11/21/24
January 22, 2008
Leitch: Why Mark Cuban Won't Get the Cubs: "The guy has no chance. ... Mark Cuban will never own the Cubs, no matter how much money he waves in front of the Tribune Corp." -- Deadspin's Will Leitch
Cuban's one of the most detail-oriented and hard-working owners in the NBA, Dyams. When he bought the Mavs in 2000 they were a hopeless franchise -- the losingest team in the '90s in the four top pro sports. No one would sign with them. The best young players, like Jason Kidd, Jim Jackson and Jamal Mashburn, underperformed and had their eyes on the exit. He changed things by looking at every part of the franchise, even down to stuff like making sure the visiting team had great amenities and four-star food like lobster. Every player on the Mavs had his own section of the team plane equipped with TVs and videogames. One time a fan sent an email after a home game at 11 p.m. about a dying friend who loved the Mavs. Cuban responded that night with an email saying tickets would be left for him at will call the next game. Cuban has flaws -- his Tonight Show appearance when the Mavs led the Heat in the Finals was massive hubris -- but he's no part-timer. If he buys the Cubs, you'll be amazed at how much time, effort and money he puts into it.
posted by rcade at 10:04 AM on January 22, 2008
I couldnt disagree more dyams. I hope he never gets to buy the cubs, but thats because i root for their rival. Looking at it objectively, i think he would be great for baseball, and especially for a dismal franchise like the cubs who are about to hit the century mark without a ring. Cuban revitalized the mavs. He is one of a select few owners who seems to love his team as a team and not just as an investment. I think he would do the same for the cubs. Look at the really successfull owners, people like robert kraft, bill dewitt, jerry buss, even george steinbrenner. As dissimilar as this group is over all, they have one thing in common: they love their team. Cuban fits that mold. He would be great for baseball, and great for the cubs. I hope the tribune never sells them, but i would love to see cuban get a team...an american league team.
posted by elijahin24 at 10:11 AM on January 22, 2008
I don't mind Cuban, actually. That's not to say I see his act playing well in MLB. But I've never really heard him detail his love for the game of baseball or the Cubs in general. If I was a Cubs fan, I'd probably be going nuts to get him in there, just to have someone willing to spend money. Would he be good for baseball? I really don't know. And although I realize it may sound stupid coming from a Yankee fan, but I do prefer owners who don't necessarily consider themselves THE story. In the end, though, as I alluded to, money generally wins out.
posted by dyams at 10:22 AM on January 22, 2008
Baseball will probably never let an owner like Cuban in, because baseball is run by idiots. Hiding their heads in the sand and trying to do what they have always done because of the "integrity" of the game has made baseball pretty much a laughingstock and dropped it from first to third of the major four sports.
posted by graymatters at 12:30 PM on January 22, 2008
There wasn't anything to the linked article except bloviating. Leitch may not be wrong that the current owners won't let Cuban play in their reindeer games, but he didn't make any sort of case for it.
posted by ursus_comiter at 01:48 PM on January 22, 2008
The game really doesn't need him standing in the stands at Wrigley acting like a jackass (as he often does at Mavericks games). I always felt that he was an owner that enjoyed his team and the sport, doesn't suffer fools gladly, and can't stand the chickenshit parts of the league.
posted by irunfromclones at 03:20 PM on January 22, 2008
If the Cubs want to have a first class organization, maybe they should reconsider. The guy brought the Mav's to the top of the league. He would do the same for the Cubs. Too bad the owners, with the exception of a few like Artie Moreno, are nothing but a bunch of head in the sand idiots who don't know a good idea from their a$$.
posted by Tom5467 at 07:09 PM on January 22, 2008
If the Cubs want to have a first class organization, maybe they should reconsider. The guy brought the Mav's to the top of the league. He would do the same for the Cubs. Too bad the owners, with the exception of a few like Artie Moreno, are nothing but a bunch of head in the sand idiots who don't know a good idea from their a$$.
posted by Tom5467 at 07:09 PM on January 22, 2008
Winning or proposed winning from a maybe owner will change many minds. Personal conduct notwithstanding. Sure let him buy a team, just think of all the finds that will go to charities. I'm with elijahim on one point. Buy American League team. Being a Cards fan, we don't need to compete against his billions.
