Bleacher Bums Forum

Tell you what. I'll answer this question after you answer the one I asked you.

I am no fan of most of the Ricketts family, as far as their politics goes (which really should not be part of this topic). But this notion that their politics is simplistic is neither accurate nor relevant to baseball decisions.  I know a little about the Ricketts family as well as their involvement with the Cubs and the neighborhood surrounding Wrigley Field. I live 1.5 miles from the ballpark, have a long history as a Cub fan, of involvement in Chicago politics and have followed all of the machinations (political and otherwise) around the family and the ballpark pretty closely.

First, the family is not a monolithic family politically. Joe (father, and least involved with the Cubs) is a funder of right wing politicians and causes (I don't expect anyone to disagree with this). Pete Ricketts, who has had no involvement with the Cubs, is a conservative/right wing Republican Governor of Nebraska. Todd is a very conservative or even right wing guy who almost went to work for the Trump administration. Todd has little (if any) direct involvement with the Cubs. Tom, who is the guy who actually operates as the active owner of the Cubs, whatever his politics, has avoided being directly involved in politics at least since his direct involvement with the Cubs. Laura, is the second most involved member of the Ricketts family with the Cubs. She is a Democrat, an Obama bundler, a lesbian and major supporter of liberal causes. The guy hired by Tom Ricketts to run the Cubs, Theo Epstein, is a liberal Democrat.

The local alderman, who resisted many of the changes at Wrigley Field, is being challenged by a liberal Democrat (who worked in the Obama administration and in Democratic Governor Patrick Quinn's administration), as well as a couple of other challengers (one a Republican). The incumbent has weirdly accused his primary challenger as being a tool of the right wing Ricketts.  It does appear that Laura Ricketts may support him, though is not contributing to his campaign. So people, for whatever purposes, have confused the Rickett's conflicting politics to support their own points of view.

Being offended by the politics of the right wing portion of the Ricketts family led one member of the board to conclude that the primary interest of the family in taking over ownership of the Cubs was a business decision, and that their greed would prevent them from investing heavily in the team. Well, that clearly turned out not to be the case. So, I'd suggest we take care about repeating this mistake.

Even assuming that were true, that would still mean you were OK with making assloads of money for a despicable company that's actively trying to destroy American journalism in the name of their owner's political agenda.

Is there any indication in the article that their is something the Cubs wouldn't have been aware of?