A sub-$100 million payroll?
According to Bruce Miles, Ricketts wants the payroll to only be within the top 3-4 teams in the NL, and wants most players in the future to come from the minors.
The 4th highest payroll in the NL was $97 million.
It is a discouraging time to be a Cub fan. Hendry created this high-payroll/low-talent mess, keeps his job as his follies are being spectacularly exposed, then will get to replace the contracts as they fall off with nothing. Hendry and Fleita have never been able to consistently develop minor league talent, and now we'll let them continue in charge while we shift to being dependent on minor league talent.
We as fans fill the park better than any other NL team, but we get owners who treat us like we're Marlin fans. I'm sure the apologists will have some spin for this, but it's hard to have any realistic level of optimism about the present and future of the franchise.
Super.
over 1 year ago
tomas21
114 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
You are making unwarranted assumptions.
The payroll next year will be in the $135 million range. Where does it say it will drop under $100 million?
And what’s wrong with building your team from within? I thought that’s what people here wanted, to build a strong system that produces players.
Keep in mind that 4th highest payroll produced the World Series winner. And the team it defeated, the Rangers, ranked 27th.
Just spending money is no guarantee of winning.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
It's a hell of a lot easier to win with money than to win without it.
by shoemile on Nov 30, 2010 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
No, it's a hell of a lot easier to win with free cash than to win without it
Having a high payroll at the start of every season limits your financial flexibility to add players during the season. Having a lower payroll and the cash to add players is much better.
But don’t worry about 2011. The Cubs are at $100+ M payroll without doing anything right now.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 30, 2010 4:46 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not really worried about the payroll like others are.
I’m just worried about the guy doling out the contracts.
there are those who wish the world was as what they dreamed it to be
and others who see the world as it is and then try to find how to make the best of it.
Reality is payroll matters.
Reality is that the Cubs have the highest price in the NL to see games live. All this matters. Cardinals do quite well at $90-$97M
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
This is a bit of a straw man
Sure, it is great to have some in season flexibility, but frankly, a mid season addition is rarely all that expensive (usually an expiring contract) and if the team isn’t in contention they aren’t going to make that big in season acquisition.
Eamus Ursuli!
thats fine...
… but it would be wise of Ricketts to hire a GM who is capable of building a team without spending tons of money.
+$135 million
Or $97 million — whatever it takes.
Spend money
just spend it wisely. Dome, Grabow and Milton have hurt this team for years. Jimbo should of been fired. 85M for those 3, just plain stupid.
Ricketts has no
choice but to have a 125-135 million payroll. Let’s not throw him a parade and bring it up as though he’s generously treating us to such a lofty payroll. He inherited this payroll and team and has no choice this year.
The link says that Ricketts indicated he wanted a top 3-4 in the NL payroll. The 4th highest payroll in the NL last year (according to someone in another thread) was 97 million. That’s where I got the 100 million figure. It’s not speculation, it’s what Ricketts said.
I don’t want to “just spend”. I don’t think anyone does. But if you are going to charge what the Cubs charge to watch them play, they should be spending a lot. The more you spend well, the better your chances of reaching the playoffs. You can bring up the Rangers all you want, but this year was the first time in a decade they’d made the playoffs—that’s not the model you want to follow, is it? If you want to reach the playoffs consistently, you need to spend and spend well.
I do want them to develop home-grown talent. Who wouldn’t? However, we have a GM with a nearly decade-long record of incompetence at that, so to say that the future is based on something the guy in charge can’t do is absurd.
The Cubs have one of the largest fan bases in the country, in any sport, have had great attendance for the past decade, and sell tons of merchandise. We don’t deserve an either/or (either spend a lot or develop from within) approach. We deserve both. It appears we can’t have a spend a lot approach with this owner, and we KNOW we can’t have a develop well from within approach from this GM.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Nov 30, 2010 6:17 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs
phillies
eclipsed $100 million just in ’09 and ’10 (after they had already been a contender for years and chose to extend the window by spending)
i envision the Cubs IF run at below $100 million, would be run similarly
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 6:39 PM CST up reply actions
It's easy
to only spend 100 mil when you can bring guys like Howard, Utley and Rollins up through your system.
The Cubs can’t suddenly become good at developing players just because the owners think it’s a cheaper way to go. If the Cubs wanted to drop payroll and ticket prices for a couple years and bring in the best GM/minor league directors available, I’d have no problem with that. But you can’t have high ticket prices, drop your payroll, and keep the same inept managment in place and expect people to buy in.
