Hey Sheep:

[nwfisch]

That's why they hired Manny for Iowa. :evil:

Should have hired Parade_Rain for the MLB team .

 

[beckdawg]

Not making a strawman, just saying even the architect of the Chicago Cubs has to believe in some sort of FA signing.

So all of the people that make lineups full of prospects are wasting their time and frankly are going against the idea of realistically building a MLB team.

In all honesty, I still think people are missing the point. The argument always devolves into prospect being risky cheap and controlled vs FAs being more "safe" and expensive. However, no one ever talks about trades FOR players rather than an annual flipping of the players. Often FA's don't turn out being that good. I honestly couldn't care less if they choose not to spend on FAs in the way that people seem to want. However, I want to see them more active in trades. I was disappointed they apparently weren't in on Dexter Fowler. He's the type of player this front office supposedly is for(12.5%/22.1%) career walk/k rate. I would like to see them in on Ethier if he becomes available. He's a lefty and while making big money by cubs standards, he's "cheap" when compared to FA prices. Considering the utter lack of quality hitting FA next year I'd hope they really work the trades.

 

[diavolos]

I can't wait for the next free agent not named Edwin Jackson to sign a lengthy deal.

i can almost guarantee you that someone on this very site will then post "that was the worst contract in the history of major league baseball."

 

[2323]

I get a kick out of how people accept the stadium issues as a valid reason for not putting a better product on the field. People should take old man Ricketts comments about buying the team because Cubs fans are suckers. The Ricketts are trying to pull a fast one by implying they'll spend more once they get everything they want. We've already seen what happened in Miami and how the Marlins played every one for fools. I guess one of the differences is that the Ricketts called Cubs fans suckers before but the Marlins president called the people of Miami suckers after the fact.

Any approval the Ricketts have received regarding the character changes to Wrigley should have been contingent on spending money on the product they're putting on the field.

And one of the things that's absurd about this is the almost exclusive focused dedicated to making changes to Wrigley and not what's happening with the team itself and how they're ripping off people who pay to watch this team. It's disgraceful how much attention the stadium issue gets. I guess what that truly does say is that people care more about Wrigley than the Cubs. There's so much apathy when it comes to the Cubs now, Wrigley is the news item. They're not even worth watching on tv. But let's talk about Ricketts crying poverty as an excuse to f*** up Wrigley.

 

[Parade_Rain]

That's why I had an issue with a Cub fan who is endeared to Wrigley buying the team.

 

[Mr. Cub]

Our team is trash. Thoyer has destroyed it. We won't ever be competitive. I hate them.

 

[chibears55]

Our team is trash. Thoyer has destroyed it. We won't ever be competitive. I hate them.

I disagree... I actually think their gonna be a lot better next year

I really think baez and bryant are as good as they show and will make a big difference with the offense..
Now depending on who else they add will determine if they will be .500 good or better next year.

That just my belief.. ill stick to it til they prove me wrong

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Cub]

I disagree... I actually think their gonna be a lot better next year

I really think baez and bryant are as good as they show and will make a big difference with the offense..
Now depending on who else they add will determine if they will be .500 good or better next year.

That just my belief.. ill stick to it til they prove me wrong

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

Depends what they do. Probably nothing. All they have done since running this team is fill roster spots and trade for 15 year olds. They haven't signed anything major nor do they appear likely to in the future. I am not a fan of these people in charge of the sCrUBS right now, unless they sign/trade for Giancarlo Stanton. That might not be enough haha

 

[beckdawg]

I get a kick out of how people accept the stadium issues as a valid reason for not putting a better product on the field.

It is(to some extent) just not in the way most people think. From what I can gather, the front office apparently has a top end payroll budget of $105-110 mil. Obviously it's hard to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt but the fact is Theo spent to that level his first two years while saying they spent every dime they had. Simply put, that's more than enough money to be a competitive team.

The issue is for whatever reason ownership apparently wanted Theo to cut salary from the $140 mil range down to the $105-110 mil range. That in turn cost them Ramirez and Pena in 2012 which with the lack of ability to spend in 2012 caused them to be terrible. That in turn lead to a lot of salary slashing because there wasn't enough team left to build on given that payroll. Where the stadium comes in is that initial cutting of salary. While it's pure speculation as to why ownership cut salary, it's some what safe to assume that if they were making more money that some of that would trickle down to the MLB payroll.

