The Front Office And Ownership Thread

[Jntg4]

He didn't have a clue when he overpaid Crawford or A-Gon either. Whoops.

Was the Crawford signing not part of the ownership's desire to control more of the baseball ops or something like that, similar to the Tribune tacking years on to Soriano's contract Hendry had intended to sign him at? I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure there was something like that mentioned.

 

[CSF77]

Lets see Theo drafted Pedoria Ellsbury Bucholz. He brought over Lackey and kept Ortiz there. He signed Bogarets. But naa he doesnt have a clue

Homer answer.

Just look at what worked and ignore the work that had to be done to fix the mess Theo left for them.

That is like giving Hendry credit if the Cubs win next year for Signing Shark and Castro and ignoring all the work Theo did to fix the rest of the crap left over.

Goes both ways and being a homer is just that.

 

[beckdawg]

The point is if you can say that Theo gets the glory for a WS. Then he gets the black eye for 2012.

First of all I never said he should get all of the credit. However, if you're looking at stuff from a "dynasty" level you look at the core players who were the main players throughout. Theo brought in most of those guys. Why shouldn't Theo get credit for Pedroa, Lester, Bucholtz and Papi? They were big members of those titles.

Secondly, why should he get the black eye for 2012? Look at what Francona did in Cleveland this year. He's a quality manager. The new FO group hired Valentine and it was a disaster. I'd argue that had they not overreacted to the collapse of the team in 2011 that in 2012 they would have been the same 85-90 win team they'd been ever year Theo had been there. They didn't have a bunch of vets past their prime. They won 90 games in 2011. They just chocked late in the season and missed the playoffs because there were other teams who were very good that year.

People talk about the payroll slash they made. Fine, but none of the players they got from LA made any impact this year. You could argue it allowed them to sign some of the guys like Victorino. And perhaps that was a change they needed to make. However, you can't say how well Adrian Gonzalez and Crawford would have played in boston.

Again, i'm not saying he's the only reason they won this year. But he is part of the reason. And how is that a negative sign for the cubs? The guy was able to develop enough talent to build a core group of players for 3 titles. Maybe he wont do that in chicago. But my point is it wasn't one fluke lucky year. He built a consistent contender with a good group of guys.

 

[Boobaby1]

He didn't have a clue when he overpaid Crawford or A-Gon either. Whoops.

Is their also a John Lackey that was non-existant for how long? And what about Dice-K?

Cubs fans always want to hang somebody out to dry for bad contracts, but it goes on everywhere.

 

[Boobaby1]

Was the Crawford signing not part of the ownership's desire to control more of the baseball ops or something like that, similar to the Tribune tacking years on to Soriano's contract Hendry had intended to sign him at? I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure there was something like that mentioned.

How much difference is their ownership dictating moves versus ownership stating that the Cubs wanted to win at all costs? Does anyone truly know what Hendry's plans were or was he forced to do things a certain way? Just askin'.

 

[Capt. Serious]

Chris J :fap:ing to his hero Theo...how original.

 

[CSF77]

First of all I never said he should get all of the credit. However, if you're looking at stuff from a "dynasty" level you look at the core players who were the main players throughout. Theo brought in most of those guys. Why shouldn't Theo get credit for Pedroa, Lester, Bucholtz and Papi? They were big members of those titles.

Secondly, why should he get the black eye for 2012? Look at what Francona did in Cleveland this year. He's a quality manager. The new FO group hired Valentine and it was a disaster. I'd argue that had they not overreacted to the collapse of the team in 2011 that in 2012 they would have been the same 85-90 win team they'd been ever year Theo had been there. They didn't have a bunch of vets past their prime. They won 90 games in 2011. They just chocked late in the season and missed the playoffs because there were other teams who were very good that year.

People talk about the payroll slash they made. Fine, but none of the players they got from LA made any impact this year. You could argue it allowed them to sign some of the guys like Victorino. And perhaps that was a change they needed to make. However, you can't say how well Adrian Gonzalez and Crawford would have played in boston.

Again, i'm not saying he's the only reason they won this year. But he is part of the reason. And how is that a negative sign for the cubs? The guy was able to develop enough talent to build a core group of players for 3 titles. Maybe he wont do that in chicago. But my point is it wasn't one fluke lucky year. He built a consistent contender with a good group of guys.

