And my definition of the question is the exact promise made by ownership and management that you defend as the best choice.
In this situation I understand the rationale. If I had the choice of maintaining a 140 million dollar payroll or 130 dollar payroll with the same resources devoted to building the farm system I would take that route. Unfortunately it is not my money spent.
Please show some examples instead of just providing broadly made statements with zero substantiated evidence to support the statement.
The 2003 Marlins were built largely on the talent acquired through selling off present for future after 97 and a couple of horrific, worse than current Cubs, seasons. They had a couple of middling seasons afterwards and Loria, being a cheap bastard, blew the thing up which has lead to the Fish in their current situation.
However, given that I conceded your question I figured you would accept it without examples. My mistake that has been corrected.
100% wrong.
You don't even understand what you are whining and crying against. Awesome.
I have never said once that one penny be diverted from building the farm system to the major league team.
Sorry that you are too ignorant to grasp what is being presented to you.
I have consistently stated that the Cubs should spend more on the major league team.
They spent $12M on the minor league system in 2011 and $134M on payroll is less of an effort than the $10M and $105M spent of payroll this year.
Really??
Lets not even look at the facts that revenue is higher now than 2011 either. Don't want to confuse the topic too much.
A lot here to take on but lets start with your statement of 100% false. While you want to spend the same amount on the farm system the moves that you and others of your ilk have suggested has taken away from the farm system either through loss of draft picks or hanging onto players during lost seasons. That is taking away from the future whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
As far as the payroll goes by all accounts that is a decision from the business side. Whether that is right or not is not my call, and if you want to call Ricketts Scrooge McDuck or worse I can't stop you. But the question is the
facts we have in front of us. The baseball operations side of the franchise has less money to work at the major league level, and that has usual meant bad things for the major league roster.
They didn't need to cut payroll.
Sorry, but that minor detail makes your entire question irrelevant.
No I can't name a team.
That was the original question since you obviously weren't paying attention.
So seeing as we agree on the question, please answer why you think the Cubs can accomplish what we seem to agree on that no other team has been able to accomplish?
You know, the original point of the thread and all.
I answered your question, and therefore I think it is more than fair to ask my own. The person in charge of money is Ricketts. I have never defended Ricketts as being blameless the past two seasons. There are two things that an owner is in charge of in my book. Those two things are giving enough resources to the baseball operations, which is in question now, and hire the right baseball people to be in charge of those resources. You have been questioning everyone in regards to leadership of the Cubs, and so I think it is more than fair to answer the question of any baseball people in history to have fixed the situation that the organzization faced at the time of Theo's takeover in three seasons (and by fixed I mean a postseason appearance since we both agree that is what counts for a team).
You seem to lack an aswer to these historical facts. Therefore, Ricketts, and/or Zell, is to blame since no team in history has managed to make the postseason after three years given the situation the Cubs faced, which has not been disputed by your, and no one in charge of
baseball operations could have succeed for what you have wanted.
