Ricketts Family Annoyance Thread

[CT III]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I would very much like to see someone raze their fucking buildings overnight. I don't care who is inside. the Cubs follow through on their threats to move somewhere else.

Seeing that hag cow Beth Murphy and her merry band of self-righteous freeloaders choking on their own vomit would make my year'd.

Yeah, the Cubs aren't moving anywhere. I think we can close the book on that and every unsolved murder in New York.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I would very much like to see someone raze their fucking buildings overnight. I don't care who is inside. the Cubs follow through on their threats to move somewhere else.

Seeing that hag cow Beth Murphy and her merry band of self-righteous freeloaders choking on their own vomit would make my year'd.

Yeah, the Cubs aren't moving anywhere. I think we can close the book on that and every unsolved murder in New York.

[Armchair_QB]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

Question for the lawyers of the board since it's not mentioned in that article. It's been a while since I studied land use/property law, but I seem to recall there being easements that property owners can get which "run with the land" and allow the owner of the property the right to a viewshed (usually for beachside properties, but this would seem to be the same principle)? Do the rooftop owners have such easements?

I had always assumed that the revenue sharing agreement that the two sides signed probably afforded some sort of protection to the rooftop owners view.  Nice choice, Crane.

Also, this shit is just infuriating:

Sources said the rooftop owners demanded that the massive video scoreboard planned for left-field also be moved to the top of a rooftop building.

Crane Kenney needs to be fucking shot.

In the fucking face.

Fucking repeatedly.

And then shot some fucking more.

[Tony]

Sources said the rooftop owners demanded that the massive video scoreboard planned for left-field also be moved to the top of a rooftop building.

The building with the Budweiser ad painted on the sloped roof in left field would actually be a good spot for the fancy new scoreboard. I didn't like any of the renderings that showed it added to the bleachers.

I don't understand why the rooftop owners care so much. You already have a shitty view from out there, and the new scoreboard wouldn't really mess up that many views. Just called it obstructed view with character and move on. Nobody is paying that close of attention to the game out there anyway. And you can probably see 75% of the field anyway.

[BH]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

Question for the lawyers of the board since it's not mentioned in that article. It's been a while since I studied land use/property law, but I seem to recall there being easements that property owners can get which "run with the land" and allow the owner of the property the right to a viewshed (usually for beachside properties, but this would seem to be the same principle)? Do the rooftop owners have such easements?

I had always assumed that the revenue sharing agreement that the two sides signed probably afforded some sort of protection to the rooftop owners view.  Nice choice, Crane.

Also, this shit is just infuriating:

Sources said the rooftop owners demanded that the massive video scoreboard planned for left-field also be moved to the top of a rooftop building.

Crane Kenney needs to be fucking shot.

In the fucking face.

Fucking repeatedly.

And then shot some fucking more.

I thought I read on the twitter that Tom and Crane are really good friends now, can anyone else back that up?

[thehawk]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

Question for the lawyers of the board since it's not mentioned in that article. It's been a while since I studied land use/property law, but I seem to recall there being easements that property owners can get which "run with the land" and allow the owner of the property the right to a viewshed (usually for beachside properties, but this would seem to be the same principle)? Do the rooftop owners have such easements?

I had always assumed that the revenue sharing agreement that the two sides signed probably afforded some sort of protection to the rooftop owners view.  Nice choice, Crane.

Also, this shit is just infuriating:

Sources said the rooftop owners demanded that the massive video scoreboard planned for left-field also be moved to the top of a rooftop building.

Crane Kenney needs to be fucking shot.

In the fucking face.

Fucking repeatedly.

And then shot some fucking more.

I thought I read on the twitter that Tom and Crane are really good friends now, can anyone else back that up?

Considering he is still employed after failing to obtain a dollar of government money, taking five years to get revenue producing improvements that were supposed be done this year (which have not started), and negotiating the orignial rooftop deal that looks to be a monumental mistake from the Cubs perspective, I would think so.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I thought I read on the twitter that Tom and Crane are really good friends now, can anyone else back that up?

