Jed Hoyer Disses Cubs Fans

[brett05]

$100 million just spent

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...-countdown-dodgers-renovations-a-hit/2772467/

 

[beckdawg]

No, but it does explain where real ownership can do some things. Now granted the Dodgers are Platinum with I would say The Yankees just a hair below and the Cubs definitely a solid Gold.

Well regardless, the cubs had the most debt of any major league team which was my point.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...to-move-from-wrigley-field-related-cubs-debt/

But the team’s need for more money is not so much tied to its antiquated ballpark, but rather the huge amount of debt the family used to purchase the team, Wrigley Field and 25% of Comcast CMCSA -0.19% SportsNet Chicago for $845 million from the Tribune Co. in 2009. The team still has almost $600 million of debt from the purchase.

The dodgers got a huge boost from the TV contract which essentially removed their debt. The cubs are in a weird position though because their tv contract is split in two pieces. Granted one is up but the other portion isn't for a number of years. What would be nice is if CSN would rip up their portion of the contract and just flat out buy all the cubs games on a new contract.

As I said before, I think you can question MLB letting the Ricketts buy the team given the issues they appear to be having with money right now. That seems valid. But, that's in the past and the Ricketts are who we have and this situation is what it is. And given that, I don't really think it's a case of them being cheap. It's more a case of them not having the income from the team to off set the cost of the team right now. I mean let's get real here, between the purchase of the team and the renovations you're talking about $1.2 BILLION dollars. That's not a small sum of money and even if the Ricketts do have lots of value associated with them it doesn't mean the money is liquid. Most of it is probably tied up in other investments.

Also, I've still yet to see anyone show a strong correlation between FA and winning. Humor me for a moment, let's say the cubs take 5-6 years under the Ricketts and play basically like they have been. And then let's say after that adjustment period they operate like Tampa only with slightly more money to retain their own guys. Would anyone really be bitching about a team that regularly is in the playoffs? Money is only an issue when you're losing. And people can say well the cubs aren't Tampa. But, its not just Tampa doing this. The Braves for years have built through their farm system as have the cards and numerous other successful teams. In my view, a team that can build like that but has slightly more payroll flexibility can truly be a dominant team. Look at the situation spending has got the Yankees into. Boston was largely bailed out by the Dodgers in their similar situation.

So, in my view, the sweet spot isn't the top 5 spending teams. It's the say 7-15 area because you have enough money to retain your players but not so much that you feel compelled to over spend on FA who frankly aren't worth the contracts they get.

 

[CSF77]

Money is only an issue when you're losing

.

bingo peeps are impatient

I find it stupid to be this way. The team has not won a WS for 100 years.......And all of a sudden there is this major sence of urgency to go to the WS.

Just amazing. What is a few years really mean after 100 years of sucking? Drop in the bucket. At least they are doing something unique to the Cubs. Not unique to baseball because the Cubs have been run like crap for most of it's history. Except for a blip when Green was running the ship. Which let to Madux.

 

[SilenceS]

So, I have a question. Are the Cubs doing anything different from the other 29 teams in MLB? When Theo was hired in Boston, he was ahead of the curve a little bit because not every organization was completely sold on Sabers. Now, every team uses it. Theo and them don't have some ground breaking thing they are working with. They are proficient at it and use it to a T but what competitive edge is it giving the Cubs? Im a firm believe in extenuate the positives and hide the negatives. One of the positives of the Cubs is their loyal fan base and huge market. They are not using that to their advantage. Will they? Maybe but it has to be done to say for sure. I have no problem with building the farm. I have no problem with acquiring talent, but you are limiting your franchise with cutting the budget to new lows. This isn't they are maintaining 130 million dollar payroll. I don't see how the Cubs even crack the 100 million mark this year without Tanaka. This is Ricketts hamstringing the front office of all its assets. When Ricketts bought this team, he had a plan. He didn't buy it on a whim and start making things happen as they go. They have had a plan to increase revenue by the truckloads. The whole Wrigley renovation and hotel is to make money. That is why I believe Ricketts and them will not spend anything close to a big market until pass 2019. That's when they have the bigger plans to create a network like YES!. Theo's whole contract relies on his first wave of prospects succeeding. That is putting yourself in a box. That is what makes what there doing not completely right in my view. Even if 2 of the big 4 makes it as regulars or better. It still does not make the Cubs big time contenders. You also have to consider they need years to progress in the majors. What Theo and them are doing may work, but if it doesn't happen by 2016 then Theo will see the door because Ricketts is going have to blame someone. I will say with absolute certainty that the big 4 will not bring us a championship in 2016. It would actually be pretty hard to make the playoffs with the division we are in. Pitt and Cards have great farms as well. They also have very good major league talent. The Cubs have a good farm and not much else. They are boxing themselves in to much for my liking.