DEJESUS!!!
by tomas21 on Nov 30, 2010 6:58 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Castro, Soto, and....
The Cubs are working towards that model. Whether you believe they’re on their way there or not is irrelevant to what they’re trying to do
The Cubs cant drop ticket prices yet because their liabilities are still enormously high. They can only make small shifts of their liabilities right now (moving some money into scouting/development and shifting some away from major league payroll). As payroll starts to unwind and hopefully some of the burden is lifted on the payroll by good cheap young players like Castro, Cashner, Jackson, Archer/McNutt they can begin re-crafting the organizational structure.
Whether that re-crafting takes place in cutting ticket prices, becoming a 100 million dollar payroll, and re-allocating funds to develop from within and keep players long-term or whether that re-crafting takes place by re-investing big funds into players that better align with the current roster’s timeline to contend OR whether the worst case scenarios play out (no spending, no change in development philosophy, Cubs of the ’90s) we just dont know yet
This roster with these liabilities is not easily made over in a 1-2 year period. Fans are reacting day-to-day on a process that is going to take years to play out. You can assume the worst, I can assume the best. It will likely fall somewhere in between. But let’s not speak in certainties about something that is extremely uncertain. So far all you’ve done is chosen a bunch of random quotes and anecdotal evidence that you’ve subjectively chosen to fit your own opinion of what’s going to happen.
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 7:05 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Ricketts can wish
and hope that he has the organization to give him what he wants (a great team that doesn’t cost too much), but he hasn’t done anything to make it happen. In fact, he’s done the one thing (keep Hendry and his minor league organization) to nearly ensure that it won’t happen.
DEJESUS!!!
yes
that is always the answer – fire everyone your first year in a new business so you can make it seem like you are doing something – sometimes the best thing to do is nothing
You DO realize
That since Wilken has taken over minor league development, the team has trended upward significantly?
Soto
I am not so confident in building around Soto. He isn’t really that young (28 in a month) with a history of some conditioning issues. Sure, he is a great young catcher for the Cubs, but he is a LONG way from being in the same class as Howard and Utley.
Eamus Ursuli!
long way?
maybe from Utley (one of the best players in the game) but not from Howard in terms of value
WAR last 3 years:
Howard – 3.1, 4.8, 2.0
Utley – 8.1, 7.7, 7.2
Soto – 4.0, 1.3, 3.5
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 1, 2010 12:14 PM CST up reply actions
And Soto was injured in 2009.
If he could average 3.5 to 4 WAR for the next 3-4 years as a catcher, we’d take that.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
ok here s the thing
you cant have your cake and eat it too – while we play through the period where we have the highest payroll in the NL we cant expect to have bargain basement prices to goto the games…you want them to spend the money – you have to dole it out to go see them. Hopefully tickets will come down a bit with payroll.
I would be shocked to see that
Maybe they will plateau for a bit, but I just cannot see appreciable price drops
Eamus Ursuli!
since 2008
correct
i noted they didn’t top 100 million until 2009
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/philadelphia-phillies_18.html
Philadelphia Phillies
Contract information is unofficial & collected from various published reports.
Service time in years & days (through 2009 season).
A group led by Bill Giles and David Montgomery bought the Phillies for $30M in 1981.
Forbes magazine valued the club at $537M in April, 2010.
* Opening Day payrolls
(Major League contracts plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
o 2010: $138,178,379
o 2009: $113,004,046
o 2008: $ 98,269,880
o 2007: $ 89,428,213
o 2006: $ 88,273,333
o 2005: $ 95,522,000
o 2004: $ 93,219,167
o 2003: $ 70,780,000
o 2002: $ 57,954,999
o 2001: $ 41,663,833
o 2000: $ 46,900,000
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Dec 1, 2010 8:20 AM CST up reply actions
Note also...
… there was a decline for a couple years from 2006-07 before it went back up in 2008… their first division title was in 2007.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Sure...
But that is all predicated on the Cubs developing Cole Hamels/Howard/Utley etc. talent from within. If that is what we are waiting for… wake me in a few years.
Eamus Ursuli!
The Cubs think Chris Archer could be a top 10 starter.
Starlin Castro led the team in BA as a rookie, and there are other guys coming up from the system who are highly rated.
Now, I’m not guaranteeing anything. But the Cubs do have some talent (finally) coming up from the minors. The patch-and-run job that the Tribune did in 2006-07 was built on very little homegrown talent. The Cubs are clearly banking on homegrown talent this time around — which is a good thing.