They hired Valentine after Dale chose the Cubs. Also you have to factor in this was Ben's fitst year as a GM and he went with a proven manager. It blew up in his face but he learned from it. Then he made a better choice.

Some of what you said is correct but what Theo did well was development. His signing F/A's/trades blew up in his face (again to keep up with the 200mil Yanks). Ben had to clean up that mess.

There is a reason why Theo came into a rebuild over here. Get away from being forced into buying and trading away his prospects for next year vs building a strong franchise.

 

[beckdawg]

They hired Valentine after Dale chose the Cubs. Also you have to factor in this was Ben's fitst year as a GM and he went with a proven manager. It blew up in his face but he learned from it. Then he made a better choice.

Some of what you said is correct but what Theo did well was development. His signing F/A's/trades blew up in his face (again to keep up with the 200mil Yanks). Ben had to clean up that mess.

There is a reason why Theo came into a rebuild over here. Get away from being forced into buying and trading away his prospects for next year vs building a strong franchise.

I'm not arguing that Theo was flawless. My point is simply even if there were a mess after his departure that team won 90 games and had a lot of talent. Boston didn't have to go out and find multiple all-star level players. They filled more role player types. And those players are much easier to acquire than someone like Papi, Elsbury or Pedroia. And by that regard, you could argue that 70-80% of the best players on this years red sox were guys theo brought in.

If Boston wins another title in 2-3 years based on prospects Theo drafted, I wouldn't even necessarily give him much credit because there's more to player development than just talent which we can see when we look at the Cards. But, in this case, the Red Sox were left with a lot of guys GMs would love to build a team around. And that's all I'm saying.

Their current front office deserves praise for guys like Gomes and Victorino who played well. I'm not trying to take that away from them. I'm just saying that what theo did in boston gave them a group of players that won 3 titles and that's a very positive sign if you are a cubs fan. Hopefully he has the same luck here.

 

[nickofypres]

Chris J :fap:ing to his hero Theo...how original.

Chris J comes off like a douchebag a lot, but he is right.

 

[daddies3angels]

have to get in my daily #rickettscheap

 

[CSF77]

CHICAGO -- Just because agent Scott Boras says he thinks the Chicago Cubs should spend money -- presumably on his clients -- doesn't mean he's right. Boras, speaking at the general manager meetings in Orlando, Fla., on Wednesday, was critical of the Cubs for their lack of involvement in the free-agent market since Tom Ricketts bought the team in 2009.

Maybe he didn't get the memo that the Cubs are rebuilding, or maybe he doesn't understand that spending $100 million on players long before a team is ready to win isn't the prudent thing to do.

"They've done a great job in the draft and development, and they've got a really good core of young players coming," Boras told reporters. "But it's just not what's expected when you buy a major-market club."

Funny how quick Boras was in praising the plan and then ripping it all in a couple of sentences. He likes the drafting and developing because two of his clients -- Kris Bryant and Albert Almora -- are considered future cornerstones of the team. Just think if the Cubs didn't have any Boras clients as top prospects. Scouting guy Jason McLeod might be in his crosshairs as well.

But for now, Boras wants to take his frustrations out on Cubs ownership. After all, Ricketts & Co. aren't wooing his big-money clients Jacoby Ellsbury and Shin-Soo Choo. How dare they?

"You're developing the infrastructure, but fans don't come to see seats, grass, cement. They come to see players," Boras said.

The Cubs politely declined to comment on Boras' rant.

But it's nice Boras shows such a caring for the fans of Chicago. If he cared that much about them, he'd lower his asking price for his clients.

But Boras' biggest mistake -- one made by many fans, too -- is wading into the waters of the big-market/small-market conversation. This is a tiresome argument. Too bad baseball doesn't have a salary cap, because in no other sport do we have to hear about big markets versus small markets as much as baseball. Where is it written that a big-market team can't rebuild its organization from scratch? And how does having the ability to generate more money because you're in a big market speed up the rebuilding process? If more money can get Bryant to the big leagues faster, then spend away, but that's not the case.

Many fans will wonder why a team can't spend while it rebuilds. The answer is you can, but you risk getting in the way of your ultimate plan, which, by the way, is to compete year in, year out.

Here's one example of getting in the way of your own plan: Say the Cubs sign Ellsbury for seven years and well more than $100 million -- possibly with a no-trade clause -- then they're locked into him. Maybe you're OK with that because he goes out and has two fantastic seasons, which means when Almora is ready to play, you have to make a decision. But Ellsbury is 33 or 34 by that point, and with that no-trade clause, he doesn't want to go anywhere, or, even if he does, you don't have many, if any, suitors for a player that age. (See Alfonso Soriano and many other aging stars.)

So, instead, the Cubs decide to trade Almora, and maybe they get back some talent. But now Ellsbury predictably starts to decline, and they're right back where they started. And even in those first two great Ellsbury seasons, the Cubs do have a better record, and nearing the trade deadline they wouldn't be that bad off, so the team chooses to make one less trade for a prospect than they would have. But, in fact, the team isn't getting to the playoffs, and now, they've lost out on the ability to acquire more talent and will probably get a lower draft pick. For what? A near-.500 finish? Who cares?

There are many scenarios like this and others in which spending $100 million on a free agent right now will come back to haunt a team in a big way. There might be a few in which it all works out, but the risk isn't worth the reward. There will be a time the Cubs will need to spend and that's when the big-market argument works and can keep a contender going much longer than a team in a small market, but they simply aren't there yet.

Either try and buy a World Series or go the other way. Criticize Ricketts for not doing the former, but don't get on him for choosing the latter, instead of some in-between fix to satisfy Boras and a fan base that has been easily fooled in the past.

Think of it this way: If you liked Boras' comments, does it make you feel good to be on the same side as an agent simply trying to max out his own profits? After all, that's the same complaint fans make about owners.

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/20579/boras-arguments-too-transparent#more

 

[brett05]

Was that your article? If not, it needs a ref.

Anyway, I think Boras is saying the Cubs should be doing both. And of course stumping for his own clients.

 

[CSF77]

Was that your article? If not, it needs a ref.

Anyway, I think Boras is saying the Cubs should be doing both. And of course stumping for his own clients.

Added it. IDK article makes some sense. Boras is an ass and it figures he would whine about a big market not making him rich.

 

[patg006]

Lets see Theo drafted Pedoria Ellsbury Bucholz. He brought over Lackey and kept Ortiz there. He signed Bogarets. But naa he doesnt have a clue

Dumbass....

 

[daddies3angels]

My Ricketts sucks rant:

Rickett family bought team in OCT of 2009. So Since 2010 this what has happen under Ricketts: http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/chc/history/year_by_year_results.jsp


Cubs have a Win % of .421 Cubs have been over .500 for combine of 7 days in 4 yrs. 2 of those were Opening Day wins. 5 other days were in the 1st 2 weeks of the season. Cubs attendance has dropped every yr. Cubs payroll has dropped every yr while Ticket prices have rised every year.

Lets see who going to have Ricketts family back here


Also want to point out that Hendry had 1 losing season of 90+ games as Cubs GM until Ricketts family came in and started running Cubs like a small-medium market. He took over a 90 loss team and made playoffs in 1st yr. Had 1 bad team in 2005 and turned them into playoff team again in 1 yr. Hendry was not a bad GM. Hendry is a Big Market GM and once Ricketts started cutting his payroll he couldnt maintain team. If given right resources clearly Hendry was good GM

 

[beckdawg]

Also want to point out that Hendry had 1 losing season of 90+ games as Cubs GM until Ricketts family came in and started running Cubs like a small-medium market. He took over a 90 loss team and made playoffs in 1st yr. Had 1 bad team in 2005 and turned them into playoff team again in 1 yr. Hendry was not a bad GM. Hendry is a Big Market GM and once Ricketts started cutting his payroll he couldnt maintain team. If given right resources clearly Hendry was good GM

Hendry had a losing record as GM. You can try and blame that on the previous owners but at the end of the day he's the one responsible for draft picks. Outside of Castro, Cashner and Shark what exactly has come out of the cubs farm system in the past 5 years which would be guys he drafted given ample time to develop? I'm not saying every player has to be a super star but come on he didn't even bring in fringe all-star types.