Supposedly Crane got a 5-year extension recently.

Yeah, Tom Ricketts is smart.

[Brownie]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I would very much like to see someone raze their fucking buildings overnight. I don't care who is inside. the Cubs follow through on their threats to move somewhere else.

Seeing that hag cow Beth Murphy and her merry band of self-righteous freeloaders choking on their own vomit would make my year'd.

Seriously, guys. We need to get a federal prosecutor to get Tunney indicted and then have Ending Spending PAC back an Alderman for Lakeview who stands for stringent enforcement of building and fire codes, starting on Waveland and Sheffield Aves. Send in a couple building inspectors into each building and I'm sure they can find numerous code violations. Give them the 90 days or whatever the hell it is to repair it, then condemn the property and make the landowner pay for demolition. The Ricketts can then buy the land out of bankruptcy court, and you have your Wrigleyland campus and maybe even some sweet parking next to the fire station.

This is Chicago we're in, right?

[CT III]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I would very much like to see someone raze their fucking buildings overnight. I don't care who is inside. the Cubs follow through on their threats to move somewhere else.

Seeing that hag cow Beth Murphy and her merry band of self-righteous freeloaders choking on their own vomit would make my year'd.

Seriously, guys. We need to get a federal prosecutor to get Tunney indicted and then have Ending Spending PAC back an Alderman for Lakeview who stands for stringent enforcement of building and fire codes, starting on Waveland and Sheffield Aves. Send in a couple building inspectors into each building and I'm sure they can find numerous code violations. Give them the 90 days or whatever the hell it is to repair it, then condemn the property and make the landowner pay for demolition. The Ricketts can then buy the land out of bankruptcy court, and you have your Wrigleyland campus and maybe even some sweet parking next to the fire station.

This is Chicago we're in, right?

I never realized that TJ was the lost scion of the Wirtz family.

[Quality Start Machine]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I would very much like to see someone raze their fucking buildings overnight. I don't care who is inside. the Cubs follow through on their threats to move somewhere else.

Seeing that hag cow Beth Murphy and her merry band of self-righteous freeloaders choking on their own vomit would make my year'd.

Seriously, guys. We need to get a federal prosecutor to get Tunney indicted and then have Ending Spending PAC back an Alderman for Lakeview who stands for stringent enforcement of building and fire codes, starting on Waveland and Sheffield Aves. Send in a couple building inspectors into each building and I'm sure they can find numerous code violations. Give them the 90 days or whatever the hell it is to repair it, then condemn the property and make the landowner pay for demolition. The Ricketts can then buy the land out of bankruptcy court, and you have your Wrigleyland campus and maybe even some sweet parking next to the fire station.

This is Chicago we're in, right?

I never realized that TJ was the lost scion of the Wirtz family.

Hey, why can't we get better seats then?

[Gilgamesh]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I would very much like to see someone raze their fucking buildings overnight. I don't care who is inside. the Cubs follow through on their threats to move somewhere else.

Seeing that hag cow Beth Murphy and her merry band of self-righteous freeloaders choking on their own vomit would make my year'd.

Seriously, guys. We need to get a federal prosecutor to get Tunney indicted and then have Ending Spending PAC back an Alderman for Lakeview who stands for stringent enforcement of building and fire codes, starting on Waveland and Sheffield Aves. Send in a couple building inspectors into each building and I'm sure they can find numerous code violations. Give them the 90 days or whatever the hell it is to repair it, then condemn the property and make the landowner pay for demolition. The Ricketts can then buy the land out of bankruptcy court, and you have your Wrigleyland campus and maybe even some sweet parking next to the fire station.

This is Chicago we're in, right?

Maybe it's time to re-evaluate my opinion on this.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

No, Chuck.

