Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who's been rebuffed in his efforts to buy the Cubs and the Rangers, isn't going after the Mets, the Dodgers, or any other baseball franchise.
Feb 3, 2011 - It looks like Major League Baseball won't have Mark Cuban to kick around any more:
Mark Cuban is a big baseball fan with a lot of discretionary income who would love the chance to own a major league franchise. But not now and not the Mets.
"I'm not chasing any more baseball teams," Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks, said Wednesday before his team played the Knicks at Madison Square Garden.
For Cuban, this is a case of been there, done that - twice. Over the past four years, he has entered the bidding for the Chicago Cubs and the Texas Rangers, only to walk away frustrated each time.
Cuban said he had "learned my lesson," which was, simply: "Not to be everyone else's stalking horse. Just using me to drive up the price."
Think about it. When is the last time somebody bought a baseball team and you'd heard of him before he bought the baseball team?
I'm probably forgetting someone, but I can't think of anyone at all. I'm talking about actual people, not corporations. (Fox bought the Dodgers and Disney bought the Angels, and didn't those work out well?)
Major League Baseball prefers - and maybe requires, unofficially - prospective owners with plenty of money but very little public credibility. That way, they're more likely to be grateful for being allowed into the club, and willing to (mostly) take their marching orders from the Commissioner's Office. Go along to get along.
Mark Cuban never really had a chance, for the simple reason that his money is largely irrelevant. Baseball teams are worth what they're worth. You might figure they simply go to the highest bidder, but that's not really how it works. Essentially, MLB decides how much the team is worth, three or four ownership groups put together financial packages for that amount, and MLB chooses one of them. In that scenario, Mark Cuban's going to finish last every time, because MLB doesn't need his money and MLB doesn't want an owner who's already famous and won't keep his mouth shut.
I can imagine a couple of scenarios in which Cuban might be allowed in. One, if a team went up for sale and there weren't any serious bidders. Which is highly unlikely. Or two, a team went up for sale and he publicly announced that he would massively overpay, which might leave MLB with little choice. But he's been pretty public about his unwillingness to overpay. So that seems highly unlikely, too.
Maybe the Pirates. In 2037.
18 comments
Comments
As a Mets fan, having Cuban as owner would be a dream come true, but I can’t blame him for not being interested after the way Selig and the 30 dwarfs have treated him.
by Tanglebones on Feb 3, 2011 11:44 AM EST reply actions
As a baseball fan, I’m kind of disappointed to know that Cuban won’t be buying a team. He’s entertaining, and I think the sport could use that.
However, as a fan of another NL West team, I’m pretty glad he won’t be buying the Dodgers.
"What's it like in your brain?"
"A great big rollercoaster, packed full of geniuses, all going wheeee!"
by kishi on Feb 3, 2011 11:49 AM EST reply actions
Other way
Isn’t there at least one other way for Cuban to purchase a team: an auction like what happened with the Rangers? And isn’t it at least plausible that both the Dodgers and Mets find themselves down that road?
Cuban, above being a pro sports team owner, is first of all a very astute businessman. I can’t see him overpaying for any venture, whether its a team, a start up company or a huge corporation. But who knows what the future holds for MLB teams? More bankruptcy, more auctions, or perhaps status quo.
As a fellow Portlander, though, I wish Cuban could have saved the Beavers. With his business acumen, and how he was able to make the Mavericks such a draw, I bet Cuban could have done wonders for Triple-A baseball in the Northwest.
by AGuinness on Feb 3, 2011 12:03 PM EST reply actions
I want Cuban as an owner just because it would offer more opportunities to refer to him as "Cubes".
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
by berselius on Feb 3, 2011 12:11 PM EST reply actions
Gene Autry.
The Nintendo guy with the Mariners, for any video game nerds out there.
by ftwdrummer on Feb 3, 2011 12:25 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Good look!
“Us” wins again! Drummers be smart, man. Very smart.
John Carlson: A real American hero taking names and settling scores.
Souldrummer: A regular guy trying to join Adam Dunn, Jordan Zimmermann, and Garrett Mock as one of RobBobS' guys.
by souldrummer on Feb 3, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
Four or five years ago
I would have definitely said yes, but given that one of the Phillies’ silent partners has become more vocal and spend-y, I’d now say no, because they have a great system in place now: limited owner meddling with baseball people, but open owner wallet.
But if the ownership situation ever comes in flux again, I’d give a resounding yes.
"Basketball fights last two punches. Make sure you throw both of them." - John Thompson Jr.
Repping the SB Nation Product Team as Community Manager
Like SB Nation on Facebook and follow @SBNation and @SBNProductTeam on Twitter
by Chris Haines on Feb 3, 2011 12:44 PM EST reply actions
Given what the Ricketts family has done for the Chicago Cubs thus far,
like asking for $200M and doing little to improve on-field talent, I’d rather have Cuban’s track record of producing a perennial competitive team than the Ricketts story of “we met in the bleachers”.
Dan
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
by dtpollitt on Feb 3, 2011 1:05 PM EST reply actions
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
"Keep pushin' til' it's understood. And these badlands start treating us good."
by AussieCub on Feb 3, 2011 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
nolan ryan
owns a small piece of the Rangers. He’s kinda famous
by pancake on Feb 3, 2011 1:42 PM EST reply actions
Yeah, but...
While Ryan owns a small piece, he is not the owner. He was allowed in to increase the groups chances of winning. He was a tool of a billionaire.
by LordD99 on Feb 3, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
Mouth of the South
I don’t know how famous Ted Turner was when he initially purchased the Braves, but he was certainly very loud, opinionated, and generally Mark Cubanlike for most of his tenure.
by sperren on Feb 3, 2011 2:39 PM EST reply actions
Well
He certainly wasn’t quite at the point where he is today, but Turner offered baseball a lot more than Cuban could ever hope to offer. He offered them national tv coverage for his franchise. Turner was a media powerhouse on the rise. Cuban is a dotcom era billionaire that offers baseball a media spotlight and a progressive attitude that they don’t want. Mark Cuban would be a fantastic owner as can be seen from his complete rebirth of the Mavs, but the MLB seems more concerned with maintaining the status quo.
by daileysc on Feb 3, 2011 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
Reinsdorf and Selig will never let him into the Club
Reinsdorf hates having him as a fellow NBA owner, and will never allow him to buy a MLB team, and he has a lot of influence.
Aim for the head baby Jesus
by Doncosmic on Feb 3, 2011 4:37 PM EST reply actions
Famous owners
In addition to Gene Autry, who someone else mentioned, there was George W. Bush when he was a minority owner of the Rangers, Tom Hicks of the Rangers (famous private equity investor), John Henry (well known if you followed the hedge fund world), Ray Kroc (founder of McDonalds-as-we-know-it, former owner of the Padres), David Glass (former Wal Mart CEO), and I guess Sam Zell was briefly owner of the Cubs (unless they were sold before he bought out the Tribune Co.). Not movie star famous, I guess, and few if any former players, but very well known deal makers/investors.
by Rich Clayton on Feb 3, 2011 5:49 PM EST reply actions
When MLB redlines an established, competitive sports owner
with an 86% fan love rating, I think it underscores two things.
1. MLB’s decided preference for conformity (collusion) over competition.
2. Just how out of touch MLB owners are with American fans.
by Diamondhacks on Feb 4, 2011 9:47 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I could see Mark Cuban buying the Rays or A's 5-20 years down the road.
For a few reasons:
1. By then Selig will probably be out of office, and I’m guessing the next commissioner will be younger, more progressive, and more Cuban-friendly.
2. I think both of those franchises will continue to have trouble building a stadium. If their stadium efforts ultimately collapse, I think both franchises’ ownership groups will put them up for sale.
3. Both franchises already have great front office people in place. Cuban wouldn’t need to clean house. He’d already have trustworthy decision-makers on the baseball ops side.
4. Cash. If Cuban gets liquid enough with his assets, he has the money to not only buy a small-market franchise, but help fund a new stadium, too. Not all prospective owners can offer that. It also might appeal to him to have the opportunity to relocate a franchise, and those are the last two franchises that offer that possibility.
The Oakland A's: If you have a no-trade clause in your contract, we're in it.
by notsellingjeans on Feb 5, 2011 10:56 AM EST reply actions
Mark Cuban isn't CIA
It’s The Company connection that is missing from this post.
Google: “MLB CIA”
“Philip H. Morse, Red Sox, CIA”
by Free_AEC on Feb 9, 2011 3:50 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed