How Tribune Sells Cubs Tickets in January

Turns out the Cubs are feeling optimistic about 2007. In today's Tribune, Paul Sullivan writes:

Usually teams that finish with the worst record in the National League spend January talking about rebuilding toward respectability. But coming off a 96-loss season, the 2007 Cubs are making bold statements about turning into instant contenders, and they are putting it on the record for posterity's sake.

We thought we'd see what they were putting on the record one year ago, you know, just for posterity's sake, at the start of their 96-loss, last-place season. A year ago Dave van Dyck wrote:

For a manager whose team finished 79-83 and in fourth place in the National League Central, Dusty Baker was unusually and uncharacteristically upbeat heading into this weekend's Cubs Convention.

Wow, what do you know? So what were the managers saying?

Lou Piniella, 2007: "Look, the perfect example of what we're talking about here is the New Orleans Saints. They were 3-13 last year, and on Sunday they're playing for a trip to the Super Bowl. That's how quickly things can turn around in sports, and that's what we're going to look forward to in Chicago this summer with the Cubs."

(Yep, the Cubs manager actually compared his team to the Bears' opponent. Lou's got a thing or two to learn about Chicago.)

Dusty Baker, 2006: "The momentum is there. We had some unfortunate situations and things that happened to us the last couple of years.... Baseball is a different game from year to year. You can go from top to bottom and back up pretty quickly. It's not how baseball used to be. I'm very excited. I'm more positive than ever before."

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. So what has changed? Last year Tribune reporter Dave van Dyck sounded skeptical of the Cubs' chances. Twelve months and 96 losses later, Tribune reporter Paul Sullivan sounds like he's fully on board the Cubs' spin express. Was that $136 million Soriano contract and a couple overpaid mediocre pitchers all the newsroom needed to put its doubts to rest? Or is the entire Cubune Empire marshaling its resources to combat the White Sox' documented dominance of local baseball?

Since these guys purportedly cover sports for a living, you'd think they would have noticed that the last five World Series championships have been won by teams with an average payroll of $80 million, about $25 million less than the Cubs will spend this year. In those five years, the Yankees spent $866 million, about $173 million per year, without winning a championship. It seems obvious to everyone outside of the Tribune Tower that payroll does not produce champions. So why are Tribune reporters so impressed by payroll expenditures? Why do they say it's a "bargain" to spend $15 million this year on Aramis Ramirez, a mediocre third baseman who lets pop flies bounce off his head and dogs his way around the bases, but they scarcely notice when the Sox secure a spectacular third baseman in Joe Crede for another year at less than $5 million?

There's no logic to the way the Chicago Tribune covers sports. It only makes sense in a twisted context, a profoundly different perspective inside the tower than outside the tower. What looks like sports coverage often amounts to tacit coverage of internal Tribune politics and external Tribune promotion.