posted by Nakeman at 07:57 PM on January 22, 2008
I think I'd have alot more fun hating Cuban's Cubbies than Steinbrenner's Yankees...
posted by bobfoot at 11:00 PM on January 22, 2008
The cubs last year had one of the highest payrolls in MLB. It is not a question about them spending money. Perhaps Cuban should buy the cubs because his mavs are the biggest chockers in the NBA. Call me when he finally wins something.
posted by whodat at 11:55 PM on January 22, 2008
Good point whodat! Let Cuban buy the Cubs. First thing he can do is trade for Alex Rodriguez and assure the Cubs of never getting into another World Series.
posted by americanleague at 12:41 PM on January 23, 2008
First thing he can do is trade for Alex Rodriguez and assure the Cubs of never getting into another World Series. The Cubs have done everything possible for decades to assure they don't get to any World Series. I'm sure Alex Rodriguez would be the reason they don't get a championship. Stupid comment. Why don't you take a shot at someone who drove in less than 150 runs.
posted by dyams at 12:49 PM on January 23, 2008
dyams, don't you get it? ARod is the only reason the Yankees haven't won the World Series the last four years. Come on, man, get with it, willya?
posted by The_Black_Hand at 03:32 PM on January 23, 2008
Someday I will remember that. Thanks, TBH! After all, those games he started on the mound? Brutal! And those games he came in to close in the 9th? What a joke! And if he misses another cutoff man when he's throwing in from the outfield, I may puke! Not to mention all those moves he made bringing Rivera in when the setup man they had in the game was going good.
posted by dyams at 04:57 PM on January 23, 2008
My question is why hasn't Greg Maddux won a World Series in the last twelve years?
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:58 PM on January 23, 2008
YYM, you spoke his name. I bet you find out soon that it is because his arm is tired from all the hacking!
posted by hawkguy at 06:02 PM on January 23, 2008
Maybe Cuban's been "Redacted" by the rest of the owners.
posted by sandskater at 12:29 AM on January 25, 2008
You think the owners may have covered cuban with black ink?
posted by elijahin24 at 05:36 AM on January 25, 2008
I think Cuban blackened his own name by making a movie that denigrated the American servicemen in Iraq.
posted by sandskater at 08:18 AM on January 25, 2008
In fairness to cuban, i have been to iraq. That stuff happenes. Any time you take a group aof people as large as the army, you will always have a few who think that the enemy is some sub-species, that they can do to, whatever pleases them. thats why the veitnam veterans had such a bad reputation when they came home. the actions of the few hurt the reputation of the many.
posted by elijahin24 at 01:15 PM on January 25, 2008
Maybe Cuban's been "Redacted" by the rest of the owners Yes, yes, of course! Major League Baseball is far too noble and patriotic to accept billions from the man who funded a film that claims America is circumventing it's core values (not too sure about the denigration of servicemen - I'm going out on a limb to suggest that you haven't seen the movie). Ah, of course. How silly of me to confuse what one would think of as two completely distinct events. Or you're completely insane. P.S. Redacted sucked.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:38 PM on January 25, 2008
Weedy- Haven't seen the movie. Have listened to numerous commentators comment on it. Elijahin apparently confirms its negative theme ("that stuff happens"). I don't find two distinct issues here. A frivolous, self-aggrandizing, billionaire joins the "Hollywood pontiffs", bashes one of the few countries willing to take on Islamic extremists, and, now, wants what is as American as apple pie. If baseball ownership doesn't want him, I'd say that's his "just desserts."
posted by sandskater at 12:50 AM on January 26, 2008
Well, that's an interesting leap of logic. Any critique that begins with "I haven't seen it..." is pretty much empty in the first place.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:57 AM on January 28, 2008
I could read the sport sections, listen to espn, and yet never have seen the Patriots play and still make the "leap of logic" that they're a pretty good team. Some of us can use more than one of our senses.
posted by sandskater at 09:15 AM on January 28, 2008
Except the Patriots' record is a matter of facts, whereas the quality of a movie is all opinion.
