Piniella's Words of Wisdom?

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,717
An excerpt from yesterday's Trib article:

"Is there a built-in obstacle to the Cubs winning or is it just coincidence?. Piniella believes the biggest obstacle he faced was the common perception that ultimately something would go wrong simply b/c they were the Cubs, making players uptight come October".

Agree or disagree?.

Piniella on Cub fans:

"You know, you win 3 or 4 games and you're going to win the pennant. You lose 3 or 4 and the season's over".

Reading into the above, he's basically saying the baseball IQ of fans is in the double-digit range.

Agree or disagree?.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,717
I'd have to agree there are a lot of the meathead Kaplanites in this fandom.

Does ownership have enough incentive to build a winner when ticket sales are high regardless of the product on the field?.

The problem I'm having is progress, or the lack thereof. I had this team finishing 5 games under back in March, which should have happened. I'm not even sure if the team is being built to win in cold weather, something even the better Cub teams have struggled with over the years.

I'm not advocating the old boycott Wrigley theme here, but if this team does not improve within 9 months...at least send a message to ownership it won't be tolerated. These fans keep padding Rickettes portfolio, at some point the return on investment needs to happen.
 

cubsneedmiracle

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 28, 2010
Posts:
7,474
Liked Posts:
1,778
Does ownership have enough incentive to build a winner when ticket sales are high regardless of the product on the field?.

The problem I'm having is progress, or the lack thereof. I had this team finishing 5 games under back in March, which should have happened. I'm not even sure if the team is being built to win in cold weather, something even the better Cub teams have struggled with over the years.

I'm not advocating the old boycott Wrigley theme here, but if this team does not improve within 9 months...at least send a message to ownership it won't be tolerated. These fans keep padding Rickettes portfolio, at some point the return on investment needs to happen.

Even if they have a drastic reducing in attendance they'll still be raking in the cash.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,733
Liked Posts:
3,719
Does ownership have enough incentive to build a winner when ticket sales are high regardless of the product on the field?.

The problem I'm having is progress, or the lack thereof. I had this team finishing 5 games under back in March, which should have happened. I'm not even sure if the team is being built to win in cold weather, something even the better Cub teams have struggled with over the years.

I'm not advocating the old boycott Wrigley theme here, but if this team does not improve within 9 months...at least send a message to ownership it won't be tolerated. These fans keep padding Rickettes portfolio, at some point the return on investment needs to happen.

In fairness, the Ricketts plan to drop 300 mil on renovating wrigley not to mention what they paid to get the team to begin with. So, it's not like they are rolling in money from the cubs at this point.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,717
In fairness, the Ricketts plan to drop 300 mil on renovating wrigley not to mention what they paid to get the team to begin with. So, it's not like they are rolling in money from the cubs at this point.

The $$ itself isn't what I am questioning, but rather the manner in which it is being spent.

If Wrigley were currently sitting where the Cell is, attendance would be similar to current attendance on the south side...yet they have a ring.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,733
Liked Posts:
3,719
If Wrigley were currently sitting where the Cell is, attendance would be similar to current attendance on the south side...yet they have a ring.

I don't really see how that's relevant. The cell doesn't need $300 mil in repairs. The Sox haven't won a title in the time the Ricketts have owned the Cubs. The trib quite obviously screwed the pooch for many years. But that's hardly the fault of the Ricketts. The ricketts have chosen to reduce payroll while they pay for the renovation. The complains about the on field talent are directly related to that.

Simply put, you would have to invest a lot of money to improve the team. Even if they had the money which is debatable to begin with, there's little guarantee a large investment in players would have netted success vs the building the farm system they did. And it was a move that if executed incorrectly would result in an even longer rebuild. My problem is people act like spending $1.2 billion between repairs and team purchase is nothing. According to forbes they have $274 mil in revenue. Even if you assume half that is profit which is probably a very high estimate, you're talking 8+ years before you see a profit on your expenses.

It's sure easy to spend other people's money....
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,721
Liked Posts:
8,841
I don't really see how that's relevant. The cell doesn't need $300 mil in repairs. The Sox haven't won a title in the time the Ricketts have owned the Cubs. The trib quite obviously screwed the pooch for many years. But that's hardly the fault of the Ricketts. The ricketts have chosen to reduce payroll while they pay for the renovation. The complains about the on field talent are directly related to that.