Frankly, the homegrown talent’s ability to deliver relatively quickly — and the return to form of Carlos Zambrano — are necessary for Hendry to keep his job past 2011, IMO. If Z has finally matured, Hendry will have one less truly awful contract on his hands (regardless of the original rationale for handing out those contracts).
The homegrown talent filling in around the edges is also hugely important for Hendry, because it would show the Ricketts (and us) that Hendry wasn’t simply handing out life-sized checks for the past five years.
re:
I am as excited about the current core of prospects as anyone. But, realistically, I am not sure that I would be banking on any of these guys to be superstars.
Expecting that Castro will be a Jeter/H. Ramirez type is a tall order, I would be pretty happy with an Edgar Renteria type career.
Archer? Maybe, but who knows.
Eamus Ursuli!
Phils
Howard didn’t become the Phils full-time 1B until age 26 (had a cup of coffee at 25). He was a 5th round pick.
Rollins was a 2nd rounder that took over SS @ 23. Didn’t post a +.750 OPS until age 26.
Utley was a 1st rounder who took over 2B @ 25. Was solid his first year and started crushing it the next.
Hamels was a1st rounder who went into the rotation @ 22. Has been pretty good ever since.
Just some background because we tend to look at PHI and say “well, sure, they had Hamels, Utley, Rollins, & Howard”. But back when those guys were “kids”… they all had mixed levels of hype. Philly basically struck gold with all of them working out.
But teams have varying levels of striking gold… which is the reason why “who knows?” is both a reason for and against building from within.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
On striking gold
I agree, the Phillies did indeed strike gold. As did the Giants. Same for the A’s a decade ago (well that and BALCO, but that is a different story).
My fear is that the Cubs will become obsessed with the idea of winning from within (ala MacPhail) and we will be left to hoping for paydirt. I would love to see Castro, Colvin, BJax, Cashner, Archer, etc. become HOF type players (or at least some perrenial All Stars), but I am not going to hold my breath.
Eamus Ursuli!
Oh sure.
And if we were going to rely solely on minor leaguers, I would be more concerned.
But if the intention is still to spend $100M+ while building from within, that is plenty enough money to sign at least a couple all-star caliber players, no matter which farm system they “grew up” in.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
It will take more
Remember that through 2013 (14 for Soriano) the Cubs are on the hook for some big salaries that are already there. So I am skeptical that the team will have much if any flexibility before the 2014 season to make any major FA additions. So, to me, a cut in payroll means sitting and hoping for gold until 2014.
Eamus Ursuli!
Wrong.
See Cot’s spreadsheet.
The Cubs ONLY contract obligation in 2013 is Soriano. That’s it.
Z has a vesting option… which is rather unlikely to vest. Have a look.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
That's right.
And, as of this very moment, I think the Ricketts are setting this course. I hope I’m not wrong.
re: #2 - homegrown talent 2007-2009
In my opinion, the farm system had a bigger impact on the 2007-2009 teams that most folks want to credit.
If we look at that team, consider the players that were homegrown:
1B: No, but direct product of trades from the system
2B: partial (DeRosa no, Fontenot yes)
SS: Yes
3B: see 1B
C: Yes
LF: No
CF: No
RF: No
SP1: (Z) Yes
SP2: (Lilly) No
SP3: Yes (Hill) & No (Dempster)
SP4: No (Marquis)
SP5: Yes (Marshall, Gallagher) and No (Harden) but again RH was a product of the farm system via trade
RP: Wood – Yes
RP: Marmol – Yes
RP: Dempster – No
RP: Howry – No
Eamus Ursuli!
Hmmm. Interesting.
I could quibble over a few details (our catcher in 2007 was mostly from outside the organization, etc.).
But there is an overall point I’d like to make. Lee and Ramirez were traded for Cubs’ prospects, but they were traded because the Marlins and Pirates were looking to cut payroll. By the time both guys became Cubs, they were already making a good bit of money, and they were making even more by 2007-08.
That’s significant because if the Cubs had produced No. 3 and 4 hitters from within, and both had started their major league careers as Cubs around 2003-04 (as Lee and Ramirez did after a few years in the majors), they would have (almost certainly) made less money in 2007-09 than Lee and Ramirez made, freeing up more cash that the Cubs could have used elsewhere. The Cubs also had to give up relatively little to get Aramis and Lee BECAUSE the Pirates and the Marlins were in tight spots.
It’s to Jim Hendry’s credit as a horse trader that he got two All-Stars for a handful of guys who didn’t amount to much. It’s not all that ringing of an endorsement to the farm system, though.
If the Cubs truly have good players coming from within — rather than guys who are good enough prospects to exchange for middle-order bats from cash-starved teams — they’ll be in a better situation going forward. But as we both agreed to above, it’s anybody’s guess whether our minor-league talent will pan out.
Agree 100%
Sure, there is no question that it would have been better and cheaper if Choi had produced at D-Lee’s level.
However, this comes back to the “striking gold” idea. Sure, the Cubs could be competitive at a lower 100’s M payroll if some of the current crop of young players develop into stars. But I am not holding my breath. Remember, back in 2002 or so, Hill, Patterson, Choi, Zambrano, Cruz et al. were certainly more highly regarded than the current crop of prospects.
Eamus Ursuli!
Were they more highly regarded?
I don’t know about that. Zambrano was never that highly touted, and I don’t think Cruz was either. Now, there was that other guy who went on to have a long love affair with towels …
Patterson was overhyped, and Hill and Choi probably were, too. But I think the Cubs system now (overall) looks better than it did eight years ago.
As I recall
The Cubs farm system was ranked as one of the top 3 in baseball then, with Patterson and Prior taking turns as the 1/2 ranked prospect in all of baseball.
We will see where the BA rankings fall this year, but most of the rankings I have see have the Cubs in the top third of organizations. Good, but not great.
Eamus Ursuli!
You know, you're probably right.
I wasn’t as crazy informed about the Cubs around that time. I was finishing college, so the first time I heard of somebody like Juan Cruz was when he pitched for the big-league club.
It does go to show you that the ranking of a system doesn’t mean THAT much in the way of long-term success.
None of this current crop is highly regarded around baseball
It’s just highly regarded by Some Cubs bloggers. We have
1 hitter who projects to be a bit less than a Mike Cameron clone. And 2 pitchers who weren’t on anyones top 15 CUBS prospects 12 months ago. But who had good years in A+/AA ball.
Not exactly the mid 00’s TB Rays
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
this quote
That’s where I got the 100 million figure. It’s not speculation, it’s what Ricketts said.
is what i have a problem with, the quote from the link above says:
Ricketts wants the payroll to only be within the top 3-4 teams in the NL
WITHIN means one of the top 3-4, that means a range of 97-150 million or so. It’s a very broad range, and you’re assuming the bottom portion of it
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 7:13 PM CST up reply actions
I'm assuming
the bottom range is a possibility, which according to Ricketts it is. You may think a 150 mil payroll is a possiblity, but I don’t see how given that he’s said he’s lowering the payroll from 145.
DEJESUS!!!
more likely
its between 110-135, the middle of those ranges, which would consistently be around the top 5 in all of baseball
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 10:02 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Correct.
Also, no one knows whether it will be that way forever… just for a year or two… or what. He wasn’t specific.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
but Al we alllllllll know
that Tom Ricketts is the cheapest man to ever live – I heard that he lives in a log cabin in the woods that he built himself and lives without electricity and forages for food…
this is from highly reliable sources
…one person said he was cheap and another person say that people used to forage for food…
Contextually, you are correct.
And I am certainly on your “side” in this debate.
But, I have to hedge on this point a little bit. When most people say “within”, they are really looking at the low end of that range, with the possibility of reaching the high end.
For instance, I teach at a university in Chicago. Some students come and say something to the effect of “my goal is to pass this course”. Well, that range is everything from a C- (or even, sadly, in some cases a D) on up. So do I expect them to do “A” work? No… though it surely is possible and I give them every opportunity to do so. But it is more likely they will do “C” work.
When Ricketts says he wants to be within the top 3-4… that really means 3rd or 4th. If the stated intention was really to be in the top two… you just say that.
I have been in “wait and see” mode with Ricketts. I consider this quote to be concerning.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
Agree
I think it is particularly alarming since the Cubs have the best (with the possible exception of the Mets) revenue stream of any NL team.
I have no problem with Ricketts making money, but frankly, I don’t want to see a return to the Tribune ownership model pre-2006.
Eamus Ursuli!
The problem is
Ricketts never said “top 3-4 in the NL”. I have not seen anyone produce a quote of that.
Here are some reported quotes:
Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts addressed a number of issues during a meeting with media before Sunday’s home finale against St. Louis…. On the $145 million payroll: “We haven’t made any decisions where payroll goes next year. But I think it will be slightly lower than this year.”
The club’s opening-day payroll was the third-highest in Major League Baseball after the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees. While a final decision hasn’t been made for spending in 2011, "my gut tells me it’ll be off some," said Ricketts
ESPN –
"Our overall baseball budget will be about the same as 2011," Ricketts said. "Our overall success will come through a successful scouting and player development system. As a result, this likely means a shift of some resources from our major league payroll towards scouting and development."
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 1, 2010 12:56 PM CST up reply actions
So let me get this straight
Ricketts says he wants to be in the top 3-4 in NL payroll. And from another thread, 4th highest payroll in the NL last year was 97 million.
So you took Tom Rickett’s statement and someone else’s statement from a thread, put them together and now you’re saying that Ricketts wants a $100M payroll??
Just put the words in his mouth. This is ridiculous.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 30, 2010 7:29 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
rec'd
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
I didn't put words in
anyone’s mouth. Ricketts said he was looking to be in the top 3-4 in the NL in payroll. The 4th highest team has a payroll of 97 mil. All facts so far, right?
I didn’t say a 100 mil payroll is a certainty, but Ricketts implied it is a possibility. Which part is ridiculous?
DEJESUS!!!
you said the 100 million figure is WHAT RICKETTS SAID
that’s not what Ricketts said
he said top 3-4, which is range from 97-150. He never said 100.
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Nov 30, 2010 10:01 PM CST up reply actions
1+2 does not equal 4
Here’s what you said:
The link says that Ricketts indicated he wanted a top 3-4 in the NL payroll. The 4th highest payroll in the NL last year (according to someone in another thread) was 97 million. That’s where I got the 100 million figure. It’s not speculation, it’s what Ricketts said.
But here’s what Tom actually said in a letter to season ticket holders that was reported by the Chicago Tribune
“Given that we had the highest payroll in the NL in 2010, I get a lot of questions about our payroll commitment for 2011,” he wrote. “As I said earlier, we are still working on our 2011 baseball plan, so it is hard to be too specific at this time. What I can tell you is that our overall baseball budget (scouting, player development and payroll) will be about the same in 2011 as it was in 2010.”
Here’s a fact about the payroll: the Cubs stand at over $100M right now before any free agent signings and arbitration. And the recently crowned SF Giants had a payroll of $98M.
Look, you wanted a fight about this since you posted it. But you just have your facts wrong and there are too many people who see that.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 1, 2010 12:33 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
surprised he didnt call you a company man as he did me
after all, how dare anyone show a fact when we should be strictly wanting to complain about the Ricketts and Hendry
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
John Adams
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
I hear he had a nasty slider too.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 12:20 AM CST up reply actions
The link says that Ricketts indicated he wanted a top 3-4 in the NL payroll. The 4th highest payroll in the NL last year (according to someone in another thread) was 97 million. That’s where I got the 100 million figure. It’s not speculation, it’s what Ricketts said.
I’m not in the Pro-Ricketts camp to this point. But I remember the quote about Ricketts regarding the payroll and I’m pretty sure he said that payroll would remain in the top 3-4 in MLB not just the NL.
I’m trying to find a link, but I think Bruce just mistyped on this one. I wouldn’t read too much into it.
The 2010 offseason won’t tell us much because of payroll obligations, but the 2011 offseason is when we will see the Ricketts true colors regarding payroll
Don't read much into it?
Way too late for that recommendation :-)
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
His quote was
Top 3-4 in the NL
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
No but are not the Pirates either
When you are charging up to $81 for a bleacher seat depending on your farm system and 2nd tier
FAs is not going to cut it.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 30, 2010 4:29 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Do you think that maybe putting some of the payroll $ into scouting is a good idea?
I do.
And yes, $81 is too much for a bleacher ticket.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Put money in scouting, but don't take it from money spent on players
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 30, 2010 4:46 PM CST up reply actions
Maybe we could ask the government?
Eamus Ursuli!
been there done that
and Tommy Boy got blasted for it on here…Obama has a stash (or so I have heard)
You heard it here first
We as fans fill the park better than any other NL team, but we get owners who treat us like we’re Marlin fans.
That would mean what? Two World Series championships in an 18 year franchise history. Deal me in.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Nov 30, 2010 4:34 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Here is the scary quote from Miles
Regarding looking at starting pitchers
“The Cubs are going to be slow to react. They are looking at free agent pitchers who have had some injuries over the years”
OK I get starting pitchers are not at the top of the list and that it is nice to troll for a bargain but
to deliberately set out to find a pitcher who was injured to save money is pretty damn scary.
"Lou Piniella's been a great manager for a long time and I stand by him completely"
Jim Hendry
by Doggie Stalker on Nov 30, 2010 4:48 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Where is my "Jump to Conclusions" mat?
The Cubs are a messed up organization. What is the future plan? Do they have a #3 or #4 hitter in the minors?
Throwing money at this mess won’t help. A $135 million payroll should be enough to compete yet what did the Cubs get from a $145 million payroll?
Hendry needs to go. In the meantime, $130 million is fine.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
3 straight winning seasons
2 division titles and 1 season with the best record in the NL
One thing I just don’t get is why folks seem to dismiss the success the Cubs have had in the last decade. I am not singing Hendry’s praise here, but let’s be hones with ourselves.
Frankly, a flat-declining payroll will likely bring more 2010 seasons and fewer 2008 seasons. If you view those as equivalent because neither brought a WS, that is your choice, but I think it is ridiculous.
Eamus Ursuli!
No they are not the same but zero playoff wins in the past 7 years is telling.
Making the playoffs means nothing to me. I’ve been there and seen that.
Of course, I’d like to see the Cubs spend money but they will not win continually chasing free agents. I don’t want to see another batch of expensive players brought in to this team right now. Otherwise we’ll be here in 2012 saying the Cubs just need to sign another couple of players to stay “competitive”. I’d prefer a Berkman type over Dunn for 4 years in 2011. Some moaned that the Cubs didn’t sign Garland for his 2/16 deal. Does anyone think he would be the difference for the Cubs. I don’t want competitive. I want a team that challenges for the championship.
In all honesty, I think the best thing that could happen is for 2011 to be a disaster and the Cubs go in a different direction. Sorry but I have no faith in Hendry. Anyone that could be conned by Bradley and his agent is in way over his head.
The problem obviously is that there aren’t a great group of minor leaguers on the way. For that reason, I don’t think the Cubs are going to be that competitive for a few seasons. I have to hope that Ricketts is serious about player development and in a few years, the Cubs will have some better players on the way. Look at the recent successful teams, all of them had key players from their minor league system leading the team with free agents filling in the holes.
Yes it is a long process but I have to hope that is the way out of this mess. IMO, letting Hendry buy players will not work.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
No they are not the same but zero playoff wins in the past 7 years is telling.
It tells you nothing. The playoffs are a crapshoot. How many playoff games have the Twins won in the last seven years? Not many, but they get there almost every year. That’s what you want. Making the playoffs means “nothing” to you? It should mean EVERYTHING.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
We disagree
At this point, being the Twins would be a step up for the Cubs. The Twins have been in the playoffs 6 of the past 9 years, the Cubs 3 times. But the Cubs should strive for more. Does anyone realistically ever think the Twins will win it once the playoffs start? I never have.
Getting to the playoffs should not be the Cubs’ goal. I don’t want a competitive team, I want a championship team. Yes I know the 2006 Cardinals. I’ve heard that but that is a rare case.
Last year the Cubs couldn’t field a marginally competitive team with $145 million. That is pathetic. The Mets finally gave up and blew it up. The Cubs need to do the same. I know you want to give Hendry yet another chance to catch lightning in a bottle and get back to the playoffs and hopefully then something will happen. I don’t.
The Cubs need to build an organization that competes year in and year out. With their resources, that should be possible. The Red Sox have not had a losing season since 1997. That should be the Cubs. That is the only way to guarantee the Cubs win a WS. Compete year after year. Lightning in a bottle won’t likely get it done.
I have to hope this is the Ricketts plan but I don’t think Hendry can do it. He needs to go.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
by rlpete on Dec 1, 2010 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Let's revisit this at the end of 2011.
We have not yet seen how he will build the team for 2011.
I’ll disagree with you regarding building a playoff team. That is precisely what they need to do. The 2006 Cardinals aren’t the only team that has come from not being well regarded at the beginning of the postseason to winning it all. For an example, you need look no further than the 2010 Giants.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
The Cubs should be able to contend in 2012 for $100 M
but more likely it would take until 2013 or 2014 to get enough young players up to make it possible.
No one should be untouchable on this roster unless his name is Eliot Ness...or Starlin Castro.
?
How?
Oh, if Bobby Hill, Corey Patterson, Juan Cruz, and Hee Sop Choi all become stars. Oh wait… sorry.
Eamus Ursuli!
There is some talent in the minors, as I noted above.
Castro, Cashner, Colvin, Archer, Lee, Jackson … there’s reason to be optimistic.
I know this is at least partially sarcasm, but...
ZF did say in 2012. At that point, the Cubs will have a lot of money freed up and can sign a couple of players to augment what comes up from the farm.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
2012 money
I don’t really see all that much really being freed up after next season. Ramirez will need to be replaced. Lee will still need to be replaced. Grabow and Silva’s money will be eaten by raises to internal bullpen guys (Marmol and Marshall). So that basically leaves Fukudome’s salary to add to the team.
Eamus Ursuli!
Umm...
So we complain that the highly paid Cubs underperform so now the complaint is that they will have to be replaced……. with they money they are currently being paid? I don’t see how that makes a lot of sense.
Cubs owe Silva $6M (getting the other $5.5M from SEA) plus a $2M buyout.
Cubs owe Grabow $4.8M in 2011.
I’m not sure the raises for Marmol and Marshall will tally quite that high.
Ramirez could be replaced by… Ramirez. The Cubs still have the contract option. If Ramirez is not worth keeping, that means he’s underperforming… and the Cubs would have his salary (less the $2M buyout) to find a replacement. If he is underperforming or still injured, I would think you could find a worthwhile 3B for about $10M.
Lee could be “replaced” by the available money this offseason (e.g., Dunn).
Dome is making $14.5M in 2011… so having “only” his salary is a fair chunk of change.
Shut up Joe Morgan.
You guys have it all wrong!!!!
We have to trim the fat and get this under 100 million. Its not fair to the Ricketts family to keep paying thie money out!
We need to pay whatever they want for tickets and buy lots of merchandise to support our team.
Then when we have a team that is winning with our homegrown players, I am sure JH and TR will try to spend some money to get us some help.
I know JH will build us a winner!!!!!
by TJ11 on Nov 30, 2010 6:59 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
You don't need a $200MM payroll to win
Ricketts has the right idea about the farm. Unfortunately, he has yet to make major personnel changes that are necessary to sustain long-term farm success. I still have faith that he will do it though. This isn’t something you change in one year, let alone overnight.
"It's important in life to not give a shit. It can help you a lot." - George Carlin
you all want to bitch and whine about Ricketts not wanting to spend money
Here is a listing on the opening day payrolls in 2010 – in the top ten there are 3 teams that made the playoffs…had we not helped the Giants out the 2nd to last team in payroll would have made the playoffs – SPENDING MONEY ON PAYROLL IS NOT THE ANSWER – FIRING EVERYONE IN THE MINOR LEAGUES IS NOT THE ANSWER – firing Jim Hendry may be the answer - the answer is that we need to take our pills, pay out the ass to goto games for a few years so that the mess that was the Tribune/Zell ownership can be put behind us and we can truly see what Tom can build…one or two years is not going to show us that.
1 answer?
This is the part I don’t get.
Why do people assume that there is simply 1 simple answer?
If payroll is going to be flat/go down slightly in the foreseeable future, then players like Adrian Gonzalez simply will not be coming to the Cubs.
Eamus Ursuli!
That logic doesn't make sense.
The Cubs shed around $35 million in payroll after 2011 (Ramirez, Silva, Kosuke, Grabow) and even more after 2012 (Byrd, Zambrano, Dempster). Now, some other guys will get raises, and some of those guys have been positives and will have to be replaced.
The point is that the Cubs will have money to spend even if the payroll stays flat. They can continue to build from within AND make a play for guys like Gonzalez.
We’re in a bottleneck situation right now where a lot of our young talent isn’t yet ready AND we have too many bloated contracts with a year or two left from the Zell era. It’s the low point, certainly, but it won’t continue forever.
At least, we have no reason to assume it will.
re:
Let’s look at 2011.
Grabow, Silva and Kosuke are basically dead weight in terms of salary, so we can reallocate those $. But somewhere around 1/3-1/2 that money (~$20M by my estimate) will likely be allocated to internal raises to arb guys.
As for Ramirez, the Cubs will need to replace his production (2008 level) if they want to get back to the postseason, and that will likely cost at least as much as his current salary of 16M, so that will eat further into the savings from the dead-weight salaries.
On top of that, the Cubs don’t appear to be likely to replace D-Lee’s production value (again 2007-2009 production) this offseason, so that will also need to be added to the 2011 shopping list.
Based on the talent in the pipeline, I really don’t see much hope for replacing the departed/departing corner IF, so that will need to come from outside the system.
Looking ahead to the 2012 expiring contracts, there is a bit more hope there that internal guys could replace the production of Dempster, Z, and Byrd. But, that said, I will be thrilled if internal candidates can be putting up #1-#2 SP numbers to replace Demp and Z and starting CF numbers by 2013.
Also, by 2013, Marmol, Soto, Marshall will be at or on the brink of Free agency and Castro/Colvin will be arb eligible.
Eamus Ursuli!
You have a good point about replacing the bats at the corners..
Vitters is still kicking around. But for whatever reason, the Cubs don’t seem to be very good at developing corner infielders who can hit.
And that is my point above
In MLB you need a 25 man roster, the Cubs cannot buy a championship. Without a better organization producing impact players, this team is going nowhere.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
I'll worry about this when it happens.
Or when it looks like it may really happen.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Too Honest?
Would it be too forthcoming for Hendry/Ricketts to announce that payroll will dip in 2011. Basically, there aren’t any FA’s available who are better than the in house candidates. I would love to see them come out and say they are saving some $ for next year.
Basically, keep the $5mil they would give any FA 1B or back of the rotation starter and save it for Adrian Gonzalez. Think of it as backloading A-Gonz’ salary by not paying him anything in 2011.
Eamus Ursuli!
They did say it
Ricketts said the major league payroll would be less in 2011 but that overall player expenditures would be about the same. We’ll need to see about the second part of that.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
Ricketts wants to make money on the Cubs
He thinks the best way to do this is to have a stellar team full of young underpaid players that wins. He is banking on the idea that Cubs fans will shell out top-dollar for a winner even if that team doesn’t have a high payroll. Frankly, I don’t think he is wrong on that line of thinking. The question is whether he will be able to deliver a winner.
As a side-note, that will be pretty aggravating if we still have to shell out top-dollar with a low payroll. Just to pad Joe Ricketts pocket.
punting on 2011
Even with a couple free agents, we can all agree it will take lightning in a bottle to compete this year. So punting on 2011 makes some sense. But you cannot raise ticket prices again after a 10% increase last year when you know the team will be awful. You can talk about young talent, all you want but the problem is we dont have much end talent. We are a middle of the pack farm system. For all the talk about improving the system we didn’t spend any money on the draft in “year one”.
Excellent point on the ML system
For all the talk about “building from within”, what did we do on the development level this year?
-Reached for a 5th round projection who singed for under slot in round 1
-Went significantly over slot on only Golden and Szcu
-Were bottom 5 in total draft bonuses
-Signed Zero international prospects of note
At this point its just lip service. Spin to confuse the Rubes
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Making too many assumptions
We still don’t know how he will react in the FA market once these contracts are over. Top 3 or 4 in the NL is still a high payroll.
Regarding the minor league system and Hendry, it should be noted that the talent that the farm system is producing for the major league club right now is the best talent that has been produced in the last 3 decades.
by jerry morales rules on Dec 1, 2010 12:08 PM CST reply actions
Question to those who think Ricketts is being cheap on payroll
Which Free Agents do you think the Cubs should sign? Or should have signed already (for those that have signed with another team)?
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
Excellent question.
I’m in the camp that the free agents this offseason don’t fit the Cubs (V-Mart, Crawford), are asking for way too much money, either in general or for the Cubs’ current status (Dunn, Lee) or didn’t want to be Cubs for other reasons (Vazquez). I guess Garland would have been an OK pickup, but I’m not losing sleep over that. I don’t think a No. 3 starter is gonna be all that important next season.
Based on all that, I don’t think the Ricketts are (yet) being cheapskates. The payroll is still among the highest in baseball, few of the available free agents fit and/or they’re not good enough to alone make THAT much difference in 2011.
I don’t know. Maybe I’m being an apologist.
I'm pretty critical of the organization
But I agree with this. No big time FA’s really fit on this team, and I’d rather not have Hendry making an even bigger mess for the next guy to clean up.
Agreed.
See? We CAN agree on something. I think Hendry may have finally learned his lesson — he’s waiting. Maybe someone’s price will come down, or someone will be non-tendered who’s useful.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
* makes over his head signal *
Did you miss the part where he said… “next guy to clean up”? Don’t get me wrong, I’d much rather he go out this way than how Bill Bavasi did in Seattle… but all he’s learning under your scenario is how to prep his cv for his next job and not screw over a GM who could possibly take this team to the World Series on his way out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Dec 4, 2010 5:05 PM CST up reply actions
exactly
Chronologically inept since 2060
"I could be writing this crap!" -- Crow T. Robot
Me: Q: I can run but not walk. Wherever I go, thought follows close behind. What am I?
Wrigster A: Theriot
For what the Cubs need
Lee might be the only top flight free agent that would fit.
It would be nice to have a spot for Carl Crawford, and if the Cubs made trades to open the spot I’d be all for it.
I don’t mind spending the money, as long as it is spent wisely.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Dec 2, 2010 12:15 AM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
