is another question.

Selig might persuade McClatchy to sell the Pirates to Cuban as an end-around of sorts, so that Bud can sell the Cubs to the guy he wants.

McClatchy isn't the guy any more - Ogden and Bob Nutting are. And they ain't selling any time soon, more's the pity.

-- MWE

But now we may have a situation where a current owner wants to sell, and couldn't give a rats ass with regard to whether the prospective purchaser is good for MLB

According to Forbes, Sam Zell is a minority shareholder with the White Sox. He's not a disinterested party.

Yeah, I'd trade the Nuttings for Cuban any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

How so? It's not like the Cubs are currently cursed with a penurious ownership group; the Trib. Corp. spends lots of money on the Cubs.

Is the theory that Cuban would spend Steinbrenner-esque levels of money? Because otherwise, I don't get it.

I don't either. I think Cuban has a cult following b/c of his antics. He doesn't even have some system to point too (like Beane) to get people all weak in the knees.

What system he did have was Nellieball. He let that go and got really beat up for it in both the civil and basketball courts as a result. Its not like the Mavs post-Nellie have been anything to brag about.

His "businesses" were just dot-com booms. Does anyone go to "broadcast.com"?

If you just want an owner that desires to hang ou in the dugout, you have seen that already. Ted Turner did that with the Braves in the mid to late 70s. They were awful. It wasn't until Ted gave up the antics that the Braves were able to compete.

My opinion of Cuban went down a bit with the Avery Johnson firing, but he'd still make a lot of Cubs fans happy.

Why? You don't think Johnson deserved to be fired after the run of disappointments in the playoffs?

He is a smart guy and I wouldn't put posturing past him.

What was he going to do? Defend Dirk's honor and pick a fight with David West?

So, how long until Cuban gets beaten up by fans in the Bleachers?

My opinion of Cuban went down a bit with the Avery Johnson firing Jason Kidd trade.

Fixed.

What system he did have was Nellieball. He let that go and got really beat up for it in both the civil and basketball courts as a result. Its not like the Mavs post-Nellie have been anything to brag about.

I know this is a baseball site, so you can be forgiven for being iffy on the basketball, but this is just plain wrong. The Mavs were arguably the best team in basketball the last two years--they just choked in 2006 (up 2-0 with a huge lead in the third quarter of the finals) and got the wrong matchup with the wrong team at the wrong time (and maybe choked again) in 2007 after winning 67 games (that's more than the Celtics won this year for comparison). They went from novelty to should-be owner of at least one title because they abandoned NellieBall and actually started playing defense.

Whether that has anything to do with Cuban or not though, I couldn't say. What I could say is that he's consistently showed he's willing to spend what it takes to win, even if he can go a little Steinbrenner sometimes.

I liked how you managed to slip another Beane barb in there though.

I know this is a baseball site, so you can be forgiven for being iffy on the basketball, but this is just plain wrong.

Not in the least:

Pre-Nellie - suck city
Nellie -- good
Post Nellie -- eventual decline into barely making the playoffs

They went from novelty to should-be owner of at least one title because they abandoned NellieBall and actually started playing defense.

The Mavs and defense rarely belong in the same sentence, unless its Sir Charles talking about how the Mavs can't win because they don't play defense.

What I could say is that he's consistently showed he's willing to spend what it takes to win, even if he can go a little Steinbrenner sometimes.


That is about the furthest thing from the truth as possible. He didn't resign Nash b/c of money; he didn't keep Nellie and then tried to finagle his way out of paying money.

He bought a team that had a good architect in place. He took over, let his ego get in the way, and he ran the team into the ground.

His "businesses" were just dot-com booms. Does anyone go to "broadcast.com"?

Yes, people go to Yahoo.com all the time.

It would be a nice full circle for me if Cuban were able to buy the Cubs. When I was first living in Japan and decided to get back into following baseball, I listened to the Cubs radio broadcast for free on Broadcast.com via the Cubs very nice original website. Unlike the MLB Radio broadcast, it included all commercials. WGN-Radio used to (maybe still does) use the opening of "Funk #49" as a bumper. It was there that I was first exposed to Pat Hughes' smooth vocal stylings, and the antics of Ron Santo. It was great. I still have fond memories - 23 years old, living in a tiny apartment in Tokyo, listening to the Cubs on Broadcast.com. Of course, it was 1999, so the good feelings didn't last long...

I could say is that he's consistently showed he's willing to spend

THen you should hire Zeke as your GM. No one can spend like him.

use the opening of "Funk #49" as a bumper

If Cuban buys the team, it might be Looking for Freedom as the bumper music.

Yes, people go to Yahoo.com all the time.


Yep, and more are going to Google because of the long range effects of Yahoo drinking the Cuban Kool Aid.Silicon Valley Joke

Cuban was the first to push for statistical analysis on his basketball team. He's open to new ideas and isn't one to stand for Hendry and Lou's idiocy.