I wont even get into FA issues because those are more impacted by the ownership. However, there were obvious issues there as well. In this day and age if you can't develop home grown talent you're going to fail as a GM. It's great that Hendry drafted Baez an Alcantara. But where were those type of picks in 2005? Ownership may have reduced draft spending but I've shown on this board that the cubs still spent the same amount of money on the draft that the Cardinals and numerous other winning teams did.

As for the Ricketts cutting payroll, that is what it is. I don't think anyone can suggest with a straight face having less money is a good thing. That being said, if you need a big market budget to win I don't want you as the GM for my team. High payrolls are a crutch. You sign FA's because you have failed to develop/acquire your own talent. Every team will have some deficiencies and that's fine. But having to go out every year and sign a top 5 FA tells me that a team isn't doing a very good job at developing talent.

For example, let's use the Yankees as they have seemingly limitless resources and have been perpetual big spenders. What have they gotten out of their farm system since say 2000? Austin Jackson(#36 baseball america prospect 2009) traded to tigers for Granderson. Jesus Montero(multiplle years in BA's top 100) traded for Micheal Pineda. Joba Chamberlain(#3 in 2008) never became a starter which put a big dent in his value but is a decent bullpen guy. Jose Tabata(#37 2008) traded for Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte. Ian Kennedy(#45 2008) was also part of the Granderson 3 way trade. Phil Hughes(#4 2007) never really amounted to much with the Yanks. Dioner Navarro(#41 in 2004) traded as part of the Randy Johnson trade. Jose Contreras(#6 2003) had a couple of decent years but over his career really wasn't the top prospect you would hope. Hideki Matsui(#8 2003) had a solid career. Nick Johnson(#13 2002) never really made an impact in the majors. Alfonso Soriano(#27 2001) superstar player. Looking through their rosters, the only other names I see are Brett Gardner who's a decent MLB player but nothing spectacular, Cano who's a superstar, Melky Cabrera who again average at best MLBer, and Ivan Nova who looks to be a middle of the rotation type.

I'd argue that had they not went out and signed the best available FA/international player every year they would have been a bad team most of the 2000's. They are now in a situation where if Cano leaves what exactly do they have left? And sure, they won a lot of games and made the playoffs a lot during that time frame but since their 2000 WS have only won in 2009 and spent 100's of millions on free agents to do it. That's not the sign of a skilled GM. Any GM with an open checkbook every year can go out and put together a playoff team. I want a GM who doesn't have to dip into FA because he's built a quality farm system. I want a GM who develops players from that system. I want a GM who signs those players through their prime years to team friendly deals. I want a GM who when that fails can go find a piece he is missing via a quality trade.

It remains to be seen if Theo and co. are that type of front office. However, I don't want the cubs to build teams like the Yankees did because frankly I think if the Cardinals and the Yankees exchanged budgets the Cardinals would have done a much superior job. They won 2 titles with around half the budget of the Yankees during the 2000's period. Imagine what they could have done with the Yankees money.

 

[Boobaby1]

Hendry had a losing record as GM. You can try and blame that on the previous owners but at the end of the day he's the one responsible for draft picks. Outside of Castro, Cashner and Shark what exactly has come out of the cubs farm system in the past 5 years which would be guys he drafted given ample time to develop? I'm not saying every player has to be a super star but come on he didn't even bring in fringe all-star types.

I wont even get into FA issues because those are more impacted by the ownership. However, there were obvious issues there as well. In this day and age if you can't develop home grown talent you're going to fail as a GM. It's great that Hendry drafted Baez an Alcantara. But where were those type of picks in 2005? Ownership may have reduced draft spending but I've shown on this board that the cubs still spent the same amount of money on the draft that the Cardinals and numerous other winning teams did.

As for the Ricketts cutting payroll, that is what it is. I don't think anyone can suggest with a straight face having less money is a good thing. That being said, if you need a big market budget to win I don't want you as the GM for my team. High payrolls are a crutch. You sign FA's because you have failed to develop/acquire your own talent. Every team will have some deficiencies and that's fine. But having to go out every year and sign a top 5 FA tells me that a team isn't doing a very good job at developing talent.

