The all homegrown team, all teams, great reference material.

[beckdawg]

I really feel like this FA/farm debate that this board seems to have all the time is stupid. The cubs didn't have money to spend full stop. Ownership has set their payroll at essentially what it is now. In 2012, they had at least 5 major holes. They had to reduce salary and literally the only way to do that and fill those holes with non-AAA players was to let Ramirez and Pena walk. Doing so freed $19.75 mil that Pena and Ramirez ended up making. They spent $13.9 mil of that in FA reducing their payroll likely to ownership's demands. In 2013, they again had at least 5 major holes. Zambrano coming off the books opened up more money allowing them to spend $40 mil in FA between Soler, Jackson and the various roster filler players. There is no evidence that they even had the money to approach signing someone like Fielder or Greinke. And even if they did, that fills 1 hole when they had several.

I can sit here and tell you that they got 4.4 WAR for $13.9 mil in players in 2012. I can tell you they got 3 players to provide 4.9 WAR for $9.4 mil so far this year. I can go through any other number of statistics to show that the players they have brought in have mostly been great values for what they payed. None of that matters because you're not turning the 2012/2013 cubs into an 85 win team with $13.9/$40 mil in FA signings and no meaningful prospects being promoted. Also, people can say what they want about the trades being made but the only one that matters over the next 3 years is Garza because both Dempster and Soriano are on the wrong side of 36.

That's why this debate is stupid. You want to debate if them spending $13 mil/year on Jackson and $5.5 mil on Baker instead of ~$16 mil/year on Anibal Sanchez is the better long term move? Fine that's a worthwhile debate. But this FA/farm debate is pointless because of the constraints the cubs were under. It doesn't matter how much the cubs make in yearly profit. All that matters is how much the owner gives the front office to spend. If you think that's bullshit then fine, be mad at the owners for not keeping a higher payroll but what exactly is the front office suppose to do about it?

 

[CSF77]

No one can say one way or the other on the subject. They are not making their records available to the public. So they can say they are under a X budget and no one can refute it due to no facts to back it up. Even if any one had a they made X amount proof until the taxs, overhead and rebuild is taken out that number holds little weight. If there was no rebuild project going on I would be calling them out but even so I have no factual info to back it.

 

[patg006]

His point is you have to draft well outside just the top 10 to be successful. THe Cardinals have the #1 farm system in baseball and I can't remember the last time they were a bad team.

Same thing goes for other sports. Packers are a big point for this. They have been successful for years not gunning in FA unless the perfect opportunity arises (White, Woodson) and they draft well not only in the 1st round but mid to late rounds as well. Point being if you can only draft well when you have a top pick, then well you really can't draft all that well and your success will not be sustainable.

[video=youtube;q5pESPQpXxE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5pESPQpXxE[/video]

 

[CSF77]

Looking at it I believe having a poor record has more to do with the new spending limitations vs needing a better slot to get a player. They are trying to focus on adding talent and having a bigger allotment makes it faster. If the Ricketts are not willing to let them spend on mega's the next option is develop. Having a bigger allotment makes the process faster. I get the both thing but that decision is on the Ricketts to spend on 100 mil players. From what we have seen expect 50-70 mil high water contracts. Over all I believe under the restraints imposed by the Ricketts and MLB rules Theo has done a decent job in aquiring talent. The proof is there. The farm is better now then it was before they took over. The major league roster is another story but with a limited budget imposed by the Ricketts. Ya I get it but funding a new jumbo seems to be a higher priority so deal with it.

 

[beckdawg]

Looking at it I believe having a poor record has more to do with the new spending limitations vs needing a better slot to get a player. They are trying to focus on adding talent and having a bigger allotment makes it faster. If the Ricketts are not willing to let them spend on mega's the next option is develop. Having a bigger allotment makes the process faster. I get the both thing but that decision is on the Ricketts to spend on 100 mil players. From what we have seen expect 50-70 mil high water contracts. Over all I believe under the restraints imposed by the Ricketts and MLB rules Theo has done a decent job in aquiring talent. The proof is there. The farm is better now then it was before they took over. The major league roster is another story but with a limited budget imposed by the Ricketts. Ya I get it but funding a new jumbo seems to be a higher priority so deal with it.

It's pretty obvious the limitations were the problem. I mean really it's simple math. I don't feel like looking up exact terms so let's just say hypothetically the cubs had $130 mil in salary in 2011 and the Ricketts told the cubs to get it under $120 mil. They had ~$20 mil come off the their roster in Pena and Ramirez. However, they also needed to fill out their roster like every other team. That leaves them with around the $14 mil they spent in FA.

Making them reduce salary crippled what they are able to do. Before they needed 2 SP and a CF at the very least. When they had to let Ramirez and Pena go they then added 3B and 1B. That left them in a situation where they had to just gamble on some guys and hope for the best. Sure the cubs had a $100+ payroll but they had Marmol, and Zambrano over $25 mil in salary and got next to nothing out of them. In reality, it's not all that different than what small market teams go through. They had holes at a lot of positions and had $14 mil to spend.

It's easy for me to say since it's not my money but what the Ricketts should have done is to gradually reduce salary over 2-3 years instead of ripping it off like a bandaid in year 1. If they had been able to re-sign Ramirez they would have still had Colvin and another $2 mil they spent on re-signing Stewart. And even if the front office didn't like Colvin, surely they could have got a 4th or 5th starter out of him which would probably have saved them from needing to sign Baker/Feldman for $11.5 mil last offseason.

 

[CSF77]

I can see gross at 200 mil. Then the city wacking them hard in taxes and saying you can not make a bridge and no to vendors and no do not pass go and I'll take another 200. But serous from what I heard is they are paying heavy taxes and have to find new rev streams. On the outside looking in it looks big market but after tax/debt pay off. Remodel costs it cuts heavy. What we are seeing is more of a mid market payroll like Atl/Tex/STL as a end result. The Trib blew up payroll to up the sale price. Which it did. Zell then froze payroll in 2009. Ricketts took over thinking it was a cash cow and went heavy into debt to buy it. Turned out the city was taxing it as a private and regulating it as a public property. As we are seeing with all of the politics involved right now. Remember this is a private held land and the city was in control while the land owner had to make deals regarding his own property.... Pretty fucked to say the least.

 

[beckdawg]

I can see gross at 200 mil. Then the city wacking them hard in taxes and saying you can not make a bridge and no to vendors and no do not pass go and I'll take another 200. But serous from what I heard is they are paying heavy taxes and have to find new rev streams. On the outside looking in it looks big market but after tax/debt pay off. Remodel costs it cuts heavy. What we are seeing is more of a mid market payroll like Atl/Tex/STL as a end result. The Trib blew up payroll to up the sale price. Which it did. Zell then froze payroll in 2009. Ricketts took over thinking it was a cash cow and went heavy into debt to buy it. Turned out the city was taxing it as a private and regulating it as a public property. As we are seeing with all of the politics involved right now. Remember this is a private held land and the city was in control while the land owner had to make deals regarding his own property.... Pretty fucked to say the least.

I understand why it was done. However, in reality the amount of money spent over a 3 year period could have been the same. So unless they were leveraged to the hilt so much that the 2012 payroll was literally all they could spend, it really shouldn't matter. I mean we're talking less than 10% in payroll and then less the following 2 years if they had done what I suggested. And you could argue that attendance would have also increased some with a team that wins 75-80 instead of 61.

But whatever, what's done is done.

 

[CSF77]

Not sure on the Wins equalling ticket sales with Cub fans. If you put Baez and Bryant (lesser degree Olt) fans will come out to see them hit and most likey accept losing more so then watching a bunch of back ups unearningly manning starting roles.

 

[TL1961]

The goal every year should be to win the world series.

And there are successful mid round draft picks, so tanking seasons should not be a priority. International spending too. Where was Mike Trout picked again in the draft? First? Second?

If you have a chance to win/are in a race, god damn right I would lose 'assets' to gain players for a shot at now.....ignoring needs in a division or wc race is something the Pirates did for 20 something years......

What could the Nationals have done last year if they didnt shut down Stratsburg?

Taking a "shot at now" is the reason they haven't ever built the strong system they need.

You say some guys get picked in mid rounds. Of course. But high draft picks are better than low draft picks. Not all guys who make it are picked high, but they have better prospects already after two years of Theo and Jed picking than they had previously.

Signing more mediocre FA's that could not elevate the team to WS contender would be pointless. I, for one, am tired of winning 91 one year and 75 the next, all while kidding ourselves into thinking we are a contender.

Be realistic. Realize when you are not a true contender for the WS. And realize - as hendry didn't - that 3rd place is no better than 5th place. Build a true championship contender. THAT is what the plan is. Who gives a shit if the 2012 team wins 61 or 66 or 71?