The Chicago Cubs and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad AP article

This Associated Press story is awful for the headline alone, which implies that plans for the city of Chicago to subsidize a renovation of Wrigley Field were rolling happily along until politics reared its ugly head — when in fact it was controversial from the get-go, and with good reason. But the AP then doubles down on awfulness, asserting that “fans are left wondering if the complicated financial deals and presidential politics mean the team’s owners will have to put more money into the stadium, and less into building a winning ballclub.”

How can I explain this slowly, in words than an AP editor will understand? Let’s try this: Sports team owners don’t spend money on their teams because they have too much of it burning a hole in their pockets. Or how about this: The Ricketts family is worth more than a billion dollars, so it’s not lack of cash that’s holding them back from buying some outfielders.

There are two reasons why team owners spend money on players: One is that they want to win a championship because they like the idea of getting that big fancy trophy. That will be a motivation regardless of whether they get renovation subsidies, or whether they renovate, or whether they have to go play in the street and pass a hat for tips.

The other is — those with sensitive constitutions should avert their eyes at this point — to make money. And the amount of money that you make by investing in better players has nothing to do with who paid for your stadium renovations. Yes, getting renovations, and the increased revenue opportunities that will come with them, would make investing in the team more lucrative, and so increase the incentive to boost payroll — it’s more enticing to sign Cole Hamels if you figure the fans he’ll draw will be dining on your new high-priced food options. But that’s just as true if you paid for the renovations out of your own money as if they were supplied by Chicago taxpayers.

So when “longtime fan Pam Paxton” gripes to the AP that “You watch, Anthony Rizzo (the Cubs latest young star) is going to be long gone if they don’t win,” she really doesn’t have to worry. As a team with one of the highest ticket prices in baseball, the Cubs have plenty of money to spend on players, and plenty of reasons to spend it — even if right now they aren’t, because they don’t want to repeat the mistakes from the last time they went on a spending spree.


5 comments on “The Chicago Cubs and the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad AP article

  1. I’ve read a lot of stuff in my life but that… was… *awesome*!

    It seems pretty logical that the people who stand to profit on something would make the investment in it. Charles Weeghman seemed to think so. He built what is now Wrigley Field with $250,000 of his own money in 1914. There is no evidence that construction costs affected the payroll of Weeghman’s Chicago Whales. The Whale won the Federal League championship in 1915.

  2. “The team says that means at least another year of spending $10 million to $15 million to keep up with repairs on the creaky 98-year-old ballpark”

    Small price to pay when you live by the sword, die by the sword. I would like to see how that $10M-$15M worth of repairs is broken down. Bet that’s inflated, too. What a yuppie ballpark & organization it’s turning into.

  3. Stadium proponents are so delusional that they will say anything, but this is one takes the cake. WOW.

  4. The Cubs fans love that creaky old dump so patch it up and stay there till it falls down.

  5. Seriously?

    Some dork who pays Alphonso Soriano, what, $18m a season is complaining about $15m in operating costs?

    At least you get something for the operating costs (like $28m in net profit, according to Forbes… and yes folks, that’s AFTER Sorry-anno’s pay is taken off the top).

    Like Edmonton and their latest carpet bagging owner, the city and state are perfectly poised here to just say “No”.

    If Ricketts wants to take his team elsewhere, he is free to do so. They’ll make far less money anywhere else, and no-one will go watch the pathetic brand of baseball they play, but he’s free to find a better home than the 4th best market in the nation.

    Of course, since Wrigley is a historic building and he owns it, he’ll still have to pay upkeep and the like. But surely he knew that when he bought the club?

    Ricketts has no cards to play. The sooner the city realizes that, the better the deal they can negotiate.