Pre-Nellie - suck city
Nellie -- good
Post Nellie -- eventual decline into barely making the playoffs

I vigorously maintain my assertion that this is plain wrong. That's like saying this:
Yankees with Showalter--mediocre
with Torre--eventual decline into consistently losing in the first round of the playoffs.

Do we just ignore everything that happened in between? Last year the Mavs won the 6th most games in the history of the league and then screwed up in the playoffs. The year before, they were a quarter away from a 3-0 series lead in the finals. Under Nellie, they never won more than 60 games, never got out of the conference finals and never played defense. Not saying that Nellie was bad, but they had to get rid of him to make the next step.

Also, let's not forget that they won over 50 games this year. Barely making the playoffs in the deepest conference ever is no shame.

The Mavs and defense rarely belong in the same sentence, unless its Sir Charles talking about how the Mavs can't win because they don't play defense.

I can't find the Hollinger stats for previous years, but I remember them being in the top 3 or 4 in defensive efficiency last year, and in 2008, in a seriously down year, they were still 8th. They've always played good D under Avery.

Saying the Mavs don't play D is exactly the same as saying Derek Jeter is a great defender--it's based completely on a fallacy that people have all agreed to repeat because it's easy.

Pre-Nellie - suck city
Nellie -- good
Post Nellie -- eventual decline into barely making the playoffs

What Bob Dylan said.

What Bob Dylan said.

"There's something you can send back to me, Spanish boots of Spanish leather"...?

"The idiot wind... it's a wonder that you still know how to breathe" ...?

I wish he owned the Knicks.

I think it was, "Well, you walk into the room / Like a camel and then you frown / You put your eyes in your pocket / And your nose on the ground / There ought to be a law / Against you comin' around," but "Idiot Wind" is a good guess.

How so? It's not like the Cubs are currently cursed with a penurious ownership group; the Trib. Corp. spends lots of money on the Cubs.

Is the theory that Cuban would spend Steinbrenner-esque levels of money? Because otherwise, I don't get it.

The Trib and Zell don't have any long term plans other than "Keep people in the seats". A change to Cuban would mean an actual long term plan would be implemented, and that there might be an owner willing to go through a down phase while building a team that will contend consistently.

His "businesses" were just dot-com booms. Does anyone go to "broadcast.com"?

Actually he owns two cable TV channels, a chain of theaters, and a film production house that are all doing well. He also built up a successful computer consulting business before starting broadcast.com.

Also, anyone expecting him to spend Steinbrenner-esque money is going to be disappointed. He's written on his blog about how he's not willing to spend money on the Mavs indiscrimantly anymore.

vigorously maintain my assertion that this is plain wrong. That's like saying this:
Yankees with Showalter--mediocre
with Torre--eventual decline into consistently losing in the first round of the playoffs.


LOL. Keep being vigorous and comparing 3 years of Nellie holdover players to a decade long run.

I can't find the Hollinger stats for previous years, but I remember them being in the top 3 or 4 in defensive efficiency last year, and in 2008, in a seriously down year, they were still 8th. They've always played good D under Avery.

ROLFMAO. Maybe you better go look for them then. You would find out that under Avery, they have Grizzliesque effective FG percentages once the playoffs get started.

In fact, Avery never had a team with as good an eFG in the playoffs as Nellie did in the height of Nellieball during the 2004 playoffs. IOW, Nellie had the team playing better defense when it counted with Jamison, Walker, and Delk then Avery could with those players that were taken to play defense.

Actually he owns two cable TV channels

Yes, the "HDNet" fiasco. I'm sure those 4.7 million in revenue is doing good for Cuban. I imagine he thinks he bought another lottery ticket and can get someone to overpay for HD the way they did for the Internets. Too bad Yahoo is once bitten, twice shy. Maybe he can convince Google that he's better than YouTube.

successful computer consulting business

He sold software! He was the guy that Ross Perot told to "Go Load Dos 3.3 on that XT over there."


He's written on his blog about how he's not willing to spend money on the Mavs indiscrimantly anymore.

Maybe it was the "indiscriminately" that got him. I'm sure the Cubs can overpay for MLB's version of Erick Dampier without Cuban.

The idiot wind. ..

Darren, my man, surprised to see you out. I figured you would be berating Mindy McCready telling her how she was a liar. Have you taken down the Clemens fathead yet?

Kill yourself. Seriously.

BL, are you a Hawks fan? What's your take on some of the decisions they have to make this year? I count four important ones.

1) What to do with Woodson.
2) What to do with Billy Knight.
3) Do you re-sign Josh Smith? If so, how much do you give him?
4) Do you re-sign Josh Childress? For how much?

