The Front Office And Ownership Thread

[nwfisch]

Well it shouldn't be long before we hear who the Cubs have signed. Hoyer was seen shopping yesterday. http://pic.twitter.com/eNvZHGsRmv

 

[nickofypres]

:smh: ity:

Fisch copying from Twitter without citing where he got that from.

 

[nwfisch]

:smh: ity:

Fisch copying from Twitter without citing where he got that from.

:umad:

 

[nickofypres]

:hug:

 

[brett05]

If only WAR worked that way.

I think the two biggest issues are:

1) Ricketts and Company told everyone that every year is a year where the goal is to win the World Series. That should have been followed by, "We will first build a strong base by addressing the minors first and foremost in efforts to right a 100+ year old sinking ship."

2) The ticket pricing is outrageous at the MLB level. If that was brougth down say 10% across the board the acceptance would be much higher and honestly I don;t think they would have netted a loss of a single fan.

 

[Boobaby1]

Well it shouldn't be long before we hear who the Cubs have signed. Hoyer was seen shopping yesterday. http://pic.twitter.com/eNvZHGsRmv

Wonder if it is coaching staff or players he is looking for?

 

[beckdawg]

If only WAR worked that way.

I think the two biggest issues are:

1) Ricketts and Company told everyone that every year is a year where the goal is to win the World Series. That should have been followed by, "We will first build a strong base by addressing the minors first and foremost in efforts to right a 100+ year old sinking ship."

2) The ticket pricing is outrageous at the MLB level. If that was brougth down say 10% across the board the acceptance would be much higher and honestly I don;t think they would have netted a loss of a single fan.

I believe WAR does work that way but even if you're dubious, suggesting FA would yield +17 wins is a rather huge stretch and I literally picked the best case scenario which is really unlikely. And even then you're looking at a +10 win difference. As for #1, every ownership does that. That's not just a cubs thing. On #2, I tend to agree.

 

[brett05]

Owners do not boast what Ricketts did

Many teams make large leaps. Adding would have made everyone better

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Owners do not boast what Ricketts did

Many teams make large leaps. Adding would have made everyone better

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

Boasting is irrelevant. Had they said nothing it wouldn't have made the cubs win more games so I don't really see why you care what ownership says. My assumption is owners are stretching the truth if not out right lying in 99% of situations.

As for making players better, you're still talking about fielding a team with Barney at 2B, and a black hole at 3B. You're still talking about adding $60 mil+ in yearly salary which wasn't going to happen. And finally, you're still talking about the best case scenario in terms of FAs they could have got. Even then the numbers don't support your case. If it were even close I would say it's a valid argument. But, as I've shown I gave the best possible players they could have got, spent more money than the cubs would have and the number still say you're 6-7 wins short. Miami actually tried this strategy. They were a 72 win team in 2011 spent 6 years $106 mil on Reyes, 6 years $58 mil on Buehrle and 3 year $27 on Bell which amounts to ~$37 mil added and what did it get them? A 69 wins season.

So, you're going to have to give me something here other than hopes and dreams because a team that did exactly what you're suggesting the cubs should have done and had a similar amount of wins to the cubs actually got worse.

 

[brett05]

Miami suceeded two out of three no?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Miami suceeded two out of three no?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

Huh? They spent close to $40 mil in 2012, lost 3 more games. This year they were even worse.

 

[brett05]

Huh? They spent close to $40 mil in 2012, lost 3 more games. This year they were even worse.

Uhm. Two titles

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Uhm. Two titles

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

What's that have to do with the 2011 spending spree they went on? It was like 10 years prior to it. The point I was making is that adding $40 mil in yearly salary when you're a 70ish win team is unlikely to push you to the playoffs and that was the same situation the Cubs were in because the cubs in 2011 won 71 games vs the 72 of Miami with the same choice of FA pool. Their 2003 and 1997 titles have nothing to do with that.

 

[brett05]

What's that have to do with the 2011 spending spree they went on? It was like 10 years prior to it. The point I was making is that adding $40 mil in yearly salary when you're a 70ish win team is unlikely to push you to the playoffs and that was the same situation the Cubs were in because the cubs in 2011 won 71 games vs the 72 of Miami with the same choice of FA pool. Their 2003 and 1997 titles have nothing to do with that.

Why not?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Why not?

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

Well let's see, none of the players on the 2003 team were on the 2011 team for starters. The 2003 team also didn't dump tons of money into FA as the majority of that team were home grown or acquired via trades. As such, my point that their 2011 spending did them no good is unchanged by that. The 2003 Miami team is as relevant to this discussion as the 1908 Cubs.

 

[brett05]

Well let's see, none of the players on the 2003 team were on the 2011 team for starters. The 2003 team also didn't dump tons of money into FA as the majority of that team were home grown or acquired via trades. As such, my point that their 2011 spending did them no good is unchanged by that. The 2003 Miami team is as relevant to this discussion as the 1908 Cubs.

Why? They drastically increased payroll and won two titles as I recall. You have yet to show why it doesn't matter

Saying no one was on the 2011 team makes me think you've Changed topics

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

Why? They drastically increased payroll and won two titles as I recall. You have yet to show why it doesn't matter

Saying no one was on the 2011 team makes me think you've Changed topics

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

But they didn't. I can't find figures going back to 97 but in 2003 their payroll was relatively unchanged. The only time they've drastically increased payroll is in 2012. That's why 2003 doesn't matter.

2013: $ 50,526,900
2012: $101,628,000
2011: $ 57,695,000
2010: $ 47,429,719
2009: $ 36,834,000
2008: $ 21,811,500
2007: $ 30,507,000
2006: $ 14,998,500
2005: $ 60,408,834
2004: $ 42,143,042
2003: $ 45,050,000
2002: $ 41,979,917
2001: $ 35,762,500

 

[dabynsky]

But they didn't. I can't find figures going back to 97 but in 2003 their payroll was relatively unchanged. The only time they've drastically increased payroll is in 2012. That's why 2003 doesn't matter.

2013: $ 50,526,900
2012: $101,628,000
2011: $ 57,695,000
2010: $ 47,429,719
2009: $ 36,834,000
2008: $ 21,811,500
2007: $ 30,507,000
2006: $ 14,998,500
2005: $ 60,408,834
2004: $ 42,143,042
2003: $ 45,050,000
2002: $ 41,979,917
2001: $ 35,762,500

Here are some numbers from 1997. They did drastically bump salary in 97 and cut it immediately making them the classic example of buying a championship.

 

[brett05]

But they didn't. I can't find figures going back to 97 but in 2003 their payroll was relatively unchanged. The only time they've drastically increased payroll is in 2012. That's why 2003 doesn't matter.

2013: $ 50,526,900
2012: $101,628,000
2011: $ 57,695,000
2010: $ 47,429,719
2009: $ 36,834,000
2008: $ 21,811,500
2007: $ 30,507,000
2006: $ 14,998,500
2005: $ 60,408,834
2004: $ 42,143,042
2003: $ 45,050,000
2002: $ 41,979,917
2001: $ 35,762,500

May I ask where you got those numbers? I show a near 50% increase from 2002 to 2003 in payroll.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/roster.php?y=2002&t=FLO
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/roster.php?y=2003&t=FLO

 

[beckdawg]

May I ask where you got those numbers? I show a near 50% increase from 2002 to 2003 in payroll.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/roster.php?y=2002&t=FLO
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/roster.php?y=2003&t=FLO

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/national-league/miami-marlins/

It's what baseball ref uses to gather it's info on contracts AFAIK.

Also, wikipedia has similar numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Marlins#Opening_day_salaries