Wondering: If losing is profitable.

The Chicago Cubs don’t have to be an atrociously bad major league baseball team. It’s strictly a matter of choice. By the ownership. The Ricketts family. Billionaires. The Ricketts could easily spend the money necessary to build one of the better teams. Now. But the Ricketts want to do it all in a frugal manner. It may work. Or it may not work. Could be that the Cubs remain a lousy team. Forever. Other big market teams, such as the New York Yankees and the Los Angeles Dodgers, spend lots of money. More than the Cubs.  Granted, the Ricketts spent nearly $1 billion. Buying the Cubs a few years ago. And the family may be well-intentioned. To make the Cubs the winner of the World Series. Some day. But I’d like the Ricketts to do it far sooner than later. And by at least making the Cubs mediocre. Almost immediately. By signing a bevy of free agent players. To fix certain weaknesses. Of which there are many. The Cubs are inept in so many ways. They have become perennial losers. Fielding some of their worst teams ever. I’d settle for a .500 club. For a while. A team that wins as many games as it loses. That’s better than teams that lose nearly 100 of their 162 games. Season after season. Teams that have no chance of qualifying for the playoffs.  The Ricketts have the money. To do it all. Quickly. My presumption is that billionaires have money to spare. They can even afford to lose money. Instead, they seem to prefer to lose baseball games. Maybe that’s the way they make money. Makes me wonder. If losing is more profitable than winning. –Jim Broede