For example, let's use the Yankees as they have seemingly limitless resources and have been perpetual big spenders. What have they gotten out of their farm system since say 2000? Austin Jackson(#36 baseball america prospect 2009) traded to tigers for Granderson. Jesus Montero(multiplle years in BA's top 100) traded for Micheal Pineda. Joba Chamberlain(#3 in 2008) never became a starter which put a big dent in his value but is a decent bullpen guy. Jose Tabata(#37 2008) traded for Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte. Ian Kennedy(#45 2008) was also part of the Granderson 3 way trade. Phil Hughes(#4 2007) never really amounted to much with the Yanks. Dioner Navarro(#41 in 2004) traded as part of the Randy Johnson trade. Jose Contreras(#6 2003) had a couple of decent years but over his career really wasn't the top prospect you would hope. Hideki Matsui(#8 2003) had a solid career. Nick Johnson(#13 2002) never really made an impact in the majors. Alfonso Soriano(#27 2001) superstar player. Looking through their rosters, the only other names I see are Brett Gardner who's a decent MLB player but nothing spectacular, Cano who's a superstar, Melky Cabrera who again average at best MLBer, and Ivan Nova who looks to be a middle of the rotation type.

I'd argue that had they not went out and signed the best available FA/international player every year they would have been a bad team most of the 2000's. They are now in a situation where if Cano leaves what exactly do they have left? And sure, they won a lot of games and made the playoffs a lot during that time frame but since their 2000 WS have only won in 2009 and spent 100's of millions on free agents to do it. That's not the sign of a skilled GM. Any GM with an open checkbook every year can go out and put together a playoff team. I want a GM who doesn't have to dip into FA because he's built a quality farm system. I want a GM who develops players from that system. I want a GM who signs those players through their prime years to team friendly deals. I want a GM who when that fails can go find a piece he is missing via a quality trade.

It remains to be seen if Theo and co. are that type of front office. However, I don't want the cubs to build teams like the Yankees did because frankly I think if the Cardinals and the Yankees exchanged budgets the Cardinals would have done a much superior job. They won 2 titles with around half the budget of the Yankees during the 2000's period. Imagine what they could have done with the Yankees money.

I think money teams act a certain way because they play for exposure. The Yankees act that way because they can and will flex muscle when given the chance, and the Cardinals act a certain way because frankly, they kind of have to being that they are mid-market.

If the Cardinals had a chance to spend money like the Yankees, chances are they would have locked up an injury riddled Pujols crippling the team, and thus never received Wacha as a compensatory pick. Sure the Cardinals would still be a good team, but they are better in the long run because the Angels swept Albert up which allowed them to do more friendly deals to people like Carlos Beltran and sign Yadier Molina long-term.

With money, maybe the Cardinals sign Furcal to a 6 year deal versus 2 which he is just now trying to make it back from injury. Maybe Scott Rolen would have still been on the team 2 years ago when he was still playing and MVP David Freese was still in San Diego because they didn't trade Jim Edmunds away again. Maybe Walt Jocketty is still the GM and former scouting director Jeff Lunhow (who is now a GM with Houston) never got the chance to do what has made the Cardinals as of late, and that is develop an intense farm system chock full of power arms and bats that have now surfaced at the major league level.

We know Billy Beane had a chance to be the Red Sox GM and turned it down. Does that mean he would have won 3 WS in that stretch? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe with a payroll that he was unaccustomed to having in Oakland, would have made him view players differently.

Money and/or pressure kinda made Theo do things differently in Boston as he got out of familiar territory. I think money can make you do different things you normally wouldn't do, and that goes for more than just sports.

 

[beckdawg]

Money and/or pressure kinda made Theo do things differently in Boston as he got out of familiar territory. I think money can make you do different things you normally wouldn't do, and that goes for more than just sports.

I think you make a fair point. I really don't want the Cubs to succumb to pressure from media and fans. I say that more meaning what Boston/NYY have done with FA's. But, the fact many want them to blow up their current plan and spend large sums of money would, in my opinion, set a bad precedent. In that regard, I feel the Cubs do have a little bit better chance because their natural rival is St. Louis who's not inclined to spend big either where as rivals like NYY and Boston are.