I'll give an example. Prior to the 2012 season the Yankees decided A.J. Burnett was no longer in their plans. However, he still had 2 years and $31.1 million left on his contract. To make it happen, they ate $18.1 mil of his contract. They then went out and signed Hiroki Kuroda essentially as his replacement for $15 mil. Because they had revenue flexibility they were able to reload quickly rather than eat his contract and be shitty for a year. In the case of the cubs, they had Zambrano and later Marmol as well as others that they were quite motivated to move. However, unlike the Yankees because ownership slashed their budget that meant that they couldn't buy their way out of the problem like the Yankees and instead had to eat a shitty season.

Some have argued that the team did have the money and are just sandbagging fans. While its possible that is true from the ownership standpoint, I see no reason the front office would willingly spend only part of their budget. In other words, what is in it for Theo to only spend $105-110 mil in payroll when he has the possibility to spend at a much higher rate? Logically the only thing that makes sense is that ownership made them reduce to that level. Presumably, if the stadium generated more revenue some portion of that would also filter down to the front office and thus to the MLB payroll. However, since they didn't have extra revenue from that they were apparently forced to let a player like Ramirez walk which in turn meant they were going to be a poor team when you consider they won 71 games prior to 2012. The $40.4 mil they had to spend prior to 2013 wasn't anywhere near enough to turn a 61 win team into a contender. So again they built with the idea of selling off parts.

That's how we got here. Whether or not the front office should have more money to spend is irrelevant since this appears to be the reality of the situation based on what information we have. Not having the ability to stay at that payroll level set this all in motion. As I said before, $105-110 mil is more than enough to be a competitive team IF it's properly allocated. In the case of the 2012 and 2013 cubs you had a couple people eating up giant portions of the payroll and not giving commensurate production. That in turn limited their ability to compete in any real way because unlike the Yankees they couldn't buy away their mistakes.

Because of that, things like revenue streams actually matter. That's not just Wrigley but also the TV contracts and the fact they have to jump through so many hoops to put up fucking signs on their park. All of those things give you more money which in turn eventually gives you more payroll. More payroll in 2012 would have meant keeping Ramirez. Ramirez would have meant another solid player to build upon instead of relying on Ian Stewart and friends. That in turn means they could have focused on other areas to improve the team rather than filling urgent needs. That one initial cost cutting move has left them in a situation where they've constantly been trying to plug holes. In 2012 it was 2 starters, 3B and CF. Last year, another starter, LF, and 3B again. This year, they needed another starter arguably 3 OF's, 2B, and 3B.

So that's why I think the stadium matters.

 

[2323]

It is(to some extent) just not in the way most people think. From what I can gather, the front office apparently has a top end payroll budget of $105-110 mil. Obviously it's hard to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt but the fact is Theo spent to that level his first two years while saying they spent every dime they had. Simply put, that's more than enough money to be a competitive team.

The issue is for whatever reason ownership apparently wanted Theo to cut salary from the $140 mil range down to the $105-110 mil range. That in turn cost them Ramirez and Pena in 2012 which with the lack of ability to spend in 2012 caused them to be terrible. That in turn lead to a lot of salary slashing because there wasn't enough team left to build on given that payroll. Where the stadium comes in is that initial cutting of salary. While it's pure speculation as to why ownership cut salary, it's some what safe to assume that if they were making more money that some of that would trickle down to the MLB payroll.

I'll give an example. Prior to the 2012 season the Yankees decided A.J. Burnett was no longer in their plans. However, he still had 2 years and $31.1 million left on his contract. To make it happen, they ate $18.1 mil of his contract. They then went out and signed Hiroki Kuroda essentially as his replacement for $15 mil. Because they had revenue flexibility they were able to reload quickly rather than eat his contract and be shitty for a year. In the case of the cubs, they had Zambrano and later Marmol as well as others that they were quite motivated to move. However, unlike the Yankees because ownership slashed their budget that meant that they couldn't buy their way out of the problem like the Yankees and instead had to eat a shitty season.