8/26/11:

BOSTON -- You noticed, didn't you, that when John W. Henry was asked about speculation from ESPN's Buster Olney that the Cubs might have some interest in hiring general manager Theo Epstein, the Red Sox owner's response fell well short of "Over my dead body."

No hint whatsoever by Henry, in fact, that Epstein was off-limits, to the Cubs or anyone else.

Here's what Henry wrote in an email, for those who need the reminder: "This kind of speculation happens from time to time on successful GMs and managers. The Cubs have one of the best presidents in baseball. I think this shows how highly regarded Theo is by the media and baseball in general."

Now, it's certainly plausible that Henry saw no reason to elaborate further. Epstein is under contract through at least the end of the 2012 season, the Sox head into October as postseason favorites again and there is no hint of any rupture in a relationship that has been likened to fawning father and son.

9/27/11:

Well, we have our first casualty of the Red Sox's collapse. Naturally, it's the Cubs.

If ever the Cubs had a chance to hire Theo Epstein as general manager, that chance probably is gone.

...

Epstein, in the rare trying moments during his nine-year tenure, always has been accountable. It's almost impossible to imagine him leaving his hometown team in a moment of epic failure — if indeed the season ends in such fashion.

"He would never be allowed back in the city of Boston," one rival GM said Tuesday.

...

Henry is fond of Epstein and will not want him to leave. Epstein has never said he was interested in the Cubs and never said he wasn't. But the way this is unfolding, the timing just isn't right.

In fact, one member of the organization said he would be "shocked" if Epstein left, saying that the GM is deeply invested in the Red Sox and excited about the team's future.

10/4/11:

Because Epstein is signed through 2012, the Red Sox can block him from talking to other teams. They reportedly will seek compensation if the Cubs hire him away, as the White Sox did with Ozzie Guillen.

...

The only question for Red Sox owner John Henry is how awkward would it be to keep Epstein if he truly wanted to leave? That would be the only leverage on Ricketts' side in this highly unusual potential raid of a sitting general manager.

These things almost never happen. But the Red Sox appear to be at a point when they have to decide between giving Epstein a raise and increased authority or letting him leave.

10/8/11:

The Theo Watch continues. He's either going to the Cubs or he's staying here for more years/dollars/power. Whatever happens, it needs to happen soon. The Red Sox have a lot of decisions to make, including hiring a new manager, but nothing happens until Theo Epstein's status is resolved.

...

"Theo's the guy now, he's been the guy,'' summarized Henry.

10/9/11:

Until Theo Epstein is officially announced as the new president/general manager of the Chicago Cubs, we can't be sure the Red Sox have to hunt for new management.

10/10/2011:

Epstein still the Red Sox GM, but rumors about the Cubs are swirling

...

Most baseball insiders interviewed by SI don't discount Epstein moving to the North Side -- despite the Cubs' long lack of success, the GM job remains a coveted position -- but they believe it's more likely than not he'll remain in Boston, at least for now.

...

Regardless, this has all become quite the guessing game thanks to Ricketts' secrecy. But there's one thing we can be sure of. If Epstein does decide to take over the Cubs, Terry Francona won't be their manager. While Henry is seen as the lead force in the ousting of Francona in Boston, Francona wouldn't be gone from Boston if Epstein strongly disagreed. He still has power there, which is why most folks think he'll ultimately decide to stay.

10/11/11:

Theo Epstein is on the verge of leaving his job as general manager of the Boston Red Sox to accept a similar position with the Chicago Cubs that may include greater power than he had in Boston, the Boston Herald reported Tuesday.

...

The announcement is being delayed by two issues. One is that Red Sox ownership is still trying to keep Epstein. The other is that Boston will want significant compensation from the Cubs.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

No, Chuck.

8/26/11:

BOSTON -- You noticed, didn't you, that when John W. Henry was asked about speculation from ESPN's Buster Olney that the Cubs might have some interest in hiring general manager Theo Epstein, the Red Sox owner's response fell well short of "Over my dead body."