Either way though, I still feel that having to spend a lot of money in FA is in general a bad sign for your GM. If you have to venture into FA I'd prefer my team to target mid tier guys and make them work as numerous teams have been successful doing.

 

[brett05]

I want a GM who develops players from that system. I want a GM who signs those players through their prime years to team friendly deals. I want a GM who when that fails can go find a piece he is missing via a quality trade.

Sentence by Sentence:

1) All should want that, though for the record a GM has never ever developed a player.
2) In general those players are not of upper quality and/or intelligence. If you are good there is no reason to sign a team friendly deal except to avoid career altering/ending injury which in baseball is quite rare.
3) When the GM plan fails, again in general, is fired. Period. Given the plan Theo has implemented if the Minors fails there is nothing of any real value to trade

 

[beckdawg]

Sentence by Sentence:

1) All should want that, though for the record a GM has never ever developed a player.
2) In general those players are not of upper quality and/or intelligence. If you are good there is no reason to sign a team friendly deal except to avoid career altering/ending injury which in baseball is quite rare.
3) When the GM plan fails, again in general, is fired. Period. Given the plan Theo has implemented if the Minors fails there is nothing of any real value to trade

In reference to #2, I think you misinterpreted my meaning(though I see why). A Longoria like contract is team friendly vs a FA deal but in a vacuum it wouldn't really be considered to favor anyone. That's what I meant as those contract allow you to keep that sort of talent without paying $150-200 mil.

As for #3, if the minors fail for any GM it's game over as I illustrated above. At that point you're comparing having vet players on contracts to having no contracts and the ability to pick and choose players to sign. If that's the case I'll always take payroll flexibility because it's generally much harder to move players for anything of value unless they are signed to bargain contracts(Feldman types).

Also, there's another difference in the two positions. Theo and company aren't just using their allotted draft picks and international FA money and waiting. They are manufacturing more by flipping players. In a situation where they had gone after FAs as a way of building that probably doesn't happen because you're not selling at the deadline. That in turn means you're not seeing as many cost controlled players out of the minors as you could which is putting more eggs in to a smaller basket.

So, I really don't see the divide. I would argue you aren't going to build a contending team without at least 40% home grown talent. Even the Yankee's of the 2000's had Jeter, Cano, Posada, Pettite and Rivera as mainstays. That's talent the cubs don't currently have so you're going to be waiting there anyways. And signing FA before you have that talent is in fact hampering your ability to showcase flippable players which could speed up that process. And sure it's possible none of the return for those players amounts to anything but if you tell me I can have 10 chances at something or 15 chances I'm going to take the 15 as would anyone.

Simply put, I've yet to see a single lucid argument that explains how they could have avoided waiting for the better prospects to hit the majors without having a $160+ payroll. Anything under that you're likely talking about a mediocre team barring some unlikely luck and a mediocre team would actually be the worst of all possible outcomes because it's not a playoff team and it's not yielding you high draft picks/more international signing money which the Cubs need in order to infuse their farm system with more talent.

If you have that argument than by all means present it but the 2011 cubs were a 71 win team. Had they added Yu Darvish($51.7 mil posting fee + 6 year $60 mil), Fielder(9 year $214 mil), Beltran(2 year $26 mil), and say Crisp(2 year $14 mil) you're talking about a combined WAR of 4.9 + 4.8 + 3.3 + 2.6 or 15.6 WAR and addressing the largest problems they had before Theo and company arrived. That's a year to year payroll increase of around ~$63 mil and unless I'm missing someone the absolute best case for people they could have signed. Contrast that with DeJesus(1.3 WAR), LaHair/Rizzo(2.1 WAR), jackson/Campana/johnson(1.5 WAR) and Volstad(0.1 WAR) and you're talking about a difference of 10.6 WAR which takes a 71 win team to roughly a .500 team.

It sounds great to say spending money would have fixed their issues but when you work through the numbers they just don't add up. In order to have a semi-legit chance of that working the 2011 cubs would have needed to be in the 80 win range in order to get to the 88 wins the last NL playoff spot took.