Some have argued that the team did have the money and are just sandbagging fans. While its possible that is true from the ownership standpoint, I see no reason the front office would willingly spend only part of their budget. In other words, what is in it for Theo to only spend $105-110 mil in payroll when he has the possibility to spend at a much higher rate? Logically the only thing that makes sense is that ownership made them reduce to that level. Presumably, if the stadium generated more revenue some portion of that would also filter down to the front office and thus to the MLB payroll. However, since they didn't have extra revenue from that they were apparently forced to let a player like Ramirez walk which in turn meant they were going to be a poor team when you consider they won 71 games prior to 2012. The $40.4 mil they had to spend prior to 2013 wasn't anywhere near enough to turn a 61 win team into a contender. So again they built with the idea of selling off parts.

That's how we got here. Whether or not the front office should have more money to spend is irrelevant since this appears to be the reality of the situation based on what information we have. Not having the ability to stay at that payroll level set this all in motion. As I said before, $105-110 mil is more than enough to be a competitive team IF it's properly allocated. In the case of the 2012 and 2013 cubs you had a couple people eating up giant portions of the payroll and not giving commensurate production. That in turn limited their ability to compete in any real way because unlike the Yankees they couldn't buy away their mistakes.

Because of that, things like revenue streams actually matter. That's not just Wrigley but also the TV contracts and the fact they have to jump through so many hoops to put up fucking signs on their park. All of those things give you more money which in turn eventually gives you more payroll. More payroll in 2012 would have meant keeping Ramirez. Ramirez would have meant another solid player to build upon instead of relying on Ian Stewart and friends. That in turn means they could have focused on other areas to improve the team rather than filling urgent needs. That one initial cost cutting move has left them in a situation where they've constantly been trying to plug holes. In 2012 it was 2 starters, 3B and CF. Last year, another starter, LF, and 3B again. This year, they needed another starter arguably 3 OF's, 2B, and 3B.

So that's why I think the stadium matters.

There are a lot of red herrings being floated. I don't buy what they're telling everyone and for that reason, rationalizing it as if it's legitimate is a waste of time. But I'll point out that you said they haven't spent because they need more revenue. You also said they need to put some time between eating so much money on unloading bad contracts. Which is it? If it's a matter of reconstituting their payroll, why wouldn't they just wait for time to elapse? As is, the Cubs were the most profitable team in 2012 and were a top 5 revenue team in 2013. That should be enough to take on more payroll. And assuming they get what they want with all the changes, there's no assurance they'll take on more payroll. And before you bring up stadium costs and their debt, they knew this before they bought the team...and they were awarded the team in spite of not being the highest bidder. Basically, what this says is that they should have been awarded the team to begin with.

I remember when Theo first came to town and insisted that they were devoted to being competitive now while also cultivating the farm system. So it looks like Ricketts lied to Theo unless it was Theo who was blowing smoke.

 

[beckdawg]

There are a lot of red herrings being floated. I don't buy what they're telling everyone and for that reason, rationalizing it as if it's legitimate is a waste of time. But I'll point out that you said they haven't spent because they need more revenue. You also said they need to put some time between eating so much money on unloading bad contracts. Which is it? If it's a matter of reconstituting their payroll, why wouldn't they just wait for time to elapse? As is, the Cubs were the most profitable team in 2012 and were a top 5 revenue team in 2013. That should be enough to take on more payroll. And assuming they get what they want with all the changes, there's no assurance they'll take on more payroll. And before you bring up stadium costs and their debt, they knew this before they bought the team...and they were awarded the team in spite of not being the highest bidder. Basically, what this says is that they should have been awarded the team to begin with.

I remember when Theo first came to town and insisted that they were devoted to being competitive now while also cultivating the farm system. So it looks like Ricketts lied to Theo unless it was Theo who was blowing smoke.

If you're not buying the claims of ownership putting all the money back into the team that's fine. My point is simple. There is literally no reason for the front office and Theo to put up a charade about what they have to spend. Ownership on the other hand has reason. If ownership is pocketing the money as some claim they have every reason to conceal how much they are making. However, what reasoning is there for Theo and the front office to say they are spending every penny they have(read: the front office not the organization) when in actuality they could spend more? I'll humor the the argument. Let's say that the front office has the $136ish mil payroll that Hendry had. What does Theo get out of saying they are spending every penny when in reality they have another $25-30 mil they could spend? His job is directly tied to wins. So, when the cubs lose like they have the past 2.5ish years that reflects on him in potentially new jobs if he isn't successful. If he had that sort of money to spend he would have every reason to do so unless like with Tanaka they tried to sign someone and failed. As for the top 5 in revenue, again, that is ownership not the front office. Think of it like any other business. The owners can take out as much profit from a business as they choose. The marketing department or whatever other area of the business doesn't set their own budget. Owners do. So, if the ownership is giving Theo and the front office $105-110 mil for payroll that's what they have to spend even if the ownership may or may not have millions more they could give the front office. And as I've already established, the front office has no reason to avoid spending all of their budget which logically means that what they are spending is around the max they have to spend give or take some left over for emergency signings.

As for the spending vs waiting, I thought I was clear but I'll try to be a bit more concise. The point I was making is that if front office had more budget they could spend their way out of the problem(see: yanks example). They could have ate Zambrano's contract to get rid of him and then replaced him with a better piece. However, because they apparently don't have the budget to do that, and because they were apparently forced to cut payroll by ownership they were set down a path where they didn't have the option to spend their way to competitiveness. Replacing a player like Ramirez to do without spending $12 mil+ in FA. And considering they've spent only $14 mil 2 of the past 3 off seasons having needs all over that's just not a real option.

Also, it's not as though Theo has even done a bad job in FA. Typically 1 WAR has been worth about $6-7 mil in FA. In 2012 he got 3 WAR for ~$14 mil. In 2013 he got 7.3 WAR for $40.4 if you include Strop for Feldmans money. Thus far in 2013 he's gotten 2 WAR in 1/3 of a season for ~$14 mil. I'm not suggesting WAR is the end all be all of stats but it's an easy unbiased way of comparing players and money. If $40.4 mil got them 7.3 WAR in 2013, even if you double that you're talking mid 70's best case. The problem is $14-$40 mil isn't digging a team out of a 61 win hole. Add that with a AA/AAA system that has produced Castillo, Lake, and Rusin in the past 2.5 years and it's pretty clear why they are here.

Either way, in my opinion it's too late to address the problem with money. Without doing any kind of study, it seems like about 50% of FA under perform and with the amount of needs they currently have on offense I don't think you can realistically get there unless you go 2007-2010 yankees and buy every FA. The time to stop it was having enough money in 2012 or even better a year or two before that. However, the team sale obviously screwed with that time line some. Rather doing a full blown rebuild when you have nothing in AA/AAA come up and your players get old, had they been able to deal some expensive vets like Zambrano in 2011 when they were 34-44 at the end of june would have saved them some trouble.

 

[X]

is it really that absurd for a guy that's got a 300+ career average and averages roughly 25 hr and 100 rbi a year? or is an above average fielder. so what if he's 40 when it runs out. people act like 20 million today counts the same as 20 million 10 years from now. and that's just factoring in monetary inflation, not additional revenues from new television contracts.

Whatever you say, Pat.

 

[CSF77]

They needed to get younger but it should have been a natural filter in. They should not have tossed away seasons just to get better draft selection. Theo did fine in the past with worse picks.

Wrong ownership group was awarded the Cubs.

See the meeting now:

MLB: So what direction will you take the Cubs?

Cuban: Yanks mid west
Ricketts: Royals

Selig: Award Ricketts...Cubs need to suck.

 

[2323]

If you're not buying the claims of ownership putting all the money back into the team that's fine. My point is simple. There is literally no reason for the front office and Theo to put up a charade about what they have to spend. Ownership on the other hand has reason. If ownership is pocketing the money as some claim they have every reason to conceal how much they are making. However, what reasoning is there for Theo and the front office to say they are spending every penny they have(read: the front office not the organization) when in actuality they could spend more? I'll humor the the argument. Let's say that the front office has the $136ish mil payroll that Hendry had. What does Theo get out of saying they are spending every penny when in reality they have another $25-30 mil they could spend? His job is directly tied to wins. So, when the cubs lose like they have the past 2.5ish years that reflects on him in potentially new jobs if he isn't successful. If he had that sort of money to spend he would have every reason to do so unless like with Tanaka they tried to sign someone and failed. As for the top 5 in revenue, again, that is ownership not the front office. Think of it like any other business. The owners can take out as much profit from a business as they choose. The marketing department or whatever other area of the business doesn't set their own budget. Owners do. So, if the ownership is giving Theo and the front office $105-110 mil for payroll that's what they have to spend even if the ownership may or may not have millions more they could give the front office. And as I've already established, the front office has no reason to avoid spending all of their budget which logically means that what they are spending is around the max they have to spend give or take some left over for emergency signings.

As for the spending vs waiting, I thought I was clear but I'll try to be a bit more concise. The point I was making is that if front office had more budget they could spend their way out of the problem(see: yanks example). They could have ate Zambrano's contract to get rid of him and then replaced him with a better piece. However, because they apparently don't have the budget to do that, and because they were apparently forced to cut payroll by ownership they were set down a path where they didn't have the option to spend their way to competitiveness. Replacing a player like Ramirez to do without spending $12 mil+ in FA. And considering they've spent only $14 mil 2 of the past 3 off seasons having needs all over that's just not a real option.

Also, it's not as though Theo has even done a bad job in FA. Typically 1 WAR has been worth about $6-7 mil in FA. In 2012 he got 3 WAR for ~$14 mil. In 2013 he got 7.3 WAR for $40.4 if you include Strop for Feldmans money. Thus far in 2013 he's gotten 2 WAR in 1/3 of a season for ~$14 mil. I'm not suggesting WAR is the end all be all of stats but it's an easy unbiased way of comparing players and money. If $40.4 mil got them 7.3 WAR in 2013, even if you double that you're talking mid 70's best case. The problem is $14-$40 mil isn't digging a team out of a 61 win hole. Add that with a AA/AAA system that has produced Castillo, Lake, and Rusin in the past 2.5 years and it's pretty clear why they are here.

Either way, in my opinion it's too late to address the problem with money. Without doing any kind of study, it seems like about 50% of FA under perform and with the amount of needs they currently have on offense I don't think you can realistically get there unless you go 2007-2010 yankees and buy every FA. The time to stop it was having enough money in 2012 or even better a year or two before that. However, the team sale obviously screwed with that time line some. Rather doing a full blown rebuild when you have nothing in AA/AAA come up and your players get old, had they been able to deal some expensive vets like Zambrano in 2011 when they were 34-44 at the end of june would have saved them some trouble.

Just so I'm clear. The issue is the Ricketts. Theos not perfect but he's not the problem. I thought I suggested as much in a previous comment when i referenced Theo promising building the farm system AND trying to win now. He was probably under that impression himself based on what he was told by the Ricketts.

I'll also say that, I agree that if you don't make the playoffs, you're better off with the higher draft pick. But at the same time, the Cubs haven't won since the Ricketts bought the team. And the Cubs were a team with an enormous revenue stream. And the Ricketts were only the 4th highest bidder for the Cubs, if memory serves. If they couldn't afford to buy the Cubs, they shouldn't have bid in the Cubs. And you really have to question the motivation of Selig and others in picking the Ricketts to own the Cubs. When you look at what the Ricketts have done, it's no wonder the players union is complaining. Turning a big market/big revenue team into a team that, on the field, resembles a small market team benefits the other owners. It's dubious.

Everything this regime does in terms of making overtures to spend once they get everything they want is tactic. Crane Kenney was on CSL last night and practically admitted as much. He said they were looking to get a sweetheart spring training facility out of Arizona, and when they didn't get their way, they resorted to talking with Naples Florida. So then Arizona gave them what they wanted when confronted with the threat of them leaving. Another thing that's interesting is that Kenney also said they've always been committed to staying at Wrigley. It's interesting because a couple of years ago, Ricketts said he would move the team to Rosemont if he didn't get his way with Wrigley. So, Kenney said they were always committed to Wrigley but Ricketts said they'd become the Rosemont Cubs if he didn't get his way? So which is it? And keep in mind that this Rosemont thing came up right around the time the Cubs were going through the process of trying to get changes approved. Where did all of this come from? It seemed to be awfully convenient for the Ricketts that this Rosemont stuff came up when it did. Based on thus and what Kenney said last night it's pretty obvious that Ricketts was lying about the Rosemint stuff and that it was tactic.

There is absolutely no reason to believe anything Ricketts says. He likely lied about Rosemont and he likely lied to Theo when he was first brought in. And all Ricketts has done is try to slash payroll. Why does anyone believe Ricketts will someday turn into someone willing to spend money on player salaries in a way that's commensurate with the revenue streams the Ricketts underpaid for?