posted by yerfatma at 10:36 AM on January 28, 2008
The Supreme Court only offers its "opinion", but it still seems to carry a bit of influence. Credible sources are often used to build a statement or conviction. That's why a bibliography was invented. Attorneys use expert "opinion" to help formulate a conclusion. The bottom line is the use of credible sources as a substitute for one's personal experience is an accepted practice upon which some of our most venerable institutions are based.
posted by sandskater at 01:36 PM on January 28, 2008
Wow, that is a crash course in bad logic. Thanks for that. I knew going in that you'd just made up some opinion about a movie you hadn't seen based on the fact it came from the "Bad Guys" in the "Culture Wars", but what gems. Or do you not realize that a legal opinion is different from someone's opinion on a movie? What's a "credible" source for opinions on movies of a given genre and political slant?
posted by yerfatma at 01:56 PM on January 28, 2008
You can read a synopsis of the movie at Roger Ebert.com. He doesn't condemn or applaued its theme. I arrived at my opinion by familiarizing myself with the theme of the movie and listening to Fox(yes, Bill O'Reilly) and other news agencies and personalities(Glenn Beck, Mary Matalin...). Yes, yerfatma, there are "bad guys" and Hollywood used to help us win wars against them. Now they help the bad guys by making movies that focus on only negative events. Mark Cuban chose to invest in demonizing America. You may not agree with that premise and so be it. You choose your heroes and I'll choose mine.
posted by sandskater at 04:17 PM on January 28, 2008
Do you drive with those blinders on, too? 'Cause that could be dangerous. I mean, I've never tried it myself, but I've read other peoples' opinions and stuff.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:57 PM on January 28, 2008
The Supreme Court only offers its "opinion", but it still seems to carry a bit of influence. Credible sources are often used to build a statement or conviction. That's why a bibliography was invented. Attorneys use expert "opinion" to help formulate a conclusion "Opinions" issued by the Supreme Court have the force of law. Opinions used by attorneys are those issued by courts, and these too have the force of law. Comparing legal opinions to those of a film critic is similar to thinking that one's expertise at Madden NFL would qualify you to be an NFL coordinator. I will grant that film reviews have some merit. If you have read or heard several movie reviews by a given critic, and subsequently seen and enjoyed the films (or not, as the case may be), then you have some degree of confidence that this reviewer's tastes will match your own. The caveat is that just because a source is well-known, that source may not have any credibility. If Roger Ebert were not an entertaining personality, he would probably not have his TV show. He's not always correct (at least that's my opinion).
posted by Howard_T at 05:32 PM on January 28, 2008
My point was that we use the opinions or assessments of knowledgeable people in forming our own conclusions in a variety of forums. I didn't equate the force of legal opinions with that of a film critic's or a political commentator's,some of you did. I contend that I don't actually have to watch the movie to know what it's about. This apparently is a concept some of you can't get your arms around. To insist that you must see the movie to have an understanding of what it's about is to ignore that you can read and hear. If some of you want to argue that "Redacted" portrays a positive image of our presence in Iraq, good luck. I contend that it doesn't and that it does us harm. Mr. Cuban's participation in making the movie doesn't seem to disturb you. I think that's disturbing.
posted by sandskater at 12:56 AM on January 29, 2008
If some of you want to argue that "Redacted" portrays a positive image of our presence in Iraq, good luck. No one was arguing that. Ever.
posted by yerfatma at 07:29 AM on January 29, 2008
I must conclude,then, that you are all comfortable with the admitted negative image it portrays of our presence in Iraq. Interesting and sad.
posted by sandskater at 07:18 PM on January 29, 2008
money just isn't enough anymore. Cuban's a guy who prospered at a time when it was absolutely beneficial for him. I'll give him all the credit in the world for that. He always comes across to me, though, as a kid that's only looking to buy a new toy. If I really could see he has a deep love for the game of baseball, that would be one thing. The game really doesn't need him standing in the stands at Wrigley acting like a jackass (as he often does at Mavericks games). If the Cubs can continue to ignore his cash as time goes on, though, is the real question.