No hint whatsoever by Henry, in fact, that Epstein was off-limits, to the Cubs or anyone else.

Here's what Henry wrote in an email, for those who need the reminder: "This kind of speculation happens from time to time on successful GMs and managers. The Cubs have one of the best presidents in baseball. I think this shows how highly regarded Theo is by the media and baseball in general."

Now, it's certainly plausible that Henry saw no reason to elaborate further. Epstein is under contract through at least the end of the 2012 season, the Sox head into October as postseason favorites again and there is no hint of any rupture in a relationship that has been likened to fawning father and son.

9/27/11:

Well, we have our first casualty of the Red Sox's collapse. Naturally, it's the Cubs.

If ever the Cubs had a chance to hire Theo Epstein as general manager, that chance probably is gone.

...

Epstein, in the rare trying moments during his nine-year tenure, always has been accountable. It's almost impossible to imagine him leaving his hometown team in a moment of epic failure — if indeed the season ends in such fashion.

"He would never be allowed back in the city of Boston," one rival GM said Tuesday.

...

Henry is fond of Epstein and will not want him to leave. Epstein has never said he was interested in the Cubs and never said he wasn't. But the way this is unfolding, the timing just isn't right.

In fact, one member of the organization said he would be "shocked" if Epstein left, saying that the GM is deeply invested in the Red Sox and excited about the team's future.

10/4/11:

Because Epstein is signed through 2012, the Red Sox can block him from talking to other teams. They reportedly will seek compensation if the Cubs hire him away, as the White Sox did with Ozzie Guillen.

...

The only question for Red Sox owner John Henry is how awkward would it be to keep Epstein if he truly wanted to leave? That would be the only leverage on Ricketts' side in this highly unusual potential raid of a sitting general manager.

These things almost never happen. But the Red Sox appear to be at a point when they have to decide between giving Epstein a raise and increased authority or letting him leave.

10/8/11:

The Theo Watch continues. He's either going to the Cubs or he's staying here for more years/dollars/power. Whatever happens, it needs to happen soon. The Red Sox have a lot of decisions to make, including hiring a new manager, but nothing happens until Theo Epstein's status is resolved.

...

"Theo's the guy now, he's been the guy,'' summarized Henry.

10/9/11:

Until Theo Epstein is officially announced as the new president/general manager of the Chicago Cubs, we can't be sure the Red Sox have to hunt for new management.

10/10/2011:

Epstein still the Red Sox GM, but rumors about the Cubs are swirling

...

Most baseball insiders interviewed by SI don't discount Epstein moving to the North Side -- despite the Cubs' long lack of success, the GM job remains a coveted position -- but they believe it's more likely than not he'll remain in Boston, at least for now.

...

Regardless, this has all become quite the guessing game thanks to Ricketts' secrecy. But there's one thing we can be sure of. If Epstein does decide to take over the Cubs, Terry Francona won't be their manager. While Henry is seen as the lead force in the ousting of Francona in Boston, Francona wouldn't be gone from Boston if Epstein strongly disagreed. He still has power there, which is why most folks think he'll ultimately decide to stay.

10/11/11:

Theo Epstein is on the verge of leaving his job as general manager of the Boston Red Sox to accept a similar position with the Chicago Cubs that may include greater power than he had in Boston, the Boston Herald reported Tuesday.

...

The announcement is being delayed by two issues. One is that Red Sox ownership is still trying to keep Epstein. The other is that Boston will want significant compensation from the Cubs.

No, Chuck

(I'm really slacking on these. Hopefully, some new material came out of last night's Gonna Drinkin'.)

[J. Walter Weatherman]

No, Chuck

Oh, man. Forgot about that one. "Theo becomes forgotten."

To review...

October 4, 2011

The Rangers eliminate the Rays from playoffs, the Cubs officially ask Boston for permission to talk to Theo

Freidman vs. Theo. The war begins.

