Give Theo time

[KBisBack!]

Woohoo competitive... I'd be so much happier and watching so many more games if we won 10 more games a year. Hell if we were at 500 I'd watch half those games because we'd have a better chance to win half of em!

Quality logic.

Enjoy six months of bad baseball for a pick about ten places higher that maybe, just maybe will help the ballclub in 3-5 years.

 

[The Bandit]

Quality logic.

Enjoy six months of bad baseball for a pick about ten places higher that maybe, just maybe will help the ballclub in 3-5 years.

Or we could win 10 more meaningless games for a lower pick that is less likely but none the less maybe will help the club in 3-5. Either way we aren't going anywhere so get as much out of the nothing as you can is what you're telling me. Just like drinking water. Oh one more sip it's gonna make the difference let me try to get it.

 

[Willrust]

Well glad it is so easy.

I mean Kansas City has been below .500 for 19 of the last 20 seasons.

Guess they should be successful for the next 50 years or so right??

Pittsburgh has been below .500 for 21 straight years.

They most be good for a couple World Series titles in the next decade.

Man, wish I had known it was this easy a long time ago.

Just suck for 1-3 years and you will be being successful afterwards.

Wonder why the Major League teams haven't figured out such an easy and simple solution like you have??

And the Royals would have been vastly different if they had the resources to resign players like Greinke, Damon, Beltran, Dye and the like. Nobody is saying the Cubs will continue to go cheap for dozens of years, like the Royals. They will continue to stock the farm system and when the first run of actual quality prospects (Soler, Baez, Almora, and the like) are at AAA or get that cup of coffee, you fill in the holes with quality FA's and extend Rizzo's and Samardzija's and Russell's.

So, basically you are comparing a franchise that's main goal was to trade off players that they couldn't afford to keep; to a franchise that will actually pay to extend those core players before they become FA's. Case in point, Starlin Castro!

 

[The Bandit]

And the Royals would have been vastly different if they had the resources to resign players like Greinke, Damon, Beltran, Dye and the like. Nobody is saying the Cubs will continue to go cheap for dozens of years, like the Royals. They will continue to stock the farm system and when the first run of actual quality prospects (Soler, Baez, Almora, and the like) are at AAA or get that cup of coffee, you fill in the holes with quality FA's and extend Rizzo's and Samardzija's and Russell's.

So, basically you are comparing a franchise that's main goal was to trade off players that they couldn't afford to keep; to a franchise that will actually pay to extend those core players before they become FA's. Case in point, Starlin Castro!

Finally someone who makes sense.

 

[CherokeeReds]

Theo was about to get shitcanned in Boston. With the money Theo and Hoyer will make from this deal, do you really think they care what their reputations with the fans are?

You really are a stupid moron, aren't you? I said nothing about Epstein and Hoyers reputation with the fans. What owner would hire a gm who didn't try to win? And if you think these two guys are going to retire in a few years you're full of shit.

And your lapdog buddy Flyers garbled response only proves his inability to think for himself, let alone think at all.

New site, same old garbage from you and your posse. Have a nice day troll.

 

[CSF77]

And the Royals would have been vastly different if they had the resources to resign players like Greinke, Damon, Beltran, Dye and the like. Nobody is saying the Cubs will continue to go cheap for dozens of years, like the Royals. They will continue to stock the farm system and when the first run of actual quality prospects (Soler, Baez, Almora, and the like) are at AAA or get that cup of coffee, you fill in the holes with quality FA's and extend Rizzo's and Samardzija's and Russell's.

you hope they pan out that is.

Epstein On Cubs Rebuilding Plan
By Jeff Todd [April 27, 2013 at 9:21pm CST]
In an interview with Chicago's The McNeil and Spiegel Show earlier this week (hat tip to Bleacher Nation), Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein addressed several pertinent topics. In particular, Epstein sought to answer the question of why the Cubs seem unable to contend while they rebuild.

Epstein's long answer was interesting, even as he largely kept on message about the need to drive new revenue through a renovation of Wrigley Field, new television deals, and the like. He said that, until, the club can generate new revenue, it is placed in an "untenable position": the Cubs are "fighting upstream" against division competitors that get competitive balance draft picks, but are simultaneously unable to increase payroll to keep pace with the top of the division.

On the question of payroll level, Epstein was seemingly quite revealing. His quote is lengthy, but worth repeating in full (transcription courtesy of Bleacher Nation):

“It’s not a choice. We are not making a fundamental choice to only focus on the future. We’re not withholding dollars from this year’s team. We are spending every dollar that we have on this baseball team. We maxed out our payroll last year and we maxed out our payroll this year. It’s not a choice. It’s not like we’re making a conscious decision to say, ‘Hey, let’s withhold $15-20 million from the 2012 or 2013 payroll because we don’t think we’re quite good enough or it’s not worth it to spend it there. Let’s save it for a rainy day. Or let’s save it so we can get that free agent in 2016.’ The baseball department is spending every dollar that is allocated to baseball operations. Yeah, we’re spending it in the draft and we’re spending it in the minor leagues. There’s only so much you can spend there. We’re also spending every dollar we have available on the Major League payroll."

Of course, read carefully, Epstein's statements only go to the question of whether the Cubs are spending up to the payroll limits the club set. He did not address the core concern that some have raised: i.e., whether management has set a sufficient payroll in the first place. Epstein has previously indicated that revenue would drive payroll growth. But observers like the Chicago Sun-Times' Gordon Wittenmyer have suggested that more aggressive payroll expansion should be economically feasible now, or at least in the immediate future.

Putting that question aside, Epstein seems right in insisting that the Cubs have stuck to a budget -- whether or not that budget is justified -- over these last two offseasons. The club's 2012 opening day payroll shows $109.3MM. The 2013 opening day payroll, in turn, stood at $106.8MM, after the club extended Starlin Castro, signed international free agent Jorge Soler, and inked Edwin Jackson. Of course, as MLBTR's Tim Dierkes noted in his review of the Cubs' offseason, the team also agreed to several short-term deals with free agents who provided some performance upside. Those deals held out at least some hope that the team could remain in contention and also provided the possibility of turning into trade chips. In sum, while bearing in mind the limits on the amounts that can be spent on draft or international prospects, the team seems to have spent up to its budget on a mix of players that would deliver some reasonable level of present performance while also paying future dividends.

The signing of Jackson, in particular, is telling. While there were plenty of good reasons for the Cubs to sign him, those reasons seem to apply just as well (or better) the year prior. Before 2012, Jackson reportedly turned down a three-year offer for around $30MM from the Pirates to sign with the Nationals on a one-year deal. (Twitter links.) He had reportedly been seeking in the neighborhood of five years at $12MM a year. Meanwhile, the Cubs were, in Dierkes's estimation, modest players in the free agent market. While there were whispers of the team going after big-ticket players like Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder, that did not materialize. And the Cubs were never apparently in on Jackson.

Fast forward to this past offseason. The Cubs not only seriously pursued Anibal Sanchez, but ultimately signed Jackson to a four-year, $52MM deal. What changed? The Cubs were coming off of an abysmal season, and looked no closer to immediate contention despite some nice development from young stars Starlin Castro and Anthony Rizzo. Jackson was now coming off of yet another very Jackson-esque season, with consistently solid, if unspectacular, results. If anything, Jackson's relatively uninspring year with Washington, along with increased age and potentially worrisome velocity decline, should have made him less attractive.

Most likely, it seems, the thing that changed was simply the fact that the Cubs could fit Jackson under the team's self-imposed salary budget. With Ryan Dempster off of the books, in particular, there was room for the $14MM promised Jackson for 2013 (and beyond). Of course, while Jackson brought both present and future value to the club when he signed this year, it is reasonable to wonder whether he might have provided more value at a cheaper price had the club pursued him before 2012. Jackson's then-agent Scott Boras did say that he "felt it was best for him to do a one-year contract rather than a three-year deal" at that time. But a four-year offer from the Cubs might have allowed the team to control Jackson over a more favorable age band (28-31 rather than 29-32), possibly even at a lower price.

The Jackson question is relevant looking forward because of what it means for the Cubs' future spending plans. Whether or not the team is spending at the levels that it can or should, it appears that Epstein should be taken at his word when he says that "it comes down to revenue." Importantly, he did not say that the club is holding back because it does not believe it is at the right point on the rebuilding curve to make a substantial investment in free agent talent. Instead, he said that the club would do so, "once we generate enough revenue to be able to afford" such a player. "Revenue has to come first," Epstein says, and at the moment the Cubs maintain that they simply "don't have the flexibility to do something like that."

 

[Jntg4]

you hope they pan out that is.

Epstein On Cubs Rebuilding Plan
By Jeff Todd [April 27, 2013 at 9:21pm CST]
In an interview with Chicago's The McNeil and Spiegel Show earlier this week (hat tip to Bleacher Nation), Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein addressed several pertinent topics. In particular, Epstein sought to answer the question of why the Cubs seem unable to contend while they rebuild.

Epstein's long answer was interesting, even as he largely kept on message about the need to drive new revenue through a renovation of Wrigley Field, new television deals, and the like. He said that, until, the club can generate new revenue, it is placed in an "untenable position": the Cubs are "fighting upstream" against division competitors that get competitive balance draft picks, but are simultaneously unable to increase payroll to keep pace with the top of the division.

On the question of payroll level, Epstein was seemingly quite revealing. His quote is lengthy, but worth repeating in full (transcription courtesy of Bleacher Nation):

“It’s not a choice. We are not making a fundamental choice to only focus on the future. We’re not withholding dollars from this year’s team. We are spending every dollar that we have on this baseball team. We maxed out our payroll last year and we maxed out our payroll this year. It’s not a choice. It’s not like we’re making a conscious decision to say, ‘Hey, let’s withhold $15-20 million from the 2012 or 2013 payroll because we don’t think we’re quite good enough or it’s not worth it to spend it there. Let’s save it for a rainy day. Or let’s save it so we can get that free agent in 2016.’ The baseball department is spending every dollar that is allocated to baseball operations. Yeah, we’re spending it in the draft and we’re spending it in the minor leagues. There’s only so much you can spend there. We’re also spending every dollar we have available on the Major League payroll."

Of course, read carefully, Epstein's statements only go to the question of whether the Cubs are spending up to the payroll limits the club set. He did not address the core concern that some have raised: i.e., whether management has set a sufficient payroll in the first place. Epstein has previously indicated that revenue would drive payroll growth. But observers like the Chicago Sun-Times' Gordon Wittenmyer have suggested that more aggressive payroll expansion should be economically feasible now, or at least in the immediate future.

Putting that question aside, Epstein seems right in insisting that the Cubs have stuck to a budget -- whether or not that budget is justified -- over these last two offseasons. The club's 2012 opening day payroll shows $109.3MM. The 2013 opening day payroll, in turn, stood at $106.8MM, after the club extended Starlin Castro, signed international free agent Jorge Soler, and inked Edwin Jackson. Of course, as MLBTR's Tim Dierkes noted in his review of the Cubs' offseason, the team also agreed to several short-term deals with free agents who provided some performance upside. Those deals held out at least some hope that the team could remain in contention and also provided the possibility of turning into trade chips. In sum, while bearing in mind the limits on the amounts that can be spent on draft or international prospects, the team seems to have spent up to its budget on a mix of players that would deliver some reasonable level of present performance while also paying future dividends.

The signing of Jackson, in particular, is telling. While there were plenty of good reasons for the Cubs to sign him, those reasons seem to apply just as well (or better) the year prior. Before 2012, Jackson reportedly turned down a three-year offer for around $30MM from the Pirates to sign with the Nationals on a one-year deal. (Twitter links.) He had reportedly been seeking in the neighborhood of five years at $12MM a year. Meanwhile, the Cubs were, in Dierkes's estimation, modest players in the free agent market. While there were whispers of the team going after big-ticket players like Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder, that did not materialize. And the Cubs were never apparently in on Jackson.

Fast forward to this past offseason. The Cubs not only seriously pursued Anibal Sanchez, but ultimately signed Jackson to a four-year, $52MM deal. What changed? The Cubs were coming off of an abysmal season, and looked no closer to immediate contention despite some nice development from young stars Starlin Castro and Anthony Rizzo. Jackson was now coming off of yet another very Jackson-esque season, with consistently solid, if unspectacular, results. If anything, Jackson's relatively uninspring year with Washington, along with increased age and potentially worrisome velocity decline, should have made him less attractive.

Most likely, it seems, the thing that changed was simply the fact that the Cubs could fit Jackson under the team's self-imposed salary budget. With Ryan Dempster off of the books, in particular, there was room for the $14MM promised Jackson for 2013 (and beyond). Of course, while Jackson brought both present and future value to the club when he signed this year, it is reasonable to wonder whether he might have provided more value at a cheaper price had the club pursued him before 2012. Jackson's then-agent Scott Boras did say that he "felt it was best for him to do a one-year contract rather than a three-year deal" at that time. But a four-year offer from the Cubs might have allowed the team to control Jackson over a more favorable age band (28-31 rather than 29-32), possibly even at a lower price.

The Jackson question is relevant looking forward because of what it means for the Cubs' future spending plans. Whether or not the team is spending at the levels that it can or should, it appears that Epstein should be taken at his word when he says that "it comes down to revenue." Importantly, he did not say that the club is holding back because it does not believe it is at the right point on the rebuilding curve to make a substantial investment in free agent talent. Instead, he said that the club would do so, "once we generate enough revenue to be able to afford" such a player. "Revenue has to come first," Epstein says, and at the moment the Cubs maintain that they simply "don't have the flexibility to do something like that."

The bolded looks like it is mere leverage to get everyone behind the Cubs and against the city's goals in renovating Wrigley.

 

[daddies3angels]

Its a great feeling knowing that im not only fan to feel way i do. KBisBack! you are now my favorite board member. Somone who finally gets what i have been saying for last year and halve. People who think that the Cubs can only afford 100 mil payroll while having highest NL ticket prices, most revenue in baseball and while owner makes most profit in baseball are the dumbest people since caveman. Ricketts is putting 500 mil into this renovation to make about 3X that of revenue. He a business man and only cares about 1 thing and thats making money. Anyone still saying that this is Hendry fault are dumber then the guy who thinks Cubs cant afford 100 mil payroll which again makes you dumber then a caveman cause team is 75% turn around in last 1.5 yrs. All the players that Theo/Hoyer bring in are 25th man guys. Only has brought in 1 difference maker in 1.5 yrs. Also tired of fans thinking that every top prospect is going to hit or Cubs. Cubs will be lucky to have 1 of there top 3 prospects in Soler, Baez, Alamora be a difference maker. What you have to pray for is that 1 becomes a difference maker while 1 of the other 2 becomes a good MLB player to help team. Prospects are just that. Players that havent proved shit. The way the ballpark has been empty this year it seems ALOT of fans agree with me. Thats its bullshit the way Cubs are being ran. Also tired of hearing about "Sustaining longterm sucess" Honestly when does this happen in baseball?????? Most teams windows are 2-5 yrs. I can only think of 2 teams that have had longterm sucess and that NYY who spend money more then any other franchise and BOS who also has had top 3 payroll in last 15 years. SO this shows to Sustain long term sucess that you have to SPEND money. Only 1 team that is midmarket that has sustained anything is STL and i swear thats cause God is a STL fan. The shit they do usually makes people shake there heads but it pans out for them all the damn time

 

[Jntg4]

Its a great feeling knowing that im not only fan to feel way i do. KBisBack! you are now my favorite board member. Somone who finally gets what i have been saying for last year and halve. People who think that the Cubs can only afford 100 mil payroll while having highest NL ticket prices, most revenue in baseball and while owner makes most profit in baseball are the dumbest people since caveman. Ricketts is putting 500 mil into this renovation to make about 3X that of revenue. He a business man and only cares about 1 thing and thats making money. Anyone still saying that this is Hendry fault are dumber then the guy who thinks Cubs cant afford 100 mil payroll which again makes you dumber then a caveman cause team is 75% turn around in last 1.5 yrs. All the players that Theo/Hoyer bring in are 25th man guys. Only has brought in 1 difference maker in 1.5 yrs. Also tired of fans thinking that every top prospect is going to hit or Cubs. Cubs will be lucky to have 1 of there top 3 prospects in Soler, Baez, Alamora be a difference maker. What you have to pray for is that 1 becomes a difference maker while 1 of the other 2 becomes a good MLB player to help team. Prospects are just that. Players that havent proved shit. The way the ballpark has been empty this year it seems ALOT of fans agree with me. Thats its bullshit the way Cubs are being ran. Also tired of hearing about "Sustaining longterm sucess" Honestly when does this happen in baseball?????? Most teams windows are 2-5 yrs. I can only think of 2 teams that have had longterm sucess and that NYY who spend money more then any other franchise and BOS who also has had top 3 payroll in last 15 years. SO this shows to Sustain long term sucess that you have to SPEND money. Only 1 team that is midmarket that has sustained anything is STL and i swear thats cause God is a STL fan. The shit they do usually makes people shake there heads but it pans out for them all the damn time

English please, your incoherent rants aren't worth reading.

 

[daddies3angels]

English please, your incoherent rants aren't worth reading.