 

[beckdawg]

So, I have a question. Are the Cubs doing anything different from the other 29 teams in MLB? When Theo was hired in Boston, he was ahead of the curve a little bit because not every organization was completely sold on Sabers. Now, every team uses it. Theo and them don't have some ground breaking thing they are working with. They are proficient at it and use it to a T but what competitive edge is it giving the Cubs? Im a firm believe in extenuate the positives and hide the negatives. One of the positives of the Cubs is their loyal fan base and huge market. They are not using that to their advantage. Will they? Maybe but it has to be done to say for sure. I have no problem with building the farm. I have no problem with acquiring talent, but you are limiting your franchise with cutting the budget to new lows. This isn't they are maintaining 130 million dollar payroll. I don't see how the Cubs even crack the 100 million mark this year without Tanaka. This is Ricketts hamstringing the front office of all its assets. When Ricketts bought this team, he had a plan. He didn't buy it on a whim and start making things happen as they go. They have had a plan to increase revenue by the truckloads. The whole Wrigley renovation and hotel is to make money. That is why I believe Ricketts and them will not spend anything close to a big market until pass 2019. That's when they have the bigger plans to create a network like YES!. Theo's whole contract relies on his first wave of prospects succeeding. That is putting yourself in a box. That is what makes what there doing not completely right in my view. Even if 2 of the big 4 makes it as regulars or better. It still does not make the Cubs big time contenders. You also have to consider they need years to progress in the majors. What Theo and them are doing may work, but if it doesn't happen by 2016 then Theo will see the door because Ricketts is going have to blame someone. I will say with absolute certainty that the big 4 will not bring us a championship in 2016. It would actually be pretty hard to make the playoffs with the division we are in. Pitt and Cards have great farms as well. They also have very good major league talent. The Cubs have a good farm and not much else. They are boxing themselves in to much for my liking.

Limiting by cutting to new lows of average MLB spending? That's what bugs me about those who complain about them cutting costs. They are going back to an average MLB payroll. It's not that they are going astro's level of savings. Now sure, that limits what they can do in the first 1-3 years of the theo regime but when their farm system finally starts producing talent they will have a very clean payroll and can add pieces as needed. If they sign someone this year or last year by the time that is the case you're paying a 33-34 like they are an in their prime player.

You bring up the "what if" of prospects failing. If they sign FA over this 3 year frame and their prospects fail they are going to be in the exact same boat. Don't believe me? Look at what happened during the Soriano signing spree. They were good for 2 years and then got very little out of their farm and were back to being bad. If your farm fails your team is going to struggle to compete regardless. Even the yankee's are struggling with this now as they haven't had a good stream of young talent hitting the majors. And additionally, being bad does come with some advantages(higher picks and more international signing money).

Now as for your question about edges like metrics, I would argue they are taking advantage of the new international signings. Presumably they felt this past intentional FA's were better than this coming years and they over spent. Now, this coming year they can't spend as much. However, they still have their signing slot which is a tradeable asset. I would also argue that they are using their lower payroll but still decent by MLB standard to sign flippable players and acquire more team controlled talent. I really can't exaggerate how smart that is. They payed $5 mil for Feldman and they got Arrieta and Strop out of the deal who could turn into very valuable assets not to mention the half year or so out of him.

 

[brett05]

Re: Jed Hoyer disses Cubs fans

Well regardless, the cubs had the most debt of any major league team which was my point.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...to-move-from-wrigley-field-related-cubs-debt/


The dodgers got a huge boost from the TV contract which essentially removed their debt. The cubs are in a weird position though because their tv contract is split in two pieces. Granted one is up but the other portion isn't for a number of years. What would be nice is if CSN would rip up their portion of the contract and just flat out buy all the cubs games on a new contract.

As I said before, I think you can question MLB letting the Ricketts buy the team given the issues they appear to be having with money right now. That seems valid. But, that's in the past and the Ricketts are who we have and this situation is what it is. And given that, I don't really think it's a case of them being cheap. It's more a case of them not having the income from the team to off set the cost of the team right now. I mean let's get real here, between the purchase of the team and the renovations you're talking about $1.2 BILLION dollars. That's not a small sum of money and even if the Ricketts do have lots of value associated with them it doesn't mean the money is liquid. Most of it is probably tied up in other investments.

Also, I've still yet to see anyone show a strong correlation between FA and winning. Humor me for a moment, let's say the cubs take 5-6 years under the Ricketts and play basically like they have been. And then let's say after that adjustment period they operate like Tampa only with slightly more money to retain their own guys. Would anyone really be (complaning) about a team that regularly is in the playoffs? Money is only an issue when you're losing. And people can say well the cubs aren't Tampa. But, its not just Tampa doing this. The Braves for years have built through their farm system as have the cards and numerous other successful teams. In my view, a team that can build like that but has slightly more payroll flexibility can truly be a dominant team. Look at the situation spending has got the Yankees into. Boston was largely bailed out by the Dodgers in their similar situation.

The cubs have revenue which the Rays and Braves (always loads of playoff tickets available) don't.

What if the Cubs did both improve the minors and the majors and went on to playoffs year in and out?


Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

The cubs have revenue which the Rays and Braves (always loads of playoff tickets available) don't.

What if the Cubs did both improve the minors and the majors and went on to playoffs year in and out?


Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

I could search out the link(think it was a forbes article) but I read something earlier in the year that suggested the cubs were only making 30-40 mil in annual profit and that was after they cut payroll around 30-40 mil. Their revenue isn't quite what you think it is.

Edit: let me also pose to you that what guarantee do you have that they would actually be a playoff team without throwing another $50-70 mil in average annual salary?

 

[chibears55]

not sure where you got your figures from but your a bit off...
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league-central/chicago-cubs/

cubs payroll right now stand at $49,259,524, which has just 5 players on their roster that will go north..

you have to figure they will AVG at the very least 2 mil per for the remaining 20, so that will get their payroll at the very least in the 90 MIL range..

so, im sure when its all said and done they will be close to 100 MIL..

When was the last time it was that cheap?

2004-2007 their payroll ranged between 87 MIL and 99 MIL, so it wasnt that long ago...

Tell me again why they can't outbid other teams for Tanaka because I'm all ears.

first off. Tanaka isnt about payroll, the cubs can handle his yearly salary..
its more about what its going to cost to BID for him and if just talking to him is worth X amount of dollars ? and what amount is that worth ?
the yankees, dodgers, angels are teams that probably wont have any problem throwing out X amount of dollars right now to talk to Tanaka and im sure with their billion dollar TV deals and revenues flowing in, their not too concerned about how much to throw out there for him..

cubs could BID a 100 MIL and those 3 teams could go well into the 100s without blinking an eye..

so, to answer your question.. they could very easily be outbidded by 3 teams who have more revenue and money flowing their way now...

 

[SilenceS]

Limiting by cutting to new lows of average MLB spending? That's what bugs me about those who complain about them cutting costs. They are going back to an average MLB payroll. It's not that they are going astro's level of savings. Now sure, that limits what they can do in the first 1-3 years of the theo regime but when their farm system finally starts producing talent they will have a very clean payroll and can add pieces as needed. If they sign someone this year or last year by the time that is the case you're paying a 33-34 like they are an in their prime player.

