These aren't your grandfather's Cubs

And I kind of wish they still were. Remember back in the good old days of 2003? The Cubs had a pretty decent team and all of Chicago's North Side had high expections for the upcoming season. Unfortunately, 5 outs from greatness, the Cubs stumbled. It happens. It happens to some more than others, but it happens.

Then came 2004. Ok we all thought. The Cubs came really close last year, so with a full season of everyone healthy, the Cubs should be money. Of course, the Cubs made zero to few offseason moves, as is customary under Jim Hendry: follow up a winning season with multiple players having career years, then expect them to duplicate that.

2007 is a new year for the Cubs though. Penny-pincher MacPhail is out as CEO. He was holding us down. The Cubs re-signed Aramis Ramirez, signed the top free agent Alfonso Soriano, brought it at least one adequate pitcher, and an adequate 2nd baseman/RF that we may or may not have needed necessarily.

And now this. The pristine mecca of baseball, Wrigley Field, has been sullied. It is impure, unclean, bogged down by STD's. Wrigley Field is famous for drawing sell-out crowds, despite the on-field performance. The Cubs always make money for the Tribune Co. They're one of the few, if not the only, entities that actually turns a profit for them.

After MacPhail was shown the door, John McDonough was brought in as interim (is he still interim?) CEO. McDonough has no experience as CEO; he's a marketing guy. So, obviously he had to have some hand in this. All of this makes me wonder:

1.) Has this been in the works for a while? The Cubs make money, but have the fatcats in the Tribune Co. just been to greedy and they want more? Was one of the reasons MacPhail was fired because he didn't approve of this deal, and with him out of the way, they could make it? Also, is this the reason why Hendry was able to expand the spending money for Soriano, etc.?

or

2.) Was this just a McDonough as CEO type of deal, where he's more about making the biest profit possible. A winning team brings in more fans which brings more money, and sponsorships bring in more money.

or

3.) Did Hendry spend a lot of money that resulted in the Cubs needing to do this?

In the article the Cubs marketing director fills our heads with propaganda. "Waa waa, the Cubs cost money. Waa waa, Wrigley costs a lot in upkeep. Waa waa, you want top free agents, this is what it costs." I'm paraphrasing obviously.

It's impossible to buy into this type of bullshit. This is the first top free agent that the Cubs have brought in. They gave out their highest contract. They are one of the highest earning teams, and yet they only have a top-10 payroll (last season at least). Last year, following the Derrek Lee deal (in which he got a raise), the Cubs payroll was $99 million.

I can't imagine what this deal actually means for the team. How much moeny are they actually going to see as a result of allowing Under Armour to strip Wrigley Field of basically the purest thing it had (outfield walls)?

In addition, the Cubs are jacking up the prices. The Cubs are, like, the only team that is not privately owned. Therefore, they technically have unlimited spending money. So to argue that they need to do all of this bullshit to be able to maintain Wrigley Field at its current pristine status is useless. We know you've got money, and you finally spend it on fielding a good team. Then you lie about it, and say that signing big contracts means the Cubs need to make money elsewhere. Bullshit.

Remember how it seemed like the Cubs were posturing to be sold? Well, I think this may prove that they aren't. Or maybe they can void the contract if the team is sold. Bring in Mark Cuban and have him take all that shit down. Yeah, doubtful.

So, I don't know if I like where this is heading. On one hand, you've got trying to win, which hasn't really happened. Hopefully we actually will win. That will make the eyesores slightly easier to look at.

Also, just a note, but how shitty does that photoshop look? Real professional Tribune.