Its a board. NOt english class. Gets my point across. You just cant handle that im right

 

[Jntg4]

Its a board. NOt english class. Gets my point across. You just cant handle that im right

You are right, I can't handle that you're right, because it is pretty hard to handle that when you aren't right

 

[SilenceS]

My thing about peoples hard on for the draft is unless there is a cant miss prospect. The draft is a crap shoot. Baseball draft is nothing like football or basketball. They usually have clear cut better prospects from others. Baseball is a different animal. Having top 10 picks doesnt guarantee anything. Theo and them did not have high picks in Boston and people praise there farm. You have to trust your scouts and hope you hit on some. You can look up how many players were drafted in the top 10 for the past 10 years and I bet you there isnt a ton making huge noise in MLB. Look at this year draft. Appel is the clear cut 1 and then it is bunched up. Gray will probably be the number 2 pitcher, but he is no uber prospect like Strasburg. I really dont think it means much to have a top 10 pick unless there is someone out there like a Bryce Harper or Strasburg.

 

[KBisBack!]

Nobody is saying the Cubs will continue to go cheap for dozens of years, like the Royals.

But Ricketts has yet to SHOW that he won't continue to go cheap for dozens of years.

Little detail you are forgetting there.

You BELIEVE he won't.

I will believe it when I see it, not because some idiot on a message board believes it to be true.

Every action Ricketts has done since buying the team has been to increase profits. Very few moves have been to win more games.

 

[KBisBack!]

What owner would hire a gm who didn't try to win?

One that wanted to make more money.

That wasn't hard to figure out.

 

[KBisBack!]

The bolded looks like it is mere leverage to get everyone behind the Cubs and against the city's goals in renovating Wrigley.

It is truly sad how the Cubs are already one of the top revenue generating teams in the sport, yet Ricketts says the team doesn't have the resources to be competitive and many people believe that to be true.

Truly, truly sad.

 

[KBisBack!]

My thing about peoples hard on for the draft is unless there is a cant miss prospect. The draft is a crap shoot. Baseball draft is nothing like football or basketball. They usually have clear cut better prospects from others. Baseball is a different animal. Having top 10 picks doesnt guarantee anything. Theo and them did not have high picks in Boston and people praise there farm. You have to trust your scouts and hope you hit on some. You can look up how many players were drafted in the top 10 for the past 10 years and I bet you there isnt a ton making huge noise in MLB. Look at this year draft. Appel is the clear cut 1 and then it is bunched up. Gray will probably be the number 2 pitcher, but he is no uber prospect like Strasburg. I really dont think it means much to have a top 10 pick unless there is someone out there like a Bryce Harper or Strasburg.

Exactly.

People run their mouths about how it is ok that the team isn't spending on the major league team because they are investing the resources in better scouting and computers.

Then the same people turn right around and say that you can't build a strong farm system unless you are drafting in the top 5.

Why spend all the money of the scouting and almighty computers if you are going to waste it by depending on top 5 picks?

Just dumb.

 

[nwfisch]

You really are a stupid moron, aren't you? I said nothing about Epstein and Hoyers reputation with the fans. What owner would hire a gm who didn't try to win? And if you think these two guys are going to retire in a few years you're full of shit.

And your lapdog buddy Flyers garbled response only proves his inability to think for himself, let alone think at all.

New site, same old garbage from you and your posse. Have a nice day troll.

Tommy Nickels would.

 

[SilenceS]

Tommy Nickels would.

Nothing to do with baseball, but watching Bron Bron get pushed down on your thing makes me believe more and more he flopped on it.

 

[AmericanFlyer1]

Or we could win 10 more meaningless games for a lower pick that is less likely but none the less maybe will help the club in 3-5. Either way we aren't going anywhere so get as much out of the nothing as you can is what you're telling me. Just like drinking water. Oh one more sip it's gonna make the difference let me try to get it.

You actually believe this nonsense don't you?

 

[AmericanFlyer1]

It is truly sad how the Cubs are already one of the top revenue generating teams in the sport, yet Ricketts says the team doesn't have the resources to be competitive and many people believe that to be true.

Truly, truly sad.

No, what's truly sad is that there are morons that believe it.


Sometimes I think that one day people will wake up, grow a brain, and realize that most politicians could care less about anything but money. Then, I come to these boards and I see that people believe the piles and piles of shit that Rick-stein throw out to the masses. And then, realize that people are only getting dumber.