 

[zack54attack]

I was all for making a run @ Fielder...who coincidentally was recently shelf'd for the season. Cano's contract is absurd...the type of contract you enjoy for 2-3 years and regret for the rest of the contract...Tanaka, meh...I wanted him...I don't think he's as good as his start has been, but I do think he's very good. The Yankees made sure they were going to get him, and he was pretty sure he wanted to go to the Yankees...can't do much about that...

The Soriano thing seems like a favor to him to give him the opportunity to win. What a bastard FO.

BINGO.

Still don't know why Cubs fans complain about them not getting Tanaka. They had a reported high bid. But like you said, he wanted New York and New York wanted him.

 

[2323]

BINGO.

Still don't know why Cubs fans complain about them not getting Tanaka. They had a reported high bid. But like you said, he wanted New York and New York wanted him.

Tanaka is their only free agency failure? I like people focus on a subset of the larger issue so that they can ignore the larger issue. The Cubs have had numerous failures in free agency with regard to acing in good faith. If you try to explain all of it individually, you're going to have to come up with an extraordinary amount of excuses. Why would someone like Tanaka ever considering playing for the Cubs when they have such a lean roster and the Yankees are offering a lot of money too? It's questionable whether they really expected to be able to sign Tanaka.

 

[JZsportsfan]

Yu Darvish > Tanaka. Theoretically could have landed them both

 

[Boobaby1]

Yu Darvish > Tanaka. Theoretically could have landed them both

Yeap! But they landed Edwin Jackson though.

I guess some Cubs fans continue to blindly think that they will be able to land the right high-profiled free agent when the opportunity presents itself like a Fielder, Darvish, Tanaka, Pujols, Cano, or a Miggy to name a few. Some think you just have to wait till money starts rolling in. LMFAO

Considering they have landed ONE in the existence of the organization, I wouldn't hold my breath with this administration, or any for that matter.

 

[chibears55]

Yeap! But they landed Edwin Jackson though.

I guess some Cubs fans continue to blindly think that they will be able to land the right high-profiled free agent when the opportunity presents itself like a Fielder, Darvish, Tanaka, Pujols, Cano, or a Miggy to name a few. Some think you just have to wait till money starts rolling in. LMFAO

Considering they have landed ONE in the existence of the organization, I wouldn't hold my breath with this administration, or any for that matter.

Guess there still people like you who still blindly think there going to be high-profiled FAs available in 2-3 yrs that not pass their prime yrs... seriously you have to be the only person who hasn't noticed the trend going around of teams signing their young stars to long term deals pass their prime yrs..
Even the international signings had changed so more teams have opportunities to sign these players and the players have choice of where they want to go.

one last thing.. the players you just mentioned, signed their big contracts with teams that just recently agreed to billion dollars tv deals.. so in ways, yeah you have to wait til money starts rolling in to offer players like them that size of a contract they got. LMFAO


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

 

[Boobaby1]

Guess there still people like you who still blindly think there going to be high-profiled FAs available in 2-3 yrs that not pass their prime yrs... seriously you have to be the only person who hasn't noticed the trend going around of teams signing their young stars to long term deals pass their prime yrs..
Even the international signings had changed so more teams have opportunities to sign these players and the players have choice of where they want to go.

one last thing.. the players you just mentioned, signed their big contracts with teams that just recently agreed to billion dollars tv deals.. so in ways, yeah you have to wait til money starts rolling in to offer players like them that size of a contract they got. LMFAO


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Tapatalk

Ummm! I believe the first three I mentioned were definitely in their prime years. It was also a point.

And yes, I have noticed the trend of signing players to long term deals from home grown talent, but there are many, many teams who have not only extended their own, but went out and still signed Mega deals.

Hell, the Tigers for instance, have inked Ordonez, V-Mart, Sanchez, Miggy, and Fielder while still locking up Verlander. Do I need to also explain the Dodgers, Angels, Phillies, Red Sox, and Yankees, who continue to not only lock up their own players, but delve into the free agent market? How many of those teams intentionally tanked seasons?

And lastly, please stop with the pity party that the Cubs have to wait for a TV deal to ink anyone. You don't drop payroll nearly in half from four years ago, and supplement it with trash. That is by design whether you like it or not.

If you are waiting for the TV deal to come along before they start spending, brace yourself because this sustained success stuff is going to hit about year 7 of Theo's 5 year contract. Now do the math with that one.

Their is a reason the MLBPA is breathing down the Cubs necks to understand why they are not spending to their capabilities.