cabiness42 Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 Cubs sign agreement with WLS Ch.-7 to air 25 games a year through 2019. Don't really see local sports on the top 3 major channels. According to the article, they plan to start their own regional sports network after 2019, when all of their deals expire. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/bre...1211-story.html That's a pretty big deal if WLS is willing to pre-empt ABC primetime programming to show Cubs games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 11, 2014 -> 11:46 PM) As in....ABC? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 06:51 AM) That's a pretty big deal if WLS is willing to pre-empt ABC primetime programming to show Cubs games. Don't belive that is allowed. I'm guessing these are all day games (but I also can't read the article). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 Don't belive that is allowed. I'm guessing these are all day games (but I also can't read the article). The article did say afternoon, primetime and weekend, though it didn't say how many of each. You're allowed to pre-empt up to a certain number of hours of network programming. It happens down here all the time with UK and UL basketball games. They run the newtork stuff that was pre-empted overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 11, 2014 -> 11:45 PM) On another site I frequent, I had a Cubs fan tell me that he'd rather have Jon Lester and his contract, than Chris Sale and his contract, because Sale "has a scary motion that will ruin his career". And then he insists that Arrieta is better than both Quintana and Samardzija, and Lester/Arrieta might be the best duo on baseball. A lot of Cubs fans just have no clue. Yeah, for some reason I'm not surprised. I used to entertain cub fans by talking some baseball s*** with them but now I just laugh and move on. Some of the dumbest things I've ever heard came from the mouth of a cub fan. Don't get me wrong, Lester/ Arrieta is a heck of a duo but not the best or even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 2014 fWAR: Lester (6.1) + Arrieta (4.9) = 11.0 Sale (5.4) + Quintana (5.3) = 10.7 Samardzija = 4.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 05:35 AM) The Cubs want a YES network, I just don't know if that is possible. So in theory, if WGN in the 80's made them, this will destroy them, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 So in theory, if WGN in the 80's made them, this will destroy them, right? I guess the question is which iteration of the YES Network are the Cubs actually shooting for? The original YES was a parternship between the Yankees and Nets and was a premium subscription channel like HBO or Playboy. Since then, YES has really morphed into a regular regional sports network. If the Cubs shoot for the original version of YES, it will be a disaster. If they are going for a more modern version of YES, it could work, but they still need to either get the rights to Hawks games (I'm assuming that the Bulls are a non-starter for obvious reasons) or get an affiliation with FOX Sports that gets them access to college basketball and other programming to fill the winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 08:20 AM) I guess the question is which iteration of the YES Network are the Cubs actually shooting for? The original YES was a parternship between the Yankees and Nets and was a premium subscription channel like HBO or Playboy. Since then, YES has really morphed into a regular regional sports network. If the Cubs shoot for the original version of YES, it will be a disaster. If they are going for a more modern version of YES, it could work, but they still need to either get the rights to Hawks games (I'm assuming that the Bulls are a non-starter for obvious reasons) or get an affiliation with FOX Sports that gets them access to college basketball and other programming to fill the winter. Rocky and JR are joined at the hip. Ricketts would have to be one of the greatest salesman of all time to get him to walk away from JR.From how he has handled this rehab, it doesn't look like he is. Of course that is 4 years from now, but the Blackhawks are probably always going to be tied in with the Bulls for obvious reasons, and even if JR is out of the picture, there is a decent chance many of the people who own White Sox shares own a piece of the Bulls, so unless the White Sox are sold, the Bulls and White Sox will always be tied together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 08:20 AM) I guess the question is which iteration of the YES Network are the Cubs actually shooting for? The original YES was a parternship between the Yankees and Nets and was a premium subscription channel like HBO or Playboy. Since then, YES has really morphed into a regular regional sports network. If the Cubs shoot for the original version of YES, it will be a disaster. If they are going for a more modern version of YES, it could work, but they still need to either get the rights to Hawks games (I'm assuming that the Bulls are a non-starter for obvious reasons) or get an affiliation with FOX Sports that gets them access to college basketball and other programming to fill the winter. See, thats the thing, doesnt Comcast pretty much have the Chicago version of YES? How would the Cubs be able to entice any of the other sports to jump, you would think Comcast would be able to squash that pretty quick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 See, thats the thing, doesnt Comcast pretty much have the Chicago version of YES? How would the Cubs be able to entice any of the other sports to jump, you would think Comcast would be able to squash that pretty quick I don't know if it would work or not, but I think the argument would be: Cubs are more popular than the Sox, so the Cubs RSN is going to get better ratings than the Sox RSN, and your team will benefit from better ratings by being affiliated with the Cubs RSN. That may not be enough to get the Hawks to split from the Bulls, but it's probably the angle the Cubs will take. If there weren't such strong pre-existing relationships between the Sox-Bulls and Bulls-Hawks, the Bulls and Hawks would be fighting each other over the opportunity to get on the Cubs station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 08:48 AM) See, thats the thing, doesnt Comcast pretty much have the Chicago version of YES? How would the Cubs be able to entice any of the other sports to jump, you would think Comcast would be able to squash that pretty quick The whole thing is fascinating. I have read where the networks paying these teams all this money are taking a bath and by 2019, these multi-billion type deals won't be there, but who knows how people will be watching games then. Did anyone really think they could watch games on their phone 10 years ago? Did they know what a tablet even was? A la carte programming may even mean bigger deals. I have DirectTV. There are hundreds of channels I don't even look at. It wouldn't bother me if my fee went entirely to pay CSN rather than half to them and half to the Oprah Network, and I didn't have the Oprah Network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Ricketts also owns 20% of CSN Chicago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 The whole thing is fascinating. I have read where the networks paying these teams all this money are taking a bath and by 2019, these multi-billion type deals won't be there, but who knows how people will be watching games then. Did anyone really think they could watch games on their phone 10 years ago? Did they know what a tablet even was? A la carte programming may even mean bigger deals. I have DirectTV. There are hundreds of channels I don't even look at. It wouldn't bother me if my fee went entirely to pay CSN rather than half to them and half to the Oprah Network, and I didn't have the Oprah Network. Wandering a bit off topic, but I don't see a la carte even happening. The companies that own the few channels you do want to watch also own most of the channels you don't want to watch so it doesn't benefit them to give you the option of only getting the channels you want to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 If the cubs feel like the advertising of their network can generate more than the 20% they are getting from Comcast it could be a good deal. Now if it turns into a Houston or LA deal, well that does not work. The Big Ten Network hit the jackpot on this and maybe the cub network will to. With Comcast you can sell the advertisers on the four Chicago teams and no down time as well as Bear programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 03:35 AM) The Cubs want a YES network, I just don't know if that is possible. I honestly don't know why it isn't. They have a major national following on top of being in a large market. As big as Yes, no, but of all franchises, they are one of the few that could do it and do it successfully. OF course it would also require being consistently competitive which they obviously have had trouble figuring out. All that said, the org has been making a lot of good decisions. Big question is do they have the financial resources to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 One more thing to keep in mind when comparing the Cubs to the Yankees in this is that the blackout rules are still in existence and so the Cubs being a national team doesn't help much. How many Cubs fans in AZ are going to be rushing to get the new Cubs network when the games will still be blacked out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 12:54 PM) I honestly don't know why it isn't. They have a major national following on top of being in a large market. As big as Yes, no, but of all franchises, they are one of the few that could do it and do it successfully. OF course it would also require being consistently competitive which they obviously have had trouble figuring out. All that said, the org has been making a lot of good decisions. Big question is do they have the financial resources to do it. Ricketts seems to be extremely strapped for cash now, I think he financed a lot of money to purchase the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 01:16 PM) Ricketts seems to be extremely strapped for cash now, I think he financed a lot of money to purchase the team. They are highly leveraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 They are highly leveraged. Aren't we all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 01:16 PM) Ricketts seems to be extremely strapped for cash now, I think he financed a lot of money to purchase the team. There's no doubt about it, there's articles out there about it, he bought at the hight of the economy at peak value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) They are highly leveraged. This is why they are selling a 20% stake in tbe team. George Lucas anyone now that he has agreed to sell his rooftops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 01:45 PM) Aren't we all? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) They are highly leveraged. Hey Rock, have you heard anything regarding the rest of the off season? Any names or positions you're hearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 12, 2014 -> 07:44 AM) 2014 fWAR: Lester (6.1) + Arrieta (4.9) = 11.0 Sale (5.4) + Quintana (5.3) = 10.7 Samardzija = 4.1 He didn't say "had better seasons", he said IS BETTER. That's a big difference, and the reason that comment is asinine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts