BCB Interview: Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts (Part I)
Today is BCB's sixth birthday -- that's like a century in blog years. And here's a birthday present for all of us -- a wide-ranging interview I recently conducted with Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts about his first year as the head of the organization and face of the franchise.
This interview will run in three parts -- today, tomorrow and Friday. Part I, after the jump, will deal with how the team ownership and management is structured, and how each member of the Ricketts family contributes to the overall family ownership of the team. Tom also answered questions about the three goals he announced when the family took over in October 2009, and player development and how that fits into the overall team budget.
One note regarding something Tom told me in the interview regarding investment in facilities for player development is apparently happening. Yesterday at CSNChicago.com, David Kaplan wrote that the Cubs are looking to buy a large parcel of land in the Dominican Republic to build a new academy:
The cost for a new academy will be several million dollars, but the family's goal is to build the best training and development facility anywhere in Latin America. Tom Ricketts has been talking with several well-connected people in the Dominican real estate market and is prepared to buy a large parcel of land to house the complex.
Follow me past the jump for the rest of the first part of this conversation.
BCB: The first question is -- on the record -- who really owns the Cubs, and what specifically is your father’s role in the team, if any?
TR: He doesn’t have a defined day to day role currently. He comes to a couple games. The team is owned by the Ricketts family. I’m not sure what the strict definition of owner is. I think that people should look to me as chairman, as the person responsible for directing the family’s investment. I’m the one on the ground who is leading the family ownership.
BCB: And your dad’s role is?
TR: He’s interested, he comes to games. He’s part of the family, it’s a family ownership.
BCB: So the accurate statement would be to say the Chicago Cubs owner is: "the Ricketts family".
TR: Yes. The Ricketts family is owner of the Chicago Cubs. And honestly, when people talk to me I use chairman. I try not to use the word owner because the meaning gets stretched.
BCB: It’s not one individual then.
TR: No, it’s a family asset. I’m the chairman, my siblings are directors.
BCB: On the subject of you being chairman, the last letter than you sent out was signed "executive chairman".
TR: The only distinction there is that in a lot of cases there’s a chairman of the board and all they do is work with the board. An executive chairman is typically a title people use when they’re not only chairman of the board but they’re active in the business. So my card says executive chairman.
BCB: So would you consider yourself CEO or is Crane Kenney considered CEO?
TR: Well, Crane’s team president.
BCB: I want to clarify so people understand.
TR: Every team has a chairman and a president. Every team has a guy who’s representing the team at the owner’s meetings and there’s a guy who works on the team business. And it’s really kind of a triumvirate. It’s kind of president, GM, owner.
BCB: So at the owner’s meeting it would be you.
TR: Yeah, typically Crane, Jim Hendry and I go to the owner’s meetings.
BCB: And would that be the same for every team -- three representatives like that?
TR: Some teams send more than one of their ownership group; you send more if you want.
BCB: It depends on how they structure their ownership group, then?
TR: It depends who wants to come. For example, Bill Neukom, Larry Baer, Brian Sabean, those are the counterparts at Giants, just picking one for example. Every team has those people.
BCB: So, going forward I can talk about you as Executive Chairman and ownership is the Ricketts family. Let's talk about the rest of the family. It has been a year, how much input have your siblings had and in what capacity? What does "director" mean?
TR: I think it would be important for everyone to know that all the siblings are very well informed. We have calls on a regular basis; we have board meetings on a regular basis. Starting with my older brother, Pete -- what he brings to the table is a lot of the work in growing AmeriTrade over the years. So he brings a really strong management background and has a lot of insights into the business side of what we’re doing both how we operate this business and how we assess business opportunities.
Laura lives here in Chicago. She’s been in all of our team meetings, but also meetings with some of the public officials related to our financing discussions. She’s been very forward and out in front in a lot of our community affairs issues and charities. She’s the chairman of Cubs Charities. And she’s been very, very active in a lot of our discussions. And once again, every major issue that goes through here we all talk about.
And Todd, apart from being the "Undercover Boss" -- which he did a brilliant job at -- he has an interest in the fitness and the nutrition side of things and a lot of the suggestions that were contributed last year came from him and he brought in some ideas on that, which we implemented.
BCB: Was that for players?
TR: Just for players. And also he’ll be the family point person for what’s being built in Mesa and projects like that. So, everyone’s involved. I’m the one who’s here every day and kind of leading the charge but we’re all pretty active.
BCB: What effect has this past year had on your family? Are your kids really excited, "My dad is one of the owners of the Cubs!" or are they really not that excited?
TR: The kids have had a great time. It’s been a really nice family experience for all of us. It’s a little bit awkward at times if you’re out in public and people come up and say hello, those kinds of things. But generally it’s been very positive.
BCB: A year ago, you announced you had three goals. Obviously one of them wasn’t achieved in 2010. How do you feel about the other two?
TR: Well, taking them in order, obviously the first goal is to win the World Series. I really do believe that the way you’re going to do that is by being consistent. And the way you’re going to be consistent and at the top of your division every year is through building a great organization. I think we’ve taken some pretty good steps in the last year. I think, you’ve seen, and you follow it pretty closely, but we have seen the respect for the Cubs organization in terms of talent that’s coming through the past few years. I think we have some players on the way. I think we have great coaches. I went around to the minor league parks last year and I sat down with a lot of our coaches and I think that we’re bringing in good players and I think that we’re doing a good job of bringing them along in the right way so they can become productive major league players.
I think where we were lacking is facilities and obviously we’ve dived right in on that. We’re looking at how we can improve our Dominican facility. I went down there, I spent several days down there last year and we’re looking at ways to just make it a better place for players to train and a better place for players to be.
So, apart from just the players and the facilities and the coaches, we’ve also added some scouting this year. We’ve added some people on the quantitative side. We’re looking at some of the baseball related problems with a different spin on them, maybe a little more analytical spin. Not in a way that is a complete 180 from what has been done in the past, but in a way to supplement and help the guys who really know the game and so I think we’ve come a long way on that front.
BCB: You said you needed to take a year, sit back, see what you had, see what was going on. In hindsight, is there anything you would have done differently this past year?
TR: In the big picture I don’t think so. I think that ultimately, given the information that we had, we did okay with our decisions. I can’t think of anything that’s major that I would have done differently, yet. Maybe in a couple years I’ll look back and said I could have done… We’re doing a lot. It’s a lot to accomplish. You know off the field we’ve obviously done a lot for the business side. But I think a lot of people don’t realize how important that is. People consider us on the same scale as a lot of other big market teams, but we have a lot less in terms of financial resources and we need to close that gap to get in that top tier of baseball. That’s important. That’s about understanding what we do in marketing and sponsorships, that’s about being more just being more thoughtful about how we do everything on the business side. So we’ve made some progress there, too.
BCB: To elaborate a little more about the winning the World Series part, it’s been said that the overall budget for baseball operations is going to be about the same as last year.
TR: Yes.
BCB: But the impression from some people is that the major league payroll will be lower and some of the money will be put into player development. Are there any more details that you can give about that at this point? Even if you can't state specific dollar amounts, how that might get split out? What’s going to be done? You talked about building an organization, that’s kind of what you’re doing by expanding scouting and similar things. Talk a little about what plans you have for that area.
TR: Like we’ve said in the letter and various other platforms, the amount of money that goes into baseball, think of it this way: it’s a closed system. Dollars don’t leave the system. We spend the money, we pay our expenses and what’s left goes into baseball. So the amount of dollars that go into baseball as a whole this year should be very, very close to what went in last year. What we have suggested that we’re looking at is just putting a little bit more into the development side as opposed to spending at the major league payroll level. How much and what form that takes, it moves around a little bit and we’ll just have to see what happens in this off season.
BCB: You haven’t decided, then, exactly where that’s going to go in terms of player development or what kind of people you might hire or what you might be spending on next year’s draft.
TR: Player development is amateur signings, too. We have kind of an idea in our mind of what we’re targeting. We don’t hard code it because something could come up that changes it. In other words, it’s a value trade off. If we find something that makes sense one way or the other we’ll shift some resources. And even if we did hard code it we’d probably not discuss it.
BCB: So you’re suggesting that you might be putting more into the amateur draft next year?
TR: We’d like to have more resources available. That said, our guys are good. If a player’s not worth the amount of money he wants then we don’t sign them. So it’s not like we’re automatically going to spend it just because we’ve got it budgeted. I think it’s really, really important that we walk the walk on bringing in the right players, and spending the amount of resources we have on development, because obviously everyone knows the economics of development relative to the economics of the free agent market.
BCB: So you want to bring the talent up through the system, more so than going through free agency?
TR: The good news we have out of the system is that we have been on a pretty good run with our top draft picks. They’re becoming productive players, and they’re not just becoming productive players, they’re good guys. They’re the kind of guys you want to have on your team and from a character standpoint, we’re looking for the right people in the amateur draft and then I think we’ve been developing them pretty successfully these last few years. I can’t speak to what happened under previous drafts or administrations but I think we’ve got some good momentum on that front. We want to make sure that we keep that machine rolling and not borrow too much from the future by spending all the money up front today. So we have to find that balance.
BCB: And don’t do a Jeff Samardzija kind of signing again?
TR: I won’t talk about any specific signing, but the fact is that you just have to find that balance. In the end every team has a finite number of dollars for payroll and for player signings both international and amateur, and you’ve just got to have the flexibility to take those dollars where you think most likely the best outcome is for those dollars. So to the extent we’d like to have more resources available for new player signings this year we’re just going to try and have those resources available.
373 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
my favorite line
If a player’s not worth the amount of money he wants then we don’t sign them. So it’s not like we’re automatically going to spend it just because we’ve got it budgeted.
Just be smart about the money you spend Tom, that is all most of us fans ask for, well that and hire me for the Assistant to the Assistant Executive Director position you are going to open up(waves hand and uses all of his Jedi might)…
These aren't the Droids you're looking for...

There are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. Who says baseball isn't a religion?
I think each of us
is gonna have his favorite quote from these.
Mine for today is: And don’t do a Jeff Samardzija kind of signing again?
Thanks Al for bringing this to the readers.
The “we don’t have the financial resources the other ‘Big Market’ teams do”, I do not entirely buy into. Sorry Tom.
by The E-Man on Feb 9, 2011 8:17 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Why don't you buy into this?
The "we don’t have the financial resources the other ‘Big Market’ teams do", I do not entirely buy into. Sorry Tom.
The ballpark is antiquated. No real skyboxes, no jumbotron, no fixed ad proliferation. Two of those 3 things many of us likely would not want, however not having those IMHO is limiting the Cubs revenue each season by an 8-figure number. I believe these are 3 of the top 5. The other 2 that don’t need a ballpark overhaul are a Cubs TV network and more [non-skybox] premium seating.