October 11, 2011

The Cubs' talks with Theo are reportedly on the verge of an agreement

Meh. I'd prefer Andrew Friedman. Because of reasons. I prefered him even before Theo was seen as a possibility.

October 12, 2011

Theo is reported to have accepted a 5-year/$15MM+ deal to helm Cubs

This could be big if Tom doesn't fuck it up like Mike McCaskey. Though, when you think about it, wouldn't this hire really just further highlight Tom's incompetence and 'fear'?

October 17, 2011

As talks between Chicago and Boston drag on, Theo officially remains Red Sox GM and the internet wrings its hands over the possibility of negotiations breaking down

Who among us doesn't think Tom could still truly blow this thing? The Sox would just as soon pay Theo to sit on a beach for a year than just let him walk from his contract early, so it'll probably take intervention from the commissioner to snatch him from Henry and Lucchino's neon claws.

October 25, 2011

The Cubs introduce Theo as President of Baseball Operations

What the fuck took so long, Tom?

Two and a Half Years Later...

In the sideways timeline

Sure, I like everything Theo is doing for the Cubs, but does Tom really deserve any credit for hiring him?

I mean, Theo was already nothing more than a lame duck at his old job, just sitting there like an unemployed bum on a beach somewhere, drawing checks and waiting for someone else to come along and hire him. He was clearly the best available candidate. It was both a hail mary and a no-brainer.

Just like when Mike McCaskey hired Dave Wannstedt... Basically, what I'm saying is that Tom Ricketts is Mike McCaskey.

And that he should have hired Theo in 2006. Or 2005. Or whatever.

Either way, it means that letting Crane bring in that Orthodox priest in 2008 wasn't even Tom's earliest boner as chairman.

[Saul Goodman]

No, Chuck

Oh, man. Forgot about that one. "Theo becomes forgotten."

To review...

October 4, 2011

The Rangers eliminate the Rays from playoffs, the Cubs officially ask Boston for permission to talk to Theo

Freidman vs. Theo. The war begins.

October 11, 2011

The Cubs' talks with Theo are reportedly on the verge of an agreement

Meh. I'd prefer Andrew Friedman. Because of reasons. I prefered him even before Theo was seen as a possibility.

October 12, 2011

Theo is reported to have accepted a 5-year/$15MM+ deal to helm Cubs

This could be big if Tom doesn't fuck it up like Mike McCaskey. Though, when you think about it, wouldn't this hire really just further highlight Tom's incompetence and 'fear'?

October 17, 2011

As talks between Chicago and Boston drag on, Theo officially remains Red Sox GM and the internet wrings its hands over the possibility of negotiations breaking down

Who among us doesn't think Tom could still truly blow this thing? The Sox would just as soon pay Theo to sit on a beach for a year than just let him walk from his contract early, so it'll probably take intervention from the commissioner to snatch him from Henry and Lucchino's neon claws.

October 25, 2011

The Cubs introduce Theo as President of Baseball Operations

What the fuck took so long, Tom?

Two and a Half Years Later...

In the sideways timeline

Sure, I like everything Theo is doing for the Cubs, but does Tom really deserve any credit for hiring him?

I mean, Theo was already nothing more than a lame duck at his old job, just sitting there like an unemployed bum on a beach somewhere, drawing checks and waiting for someone else to come along and hire him. He was clearly the best available candidate. It was both a hail mary and a no-brainer.

Just like when Mike McCaskey hired Dave Wannstedt... Basically, what I'm saying is that Tom Ricketts is Mike McCaskey.

And that he should have hired Theo in 2006. Or 2005. Or whatever.

Either way, it means that letting Crane bring in that Orthodox priest in 2008 wasn't even Tom's earliest boner as chairman.

Chuck fell asleep while tanning on Rhetorical Beach and we've never heard the end of it since.