You bring up the "what if" of prospects failing. If they sign FA over this 3 year frame and their prospects fail they are going to be in the exact same boat. Don't believe me? Look at what happened during the Soriano signing spree. They were good for 2 years and then got very little out of their farm and were back to being bad. If your farm fails your team is going to struggle to compete regardless. Even the yankee's are struggling with this now as they haven't had a good stream of young talent hitting the majors. And additionally, being bad does come with some advantages(higher picks and more international signing money).

Now as for your question about edges like metrics, I would argue they are taking advantage of the new international signings. Presumably they felt this past intentional FA's were better than this coming years and they over spent. Now, this coming year they can't spend as much. However, they still have their signing slot which is a tradeable asset. I would also argue that they are using their lower payroll but still decent by MLB standard to sign flippable players and acquire more team controlled talent. I really can't exaggerate how smart that is. They payed $5 mil for Feldman and they got Arrieta and Strop out of the deal who could turn into very valuable assets not to mention the half year or so out of him.

FA's succeed more then prospects do. Also, why do you keep talking about markets that aren't in the same realm of the Cubs. Having a mid level payroll is great for a mid level market. The Cubs are not that and never will be that. So, you should not use the resources available to you because you can stay average like other teams? That's what bugs me about people who find that acceptable because the Cubs tell them it has to be acceptable. I am not one that believes you should sign a FA just to sign one. But, I am of the belief that you build every year and force the young kids to take the old timers spots. They shouldn't just be given a job. They should earn that job. You are still looking at it in a box. The Cubs have all the resources to succeed and they are limiting themselves with those resources. You can differ on opinion and that is fine, but your whole argument is the exact same as everyone elses. What ifs? Flipping players is great, but there is not one person we have sign to flip that has brought back anything of a core piece for the next 5 years. Arrieta is a highly inconsistent player. Strop the same. Its like playing the lottery and hoping you hit. All teams do this. Shit, Hendry signed Dempster as a lottery ticket and it worked out. They do work out, but eventually your team has to progress and this team on paper as it sits is worse then the past 2 teams. You are trying to push that there is only one way to build a team and that's where I disagree with people. There is more than one to skin a cat. Oh and lets not compare Yankees to other organizations. They are the Yankees and have made the playoffs what 18 out of 20 years. Im just hoping the Cubs can make it consistently for a decade before I die. Yet again, I don't blame Theo and them. They are told what they can do with budget and that's what they are doing. Oh and the international signing was big this year because the Cubs believed it was stronger this year then last. These are nothing more then lottery tickets again. Its like an all-American HS QB that is suppose to the next great NFL star and doesn't even get drafted. It happens more often then not.

 

[brett05]

Re: Jed Hoyer disses Cubs fans

I could search out the link(think it was a forbes article) but I read something earlier in the year that suggested the cubs were only making 30-40 mil in annual profit and that was after they cut payroll around 30-40 mil. Their revenue isn't quite what you think it is.

Edit: let me also pose to you that what guarantee do you have that they would actually be a playoff team without throwing another $50-70 mil in average annual salary?

No guarantee at all. Nor any that blowing off the mlb roster works either. If it doesn't then what?

Intially the Cubs were 2014-2015. Now many here are 2017-2019. As a hater I'm cool with it.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

No guarantee at all. Nor any that blowing off the mlb roster works either. If it doesn't then what?

Intially the Cubs were 2014-2015. Now many here are 2017-2019. As a hater I'm cool with it.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

If you don't spend money and fail.... you can always change your mind and spend money. If you do spend money and fail, what fall back plan do you have?

 

[beckdawg]

FA's succeed more then prospects do. Also, why do you keep talking about markets that aren't in the same realm of the Cubs. Having a mid level payroll is great for a mid level market. The Cubs are not that and never will be that. So, you should not use the resources available to you because you can stay average like other teams? That's what bugs me about people who find that acceptable because the Cubs tell them it has to be acceptable. I am not one that believes you should sign a FA just to sign one. But, I am of the belief that you build every year and force the young kids to take the old timers spots. They shouldn't just be given a job. They should earn that job. You are still looking at it in a box. The Cubs have all the resources to succeed and they are limiting themselves with those resources. You can differ on opinion and that is fine, but your whole argument is the exact same as everyone elses. What ifs? Flipping players is great, but there is not one person we have sign to flip that has brought back anything of a core piece for the next 5 years. Arrieta is a highly inconsistent player. Strop the same. Its like playing the lottery and hoping you hit. All teams do this. Shit, Hendry signed Dempster as a lottery ticket and it worked out. They do work out, but eventually your team has to progress and this team on paper as it sits is worse then the past 2 teams. You are trying to push that there is only one way to build a team and that's where I disagree with people. There is more than one to skin a cat. Oh and lets not compare Yankees to other organizations. They are the Yankees and have made the playoffs what 18 out of 20 years. Im just hoping the Cubs can make it consistently for a decade before I die. Yet again, I don't blame Theo and them. They are told what they can do with budget and that's what they are doing. Oh and the international signing was big this year because the Cubs believed it was stronger this year then last. These are nothing more then lottery tickets again. Its like an all-American HS QB that is suppose to the next great NFL star and doesn't even get drafted. It happens more often then not.

As for lottery tickets, the more times you play the higher the chance which was my point about why doing what they have with flippable prospects is worth while. As for the mid level pay roll, so what? You spend money when it improves your chance to win a title. You talk about players not being given a job. Are you then suggesting they sign a $15 mil+ player so that doesn't happen? Of course not. You sign players that help you win championships. Here's a perfect example. Let's pretend Kershaw becomes a FA after next year. He's a guy you sign. Premium talent to go along with good age range gives you a long period in which you can realistically succeed. If you want to argue for signing those types of players i'm 100% behind you. That's why I'm fine with them going after Tanaka.

On the contrary, let's take Pujols and Fielder. What would they have done for the cubs? Pujols appeared to be about as close to a sure thing as any FA ever with a ridiculously long streak of 30 HR seasons. He now is the type of FA contract you fear with his injuries. Now, let's take Fielder. I'm not sure any player can live up to a $20 mil+ contract but he's been as good as you could hope for. In 2013 the cubs were -73 runs from MLB league average. In 2012 the cubs were -88 from league average. If you ignore for a moment they'd replace Rizzo who was one of their better offensive players with Fielder, signing Fielder at best pushes them to around a league average offense.

So, I ask you what good does it do? To be a true title contender you would have had to drop $20 mil on a Fielder type, and then probably another $30 mil on 2 $15 mil like players and that's just not realistic with this ownership. So, what's the point in signing someone like Fielder who pushes the team to average maybe slightly better than average? And if you extrapolate that farther, if you aren't going to spend $20 mil on a Fielder type, what's the use in spending $15 mil on guys? You could argue it would make them a less horrific team but would it make them good?

On the contrary, if you look at the flippable players they've signed, they increase their over all young talent. Maybe Vizcaino never makes it back. But, if he does, he very well could be an impactful player for the cubs in the future. Maybe Arrieta doesn't figure out his consistency. But if he does his stuff is #2/3 level. You bring up the fact I'm playing the same game as those who say signing FA is the way to go. I'd argue I'm not. If the current front office plan fails, they don't have large contracts and should have a fairly competent farm system. If you sign FA's who push you toward a middling team you lose out on higher draft picks and international signing money as well as you have an issue where their contracts are on the books for times past where they are worth the money they are making.

It's not a case that FA's are inherently bad. It's a case that FA are pretty irrelevant to what has happened the past 2 years and as such it would have been spending money just to spend money.

Edit: Just to add one other thing, looking at the Fielder thing you can make a valid case for his value in 2014-2017. But I'd counter with the fact they could just as easily sign someone in this offseason or next and get that same value when they have the other place around rather than committing before they have the players.

 

[beckdawg]

Also, for what it's worth I feel like this article is in line with the way I feel about what the cubs have been doing. People just assume they are trying to be bad. But, in their situation they are realistic and if things break right maybe they have a shot. For example, if Soriano hadn't been terrible to start the year and they were .500 at deadline maybe we're talking about a different team for 2013.

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/2013/11/why-is-it-written-in-stone-that-the-cubs-have-to-lose/

 

[brett05]

Re: Jed Hoyer disses Cubs fans

As for lottery tickets, the more times you play the higher the chance which was my point about why doing what they have with flippable prospects is worth while. As for the mid level pay roll, so what? You spend money when it improves your chance to win a title. You talk about players not being given a job. Are you then suggesting they sign a $15 mil+ player so that doesn't happen? Of course not. You sign players that help you win championships. Here's a perfect example. Let's pretend Kershaw becomes a FA after next year. He's a guy you sign. Premium talent to go along with good age range gives you a long period in which you can realistically succeed. If you want to argue for signing those types of players i'm 100% behind you. That's why I'm fine with them going after Tanaka.

On the contrary, let's take Pujols and Fielder. What would they have done for the cubs? Pujols appeared to be about as close to a sure thing as any FA ever with a ridiculously long streak of 30 HR seasons. He now is the type of FA contract you fear with his injuries. Now, let's take Fielder. I'm not sure any player can live up to a $20 mil+ contract but he's been as good as you could hope for. In 2013 the cubs were -73 runs from MLB league average. In 2012 the cubs were -88 from league average. If you ignore for a moment they'd replace Rizzo who was one of their better offensive players with Fielder, signing Fielder at best pushes them to around a league average offense.

So, I ask you what good does it do? To be a true title contender you would have had to drop $20 mil on a Fielder type, and then probably another $30 mil on 2 $15 mil like players and that's just not realistic with this ownership. So, what's the point in signing someone like Fielder who pushes the team to average maybe slightly better than average? And if you extrapolate that farther, if you aren't going to spend $20 mil on a Fielder type, what's the use in spending $15 mil on guys? You could argue it would make them a less horrific team but would it make them good?

On the contrary, if you look at the flippable players they've signed, they increase their over all young talent. Maybe Vizcaino never makes it back. But, if he does, he very well could be an impactful player for the cubs in the future. Maybe Arrieta doesn't figure out his consistency. But if he does his stuff is #2/3 level. You bring up the fact I'm playing the same game as those who say signing FA is the way to go. I'd argue I'm not. If the current front office plan fails, they don't have large contracts and should have a fairly competent farm system. If you sign FA's who push you toward a middling team you lose out on higher draft picks and international signing money as well as you have an issue where their contracts are on the books for times past where they are worth the money they are making.

It's not a case that FA's are inherently bad. It's a case that FA are pretty irrelevant to what has happened the past 2 years and as such it would have been spending money just to spend money.

Edit: Just to add one other thing, looking at the Fielder thing you can make a valid case for his value in 2014-2017. But I'd counter with the fact they could just as easily sign someone in this offseason or next and get that same value when they have the other place around rather than committing before they have the players.

Would you agree Fielder types aren't always available?
Fielder types make everyone in the lineup better as well

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

The team would have to be good in the first place. Expecting one player to be the savior is a recipe for disaster. Not to mention a focus of hate from the fan base and their unrealistic expectations when that one guy did not make a shitty team a post season team.

 

[brett05]

No one is saying to stop at one

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

I said back then that they would have to retain A-Ram, sign a quality RF then signing fielder made sense. They chose to push the reset button. The farm sucked and unless you have a market the size of NYY or LAD you are not going to be able to sustain a team via F/A.

 

[brett05]

Re: Jed Hoyer disses Cubs fans

I said back then that they would have to retain A-Ram, sign a quality RF then signing fielder made sense. They chose to push the reset button. The farm sucked and unless you have a market the size of NYY or LAD you are not going to be able to sustain a team via F/A.

The Cubs could

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[CSF77]

Any ways I agree with what they are doing. They had no system which opens up trade chips. Signing 30yo FA to 100-200mil is not a sucessful Strat. Especially with roids taken out of the game. Game is changing and the Cubs made a bold move to get with the times. The40 y/o peaking vet is a thing of the past. Just look at the production of these players and what ages they start to drop off. Pujos has not been the same player. There are some rare ones but you have to look at the over all vs cherrie picking the ones that suit arguement points. I'll bet that there is a drop off happening earlier and these teams are going to get saddled with it way past their fall offs.

 

[brett05]

In all fairness Albert is in the AL now

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk