"I have made sure to be absolutely … probably fanatical to not be aligned with any one group, which I am not," he said. "I have talked to a lot of different people, but that's as far as it has gone. The message I have tried to impart to them is that I have something to offer. And if your group were to get [the Cubs], I would love to be a part of it. I am not in Lou's group."

These are Steve Stone's words in response to the Tribune Article about him and a possible job as the general manager for the Cubs under a new ownership group . Here is where it gets tricky......he says that he has gone out of his way not to be aligned with any ONE group, but that he has "talked with a lot of different people" He states that he has told them "I have something to offer and if your group were to get the Cubs I would love to be a part of it." If Steve has had communications with certain groups about being a part of their group when they buy the Cubs, don't you think that he probably got some sort of feedback from that group in regards to their level of interest in him. Assume he talked with a group, told them his interest in being a part of their team and they said the feeling was mutual, don't you think this could possibly affect Steve Stone's ability to be objective in his analysis of who should or should not buy the Cubs. Even if Steve is not officially a member of a group prior to them purchasing the Cubs, don't you think there could be some sort of spoken agreement that if they do buy the team, he will get a gig. This is what disturbs me about Steve being given the forum to comment on a possible Mark Cuban ownership versus someone else. It seems to me that if he has had conversations with possible owners (probobly not Cuban), then HE HAS NO OBJECTIVITY to comment on who or who would not be a good owner for the Cubs, because he would clearly have a financial interest in who does become the next owner. WSCR needs to call him out on this because it is clearly a conflict of interest.

I don't think you understand what "conflict of interest" means.

This is not such a case.

His ability to give objective analysis of the pending Cubs sale (job at the Score) conflicts with his possible ties to an ownership group (other job).

You can question whether he's being objective, say that he's partial, or has question whether he has a hidden motive. But the term "conflict of interest" is reserved for existing professional relationships that conflict.

In its truest sense, all he's doing is taking a backhanded approach in lobbying to get a job. Smart.

You got a little Stink in you today huh?

_________________

OK......I believe he has a motive. I am not sure it is so hidden though. I think his motive is to make more money and I think it compromises his ability to objectively do the job he is currently being paid to do. That's all.

All week, actually. For the first time in my life at the let remote lie when the hockey highlights came on.

NSJ as usual your avatar rocks.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

It's going the other way too.

Stone's also been declining to discuss what he thinks the cubs should do in terms of off-season deals, how new ownership could increase billboard revenue at wrigley without trimming away the ivy, etc.

If keeping these secrets are so important to him getting a Cubs job that it's affecting his analysis, maybe he should just stop appearing on wscr and taking a paycheck from them.

It's just been real awkward how he keeps going on and on about how disasterous it would be for the Cubs to increase payroll because it would raise ticket prices and fans would stop coming to Wrigley Field..............uh, no Steve, if you increase the payroll and put out a winning team every year, fans will fill that stadium regardless of the increase in ticket prices. I am actually shocked he has used this argument. It seems like a pre-emptive strike against people who would question why the Cubs are not going to go out and spend money to improve the team in light of something he may know concerning how a new owner he will be aligned will not want to spend much money this offseason.

I'm still wondering why any management group would want to give any office to a 60 year old with no management or scouting experience. He is really only an asset in terms of public relations or the media end of the business.

I might be alone in this but I think it is glaringly apparent that he is not an expert in the acquisition or retention of players and the analysis of their talent. He is great at breaking down what is going on at the moment. He is not great at extrapolating what how the action of that moment affects the future or how it relates to the past.

In the end, what does Stone bring you other than a person who speaks well and a person who is sure to increase the lenght of any corporate meeting by 25%.

It's especially a stupid argument because in recent years SO MANY people pay the insane ticket broker prices. The fact that there are that many successful ticket brokers crawling around that stadium proves that they could easily raise prices and still pack them in. Even when the stadium was empty last year at the end those tickets were still sold, they were just no-shows.

the guy has been ripping on the cubs for years because they've never asked him to be the GM or contribute in any meaningful capacity...he's given the sox a pass on just about everything. that is more of a conflict of interest than whatever it is he's doing now. he's just trying to play both sides of the fence with everyone.

_________________
"Then Darin Erstad fell down while flying out to center in the sixth and left because of cramps."

You could say that about 99% of score on air "talent".

_________________

I don't think North/Boers/Bernstein have.