My answers:
1 - gone
2 - gone
3 - Wait to see what kind of interest he generates - you can always match any other offer he gets. I like him and want to keep him but don't want to give him a max deal if I can help it.
4 - Yes, but I don't know for how much. He is an excellent bench player, defender, and offensive rebounder. Better handle than everyone except for Joe Johnson. But with his low release, he'll never be able to shoot jumpers over anyone, so he really is stretched as a starting SF or SG. What does that type of guy make?

According to Forbes, Sam Zell is a minority shareholder with the White Sox. He's not a disinterested party.

I read somewhere that Zell is actually not a Sox shareholder any more. I don't know where the truth lies.

I wish he owned the Knicks.

I wish anyone other than the Dolans owned the Knicks, well except maybe McClatchy.

WRT the Mavs...
I don't know near;ya s much about Basketball as I do Baseball, but I just assume that BL is wrong...

The Mavs should have won the title in '06. The refs gave at least 2 games to Wade and the Heat. In games 5 and 6, Wade shot 46 free throws. The Mavs as a team shot 48.

Agree about the last two seasons though. They flopped and panicked last year, and the Kidd trade was short-sighted, and Avery Johnson is more of a defensive-minded coach (not a good fit for Dirk and Kidd)

BL, are you a Hawks fan? What's your take on some of the decisions they have to make this year? I count four important ones.

1) What to do with Woodson.
2) What to do with Billy Knight.
3) Do you re-sign Josh Smith? If so, how much do you give him?
4) Do you re-sign Josh Childress? For how much?

My answers:
1 - gone
2 - gone
3 - Wait to see what kind of interest he generates - you can always match any other offer he gets. I like him and want to keep him but don't want to give him a max deal if I can help it.
4 - Yes, but I don't know for how much. He is an excellent bench player, defender, and offensive rebounder. Better handle than everyone except for Joe Johnson. But with his low release, he'll never be able to shoot jumpers

I am a Hawks fan. I may not have thought about those questions as in depth as you have.

(1) Woodson may very well be gone. Pachulia and Smith hate him, and I doubt you can have Smith and him on the same team. I am not one of those that hate Woodson (like many Hawks fans). I have seen nothing that would indicate he could not survive in the NBA. However, I think he may have lost the team. It would be nice to get a guy that can fire the team up they way they played at home in the playoffs.

(2) I think Knight can stay, unless you can find someone better. He gets a bad rap b/c the Hawks have been an easy punching bag. The passing on Paul is the one that is definately bad, but Williams is not el busto. Moreover, Joe Johnson is looking like a good move.

(3) I think you have to resign Josh Smith. He will get interest, and that interest may be bigger than what you can sign him for now. I really haven't been paying attention to the negotiations. You can't pay him Garnett money, but he is integral to the future. Is he looking for a max deal?

(4) Childress is the type of player that many playoff teams would like to have. He can play multiple positions and has lots of energy. Nevertheless, I agree on his limitations. I imagine I would let him walk if he cost a lot. Have you heard anything about what he is asking?

For the Mavs (from Basketball-Ref):
2001-2: Pace Factor: 92.8 (4th of 29), Offensive Rating: 112.2 (1st of 29), Defensive Rating: 107.7 (25th of 29)
2002-3: Pace Factor: 92.5 (7th of 29), Offensive Rating: 110.7 (1st of 29), Defensive Rating: 102.3 (9th of 29)
2003-4: Pace Factor: 92.5 (7th of 29), Offensive Rating: 110.7 (1st of 29), Defensive Rating: 102.3 (9th of 29)
2004-5: Pace Factor: 92.7 (9th of 30), Offensive Rating: 110.3 (4th of 30), Defensive Rating: 104.1 (9th of 30)[Avery coaches last 18 games]
2005-6: Pace Factor: 87.8 (26th of 30), Offensive Rating: 111.8 (1st of 30), Defensive Rating: 105.0 (11th of 30)
2006-7: Pace Factor: 89.5 (28th of 30), Offensive Rating: 111.3 (2nd of 30), Defensive Rating: 103.2 (5th of 30)
2007-8: Pace Factor: 90.2 (22nd of 30), Offensive Rating: 111.1 (8th of 30), Defensive Rating: 106.1 (9th of 30)

So, looks like I was wrong that they got a lot better on defense when Avery arrived--it must have been a trick of the pace that I was sucked into--but also that you were wrong to say they don't play D.

They did also totally change their style of play, going from one of the fastest paces to one of the slowest, which I guess was the abandonment of NellieBall you were criticizing, and yet remained just as good, or better. Did Nellie lay the groundwork for all that? Yes. Is Avery a great coach? No. But I still don't think it's fair to say that abandoning that style was this terrible decision that led to their downfall. What's led to their downfall were poor roster decisions like choosing Dampier over Nash, Harris over Jamison (less egregious) and Kidd over Harris, Diop and two first round picks. They were doing fine playing AveryBall until they took all their flexibility by trading for an over-the-hill point guard.

Yeah, and what were we arguing about again? Oh yeah, Mark Cuban. Hmmm...