Simply put, you would have to invest a lot of money to improve the team. Even if they had the money which is debatable to begin with, there's little guarantee a large investment in players would have netted success vs the building the farm system they did. And it was a move that if executed incorrectly would result in an even longer rebuild. My problem is people act like spending $1.2 billion between repairs and team purchase is nothing. According to forbes they have $274 mil in revenue. Even if you assume half that is profit which is probably a very high estimate, you're talking 8+ years before you see a profit on your expenses.

It's sure easy to spend other people's money....

Ricketts put down like over half of the total sale in cash. I don't think people realize how much money the Ricketts family has. They would never buy anything that they were not consistently in the black and for a good amount. Also, the value of the franchise has already increased by like 200 million.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,721
Liked Posts:
8,841
Theo Epstein joined Jim Duquette and Jim Bowden during the Front Office (MLB Network Radio/XM Radio) last Sunday morning. The Cubs President of Baseball Operations discussed a variety of topics with the former general managers.

Theo Epstein talked in length about the Wrigley renovations and the possibility of the project not starting as planned this off-season. Epstein discussed Javier Baez, Kris Bryant, the Matt Garza deal and which player he feels will end up being the headliner of the trade in a couple of years. Epstein also talked in length about what the team’s payroll could and should be in the coming years.



Jim Duquette: Our final guest of the show, we appreciate his time. He is the President of Baseball Operations for the Chicago Cubs, he’s Theo Epstein. Theo, its Jim Duquette and Jim Bowden. How are you doing? Thanks for your time today.

Theo Epstein: You’re welcome. Hey guys, good to be on with you.

Jim Bowden: Glad to be with you. So I smiled when I saw this summer that Pearl Jam was playing at Wrigley Field. I remembered that was your favorite group. So I’ve got to ask you, how involved were you in getting Pearl Jam to play at Wrigley number one. And number two, how come you weren’t on stage with those guys.

TE: (laughs) Well, I guess I didn’t mess this one up; we’ll just put it that way. It was real important for us to have those guys here. Eddie being from Chicago, it was really personal for him. We had a lot of rain that night and actually had a two-hour delay but it turned out to be a great night. They got back on stage and played until two in the morning. So it was a special night that a lot of people will remember for a long time.

JD: Were you at least backstage at all?

TE: (laughs) No, I just wanted to appreciate it like a fan. We turned it into a great weekend. We had a good time.

JB: Yea, it’s tremendous that you were able to do that. Speaking of Wrigley Field. A lot of improvements are ahead. Can you kinda break down and talk about what’s ahead and the dollars you guys were able to secure for the improvements going forward?

TE: Yes. It’s actually kind of a misunderstanding out there. We are actually paying for the whole thing ourselves. We didn’t get any public funding for it. So this latest round of negotiations is just been an effort to secure the approvals that we will need from the city and from the neighborhood to make sure everyone’s interests are balanced properly. The Cubs will be paying for the whole thing ourselves. It’s about a $300 million renovation. It includes significant improvements. Inside the ballpark, the seating bowl, new amenities for the fans. The clubhouse will be completely renovated and brought into not only the 20th century but the 21st century (laughs). It will give us basic things like batting cages and proper medical facilities that we really need and lack right now. There is also a significant amount of improvement outside of the ballpark and development around Wrigley including a hotel, an area that will be outside the ballpark that fans can enjoy even wh! en there are not any games. It’s going to be a tremendous renovation, kinda similar to what witnessed around Fenway Park over the course of a decade. Hopefully our renovation won’t take quite 10 years. We’re eager to get started.

JD: When does it look like you will be able to get started and what’s the projected time period to finish it?





TE: Well, with some of the delays that we’ve experienced with everything, it’s complicated around here. We probably won’t be able to start in earnest this winter. You have to order steel and other resources ahead of time and we just don’t have our final, final approvals yet. I think the work will begin in earnest following the 2014 season. Hopefully we can get the new clubhouse online. I think we are going to do that first because our players really deserve it. Then make sure the fans have the most important amenities they need first. Honestly, from a selfish standpoint on the baseball side, we are looking to get some of the revenue generating items done as quickly as possible too. Being in a big market like Chicago, we really need to enhance our revenue stream so we can have a payroll commensurate to our status of being a big market team.

JB: Theo I think, by the way, on the rebuilding. What a great job you guys have done. I know the results at the Major League level are not there but anyone that is following what you guys are doing, your blueprint and how you are doing it; it’s been absolutely to the tee. The trades of Garza and Feldman and the timing or whether it’s your draft picks or whether it’s your international signings. Behind the scenes that the world doesn’t see, you are kicking it. So let’s get to some of these guys because you’ve got a lot of guys doing well. I’ve got to start with a kid that is just tearing it up, Javier Baez. Can you kinda breakdown what he’s been able to do and maybe give us what your timetable is on him now?

TE: Javy is an extremely impressive kid, our first round pick in 2011. The thing that jumps out right away the first time you see Javy play is his bat speed. I mean it is 80 bat speed. The name that most people drop as a comparison, just with the bat speed alone is Gary Sheffield. You kinda roll your eyes when you hear that but if you watch him swing the bat, it is reminiscent of Sheff’s bat speed and you can’t say that lightly. He’s got a chance to be a really well-rounded player. He’s just not bat speed. When he first started his pro career he was a little bit out of control and the bat speed was really the only thing that stood out. He probably took too big a swing; he chased too many pitches, little bit out of control in the field and on the basepaths. But he’s really worked hard on his game to get himself more under control in the batter’s box, tone down his leg kick a little bit, toned down his hips and lowered them a little bit. He’s now swinging at stri! kes and the ball absolutely jumps off this kid’s bat. He’s got 31 homers, 30-plus doubles between High-A and Double-A at age 20, and he’s really well rounded. He’s got great fielding instincts. We think he can stay at shortstop and also has the baseball mind and the athletic ability to move around the diamond. So he could play third, he could play second, he could probably play outfield, he could probably catch if we needed him to. But realistically he can play anywhere around the infield to and is really working hard. We are proud of the season he’s had developmentally.

JD: Speaking with Theo Epstein. Theo, I want to ask you about Kris Bryant. Both Jim and I had Bryant ranked number one on our list. I know you moved him up to High-A ball. How quickly is he to the Major Leagues? What are your thoughts? What have you seen out of him?

TE: His performance and his development and how quickly he can work on his weaknesses will dictate that but we are really excited to have him in the organization. Raw power is so hard to find in the game these days. Not only Javy, but Kris Bryant too. They don’t have to hit all of the baseball to hit it out of the ballpark. They have the kind of power that can leave the yard to all fields. Bryant is pretty advanced. He was a college player that had a lot of success. Probably more success, in terms of power, than anyone has ever had with these bats they are using now in college. But there are still some things he needs to work on. He didn’t get pitched to a lot in college so see the better pitching and seeing the different attack plans that better pitching is going to have for him will be important. He’s 6-5 and a half. We think he’s got a chance to stick at third base but that’s going to come with a lot of work, especially to his left. There’s some things he need! s to work on but another really hard worker and a great kid who had a lot of success in short-season. We have another third base prospect we really like who is 19 years old in Low-A named Jeimer Candelario. Rather than move Candelario up, who is having a really good season in Low-A, we wanted to leave him there because we think that is the appropriate level for him right now. We wanted to test Bryant to see if he could handle High-A. We thought it would be good for him. So far so good. He’s hit a few home runs; he’s hit some doubles and is seeing pitching. He’s seeing what it is like to see when they can throw three really good breaking balls at you in the course of an at bat and make adjustments. We are happy with the early returns so far from Kris.

JB: Theo, you did a tremendous job with the trade deadline with your several trades, highlighted by the Matt Garza deal. Quite a load you were able to bring back from Texas. I was surprised you were able to get the four caliber of prospects that you were able to get. Can you breakdown how that process went? Did you try to sign Matt before that happened? And then going forward in free agency at the end of this year is Garza a guy that you would look at to possibly re-sign?

TE: We did have discussions with Matt at different points over the last 18 months about signing here. The injury probably complicated things on both ends. So it reached a point that is was clear that we probably were not going to work something out, at least not during the season. Given where we are, I think that is one thing we have going for ourselves is that we are honest about where we are as an organization, both internally and externally. It became clear that moving him was the best thing for everybody. He’s a free agent at the end of the year. Anything can happen in free agency but we needed to maximize his value that he represented for just being under contract for 2013. We looked at the Zack Greinke deal and Anibal Sanchez deal as comprobables. Not that he is necessarily Zack Greinke but they are two of the better pitchers that have been moved with only a partial season remaining on their contract under the new collective bargaining agreement. There was one sort o! f highlight-headline player in the deal, in each of those deals, close to the Major League talented player as well as some depth in the deal. So as we talked to some teams we tried to use that as a model. Texas, ironically, did not match up early using that model so we did what we could do with other teams knowing that Texas was interested. We went back to Texas and said, look you do not stack up as far as having that one player that is close to the big leagues that can carry the deal on his own so because of that here is what we are going to need in terms of volume and in terms of quality. We made sure that C.J. Edwards was in the deal. While not close to the big leagues, we think in a year or two, he’s going to be the guy who can headline this deal. So it came together late with Texas, kinda quickly. We stayed away from them early on purpose because they didn’t necessarily fit the model. We wanted to line some other things up then take it back to them.

JD: Theo, you talked earlier about the revenues, obviously generating more revenues to get your payroll up. In your projections, what is a realistic payroll to be at now? As you said, you guys are a big market club …

TE: Yeah …

JD: Where do you see that maybe two years down the road or whenever you think that is?

TE: Well, I don’t want to drop a number on it because there are so many different variables involved and you don’t necessarily need a big payroll to win. But, I will say this. Back in 2011, the year before I got here, I think the payroll was around $140-$142 million. It is significantly lower than that now just because some of the obstacles we’ve run into. The renovation and having to pay for it ourselves and some other factors. I think clearly the first step is getting it back to where it was and then growing it significantly from there. And we should be able to. These days you really have to follow the TV deals and follow the money. So if you look at teams like Texas, Philadelphia, obviously the Dodgers, places that have gotten the mammoth TV deal they are able to really invest in their product. We don’t have that right now. We are not complaining about it, I don’t want anyone to take it the wrong way. This is a unique opportunity in a big market to focus on a bu! ilding situation. Our farm system has probably gone from bottom five to top five in a year and a half. It was just ranked as high as second recently. So probably with more money to throw around we probably couldn’t have accomplished the same thing with the farm system. There is no doubt that as out talent gets close to the big leagues we could benefit more from having a little bit more revenue to be aggressive with Major League talent and taking some chances internationally. We still have the opportunity to do that. Half of our TV deal, or just about half of it, depends on how you look at it, is up now and we are in the process or renegotiating that. The other half, the most significant half, is up in 2019. But we should generate a lot more revenues with the renovation. Good thing is that the timing of our baseball plan and the timing of our business plan, more or less sync up. So it could be good synergy between those two movements. The point is to get to a situation whe! re we have a roster that is talented enough to compete at the ! very hig hest level. Make the playoffs, have the farm system underneath them where he can get in there eight out of ten years. That’s how we are going to win a World Series and bring a World Championship to Chicago in the first time in over a century. It is not going to be by one fluky season but by becoming a perennial contender with good young players developed here. I think we are taking the first steps to get there. It is not always the prettiest time with when that is going on but we are happy with the foundation work so far.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,717
I don't really see how that's relevant. The cell doesn't need $300 mil in repairs. The Sox haven't won a title in the time the Ricketts have owned the Cubs. The trib quite obviously screwed the pooch for many years. But that's hardly the fault of the Ricketts. The ricketts have chosen to reduce payroll while they pay for the renovation. The complains about the on field talent are directly related to that.

Simply put, you would have to invest a lot of money to improve the team. Even if they had the money which is debatable to begin with, there's little guarantee a large investment in players would have netted success vs the building the farm system they did. And it was a move that if executed incorrectly would result in an even longer rebuild. My problem is people act like spending $1.2 billion between repairs and team purchase is nothing. According to forbes they have $274 mil in revenue. Even if you assume half that is profit which is probably a very high estimate, you're talking 8+ years before you see a profit on your expenses.

It's sure easy to spend other people's money....

Are U kidding me?, it's more than relevant when comparing the 2 teams.

The 2005 WS won a title without the FAN revenue, the Trib meanwhile during the same time period gave Hendry(who failed miserably)an open checkbook while they were going through a chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Great, ownership has decided to reduce payroll while upgrading Chicago's largest bar.

Buy Ricketts a drink.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,733
Liked Posts:
3,719
Ricketts put down like over half of the total sale in cash. I don't think people realize how much money the Ricketts family has. They would never buy anything that they were not consistently in the black and for a good amount. Also, the value of the franchise has already increased by like 200 million.

It doesn't really matter how much money they have. It's an investment for them one of likely many. Just because they have a large value associated with them doesn't mean that is all liquid cash. And even if they do have large piles of liquid cash, they are already tied to $1.2 billion. From their standpoint, what's throwing another $50 mil the past 2 years in payroll get them in return? It's unlikely it will shift attendance enough to pay for that. As for putting down half of the total sale fine. That plus the $300 mil in renovation is still close to $800 mill. So, even at $150 mil profit a year is still 5 years before they have paid that off. They still eventually will have to pay for the rest. The increased value means nothing until they sell the team.

I mean look I'm not saying that the cubs are some giant money pit. Obviously if they were the Ricketts wouldn't have bought them in the first place. However, it's not like they are some giant cash cow either. The Ricketts have legitimate expenses that any reasonable investor would want to pay off before they invest a great deal more. Theo basically said as much when he brought up the renovation allowing them to expand their payroll.

All I'm saying is it is easy for critics to sit here and say they are being cheap when it's not their money being spent. I don't care if the Ricketts have 10's of trillions of dollars, what they've spent the past several years isn't pennies. The $300 mil they are spending on renovations will lead to more money. $50 mil more in salary was unlikely to even pay for itself so what's the point to them?
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,733
Liked Posts:
3,719
Are U kidding me?, it's more than relevant when comparing the 2 teams.

The 2005 WS won a title without the FAN revenue, the Trib meanwhile during the same time period gave Hendry(who failed miserably)an open checkbook while they were going through a chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Great, ownership has decided to reduce payroll while upgrading Chicago's largest bar.

Buy Ricketts a drink.

You're comparing Reinsdorf who's owned the Sox for over 20 years to the Ricketts who've owned the cubs for 3 years. How is that relevant? The sox have had long since paid their sale price off and still didn't win a title in the last 3 years or even make the playoffs for that matter. If you want to compare Reinsdorf to the Tribune fine. I've already said the Tribune screwed the pooch. But comparing the Ricketts to a team that has had the same ownership for 20 years is silly.

If you don't like what the Ricketts are doing fine. Don't go to games. Don't buy cubs gear. I've not been to a game in probably 5 years. But the moves they are making is to increase their profits which is perfectly reasonable for any business which is what the cubs are contrary to popular belief. It'd be different if the cubs had a $70 mil payroll for 5-10 years. But they've had over $100 mill in payroll since the Ricketts have owned them which is in line with the Cardinals who've won a hell of a lot more.

Money isn't the issue. Bad personnel moves by Hendry put them into this position.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,721
Liked Posts:
8,841
It doesn't really matter how much money they have. It's an investment for them one of likely many. Just because they have a large value associated with them doesn't mean that is all liquid cash. And even if they do have large piles of liquid cash, they are already tied to $1.2 billion. From their standpoint, what's throwing another $50 mil the past 2 years in payroll get them in return? It's unlikely it will shift attendance enough to pay for that. As for putting down half of the total sale fine. That plus the $300 mil in renovation is still close to $800 mill. So, even at $150 mil profit a year is still 5 years before they have paid that off. They still eventually will have to pay for the rest. The increased value means nothing until they sell the team.

I mean look I'm not saying that the cubs are some giant money pit. Obviously if they were the Ricketts wouldn't have bought them in the first place. However, it's not like they are some giant cash cow either. The Ricketts have legitimate expenses that any reasonable investor would want to pay off before they invest a great deal more. Theo basically said as much when he brought up the renovation allowing them to expand their payroll.

All I'm saying is it is easy for critics to sit here and say they are being cheap when it's not their money being spent. I don't care if the Ricketts have 10's of trillions of dollars, what they've spent the past several years isn't pennies. The $300 mil they are spending on renovations will lead to more money. $50 mil more in salary was unlikely to even pay for itself so what's the point to them?

The money being spent is their money! It may not be from this message board but it is Cubs fans that are spending this money! Ricketts is being cheap. I not saying it wrong because I don't know what it completely all entails. But, Ricketts has done a marketing scheme from the beginning. Hiring Theo was a name they knew would allow Cubs fans to give time. So, being bad is not so bad because of Theos name. We wont know for another 2 years, but Theo has cleary said on numerous things that it is management that is allowing the MLB club to be bad. Read between the line. The Cubs can do both, but their owner is not willing to spend on payroll. You can say whatever, but that is what is going on. The CBA makes the draft a lot less money. You can say they are spending it on Wrigley. But, you acgt like no investment is coming back. They are renovating Wrigley to make more money in the long run. The Cubs are in the black by a large margin every year or a business person like Ricketts would have done it. They may spend for a higher payroll, but I bet it is when they are in contention. because in Chicago if there are in contention , Wrigley will be packed. Not saying it is completely wrong, but anyone that doesn't think the Cubs are making significant money is being a little blind.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,721
Liked Posts:
8,841
You're comparing Reinsdorf who's owned the Sox for over 20 years to the Ricketts who've owned the cubs for 3 years. How is that relevant? The sox have had long since paid their sale price off and still didn't win a title in the last 3 years or even make the playoffs for that matter. If you want to compare Reinsdorf to the Tribune fine. I've already said the Tribune screwed the pooch. But comparing the Ricketts to a team that has had the same ownership for 20 years is silly.

If you don't like what the Ricketts are doing fine. Don't go to games. Don't buy cubs gear. I've not been to a game in probably 5 years. But the moves they are making is to increase their profits which is perfectly reasonable for any business which is what the cubs are contrary to popular belief. It'd be different if the cubs had a $70 mil payroll for 5-10 years. But they've had over $100 mill in payroll since the Ricketts have owned them which is in line with the Cardinals who've won a hell of a lot more.

Money isn't the issue. Bad personnel moves by Hendry put them into this position.


Your post wasn't bad until this. Hendry was the least of the Cubs problem! Ownership was the issue.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,733
Liked Posts:
3,719
The money being spent is their money! It may not be from this message board but it is Cubs fans that are spending this money! Ricketts is being cheap. I not saying it wrong because I don't know what it completely all entails. But, Ricketts has done a marketing scheme from the beginning. Hiring Theo was a name they knew would allow Cubs fans to give time. So, being bad is not so bad because of Theos name. We wont know for another 2 years, but Theo has cleary said on numerous things that it is management that is allowing the MLB club to be bad. Read between the line. The Cubs can do both, but their owner is not willing to spend on payroll. You can say whatever, but that is what is going on. The CBA makes the draft a lot less money. You can say they are spending it on Wrigley. But, you acgt like no investment is coming back. They are renovating Wrigley to make more money in the long run. The Cubs are in the black by a large margin every year or a business person like Ricketts would have done it. They may spend for a higher payroll, but I bet it is when they are in contention. because in Chicago if there are in contention , Wrigley will be packed. Not saying it is completely wrong, but anyone that doesn't think the Cubs are making significant money is being a little blind.

You seem to be confusing 2 things. Yearly income and initial cost of their investment. I clearly said they were making money on a year to year basis. That's where the $150 mil number came from though it's probably higher than the actual profit they are making since they have $247 mil in revenue with say $125 mil in payroll for players(major/minor league) and various other expenditures like coaching staff and employees in general.

What I'm saying is the Rickets invested a large amount of money(team purchase price + renovations). Yearly they are making profit but that profit is no where near what they spent on the team after 3 years. Case in point take the $100 mil profit figure that's been thrown around about the Astros and how it's the most profitable team in history. Between renovation and their initial sale price the Ricketts will have invested $1.2 billion be it deferred or not. So, let's say the Cubs are making a year to year profit of $100 million. It will be 12 years before they get their initial investment back. Until that time, or until they sell the team, they haven't turned a profit on the investment.

Your post wasn't bad until this. Hendry was the least of the Cubs problem! Ownership was the issue.
Ownership was the problem? Maybe A problem. However, Hendry had multiple years with $125 mil+ payroll as well as numerous years in his job drafting. From 2002-2009 here's his first round draft selections

Bobby Brownlie
Luke Hagerty
Chadd Blasko
Matthew Clanton
Ryan Harvey
Mark Pawelek
Tyler Colvin
Josh Vitters
Josh Donaldson
Andrew Cashner
Ryan Flaherty
Brett Jackson

That's not a small sample size. It's also not late round picks. These are first round selections you expect at the very least to be All-Star caliber players. He gave Milton Bradley $10 mil/year. He gave Zambrano and Marmol extensions that didn't work out. Every GM makes some bad calls but look at the cubs over the last 5 years under him.

2010 - 75 wins
2009 - 83 wins
2008 - 97 wins
2007 - 85 wins
2006 - 66 wins

I'd say that's the fact that his drafts turned out crap in terms of prospects.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,717
You're comparing Reinsdorf who's owned the Sox for over 20 years to the Ricketts who've owned the cubs for 3 years. How is that relevant? The sox have had long since paid their sale price off and still didn't win a title in the last 3 years or even make the playoffs for that matter. If you want to compare Reinsdorf to the Tribune fine. I've already said the Tribune screwed the pooch. But comparing the Ricketts to a team that has had the same ownership for 20 years is silly.

If you don't like what the Ricketts are doing fine. Don't go to games. Don't buy cubs gear. I've not been to a game in probably 5 years. But the moves they are making is to increase their profits which is perfectly reasonable for any business which is what the cubs are contrary to popular belief. It'd be different if the cubs had a $70 mil payroll for 5-10 years. But they've had over $100 mill in payroll since the Ricketts have owned them which is in line with the Cardinals who've won a hell of a lot more.

Money isn't the issue. Bad personnel moves by Hendry put them into this position.

Was it really Hendry's fault for the back to back playoff implosions?. By Piniella's own admission, he did not adjust his managerial style against the Dodgers...a series in which he was also stubborn with the line-up cards. I was about to agree with you on Hendry, then I stumbled upon this old article from back in January:

"For all the ownership-churning, payroll-slashing reasons for the Cubs’ recent decline — and the Theo-as-savior sentiment that followed his hiring — it’s easy to forget the franchise is just four seasons removed from the best record in the National League. And nine from having three shots at winning the one game that would have put the Cubs in that elusive World Series."

As much as I hated Hendry, it's hard for one to say he didn't do his job. Could he have done it better?...absolutely. Overpaying Soriano would have been much easier to stomach had he not completely blown it with Milton Bradley.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,733
Liked Posts:
3,719
As much as I hated Hendry, it's hard for one to say he didn't do his job. Could he have done it better?...absolutely. Overpaying Soriano would have been much easier to stomach had he not completely blown it with Milton Bradley.

I disagree. It's pretty easy to say he didn't do his job. From 2002-2010 he had 5 winning seasons out of 9 and only made the playoffs 3 times. Clearly he wasn't the only problem but his drafts were crap as well and that's something he had control over. He's not the worst GM ever but clearly he was average at best and firing him was a legitimate decision. They got basically nothing out of their farm system during that period. Zambrano, Corey Patterson, Marshall, Marmol and Soto are the only home grown players he contributed anything meaningful. It's really that bad.
 

Sunbiz1

New member
Joined:
May 6, 2010
Posts:
6,543
Liked Posts:
1,717
I disagree. It's pretty easy to say he didn't do his job. From 2002-2010 he had 5 winning seasons out of 9 and only made the playoffs 3 times. Clearly he wasn't the only problem but his drafts were crap as well and that's something he had control over. He's not the worst GM ever but clearly he was average at best and firing him was a legitimate decision. They got basically nothing out of their farm system during that period. Zambrano, Corey Patterson, Marshall, Marmol and Soto are the only home grown players he contributed anything meaningful. It's really that bad.

Did he not draft Samardzija?, and then steal him away from Halas Hall??.

Playing devil's ad here.

What I can't figure out is why new ownership kept JH around, can only guess lack of replacement availability/stupidity.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,721
Liked Posts:
8,841
I disagree. It's pretty easy to say he didn't do his job. From 2002-2010 he had 5 winning seasons out of 9 and only made the playoffs 3 times. Clearly he wasn't the only problem but his drafts were crap as well and that's something he had control over. He's not the worst GM ever but clearly he was average at best and firing him was a legitimate decision. They got basically nothing out of their farm system during that period. Zambrano, Corey Patterson, Marshall, Marmol and Soto are the only home grown players he contributed anything meaningful. It's really that bad.

Lol wow, where to begin. You see those first round selections. Do you know why they were selected? Because ownership did not allow Hendry to spend on the draft. The Cubs were in the bottom 5 almost every year in draft spending. Hendry was the main guy involved when the Cubs had the number 2 ranked farm in 2002. You think he just went away from that when he is GM. No, ownership wanted to sell the team. Hendry put a 2003 team together that should have went to the World Series. 2004 the team was stacked but imploded at the end of the season. 2005 and 2006 injuries got them. Remember those two stud pitchers that were supposed to take us to the promise land. Yea, they got hurt a lot.

2007 Alfonso Soriano was signed, but guess what. Hendry did not sign him. Hendry would not go over 6 years. The Angels were offering 7 years. Hendry left a meeting with Sori thinking that he was going to become an Angel. While on the plane, John McDonough decided to jump over Hendry and offer 8 years to Soriano. Soriano accepted. Hendry did not sign him. He was signed because ownership wanted to increase the value of the sale by bringing in a big name to the team. Then, the Cubs won back to back divisions for the first time in Cubs history.

After, 2008 Cubs fan and ownership over reacted to the right handed heavy lineup and Hendry was pretty much forced to get a left handed bat. He was not allotted any money that offseason so to get a left handed bat. He had to trade Mark Derosa and make salary room. At the time, Bradley was coming off a terrific season. I thought it was a good signing at the time but it turned bad. Then the team started to get old. The team was being sold and Hendry didn't have much to work with because the payroll was not going any higher and the allotted draft money was not there to stack the farm. Remember, this is when people made a living over slotting and the Cubs rarely did it. Theo farm is Boston was full of over slotted players. Hendry was not allowed the same luxury.

Jim Hendry did his best. Was he perfect? No. Was he good? Yes. Do you know he had half the staff that Theo has now? That should tell you a lot about ownership. Jim Hendry pulled off some incredible trades. Go back and look at all his trades and tell me one guy that become anything special or good. He fleeced the Pirates for ARam and Lofton. Got Derrek Lee for Hee Sop Choi. Hendry was a really good trader and you can average at signing players. Would you not say the same about Theo? His FA signings blew up in Boston.

Hendry did a fine job as the Cubs GM. A lot of the contracts were back loaded because, yet again, they were trying to sell the team and stick the tab on the new owner. Its business. It was time for Hendry and the Cubs to split ways. He had a good run. New ownership came in and wanted there guy. Nothing wrong with it. Hendry is doing fine with the Yankees. He is well respected in baseball. Cubs fans are just ridiculous with there thinking with Hendry. It what makes it laughable to talk to some Cubs fans.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,721
Liked Posts:
8,841
To prove my point on draft spending. This link will show the Cubs 5th in spending in 2011 when Ricketts became owner and Hendry was allowed to properly draft. That gave us the prospect like of Javier Baez, Dan Volgelbach, Dillon Maples, and others. Oh and do people forget that Hendry signed Castro, Lake, Alcantara, and so forth.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/visualizing-2011-draft-spending/

Now, here is the article about 2010 draft spending before Ricketts took over and Hendry had no money to spend. The Cubs were 8th to last in spending. The Red Sox were number 2.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/2010/08/spending-vs-slots-2010/

Here is 2009. Cubs were 4th to last. Do you see the pattern?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/2009/08/how-much-did-your-team-spend/
 

Top