Just win the next game...!
The other 2 that don’t need a ballpark overhaul are a Cubs TV network and more [non-skybox] premium seating.
And these two are, I believe, on the radar. But it may take several years to put them in place.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
You recently posted the dates the TV contracts are up, but I don't remember when that happens
That would potentially be major $$$$$. The Red Sox became a financial power due to NESN. Have the Phillies implemented a similar network, or is their recent spending just a pure gamble that payroll=winning=higher revenue?
Until the short-term portion of the acquisition debt is paid off and/or the TV take is increased, the operating budget is likely to stay pretty fixed. And while the revenues don’t match the Yankees/Red Sox/Mets, the Cubs are still well above the MLB average.
The Phillies are afflilated with Comcast
as are all Chicago teams. No indy network.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Feb 9, 2011 11:22 AM CST up reply actions
So, does that mean teams in Philly share ownership of network?
For CSN Chicago the ownership breakdown is:
Cubs own 25%
Sox own 25%
Bulls own 25%
Hawks own 25%
Hey, it's a new century!
by cowsarecool220 on Feb 9, 2011 11:39 AM CST up reply actions
I don't know if the Philly teams have an ownership share.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
I'm not sure how accurate Wikipedia is but here are their numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_SportsNet_Chicago
NBCUniversal (20%)
J. Joseph Ricketts Family (20%)
Jerry Reinsdorf (40%)
Rocky Wirtz (20%)
Bulls and Sox = 40% owned by Reinsdorf
NBC U I’m guessing is due to the newly merged Comcast + NBC U
Also are Cubs saying they want their own network and no CSN Chicago?
The Cubs aren't *saying* that, but it seems like a pretty solid idea.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I applaud the goal for the Dominican project.
"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)
Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
That's for those who claim the Cubs are not spending money to build a solid organization.
It takes more than one year to do that.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Hmmm...
Baseball “academy”, Spanish-speaking nation, Latin American ballplayers…
I wonder if they’d have any use for a TEFL-certified guy there? Thinking long-term, it’d probably be great for press relations, don’t you think?
Hey, a Minnesotan can dream, can’t he? Especially when it’s one steenkin’ degree out there!
great job Al
I look forward to the next installments. I only wish there were stories like this that were posted somewhere that could get me excited for the season, and provide me information I can’t get anywhere else. Oh, yah, I’m here.
Good Guys Wear Blue
Thanks Al,
read this with a lot of interest. I especially like (basically) in rebuilding the Cubs from the ground up, a solid base if you will. to compete year in and year out, having the minor league development is key. I just hope they stick with the plan because it just does not happen over night.
We'll miss you Big Boy. #10 for Hall of Fame.
Guess it is not surprising that the Tribune Co would have left a Hollywood house
Looks good from the street, but nothing behind the facade. The company was sliding into bankruptcy and knew from at least 2006 that the team was going to be sold. That doesn’t do much for long-term planning.
Damn Good Job Al
You really pressed for hard to get answers at times and worded it well. I enjoyed this even though I think Ricketts is full of stuffing to some degree.
Thanks.
As noted above, you’ll hear more of this the next two days.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Great interview, Al
Over the last year, there has been a lot of criticism of the Ricketts’ as being cheap and not really interested in winning baseball games. Its my belief, and this interviews is indicative, that the current ownership group is looking to the long term, while not completely blowing off the short term. I do think that it will take a few years to get where they’d really like to be, but the more I hear from tom Ricketts, the more I think they are on the right track.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 9:10 AM CST reply actions
I might be opening a can of worms here.
Al, I applaud you for asking about elder Ricketts’ role with the organization. I haven’t seen that done anywhere or by anybody.
But I don’t really think Tom’s answer was that meaningful or cleared anything up.
Why do you say that?
I think it’s totally clear.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Because of this line:
“He’s interested, he comes to games. He’s part of the family, it’s a family ownership.”
The answer seems like it’s all over the place. He comes to games, but he’s part of the family ownership … I’m not sure what that means.
I mean, we know he’s not involved day-to-day, but we already knew that. I’m still unclear as to elder Ricketts’ involvement with big picture stuff.
It would seem to me...
… that from Tom’s laying out each of his siblings’ responsibilities, and NOT mentioning his father at all, that Joe Ricketts does not get involved with the operation of the team at all.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
by Al Yellon on Feb 9, 2011 9:38 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I can tell I'm pissing you off.
I’ll say one more thing: I think Tom’s comments leave too much to interpretation. I still applaud you for answering the question.
I think its pretty obvious..
That his dad does not really get involved with the team….Kinda like how he was reaching with Todd Ricketts as well..
Pissing me off?
No. I just thought it was answered.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
I see it as him stating
that Joe may be an advisor (what son doesnt goto their dad for advice from time to time) but that he is not a Godfather type figure
Just for my own understanding...
Has there been some sort of issue among pundits/fans about the role of the elder Ricketts, and the general breakdown of leadership hierarchy? I hadn’t heard anything, so that part of the discussion seemed strange to me.
(I don’t mean that as criticism of the interview btw, Al. I enjoyed it overall. I just figured there must have been some background or something I was missing).
by CubsWin!Oregon on Feb 9, 2011 9:57 PM CST up reply actions
It's not really a big issue.
Joe Ricketts is kind of a big figure in the Tea Party movement, and it seemed kind of antithetical for the Cubs to be asking for public funding (almost immediately after the midterm elections) given the outspoken views of their ownership. That’s the “issue”, more or less.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I'm no fan of the Ricketts family in general
but I think YOU are reaching, it seemed pretty clear to me that he said a couple of times that his dad is not very involved.
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
Its stuff like this that will be the only thing we can agree on in regards to Ricketts or the front office.
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
I imagine that he is the one who would have to write a really, really big check if that was needed
And it is the siblings’ job to make sure he doesn’t need to do that. As ong as they do their jobs, he won’t get too involved.
Joe is the patriarch
of the family. As such, his involvement seems obvious. He doesn’t involve himself in the nuts and bolts but rather guides the major planning of the organization.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
See what I mean?
Everybody has a different interpretation of Joe’s involvement and significance with the Cubs. I just wish we had some clarity on this point.
why?
Seriously, why does it matter? I admit that I too am curious about it but aside from personal intrigue, is there any other impact that I’m just not seeing?
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
It's a fair question.
Here’s the thing. I want to LIKE the ownership of the Cubs. At least, I don’t want to think it’s filled with a bunch of hypocritical businesspeople who yell and scream about “borrowing against our grandchildren” while asking for assistance from Springfield to help their own business.
Yes, there are tons of caveats to this (the Cubs were willing to invest as well, a bond issue isn’t the same as direct assistance, etc.). But the Tea Party — which Joe Ricketts supported last year — wants government to get out of the way of business. Small government/reducing government debt is a cornerstone of the movement. I’m not evaluating the merits of that. I’m simply stating a fact.
Anyway, it’s important (to me, at least) to know that the ownership of a team that I spend countless hours and tons of money on each year isn’t run by a family that MIGHT be hypocritical in such an awful, two-faced way. I’m not saying that they are, I’m saying I’d like clarity on the issue.
It comes down to Joe’s involvement with the Cubs and whether the rest of the family (the folks who are making the decisions) share his views. You might say that I shouldn’t root for a team based on its ownership. Well, I don’t play that way.
Fair enough
To me that kinda equates to the “can I sit down and have a beer with the guy” factor. There’s plenty of people in this world (and probably a few here on BCB) that ideologically I differ with significantly. Maybe I don’t see/know those differences right away and/or maybe those differences don’t matter to the task at hand; then again, maybe they do.
But I’d like to think I can at least sit down and have a beer with the guy. And I’d like to think I could do that with Tom or Joe, although Joe strikes me as a scotch guy. ;-)
Of course, my situation is a little different than most in that I’m not spending a lot of money on the Cubs – standing on the street is still free. At least until the city starts to issue “ballhawk licenses” and charges a fee. ;-)
So when it comes to investing money (tickets mostly I guess), yeah I could see where I might be reluctant to provide that kind of ‘support’ if I had some issues with the guy pulling the strings. Or at least I’d want to know more.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
It's also a matter of spending my personal time.
But, yeah, you get why I care about this.
don't give the city any ideas there, ballhawk ;-)
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. -J.R.R. Tolkien
Seriously.
I could see the city wanting to license ballhawks as street performers.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
actually, it could be a good thing
might keep those younger, faster, stronger, taller kids away – more homers for me! ;-)
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
"Guides the major planning of the organization"?
On what basis do you make this claim?
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
We don't know that he does
But, it’s certainly not been refuted either. It stands to reason that IF Joe has a controlling interest that he has a say in big-picture decisions.
Can't say I expect that to happen anytime soon.
Or ever.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
You can.
But I wouldn’t expect him to say what you wanted to hear.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Well, as long as I'm dreaming, this is what I'd love to see Tom say.
“My dad has some strong political opinions. Some of the things he’s talked about and some of the things he’s supported would appear to run counter to the requests we’ve made to the folks in Springfield. We’ve heard those criticisms.
“I love my dad, and I think it’s laudable that he’s politically involved. However, his views on this aren’t ones that I share or my siblings necessarily share. And, ultimately, I am the executive chairman and this was my call.
“Still, it was difficult for us to seek public assistance, even though we strongly feel that this investment would benefit the city of Chicago as much as it would benefit the Cubs. We want to preserve Wrigley for the next generation, and we feel like this is the best way to do it.”
I completely agree
Tom’s a smart guy; I’m sure he’s aware of what the issue is for us Cubs fan. But if the truth is the answer we all want to hear, why not say it?
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
We're really getting into hypotheticals now.
If the truth is something else — Joe is involved in the decision making — well, Tom could say something about how the family believes in public support for private enterprise when the investment is worth it.
He could say that.
But oh, the uproar it would cause.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I don't know.
Would it be worse than where they are now?
"Better to remain silent and thought a fool
than to speak out and remove all doubt."
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I HOPE the fact that they're remaining silent ...
is indicative of bad PR advice and not a confirmation of our worst fears.
I think it's an indication that too many people here are speculating...
… about something they don’t know anything about, aren’t likely to ever know anything about, and that doesn’t really materially affect the Cubs.
It’s mostly about your political beliefs, and that is going to stay out of this forum.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
It's not about political beliefs for me
I really don’t care if the Ricketts’ are being hypocritical. I do think it is interesting that he won’t disclose the true ownership arrangement.
No, Al.
It’s not mostly about political beliefs. That’s a cop out. It’s about political consistency — something I’d like to see in the owners of the team I care about more than any other.
Now, you’re right that we’re debating hypotheticals and not getting anywhere. Which … is why I wish Tom would clear this matter up.
My point was...
… I don’t think it’s a matter to be cleared up. Tom stated clearly who was on the board, what they did and what role his father has — according to what he said, it’s “being interested and coming to a few games.”
Neither you nor I nor anyone else here is privy to the Ricketts’ family finances nor family dynamics. Nor, I argue, is it any of our business.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
"Being interested"
is a clearly defined role?
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
You said more than that in your earlier post.
Anyway, you might be right that the Ricketts won’t go any further in explaining the ownership structure. And what I’m saying is that I really wish they would.
I don’t care about seeing the family books. But knowing the family dynamics as they apply to the team is something I’d like to know more about.
I’d also note that accusing us of political bias wasn’t really called for.
Asserting that we've brought politics into the discussion is the easiest way to end the discussion.
It’s the standard response most people fall back on when they don’t want to debate.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 9, 2011 1:08 PM CST up reply actions
I accused no one of political bias.
But I do believe political VIEWS are coloring this part of the discussion. That doesn’t belong here.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
So saying our 'political views'
are coloring the conversation is different than accusing someone of political bias? How?
It's not about politcial beliefs, Al.
They’re welcome to situate themselves wherever they want in the political spectrum. What doesn’t jive with some of us is the hypocrisy of donating money to politicians/organizations that are against political spending and then turning around and asking the state for money.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Baseball, like all sports
is full of ‘conservatives’, from the players to the owners. All of whom will profess to supporting ‘conservative’ values while doing things and supporting things that have in many cases contradicted those values.
I’d neither be shocked nor even a bit surprised if Joe was the final say on everything and tried to pry money out of the state with one hand and funded folks who want to reduce the amount of government on the other. Self interest rules, and the Ricketts’ interests rule more since money is speech in this country.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Feb 9, 2011 8:29 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not interested in bringing overarching political ideals into this discussion
My focus is solely on the “ending spending fund.” How Joe feels about health care or the war or whatever is irrelevant to me.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Not really 'overarching'
As much as ‘Does this benefit the Ricketts’ regardless of their politics?
It does, therefore they will.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Feb 9, 2011 8:40 PM CST up reply actions
And they might not say something like that ...
because they a) wrongly believe that it’s no one’s business b) haven’t figured out how bad it looks to say nothing c) feel like the situation is too difficult to explain in a way that will help.
He's said exactly the opposite. He supports his Dad's political views.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
I thought he didn't go into that much detail.
Someone could, for instance, support Obama’s political views GENERALLY but disagree on a key issue like closing Guantanamo Bay.
Stated only as an example and not as something I necessarily agree or disagree with.
That's too bad
as it underlines the hypocritical nature of his approach to Wrigley
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
it's not just his dad by the way
There are plenty of Ricketts involved in politics.
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
That's what patriarchs do
None of the children sold any stock to come up with the cash to complete the purchase of the Cubs.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
It didn't at all
“Family ownership” really doesn’t mean anthing.
Is it wholly owned by a family trust of which the family members are beneficiaries?
Or, do each of the individual family members have shares? How many does each have?
We don't know.
Nor, I would argue, is that any of our business.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Ok
Well don’t act like he cleared it all up then. If Papa Ricketts has a majority ownership of the team, despite who runs the day-to-day operations of the team, he has the final say.
You're speculating.
I’d argue it doesn’t matter who “owns” the most “shares”, if there are any — it was clear to me that Tom Ricketts and his siblings run the show.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Uh
I think you are being naive. Papa Ricketts is a businessman. If he is the majority owner of the team, he is not going to let them bleed money. If he doesn’t have input now, he will eventually.
This is exactly what I was talking about.
Ricketts’ answers did nothing but fuel preconceived notions. JSB and I are in the camp that Papa Ricketts has to have SOME involvement with the Cubs given his financial stake. This, of course, is important because of his support of the Tea Party and the Cubs’ request for public assistance. And let’s not get into the weeds on the details of the offer — the point is that the Cubs DID ask Springfield for help.
Al, on the other hand, believes that Papa Ricketts is so removed from the Cubs that it doesn’t matter if he sends money to Sharron Angle while the team asks Springfield for help. I’d be happy to be proved wrong. I’m just saying that Tom’s answers didn’t clear anything up.
There will be some comments from Tom Ricketts on the bond issue in tomorrow's part II.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
But wouldn't that go to show that Joe Ricketts has little involvement?
What the Cub organization did was antithetical to the Tea Party movement. I’m not sure what your criticism is here. Tom Ricketts essentially said his dad’s involvement is limited and that would be a good example.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 10:48 AM CST up reply actions
That's an interesting thought ...
but it only works if you totally discount the idea that a successful businessman (or business family) couldn’t possibly say one thing and do another.
it works if
you believe the idea that elder Ricketts is involved only passively (monetarily contributing, but having the confidence in his children to run and handle the operations) and his children have different political beliefs than him
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 9, 2011 10:53 AM CST up reply actions
i'm not convinced either way
i think rational arguments can be made for either side as a possibility.
I dont think you can definitively say one way or the other what the elder Ricketts role is. The role is either intentionally left murky because the family wants the impression that this is the children’s project, when its not OR its described in a way that suggests his role is minimal… because it actually is the children’s project and it is minimal
i dont think you can definitively know which is which, that’s something only the family probably knows
The one thing that is clear is that they want the fans to believe the father’s interest in the Cubs is purely monetary and not operational.
You can choose to believe them or not
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 9, 2011 11:01 AM CST up reply actions
"Only the family knows"
That sounds ominous, but, it is a family business. It is not a public company and as such they can choose to divulge what they’d like.
My hunch is that roles aren’t strictly defined and enforced because it’s family and there are actual relationships involved here.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 11:06 AM CST up reply actions
I largely agree.
That’s why I made my initial post. Tom’s comments really said nothing about his dad’s role with the team. It was vague — whether it was purposeful or not.
I’ve been hoping that something would come out about the Ricketts that would lessen the distaste that I have regarding Joe’s support of the Tea Party/the team seeking a bond issue. The comments published today, IMO, didn’t provide any new information.
Who says the Cubs are bleeding money?
The Cubs took on significant debt when the Ricketts bought them. The Cubs had no large under the Tribune. The team needs balance operating expenses, paying down the debt, and future capital expenditures. There’s a reason why they hired a CFO.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 1:25 PM CST up reply actions
as I stated before
I see this as meaning that Joe is there to offer advice but the buck ultimately stops with the kids.
Case in point, my brother and I own a farm in my hometown (I dont do much but help with financials and financing), our father, who also owns a farm, will occasionally come by, help out, he takes an interest, etc…
Do you think my Dad is calling the shots at my farm?
I don't.
But I also don’t think we know enough about the Ricketts to say whether their situation is all that similar to yours.
very true
here is the way I look at…unless you are a season ticket holder and dont sell any games, there are other things that you spend WAAAAAAY much more money on with fewer details on how they may be politically involved…
by hansman1982 on Feb 9, 2011 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Fair point.
Doesn’t mean I’m still not curious, though.
same here
I would LOVE to spend a week shadowing Tommy Boy all day, but sadly that will never happen
This is obviously completely different.
To use your analogy, this would be as if your father had PURCHASED a farm, and you ran the farm while your dad continued to live in the city.
Joe himself explained that Tom had to come to him for the money to buy the Cubs. And it was Joe who sold a major stake in TDAmeritrade for the down payment.
Obviously, Joe is in the process of transferring much of his wealth to his kids through the trust mechanism. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t hold a controlling interest in this venture. He does.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Feb 9, 2011 5:28 PM CST up reply actions
Controlling financial interest doesn't mean he makes any decisions.
Once again, this is all speculation and guessing. Tom Ricketts told me who makes what decisions on the team board. Does that mean Joe doesn’t express his opinion? Of course not. I just don’t see why this is such a big deal to some.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
It doesn't mean he DOES. It means he CAN, when he wants to.
I seriously doubt that Joe Ricketts is even mildly involved in the Cubs day-to-day, or even month-to-month, operations.
However, if he, say, wanted to sell the team, he could do so.
For that matter, he could take action on any other decision thy he may decide benefits the Ricketts or the Cubs.
Tom Ricketts runs the Cubs. But it is at the discretion of Joe Ricketts.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Feb 9, 2011 8:52 PM CST up reply actions
he didnt give us the down payment
(does anyone know how much Joe gave for the down payment?) but under your scenario he holds a 51%+ stake in the Cubs…do we have proof of this?
This is ridiculous
Al asked 10+ questions on the structure of ownership and senior management. A Congessional sub-committee would not have gone into this much detail.
If you want blood from a stone, go pound it yourself!
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 2:57 PM CST up reply actions
Ease off.
If you’ll notice, I praised Al for asking the question. I said I would like to know more. The discussion evolved from there. This is a blog — things can happen like that.
And, sadly, I don’t have access to the team’s executive chairman, so I can’t ask him. Generally, I like the job the Ricketts are doing with the team. But I would like to know more about Joe Ricketts’ role given his ARDENT political views.
What’s wrong with that?
OK - what question would you ask?
And if Tom assures you that he never discusses the Cubs with his father, how do you know that he doesn’t call him 5 minutes after the interview?
Short of waterboarding, I don’t think you would be satisfied with any answer.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 3:22 PM CST up reply actions
Your political views are obviouly coloring this part of the discussion.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 9, 2011 3:30 PM CST up reply actions
I didn't bring politics into this
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 3:38 PM CST up reply actions
How did they get here then?
Allright, which one of you clowns left all these politics in here?
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 9, 2011 3:40 PM CST up reply actions
Sigh. OK, here's what I'd ask:
EG: Tom, given your father’s strong political views, how did he feel, and was he consulted, about the decision to ask Springfield to help with renovating Wrigley?
I doubt you would get a satisfactory answer to that question
I think the reponse could go something like this:
Tom: First, let me clarify that we wanted The State of Illinois to assist us with the funding mechanism to renovate Wrigley Field and keep the Chicago Cubs playing there for the next 100 years. I did not discuss the proposal with my father, but I would think that he would approve of this type of public-private joint venture to restore a historic landmark.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 3:46 PM CST up reply actions
This is where Al tells you that you're merely speculating and none of us can ever really know what the answer would be.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 9, 2011 3:48 PM CST up reply actions
At least I'll admit I'm speculating
Or prospecting, cold-calling, etc.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 3:50 PM CST up reply actions
Where have I said I'm not speculating?!
I’ve said ALL day that I’d like more clarity.
Wasn't referring to you
Al had mentiuoned specualting earlier. But I don’t think in respoinse to you.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 3:55 PM CST up reply actions
Why wouldn't that be 'satisfactory'?
All I’m saying is that I would love for someone to ask Tom that question — so we could get clarity on Joe, his role with the team and how he affected the request to the state. I don’t see why asking for more info is overly demanding or colored by my personal political views.
It’s a tough question — no doubt. But it’s one I wish would be asked.
If you like my "speculative answer"
then I doubt you would get it. I would not be suprised if the Wrigley renovations and Joe Ricketts insertion into that debate was a sore subject with Tom Ricketts.
Maybe this is a topic that Al had on tap for part II or III.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 3:58 PM CST up reply actions
I'm giving 100:1 odds against that being the case.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 9, 2011 4:00 PM CST up reply actions
I'm Tom Ricketts and I will short your position!
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 4:01 PM CST up reply actions
Why does my like or dislike of your speculative answer ...
have anything to do with the likelihood that TR might say?
Truthfully
if you like it, it means I was too definitive. And if the subject is a sore topic with the Ricketts’, then the answer would not be that clear. Just speculating though.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 4:03 PM CST up reply actions
Tom Ricketts HAS been asked this question.
On WTTW, he tried to draw a distinction between getting money from the state, and his father’s campaign against federal earmarks. The host was less than impressed. Then they moved on.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Feb 9, 2011 5:34 PM CST up reply actions
Do you have a link?
I’m not questioning you, I’d just like to see the original source.
Here.
http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=42,8,80,32&pid=zJm9G_Dui_L__xuBW69yNXvTJd_jJBd6
There’s also a direct quote from the president of Taxpayers Against Earmarks out there on the web.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Feb 9, 2011 8:21 PM CST up reply actions
That's not a hard distinction to make
Earmarks: Funds from the U.S. Treasury that are appropriated by Congress to be spent on specific named projects.
Funding for the Wrigley Renovations: utilizing a portion of the Amusement Tax on Cubs tickets to pay for the bonds to fund the Wrigley Renovation.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 7:13 PM CST up reply actions
That's a rather disingenuous and/or incomplete summary of the bond proposal.
It’s also a little ridiculous to spend millions campaigning against government spending, and then when asked about your OWN requests for government spending, to say “well, I didn’t mean THAT government….”
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Feb 9, 2011 8:19 PM CST up reply actions
Disingenuous
is when a Representative or Senator says he will vote for a bill when they attach some tax credit or bogus spending project to benefit his district or state.
The Cubs at least asked for a straight up or down vote and did not try to hide their request in some other bill.
I live in Cook County, but not in Chicago anymore. I attend Cubs games and therefore pay the onerous 12% Amusement tax. I personally would prefer that some portion of the tax that I pay on Cubs tickets were to go towards renovating Wrigley Field.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 8:34 PM CST up reply actions
I think you are barking up the wrong tree here
The team acted in a way that goes against what Joe Ricketts has publicly stated. Had it acted in a way that was in-line with his thinking, I think that you could have a point. There is no reason to believe that Joe Ricketts is an active executive in the management of the Cubs.
However, in response to comments made up above, I don’t think that your political leanings on this are clouding your judgement. I’m not sure what your views on Tea Party and Public Financing are and they aren’t disclosed here. That’s good. This isn’t a political blog.
Furthermore, and I don’t think that Al would like this, but when discussing the ownership of the Cubs and to the extent that they open the door to the political, I think politics is fair game. These owners are the ones that went to IL government to ask for public financing. That makes it fair game to discuss the philosophy of the organization and public financing when a member of the ownership group is being interviewed. A discussion on say Civil Unions would of course be off limits.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 4:20 PM CST up reply actions
Furthermore, and I don’t think that Al would like this, but when discussing the ownership of the Cubs and to the extent that they open the door to the political, I think politics is fair game. These owners are the ones that went to IL government to ask for public financing. That makes it fair game to discuss the philosophy of the organization and public financing when a member of the ownership group is being interviewed. A discussion on say Civil Unions would of course be off limits.
Sure. Discussing that part of it is fine, as long as you don’t resort to personal attacks.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Well, I'm very confused.
I believe that what jerry said in the graph you quoted is precisely what we were doing earlier. But you said that those comments were “mostly about your political beliefs, and that is going to stay out of this forum.”
Please explain what comments from me (and other posters) were mostly about my (or our) political beliefs. That was a charged statement that you should back up. At the very least, you owe it to regular posters to explain the distinction you’re making, IMO.
Note that at NO point did I attack anybody personally.
Dude...
Rabbit. Hole.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 9, 2011 5:12 PM CST up reply actions
In discussing the proposal for the financing....
.. I think that’s fair game. Dancing around “How much does Joe Ricketts know about Cubs operations” isn’t.
See the difference?
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
I made a comment that I wanted clarification.
And I explained why I wanted it. Why does that fall into ANYTHING that you consider over the line?
I don't see that difference at all.
In a 12-month period, Joe Ricketts sold off half a billion dollars worth of his Ameritrade stock to buy the Cubs, then spent a half-million dollars loudly and transparently supporting the Tea Party, and then the Cubs – the organization purchased by his family with his money – asked the state for $300 million dollars.
It naturally follows to wonder how much involvement Joe Ricketts may have had with the bond issue proposal. It’s weird not to wonder. And it’s not “political” to wonder. It’s absolutely and totally fair game.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Feb 9, 2011 5:37 PM CST up reply actions
Cui Bono?
If the Tea Party gains a majority in Congress and/or the White House through the vehicle of the GOP, undoubtedly estate taxes will be further reduced, and the Bush tax cuts will be made permanent, both of which benefit the Ricketts.
If money is appropriated for the Cubs to modernize Wrigley, the Ricketts benefit.
So it’s absolutely possible that both things are true. I’ll say lots of stuff on both sides if it gets me more money.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Feb 9, 2011 8:33 PM CST up reply actions
That's certainly what I'm positing.
In fact, it seems perfectly logical. A bit hypocritical, but definitely logical.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Feb 9, 2011 8:54 PM CST up reply actions
I'm sure that Joe rarely deals with day-to-day team issues.
That’s Tom’s job as Chairman.
As the holder of a controlling stake of the Ricketts Trust, Joe’s role is different. He was directly involved in the purchase of the team, he’d be involved in truly big-issue decisions, and he’d be directly involved in the sale of the team. I imagine that he was involved at some level w/r/t the bond issue – it would be strange if he wasn’t.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown
by D98 on Feb 9, 2011 5:33 PM CST up reply actions
Al gave it a shot and Tom danced around it.
There’s only so much you can do. No one’s criticizing Al.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Feb 9, 2011 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
You say Tom danced around, but you weren't in the room
Al is not saying that Tom danced around it and he was in the room.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 3:23 PM CST up reply actions
I think
Al tapdanced around that part of the interview as opposed to the Tom doing a waltz…obviously neither one made sense and both felt a fool afterwards and vowed never to mention it
If you believe that this is a definitive answer
He’s interested, he comes to games. He’s part of the family, it’s a family ownership.
Then we’re going to have to disagree. I think it’s open to a lot of interpretation.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what question that answer actually answers....
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 9, 2011 3:43 PM CST up reply actions
Definitive for how long?
It’s a private, family-owned business. Not a corporation. not a government entity. They can change their roles and decision making process from week to week. And you may never know it.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 3:52 PM CST up reply actions
Nicely done
I am glad to hear the word consistency from TR. I do as well believe the best way to have consistant play at the ML level is to always be able to feed the team with solid young players.
Is it April yet?
He keeps talking about investing in the amateur draft and the farm..
Yet his actions say the exact opposite. He drafted a 5th round talent in the first round when there was Top 5-10 talent still on the board (and at positions that are in dire need in this organization), and then he trades 4 prospects, two of who are top 50, for a slightly-better-than-league average starter who’s due roughly $30M over the next 3 years and will likely be extended further. All the while they relegated Cashner to the bullpen so he fell way short of the innings threshold he need to meet in 2010, and moving BJack off of CF to a corner where his value plummets.
I don’t trust his word anymore than that of a politician; his actions have to start matching rhetoric.
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
by Mish on Feb 9, 2011 10:10 AM CST reply actions 3 recs
Wait.
Tom Ricketts made these deals? No, his baseball people made them.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
And that makes it defensible?
Awful decisions are awful decisions, and he’s holding the reigns.
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
This really isn't a retort to what I posted
So if he has no control over these things, it’s cool that he can basically lie thru his teeth then?
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
So you honestly believe he had ZERO say in the organization's approach to the draft?
NONE?
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
Yes.
What, you think he sits in Tim Wilken’s office and tells him who to draft?
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
So there is NO middle ground between ZERO input and sitting in Wilken's office and telling him who to draft?
You can’t really be dumb enough to think that the man who controls the purse strings has ZERO discussions about who to draft. Not a SINGLE meeting or strategy session.
In fact I KNOW you aren’t that dumb you just don’t want to concede a premise that you don’t like
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
The Garza trade wasn't simply a "baseball" trade
It involved organization strategy. If Ricketts wasn’t involved in the decision-making process, he should have been.
Come on Al...
Are you really making this argument? Is Hendry is willingly going against exactly what Ricketts says is ‘the plan’, why does Hendry have a job?
Because he has a contract and not paying two people
is more important than winning.
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
Couple questions:
1) By all reports, Cashner is being given a fair shot at making the rotation this season. Does that mitigate your concern in this area?
2) What evidence do you have that Brett Jackson is being moved to a corner spot? Serious question — I haven’t heard or read anything to that effect.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
IIRC, just look at the games he played away from CF last year
I don’t know if it’s an ‘organizational’ decision, but IIRC he played a nontrivial number of games in RF last year in the minors.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. -- Bruce Bartlett
Games in RF don't bother me
The team believes in flexibility. I’d like him to get a ‘non-trivial’ amount in RF in the minors. And in center. He will probably play both in the bigs. Unless his arm is too weal in right. That, we would only know if he plays there.
Left Field appearances? Ugh.
By virtue of the defensive spectrum
A competent CF will be able to handle the corners easily; indeed, it’s hard to find many plus CFs who struggled mightily in a corner (outside of aging/injury issues, obv)
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
For me,
Jackson’s arm is a bit of a question mark. If he plays 120 games in the minors this year, hopefully 90 starts will be in center. If the organization still wants to see about his arm in right, some can be there. Left field starts for BJax make no sense.
But almost all of his practice reps should be in center.
by timh815 on Feb 9, 2011 10:36 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, I now see that...
…once he got to AA, he played 18 in RF, 20 in CF and 17 LF. I’ve read that there are concerns he may outgrow CF.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Concerns about one day?
Sure. Torii Hunter can’t play CF anymore either. But that day for Jackson isn’t today.
I was told
by someone who would know that the reason Jackson didn’t play all center field last season was because they wanted Brandon Guyer and Tony Campana to also get experience in CF and it had nothing to do a lack of faith in Jackson’s ability. That paid off by increasing Guyer’s trade value.
Thank you.
We may very well see Jackson back in CF for Iowa this year. Also, Jackson got a spring training invite — I bet he plays CF in some of the early games.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Responses
1) it’s not about a shot at the rotation, it’s about building up arm strength. Cashner was a college closer, so he didn’t build much strength there. Since 2008, his IP count: 19.3, 100.1, 111.1. Cashner is 25, and will be entering his peak years. It was imperative to get around 140 -150 IP in 2010 so that by 2012, he can start approaching a 200 IP count as a starter. By not improving in 2010, he’ll have to be watched more closely than otherwise. This is not considering lost time and developing secondary material.
2) He was pushed to teh corners in the latter half of the season, I’m trying to find a link
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
Thanks.
I see what you mean about Cashner. I want him to get every opportunity to be a starter as well, but my guess is the team would say they just desperately needed his arm in the bullpen last season.
And, about Jackson, it still seems a little early to say, definitively, that he’s been pushed to a corner. It looks to me like they just want him to be flexible, as timh815 mentioned above.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Fair responses
It’s just that these are signs you don’t want to see when these are two guys you expect to be main cogs for the team for the better part of this decade
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
The left field thing is a bit of a mystery.
I could see him needing some time there to get a feel for the angles, throws, etc. But that does seem like a lot.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Cashner should be a starter in 2011
That probably means Iowa, which would be fine. If injuries, trades, or ineffectiveness from others require starters other than Z, Garza, Demp, Wells, Silva, my pecking order would have Casey Coleman (who should also be starting) getting called on before Cashner.
That's pretty much how I see it as well.
Silva gets the fifth spot until he tanks/gets injured, at which time Cashner would move in. I’m not sure how Coleman fits in to your thinking, though. Cashner’s upside is so much higher. Do you mean Coleman would take the fifth spot after Silva goes down until Cashner is ready?
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
I have Coleman starting in Wrigley
before Cashner. I want Cashner to get innings. If he gets an earlier call that Coleman (totally capable of 6 innings and 4 ER most starts), Cashner may get cuffed around. 2.2 inning starts aren’t what I want from AC.
The caveat there is, if nobody is needed until (say) early-June and the Cubs are looking competitive, it changes. Then, call up the guy that looks like he will get the job done the best.
Cashner needs as many six inning starts as he can get in 2011 to prove where he should be in 2012. I want those starts in Iowa until necessary.
I wouldn’t object to Carpenter and/or JJax getting called up first, in reality. Especially Carpenter. They both have to get the call by November for the Rule 5 Dratf reasons. McNutt does not. Trey should only be called up if we are in the heat of a pennant race, as he doesn’t need to be added to the 40 Man by November, as he is exempted from the upcoming Rule 5 draft. And if he remains off the 40 man, he can play during a potential 2012 strike.
OK, I see what you mean and that makes sense.
It may be a tough sell with some fans/media to leave Cashner in Iowa that long, but I’d agree that his upside is worth it.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
If it comes up,
I hope that someone explains it that way. It might be objected to, but when a (valid or not-so-valid) argument is repeated enough times, it becomes more easy to assess.
Cashner
1) Was only a reliever his junior season in college. He was a starter before that.
2) As I said, a lot of that was to get reps in CF for Guyer and Campana. Also to get Jackson used to playing all fields, which just is good sense.
Hmmm
I don’t agree with you. Anyone can take a few examples and spin them in a variety of ways.
First of all, while he did say that you should develop a farm system, he didn’t say you shouldn’t trade it away for established ML players when that could benefit you. As for Garza being ML average, that’s not everyone’s consensus.
Second, in regards to Cashner, it is way too early to say they are developing him incorrectly. I believe that a spot in the rotation is a Cubs priority, but he’s probably still at least a year away from being able to handle 200 innings. If he’s not in the rotation on Opening Day 2012, I’d agree with you.
Bjax moving to a corner outfield spot is probably because of Scuzur. Their value together is what should be looked at.
You have completely omitted all the dollars that the Cubs have spent in Latin America on improving the facilities and in signing talent.
Finally, while Cubs fans hate to hear this, development of an organization and talent takes time in baseball. i see no reason why the Ricketts family shouldn’t be given the opportunity to have some breathing room to do it.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 10:22 AM CST up reply actions
No reason to move Jackson now
You don’t move a guy off a premium position unless he can’t field it anymore. Way too much can happen between now and whenever Szczur is ready for MLB to make the move now.
Unless they think he'd be better served in the corner
Have you scouted him? I haven’t and I know that development is forward looking rather than current situation. He’s young. Perhaps they think that 5 years from now, CF won’t be a good fit for him. I have no reason to believe that this move isn’t in the team’s or Bjax’s best interests long term.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 10:51 AM CST up reply actions
Even if he can't stick in CF
There’s no reason to move the kid off the spot now. It hurts his value and makes him less marketable in a trade. Also, again, his skillset profiles to average at best in a corner, but excellent in CF. The scarcity of good offense at a premium position cannot be ignored.
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
Let's see where he winds up this year before opening the complaint department.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Then why talk about baseball this far in advance?
We are fans, and voicing disapproval is still allowed, I’m sure.
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
Sure.
But you could be complaining about something that doesn’t need to be complained about.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
I'll never understand this 'wait to see what happens before we discuss it' schtick you keep pushing.
Especially since it’s almost always about something that is ‘negative’.
I don’t think Mish was complaining. In fact, I think he raises a good point. And I think it’s fair game to discuss this now after seeing that Jackson was splitting time between all three outfield positions once he got to AA.
It's not that one can't talk about it
it’s the forming or iron-clad opinions before all the facts have been laid out or before things have had a chance to mature. It’ not the “talking about” that’s the concern, at least from my end.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 11:31 AM CST up reply actions
Re-read Mish's post that Al replied to.
This isn’t like saying Garza will be a bust. He simply said that there’s no reason to move him NOW because all it does is lower his potential trade value. I doubt you can find one reasonable mind to disagree with that statement.
He didn’t blast the Cubs or say that Jackson will flame out. He simply pointed out that keeping him in CF this year is the better choice.
It is. And it’s completely reasonable to discuss that now. That’s what the off-season is for.
But there is a reason to move him NOW
They could honestly feel that he would be better served by the move. They may feel that a corner spot is in his best interests. I just doubt that the Cub scouting department has done this in order to harm his long term value.
Again, I’m not saying you shouldn’t express your opinion, but what I’m saying is that you shoudl recognize that there is a lot going on with Bjax that you probably don’t know about. If you kn3w those things, you might agree with the Cubs. You don’t know that it is a bad idea. You just think it is and, perhaps on the information you have been presented, you may be right, but you don’t know everything.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 12:01 PM CST up reply actions
If he can't stick at CF in AA, then his value as a prospect takes a significant hit.
My entire point before was that this is a perfectly legitimate topic to discuss right now. Your reasonable post is just proof of that.
I never said it wasn't reasonable to discuss
I said it was unreasonable to conclude that it is a mistake.
“Can’t stick in CF” – Who says he can’t? Just because he’s being moved doens’t mean he can’t stick somewhere but simply that he could be a better fit elsewhere.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 12:12 PM CST up reply actions
Why would you move someone from CF to a corner spot unless they couldn't cut it in CF?
Although, this is the Cubs, so maybe I shouldn’t expect them to make sense here.
Same thing with Cashner – why take him out of a starting role unless they feel he can’t stick as a big league starter? Slowing a top prospect’s development because the big league club needs bullpen help in a 90 loss year? Meh. At least early indications are pointing to giving him a chance to start again this year.
Maximize value. That shouldn’t be too mind-blowing of a concept (this isn’t directed at you, jerry).
Why move a guy form CF?
Because they feel it’s best for the organization. Maybe they think he should get used to a corner spot now instead of waiting.
Lots and lots of major league starting pitchers have been moved to the bullpen to begin their career prior to being inserted into the rotation. This has been a White Sox tactic for years and has not impacted their development at all.
“Maximize value” – I think that depends on the time frame. I agree with you that Bjax’s value, right now, is best maximized if he stays in CF. However, I’m not convinced that that is the best maximization of his value a few years from now. I’m not overly concerned with Bjax’s value right now. I’m much more concerned with his value 5 years from now, assuming it’s still in a Cub uni.
I’m not saying what they are doing is right. I’m simply saying that I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they are trying tom maximize his long term value.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 12:27 PM CST up reply actions
Thank you
And my opinions are not iron clad, but I’m very passionate and sincere about those beliefs. Look, it’s not like this organization (pre-Ricketts) has done anything to the point where I give them the benefit of the doubt, or take a wait-and-see approach. I will give Ricketts every opportunity to right the ship, but nothing he has done makes me think that he’s any better a steward than the Tribune Company was.
If this was a perenially successful organization, I’d definitely cut them more slack.
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
"Perennially successful"
The Cubs have not been – no argument there. But the Ricketts team has only had this thing for one year. Your frustration with prior ownership should not cloud your opinion of Ricketts. it’s a new game in town.
I’m glad to hear that you feel your opinions are not iron clad. I hope you do have an open mind on this, because, right now, the available evidence is in it’s toddler phase at best. I’m not saying that this baby won’t become a crack addicted, perennially incarcerated adult, but we just don’t know yet and it’s foolish to predict.
Honestly, I’m not an apologist for Ricketts, but in my reading of all of this, the evidence so far for me has been positive.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 12:08 PM CST up reply actions
I look at the same evidence and don't find much to have faith in
To each his own
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
I think you are picking and choosing what you look at
I don’t think you are giving proper weight to the positives and over-emphasizing the negatives.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 12:59 PM CST up reply actions
And I don't feel that way at all
And I’m befuddled that you’re optimistic about anything the Ricketts have done. SO we’re even.
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
You mean like increasing the front office
scouting departments and investment in the minor leagues?
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 1:37 PM CST up reply actions
That one ballihood "stats guy" they hired...
Was met with collective laughter among most saberists.
Expanding the FO is nice, but they had the 2nd smallest FO as of 2009 according to an NBC news article. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/Cubs-Must-Improve-Front-Office-First-55079742.html
Strikes me more as keeping up with the joneses as all.
Again, not everything they’ve done is bad, but taken in totality, the overall picture is murky at best, and I tend to look down upon more than most.
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
I don't know that it's murky
It simply needs time. This doesn’t happen overnight. it is simply too early to make any generalizations or conclusions.
At this point, I have no reason to believe that the long term development of this organization is in peril.
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 3:14 PM CST up reply actions
I know it takes time. I've been advocating a full rebuild for a while now
See my above post on Cashner’s development. As for Matt Garza, you might want to actually look at his statistics. He’s never posted a FIP below 4, and his peripherals aren’t jawdropping. He’s better than average and will get a boost in the NL, but he’s not appreciably better (if at all better) than Dempster or Z, and he cost several prospects just to get. Garza trade would make sense if we need 2-3 wins to take teh division; the trade just puts us in the higher 70 of wins.
BJack was playing corner prior to Sczuzr being signed, but that’s besides the point. BJack can be a special, all-star caliber player in CF; his skillset doesn’t profile nearly as well in a corner and eats into his value significantly, leaving him as an averagish Corner OF.
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
re full rebuild
I get the concept, but you don’t do a full rebuild with those kind of seat prices. There were way too many empty seats last year. I’m not blaming people that didn’t show. The Cubs make no parking money or beer sales from invisible fans.
While I haven’t been to Wrigley in ‘a while’, I consider a full-out rebuild an insult to season-ticket holders.
I've looked at Garza's stats
I’ve also read what many scouts have said about him – that hes still has upside and an ability to improve. I stand by my assertion that it is not consensus that Garza is near league average. Lots of people think he’s much better than that.
Have you scouted Bjax? I get that this is your pinion, but do you honestly think that the experts in the Cub organization have intentionally harmed his value? Can you even consider the fact that they might have more information than you do?
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 10:57 AM CST up reply actions
i'll disagree
i dont think there’s a conclusion on his actions yet
You mention the Simpson pick as a 5th rd talent (which was the initial reaction, most of which has subsided). Some are calling it a great pick, some are calling it a reach. I think it’s inconclusive to suggest the result of that pick or the purpose for it. If the cubs believed he was the top guy and he wouldn’t last to their next pick… and they picked him… i dont see how you can complain
In addition you say he’s done the exact opposite of investing in the draft and the farm:
- what about spending the extra capital on Szczur?
- what about developing the dominican facility?
- what about the extra spending on the Cuban players?
Look, i’m not saying he’s definitively kept his word on everything he’s said. I just think its still inconclusive. Those trying to draw conclusions right now are trying to do so from extremely small samples (and generally ignoring any evidence contrary to their opinion).
Its like making a judgment on a young player based on just his rookie season. We don’t know enough yet.
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 9, 2011 10:45 AM CST up reply actions
I'd have to agree here
However, it is going to be a tough battle b/c as I and others have pointed out, most fans are fed up with rhetoric and just want a winning baseball team. As I have said earlier, why is it that the Cardinals – in “little ol’ St. Louis” – have for over 50 years been smarter, won more championships, Division Titles, and had winning records while “large-market Chicago Cubs” (although not according to Tom right now) have not done squat relative to them?
From top-to-bottom their organization know what they are doing – and a stroke of luck now and then doesn’t help.
There is no way for the Ricketts to just field a AAAA squad and rebuild. The fans, and dumb-ass STH/addicts like myself will not be able to take losing for an extended period of time.
Right now, we are all paying Red Sox prices (since Crane Kenny has modled the Cubs after the Red Sox) but not reaping the most important aspect: winning championships.
We will all meet again here a year from now and can re-evaluate.
from top to bottom the organization was stronger (STL compared to CHC)
Ricketts indicated as much by suggesting all of the overhauling that has had to have been done
We’ve added scouts, we’ve added statistical analysis, we’re improving facilities
all of that stuff is going to have long-term effects on the Cubs ability to consistently contend, but they’re unlikely to have effects in the first 1-2 years. People need to take a MUCH longer approach to assessing this stuff than they’re willing to, which is a problem more consistent with cubs fandom since ’03
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 9, 2011 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 7 recs
Impressive, DCF
My thoughts exactly. I’m sympathetic to Tom and the Ricketts family because I’m a CEO. It takes 3-5 years to retool an organization, and that’s under the best of circumstances. So far Tom and the Ricketts have earned my benefit of the doubt, much as I understand fans’ impatience.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. -J.R.R. Tolkien
St. Louis may be heading
for a precipitous fall. Milwaukee needs their two 1st to hit or they may be also. Pittsburgh is on the uptick, but I don’t think they will be serious contenders in the NLC for awhile. Houston is a trainwreck.
Going to 2012 and beyond, Chicago and Cinci are probably the two main competitors in the NLC. Decisions going forward should be made to make us a legit NLC contender in 2012 and beyond.
which equals
“batting 3rd and playing first base – ALLLLLLLLLBERT PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUJOLS”
Not if it's 8 years at $30M per
Don’t want.
by Shanghai Badger on Feb 9, 2011 11:41 AM CST up reply actions
To get the best righthanded hitter in the history of the game?
Might be the key to a Cub-dominated decade of the 2010s.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
I would imagine
the team could pay for some of his 30 mil rather quickly with Jersey Revenues and increased ticket sales.
Bobbleheads!
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 1:15 PM CST up reply actions
I'm thinking that could be a big seller in StL too when the Cubs visit
only it’d be a different finger extended…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Futures contracts on Pujols as a Cubs HR balls from Waveland!
Buy! Buy! Buy!
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 1:45 PM CST up reply actions
8 at $30 per
isnt too scary if you front load the contract a bit, an extra 5 mil for the first 4 to pay him $20 mil a year for the last 2…campaign like hell to get the DH and you get value production each year
Simpson is still generally not regarded as a good pick
His absence from Cubs prospect listings should be one red flag. I understand getting your “man”, but drafting 179 spots overslot seems foolish, especially considering there was top tier talent (Josh Sale, Justin O’COnnor, Zach Cox) still available, and all of those guys offer something the Cubs absolutely lack – an impact bat. Hayden doesn’t fill a serious need. There’s still a collective WTF? from all the major prospectors out there (Goldstein, Sickels, Callis) on the pick. I think that’s plenty of grounds to complain.
The facility in the DR is nice, but we have no idea if it will have any added benefit. Spending on Sczuzr was nice, yes, but it doesn’t show a commitment to the farm by any means.
I agree the jury is still out to some extent, but every Cubs fans should be wary of buying the crap the Ticketts are pushing.
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
Everyone should be wary
I am for sure, but your writing most certainly does not indicate that the “jury is still out”. You even caveat that statement with “to some extent”.
I’ll ask you this, it it’s only “to some extent”, on what points is “the jury not out”? Where has Ricketts slammed the door shut to the point where he has proven to be what you purport he is?
by jerry morales rules on Feb 9, 2011 11:01 AM CST up reply actions
you speak in definitives
when assessing the negatives
and questionables when assessing the positives
Simpson was definitively a bad pick or an overdraft
The DR facility is nice, but we have no idea if it will add any benefit
That’s slanting the argument considerably when in reality neither things are definitives at this point, which is why its going to take a lot more time to evaluate the Ricketts family ownership.
You’ve clearly already made up your mind. If you’re going to interpret every possible negative as a certainty and every possible positive as just a possibility, your mind won’t be changed.
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 9, 2011 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
There's already evidence that the Simpson pick was bad...
Based on prospect rankings and the like, both for minor leagues as a whole and individual systems. Players taken after him are being ranked significantly higher. And of course, Hayden has already unfortunately had some health issues, though I doubt they derail him long term.
Excuse me for being less-than-rosy on the DR facility; it’s a lot harder to tie tangible value as a result of an international training facility than it is on a prospect who has some actionable data about him.
I haven’t made up my mind completely, but I think there’s plenty of evidence there to make you wary. I’ve applauded all the smart moves, and I thought Ricketts ahd a great offseason until the Garza trade.
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
he wasn't ranked high
because he didn’t pitch last year….
follow me on twitter for fantasy sports analysis @http://twitter.com/DrewDinkmeyer or get the full analysis at www.fantistics.com
by DartmouthCubsFan on Feb 9, 2011 11:11 AM CST up reply actions
The Simpson Pick
It sent me into a two-month baseball depression. But….. if he’s the guy the team wanted, and they didn’t think he would last, they did the right thing. It pains me to admit it.
As DCF says below, he isn’t highly ranked because not many people saw him pitch in college and he’s never pitched as a pro.
His health issues
Are not what anyone would consider long term. He had Mono IIRC. It isn’t like he suffered an injury. Give the guy a chance.
I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.
by cub in louies nest on Feb 9, 2011 6:15 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
It has been reported widely
and discussed (at least on Bruce Levine’s Talking Baseball) that Simpson was picked to be selected by numerous teams picking after the Cubs, and teams rotating to that round.
In these instances, based on track record, I would be giving deference to Tim Wilken in these matters. He’s not done too bad a job in the last three years, and the last 20.
Also, not only is it WAY too early to assess anything with a twenty-year-old dude, but he had a severe bout of mono – which is really debilitating.
by The E-Man on Feb 9, 2011 11:09 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Simpson
was not definitely a bad draft or an overdraft. Let the guy actually throw a pitch first before you make that judgement.
The Cubs would not have gotten Simpson in the second round. The Angels would have drafted him. I can’t prove that, but I believe it 100% and I know that Tim Wilken believes that, since then Angels scouting director Eddie Bane was sitting fifteen feet from him when he saw Simpson pitch. The Angels also had five picks before the Cubs picked again.
You don't realized that you contradicted yourself here
He drafted a 5th round talent in the first round when there was Top 5-10 talent still on the board (and at positions that are in dire need in this organization), and then he trades 4 prospects, two of who are top 50
One of those 4 prospects, Chris Archer, was a 5th round draft pick. And he was traded for a former 1st round draft pick.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 12:44 PM CST up reply actions
That's not a contradiction
Comparing a draft pick that has developed into a top 50 prospect to drafting a 5th round talent in the first round is apples to oranges.
See ^^^
No one is saying that lower draft picks don’t end up panning out (Al reminds us when Pujols was drafted all the time), but it’s more about the thought process than the actual results here.
Also, very few imagined the breakout Archer would have.
Rays/Cubs - AnotherCubsBlog.net - @Manu_P_Mishra on Twitter
I think you're placing that thought process in the wrong head
I am dubtful that any member of the Ricketts family would be able to properly value Chris Archer, for example. they obviously took Hendry’s input.
Now if you’re talking about ARod to a top dollar contract, after his contract ends with the Yankees, then you should expect the owner to be informed.
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 1:11 PM CST up reply actions
So much wrong with that.
Ricketts didn’t trade Garza, Hendry did. Ricketts didn’t draft Hayden Simpson, Tim Wilken and Hendry did. And as far as he being a “5th round talent,” that was the judgment of A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO NEVER SAW HIM PITCH AND ADMIT THAT THEY NEVER SAW HIM PITCH! Baseball America admits they just didn’t know about him so they said “5th round.” I keep hearing from people who actually did see him pitch (some of whom are not in the Cub organization) who say the guy was a hidden diamond. Potentially the next Roy Oswalt.
Then they took Reggie Golden in the second round and gave him an overslot bonus. They shelled out big money for Ben Wells in the 7th round and gave him second round money. They gave first round bonus (1.2 million) to Jin-Yeop Kim out of Korea.
I’m against the Garza trade, but the idea that it shows a lack of faith in the farm system is ridiculous. One of the reasons you have a farm system is so that you get trading chips to deal away.
The Cubs farm system has gotten a lot better in the past year since RIcketts took over. Some of that was just continuing trends stared before they took over, but to say that their actions show a lack of respect for the system is just flat out wrong.
by Josh Timmers on Feb 9, 2011 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 5 recs
Completely agreed.
Farm system is ready to take a step forward, not a step back.
There is an oppourtunity cost for everything in life...
… would you rather the Cubs just shut down Major League operations in order to fully focus their attention on building the most kick-ass farm system in the history of the universe?
There are more prospects and farm system guys then there are major league roster spots. Some dudes will work their way up and make the team, sure. BUT. NOT. ALL. OF. THEM. Some prospects are destined to be trade bait. Such is life. It’d be nice if the Cubs (or any organization, really) could build a team entirely from their own system, but it isn’t reality – free agency exists for this reason.
I’m not debating the worth of the prospects vs what was returned – i’ll leave that to others more knowledgeable – but acting like using some guys from the farm system to land a player who isn’t going right back to Iowa or Peoria or Dayton is taking it a bit far.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
Some people think the Cubs model should be the Royals.
The Cubs will not and should not go into complete rebuild.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
Major market teams don't do complete rebuilds.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
Major market teams win a playoff game every once in awhile.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 9, 2011 5:48 PM CST up reply actions
That would be disgusting.
It’d also take forever to pull off.
Odd question
Ricketts says:
We want to make sure that we keep that machine rolling and not borrow too much from the future by spending all the money up front today. So we have to find that balance.
Al says:
And don’t do a Jeff Samardzija kind of signing again?
The Shark signing wasn’t the type of “spending all the money up front today” signing that Ricketts was referring to. That kind of signing would be Soriano or another MLB free agent.
Shark hasn’t worked out, but it wasn’t really a bad idea in theory. He was graded as a first round talent by the organization and they paid him first round money. The contract may have been a bit exorbitant, but the idea was good. The problem is that was the only type of signing like that they’ve done. The Red Sox do that type of signing every year.
The Red Sox do that type of signing every year.
Every year? Every year they sign an untested college pitcher to a five-year, $10 million major league contract?
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
No
They sign an overslot guys to first round money. Look, the execution of the Shark signing was bad. But the idea, drafting a first-round talent later and then paying him first round money isn’t.
Ugh - you mean JIM HENDRY?
He was graded as a first round talent by the organization and they paid him first round money.
He was Jim Hendry’s exclusive project. This, Soriano, and Fukudome are recent examples of just not spending the budget he had at the time wisely.
The same Jim Hendry that Ricketts' retained?
I agreed that the Shark signing was a mistake. But the idea that we should shy away from similar signings in the future is not something I agree with.
just dont hand out NTC's
like they are candy…
One thing that is overlooked about Hendry is the guidance he was given by the Tribune Co. could it be that he was told go out and assemble the best win-now team you can? Which, I believe, he did an above average job of.
I often wonder...
… if the Trib spent the way it did knowing some big names and hot seasons would result in a higher sale value… and then i laugh at myself when i consider if the Trib would be competent enough to devise such a strategy and pull it off.
٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ Dum spiro spero... | Twitter: @andrewjstone.
Al, when you do these interviews, do you use a microphone with the BCB logo on it?
I’d LMAO if I saw a BCB microphone amongst the Ch 7, Ch 2, Fox, etc during the next news conference. Someone needs to photoshop this…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
LOL
Just a small digital recorder… it’s not a TV interview…
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Since we're talking about favorite quotes:
And Todd, apart from being the “Undercover Boss” — which he did a brilliant job at…
Boy, oh boy, is this great.

"I'm not a broadcaster! I'm me!"--Ron Santo
Furst!
"They say that money doesn't buy happiness...but it DOES by Cub tickets. You ever see a sad person with Cub tickets?"
Nice interview, Al.
And thanks to Tom Ricketts for sharing his time with us.
One quote that made me a little uncomfortable was this:
I think that ultimately, given the information that we had, we did okay with our decisions. I can’t think of anything that’s major that I would have done differently, yet.
Didn’t Tom already admit (during Cubs convention, I believe) that he did have some regrets regarding how they introduced/communicated their failed state-funding plan? I was a little surprised he didn’t address that.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
my guess is he was talking
about more of the personell and “on-the-field” type decisions…or they may look at the end of year 1 as Sept 30th…
Perhaps.
But he did bring up “off the field” matters (even using that very phrase) in the same answer.
Contributing Editor, SB Nation Chicago. Please follow us on Twitter!
Well...
… I intended for “Part I” to be mostly about on-the-field matters, although there were some other things discussed there. You’ll see more tomorrow & Friday.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
People want to know
if the interview was held in the BCB executive offices. And were hors d’oevres.served by the capable Yellon staff.
If a quality pitching start is 3 runs and 6 innings, then a quality hitting day is 1 for 4.
LOL
The interview was held at Wrigley Field. The BCB staff was offered a choice of non-alcoholic beverage. I took a Diet Coke.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Did he bring you back a souvenir from Africa?
"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.
by RiskyBusiness on Feb 9, 2011 1:13 PM CST up reply actions
Was it handed to you by a guy that looked like this:

Who was being followed by cameras while trying out for a concessions job?
"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."
by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST
Hmmm.
Nope, no discarded hot dogs in the office.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Todd Ricketts will be my favorite...
fitness and nutrition = big deal.
This Dominican academy idea sounds awesome…good things the Cubs are doing it a mere 20 years after other big market teams have done it.
Also...love the direction this organization is turning.
The Ricketts family sounds like they’re serious about turning this potential cash cow into a real cash cow.
Well, I guess, considering how much of it was done above.
I think his role with the team is being wildly inflated by some people here who are really just guessing.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
nonsense Al
we know exactly what we are talking about; we are, afterall, anonymous people on an internet blog!
If that's directed at me ...
all I said is that I wanted more clarity on the issue considering Joe Ricketts political views and the team’s efforts to get public assistance to restore Wrigley.
You're trying to go down one of Al's rabbit holes...
he won’t allow it.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 9, 2011 3:39 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not sure I totally get the analogy.
Why is this a ‘rabbit hole’?
IDK why...some things just aren't allowed to be discussed in much detail here sometimes.
Al seems pretty adamant about steering clear of genuinely addressing the subject of Joe Rickett’s political views in relation to his children’s proposal for public $.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 9, 2011 3:46 PM CST up reply actions
Look, you can't rip on Joe Ricketts
unless you’re presenting a replacement father for Tom who is better and available.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
by shoemile on Feb 9, 2011 3:57 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
BOOM!!!
…I laughed.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 9, 2011 3:59 PM CST up reply actions
Has Tom ever addressed the hypocrisy of asking the state for money
when a member of the ownership group founded the “Ending Spending Fund?” Forget what his exact role is; he’s a member of the ownership group.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
How many multi-millionaire owners are probably die-hard Republican
and how many owners ask for the state for handouts? Other than Jack Kent Cooke and I think Peter McGowan, how many owners paid for a stadium with their own money?
I’m not saying it isn’t hypocrisy but I guess I expect it and don’t find it surprising.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
Key difference:
We’re not asking for clarity on this because Joe Ricketts is a Republican. We’re asking for clarity because of his VERY public stances on particular issues.
But he's got money and if the state will give him more
I’m not surprised that he asks for it. I guess I’m a little more cynical when it comes to human nature. Just because Joe thinks taxes should be low, I’m not surprised he asks the state for money.
I’m not saying it was a good move but I’m not surprised.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
As I said below, that's fair.
I was VERY surprised. So, I want to know more.
Reasonable people can disagree.
It's just unseemly
To go out of your way to found an organization to end spending, one where you’re the sole member, and then be a part of a five person group asking the state for a handout.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
just because you don't find it surprising doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
But......YOU are just guessing
because you didn’t really get a straight answer.
I’m not sure how it’s being WILDLY inflated. I’ve seen Elgato think he has a bigger role than is known, and I’m not sure I agree with that, but just because they disagree with you, doesn’t mean speculating that he has a bigger role than “spectator” is a “wild” exaggeration.
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
My point was ...
I’d like to know if he has a bigger role. I don’t think TR’s comments yesterday cleared much up.
El gato
No matter what the answer would be….. I’m guessing many would then say TR is lying. El Gato not your specifcally but some people seem to want to find out what they THINK is true that old man Ricketts is running the whole show. Any thing other than that they won’t be satified.
The Cubs could win the WS and the day after they will be a fan post on why they won’t do it again.
''"I always thought I was the most competitive person out there. I never thought I'd find anybody more competitive until I met him.'' Ryan Dempster talking about Ted Lilly
by Madison Cub Fan on Feb 10, 2011 5:04 PM CST up reply actions
That's an excellent point.
There are some who would accuse TR of lying if his comments on this issue didn’t conform to their own assumptions. Heck, some posters (BoVandy, notably) probably think that I’m doing a lesser form of that — I’m not accusing TR of lying, but I’m saying he hasn’t clearly explained enough.
As I said two days ago, I don’t really care about seeing the family’s financials. But I’m still not fully satisfied with the amount of information about Joe’s involvement, and TR’s statements the other day were pretty murky, IMO.
Generally speaking, I like the Ricketts’ ownership and what they’re doing with the team. But this point makes me worry that my faith might be misplaced.
And I think you're overly worried about something that isn't a big deal.
You & I will have to agree to disagree on this.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
We're at that point -- so I'm happy to agree to disagree.
As I said in the other thread, I understand why someone with your stance on this wouldn’t have pressed for more of an answer. And, as the one who actually worked to get the interview (and as someone who has developed a rapport with TR and the Cubs) you’re definitely well within your rights.
Wow, didn't know it'd start to stir the hornet's nest
But please understand that even though papa-Joe isn’t involved in daily musings of all things Cubbie Blue, he was an integral part of the force behind the purchase of the ball club.
Just win the next game...!
Wow
The Cubs are privately owned. Ricketts is not under any requirement to spell out the specifics of the ownership in minute details as some people apparently think he must do. The Ricketts need to be judged on their actions and yes the jury is still out on that question. However, I’m not waiting for the details on who makes every decision on the Cubs.
I don’t live in New York but I don’t think the Steinbrenners have ever outlined the details of ownership except that George was the Boss and now it is the sons. The Dodgers evidently didn’t based on the divorce details.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
No one said anything about a requirement.
What I and others said is that we would LIKE for the situation to be explained. What’s wrong with that?
I guess I don't see a lot of value.
Tom or Joe, I don’t really care who makes the decision. Tom is the face of the ownership group.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
That's cool.
But myself and others would like to know more. That’s all I’m saying.
And I disagree with that contention..
… especially since it seems to be driven by the belief that Joe Ricketts is pulling all the puppet strings. That most assuredly does NOT appear to be the case. I don’t see how you can say that Tom Ricketts wasn’t clear about who does what, based on what’s in the transcript.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
You're ascribing VERY extreme views to those you don't agree with.
I don’t believe anyone said anything about puppet strings (or even said anything to that effect). If they had — then, yes, that is clearly refuted by TR’s comments.
It’s clear that Joe Ricketts wasn’t the person in charge here. It’s also clear that he has some involvement. What we have been asking for is further elaboration on what that involvement ACTUALLY is.
The LEVEL of involvement — which I and others do not think was clearly described in the interview — is something we’d like to know about. It’s relevant because of the Cubs overtures toward the Illinois legislature and Joe Ricketts’ VERY vocal political views.
Extreme?
Hardly. I just really don’t know why you care so much.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
I explained why I care so much earlier.
If I’m going to continue supporting this team with my money and attention, I want to be OK with the people who own it. I don’t think that’s hard to understand.
And if I was wrong in describing your statements as extreme, please point to where I said anything resembling a conspiracy theory that Joe is a “puppet master.”
You didn't say so.
That’s the impression I get from a lot of people here. Maybe it’s just that I don’t particularly care about Joe Ricketts’ involvement or lack thereof.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
"Maybe it’s just that I don’t particularly care about Joe Ricketts’ involvement or lack thereof."
Others do. It doesn’t mean they’re wearing tin foil hats.
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
At this point, I don't care who's pulling the puppet strings.
Joe Ricketts stands to profit from his hypocrisy. I take issue with that.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Would you stop being a Cubs fan
if you didn’t like the answer? Just curious because I really don’t understand why this is so important.
Well, it would depend on the details.
But, sure, I could stop rooting for (or pay less attention to) a sports franchise if I felt its actions — either from the ownership, the management or the players — were appalling.
NOTE: I did not say the Ricketts’ actions WERE appalling. But I guess I want to make sure that my time and money are spent on something that I can stomach. Is that so hard to understand?
Hopefully none of us ever reaches that point
where we couldn’t stomach rooting for our team because we’d feel our values compromised.
I stopped being a Pacer fan
After a certain scuffle at The Palace & certain players made more news off the court than on the court. Once those player were gone, I became a fan again. I guess I can understand where you are coming from.
I have PMS & a GPS -- which means -- I am a bitch, and I will find you.
by cub in louies nest on Feb 9, 2011 6:29 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
If I were a Cardinals fan last year ...
when they hired Mark McGwire, well, that would have been too much for me.
Really?
Seriously? If you were as big a Cardinals fan as you are a Cubs fan, and you’d quit over that?
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Don't reward cheaters seems a good life value
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Feb 9, 2011 8:37 PM CST up reply actions
True.
But to dismiss your entire rooting for a team because of that? McGwire isn’t going to be there forever.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
True
But my money and/or support doesn’t have to be there while he is, either.
How many of us would support the team if they hired a former sexual offender for an important job, for example? It’s a bit more serious, but it’s also tangential to baseball…which McGwire’s cheating wasn’t.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
by NobodySpecial on Feb 9, 2011 8:42 PM CST up reply actions
Wow
Nothing short of ownership actively participating in genocide would stop me from rooting for the Cubs. I care more about the product on the field. I guess I am a product of growing up during the Tribune regime. I’m used to a faceless entity owning the team. I kind of like it that way, one less thing to worry about.
by ferris2001 on Feb 10, 2011 1:10 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
I grew up in the Trib years.
I’m not saying I have to like the ownership — I’m saying I don’t want to find it appalling. I don’t find a faceless entity to be appalling. And I didn’t.
ferris
I totally agree last night I said that I could find out that he supported a 3rd world dictator before I give any serious consideration to if it.
''"I always thought I was the most competitive person out there. I never thought I'd find anybody more competitive until I met him.'' Ryan Dempster talking about Ted Lilly
by Madison Cub Fan on Feb 10, 2011 12:20 PM CST up reply actions
And so if the Cubs were to hire Sosa in some capacity, you'd...?
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I'd go find other things to do.
Fortunately, the Cubs will never hire Sammy Sosa in such a capacity.
Power to you.
I just root for the laundry.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
me too
I’ve tried giving up baseball…. obviously it didn’t work LOL But we all have our different points where we could I guess
''"I always thought I was the most competitive person out there. I never thought I'd find anybody more competitive until I met him.'' Ryan Dempster talking about Ted Lilly
by Madison Cub Fan on Feb 10, 2011 12:27 PM CST up reply actions
Congrats Al
Six years is a long time. I think I’ve been a member for close to about 5.5 years, and I can say that this site has been a joy to follow.
I don’t post much, and many times I don’t agree with your stance on certain things, but you’ve done a remarkable job with BCB.
THE FONZ HAS ARRIVED!
by amaru on Feb 9, 2011 5:44 PM CST reply actions 4 recs
It may not look like it today ...
but I totally agree with this — and have defended this site and Al on many occasions.
Rec’d.
Thank you both.
One thing, elgato, that you and I have, is an ability to discuss issues that we disagree on, even vehemently, and then either change the other person’s mind or agree to disagree — and still be able to have civil discussion after.
I hope you’ll join us in the bleachers again this year.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
If God is a Cubs fan, he'll see to it that Jeff Baker is starting in LF the day elgato sits with Al...
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
That's what it's all about, Al
you summed it perfectly. Let’s be passionate about our ideas and opinions. Let’s leave people out of it. It’s sad that so many can’t make the distinction.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. -J.R.R. Tolkien
The same to you...
… you & I don’t often agree, but we can have reasonable and civil discussions about our disagreements. I appreciate that.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Same here.
I look forward to many civil discussions concerning the merits of Jim Hendry this season.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
There are some?
the merits of Jim Hendry this season
I keed, I keed.
by Shanghai Badger on Feb 9, 2011 9:02 PM CST up reply actions
TJ needs to come round and set you straight
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Suggestion
Tom doesn’t think there is anything major he would do differently? I have an idea. The Cubs had the third biggest payroll in baseball last year — behind only the Yankees and the Red Sox — and they tanked. In the real world, people are held accountable for their results. Someone at Wrigley keeps making bad decisions. I vote for Hendry. How can Ricketts possibly think he isn’t a bad mistake?
And speaking of the Cubs’ robust farm system, let’s not forget where Hendry wreaked damage in the Cubs organization before becoming GM — Director of Player Development (in charge of both Scouting and Minor League Operations) and, after that, Assistant GM/Player Personnel Director.
Every time I see Ricketts talk about Hendry
He sounds enamored with him. I hope in one of Al’s future installments we’ll get an answer as to why.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
There isn't a chance of that
You know why? Because Al is enamored with him.
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
Nonsense.
I ask questions, he answers. I like the guy, yes. That doesn’t mean I can’t ask him difficult questions.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
The Cubs had the third biggest payroll in baseball last year — behind only the Yankees and the Red Sox — and they tanked.
You’re taking the short-term view of things. Hendry has two years left on his deal. I’m pretty sure that if there isn’t progress made in those two years, a change will be made.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
Hooray?
So if he sucks over the next two years, we won’t renew his contract?
What intestinal fortitude! What dedication to winning! We won’t fire an incompetent employee, but when his contract is finally up, we won’t ask him back.
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
I've been told several times by others...
that we can’t fire Hendry unless we have an acceptable replacement that can do a better job.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 10, 2011 1:07 PM CST up reply actions
Man, I'd hate to work for you.
I have a contract, but because my performance was down one year, you fire me? Then you have to pay me AND my replacement.
You wouldn’t be a very good team owner.
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
So if you took over a company that was struggling
You would think you could turn it around in a year? Don’t get me wrong I dislike JH as much as anyone.
''"I always thought I was the most competitive person out there. I never thought I'd find anybody more competitive until I met him.'' Ryan Dempster talking about Ted Lilly
by Madison Cub Fan on Feb 10, 2011 5:09 PM CST up reply actions
I wouldn't think that.
But after a year’s evaluation, I’d get rid of the people responsible for the struggle.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
Regardless of whether they were under contract or not?
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
I don't agree with shoemile -- I'm OK giving Hendry one more year.
But if there’s not enough improvement, I’m OK dumping Hendry after the season even if he has a year left on his contract.
What would you define as "enough" improvement?
Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago
At this point, that's hard to say.
But that’s not really the main point I was trying to make. What if the Cubs win 75 games next year or finish worse than they did in 2011. Obviously, the details matter, but are you saying the Cubs should keep Hendry for another year just because of his contract?
FTR, I’d say the Cubs need to finish at .500 for Hendry to keep his job — unless there are some VERY serious mitigating factors.
I don't really understand why that's a big deal
If the team is willing to eat player’s contracts to get rid of them, why not the GM? It’s not like Henry’s contract is an albatross or anything.
GM's are in charge of Managers, not the other way around.
I'd LOVE to work for you
Two years out of 10 with the organization I actually am competent at my job and I’m getting an extension and complete job security.
"Oh Crap"
-Famous Last Words by General George Custer
It's going to take a lot to earn back my respect after the $200,000,000 request.
I understand it takes a few years for management (and ownership) to make meaningful changes. I’ll give him that buffer.
"The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money." --Ernie Banks
El gato
Are you a fan of any other sports team? If so are you this utterly curious by the lives of their owners?
''"I always thought I was the most competitive person out there. I never thought I'd find anybody more competitive until I met him.'' Ryan Dempster talking about Ted Lilly
I grew up rooting for the Denver Broncos.
I no longer follow them since I moved out east. I also grew up rooting for the Detroit Pistons. Haven’t watched an NBA game in years.
(If you’re wondering, my dad is from Denver, my mom is from Detroit.)
So, no, I don’t follow any other sports team — heck, I’m not really even a fan of any other sports team, though I do respect some organizations (the Twins, for example). I know what’s going on in the NFL and NBA, but I don’t really root for other teams.
I don't think this is unusual - I certainly had issues with Carl Pohlad and the Twins, for instance.
MLBMilestone.com - following the numbers to Cooperstown

by 























