The Front Office And Ownership Thread

[diavolos]

The CBA was also largely different before Theo took over and was much., MUCH more conducive to rebuilding while competing.

with all due respect, buying that line just is buying the loser mentality that the cubs continue to show as an organization. and it's that mentality that some of us are trying to fight against. there's no reason that a team that is interested in actually trying to win a world series, shouldn't at least be spending money up to the tax threshhold. none whatsoever. even one in rebuilding mode. certainly, not a club that has the revenue stream that the chicago cubs do.

people always mention atlanta, people always mention st. louis as model franchises. both franchises have had sustained success. both franchises have somehow managed to find quality prospects while strengthening their major league ballclub at the same time.

i don't think anyone is saying to not strengthen the farm and bring in quality prospects for sustained success. if you're serious about winning as an organization, you have to also spend money. i'm not talking yankees money either. i'm talking at least competing for available free agents at every position. but instead, we get olt and schierholtz and darwin barney still on the team and in the starting lineup.

 

[MRubio52]

with all due respect, buying that line just is buying the loser mentality that the cubs continue to show as an organization. and it's that mentality that some of us are trying to fight against. there's no reason that a team that is interested in actually trying to win a world series, shouldn't at least be spending money up to the tax threshhold. none whatsoever. even one in rebuilding mode. certainly, not a club that has the revenue stream that the chicago cubs do.

people always mention atlanta, people always mention st. louis as model franchises. both franchises have had sustained success. both franchises have somehow managed to find quality prospects while strengthening their major league ballclub at the same time.

i don't think anyone is saying to not strengthen the farm and bring in quality prospects for sustained success. if you're serious about winning as an organization, you have to also spend money. i'm not talking yankees money either. i'm talking at least competing for available free agents at every position. but instead, we get olt and schierholtz and darwin barney still on the team and in the starting lineup.

The thing about those two franchises is that (STL in particular) they have all sorts of small market exemptions that help in the draft and the International market.

I'm not really a fan of a team much these days so I really don't care about loser mentality or anything like that, I really only care about the realities of how baseball is built now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[beckdawg]

The thing about those two franchises is that (STL in particular) they have all sorts of small market exemptions that help in the draft and the International market.

IIRC, St. Louis not only gets competitive balance picks but also gets revenue sharing. On the contrary, the cubs who's payroll is currently smaller pay something like $30-35 mil in revenue sharing and get no competitive balance picks. Something about that just feels strange.

As for the thoughts that the cubs should spend up to the threshold, that's fine. I don't think anyone disagrees with that but the problem is whether people like it or not this is a business and if they aren't profitable at that point then they aren't going to do it. Because teams are purposefully vague about their expenses people assume the worst. They see somewhere like forbes suggest the cubs make $300ish mil in revenue and they see a $100 mil payroll and assume the cubs are making bank. What people fail to realize is the miscellaneous expenses that come with a team. I suggest people read this. These figures aren't exact but that's not the point. It's a best guess look at how money is probably being spent when compared to other franchises who's financials did leak.

Bleacher nation aren't people working for the cubs. They are fans just the same as the critics. For the sake of argument, let's say they are overly rosey on the cubs in that article. The numbers they come up with are very defensible. And even if they are wrong, it's a fruitless argument because the Ricketts are the owners of the cubs and they call the shots whether we like it or not. That leads to two paths. Either A) you suck it up and deal with it or B) find another team. Lack of fan enthusiasm hasn't made the Marlins get rid of Loria. The same goes for Tampa's owners. Both of those teams often have trouble drawing fans. San Diego is the 8th largest city in the US yet it's still a "small market." None of these cities are ousting their owners. It doesn't work that way. Ownership changes occur when there's a death or a colossal **** up by ownership. In the case of the previous cub ownership that was going bankrupt. But that can also include doing shit like Sterling or Marge Schott did with the Reds. Losing and not spending money doesn't do shit or else KC and Pitt would have had new owners years ago.

 

[brett05]

What people fail to realize is the miscellaneous expenses that come with a team. I suggest people read this.

That was a massively long article but a great read. The one thing the Ricketts family could have done was buy the team outright and toss in enough cash to cover the Tribune's tax issues. I don't recall that option being mentioned.

 

[beckdawg]

That was a massively long article but a great read. The one thing the Ricketts family could have done was buy the team outright and toss in enough cash to cover the Tribune's tax issues. I don't recall that option being mentioned.

Yeah that probably would have been easier to be honest though I suppose we don't know if it was an option Zell put on the table. What gets me is the expenses you wouldn't expect when thinking about stuff. For example, who thinks about what the cubs pay in revenue sharing? Who thinks about the interest on the loan from the leveraged partnership? You add those two with the maintenance on Wrigley that's quickly like $80 mil which if they make $300 mil is 20% of their total revenue.

That's why the first two years under Theo don't bother me as much spending wise because it honestly seem inevitable that sort of cut was coming. That oeesn't let them off the hook though because next year they basically have clean books. Jackson is the only "bad" contract on the books and teams win world series with $110 mil payrolls. That's why I'm going to be disappointed if they sell of Shark even though it seems inevitable. Eventually they have to make a stand and say here's where we start building for when the hyped prospects arrive. If they let Shark go, then you're cycling someone to replace him and who knows if that person is even as good.

 

[nwfisch]

Bruce Levine @MLBBruceLevine · 16m 12-24 ,worst Cub start after 36 games since 1997. Tom Ricketts projection of a playoff team looking a tad off right now .

That's Progress?

 

[diavolos]

if the bleacher report article is to be believed nwfisch, then it's "wait until 2020" at least. but it's cool because AFTER all that, we'll have "sustained success".

 

[The Bandit]

if the bleacher report article is to be believed nwfisch, then it's "wait until 2020" at least. but it's cool because AFTER all that, we'll have "sustained success".

:crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::enough:

 

[beckdawg]

if the bleacher report article is to be believed nwfisch, then it's "wait until 2020" at least. but it's cool because AFTER all that, we'll have "sustained success".

IIRC, the Zell partnership can bee terminated after 2017 not 2020. Now you could say the tv contract with CSN is an impact and that ends in 2019 I believe. But, I don't really see that being the case. They will get increased revenue from the WGN portion of the TV contract. If assume that their max payroll is the $105-110 mil range it has been the past two years and you assume you get say $10 mil more from those contracts you'll be near the top 10 in payroll. Not to mention the fact that what is currently on their payroll? The only one making anything substantial is Jackson.

If they don't start adding pieces next year then I'll likely buy into the talk of the team being full of shit. The way I see things this far is the first two years was the ownership getting their feet wet and seeing what needed to change. They then fire Hendry and go with new front office who had a much different idea of how things run. The following two years they tore it down. Whether that was the right move or not, that's the decision that was made. Since then they've had multiple high round picks and gotten rid of all the high salaries. They now have a clean slate to build from.

I think the trade deadline will be telling. If Shark goes then personally I'll lose some faith because that means several years before they get the pieces to combine with the hitting. Say what you will about this current team being crappy but their starting rotation is actually quite good. I've resigned myself to Hammel being traded. However, he's only on a one year deal anyways. If Shark goes too then you're looking at not only rebuilding the positional players who by in large aren't good right now but you're also trying to find multiple starters.

 

[diavolos]

If they don't start adding pieces next year then I'll likely buy into the talk of the team being full of shit.

that's good to have a tipping point.

what's everyone else's? how far are you willing to "believe"?

 

[dabynsky]

That was a massively long article but a great read. The one thing the Ricketts family could have done was buy the team outright and toss in enough cash to cover the Tribune's tax issues. I don't recall that option being mentioned.

Zell nixed that right away. If you read Cuban talk about his pursuit of the Cubs it becomes clear that was the only way Zell was willing to sell the team regardless of if it was the best deal possible

 

[dabynsky]

Bruce Levine @MLBBruceLevine · 16m 12-24 ,worst Cub start after 36 games since 1997. Tom Ricketts projection of a playoff team looking a tad off right now .

That's Progress?

Progress in baseball is not linear as has many, many teams have shown. Same goes for declines of franchises to be completely honest.

 

[brett05]

Zell nixed that right away. If you read Cuban talk about his pursuit of the Cubs it becomes clear that was the only way Zell was willing to sell the team regardless of if it was the best deal possible

And id disagree. ZELL is a businessman first and foremost. Ricketts messed it up

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[dabynsky]

And id disagree. ZELL is a businessman first and foremost. Ricketts messed it up

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

None of us can definitely say what happened, but Zell was the person who had the thing lots of people wanted to buy. And he could and did dictate the terms. You can say that Ricketts should have held out for a different deal, but who's to say that someone else wouldn't have agreed to those terms.

 

[nwfisch]

Progress in baseball is not linear as has many, many teams have shown. Same goes for declines of franchises to be completely honest.

But the promise of "sustained success?"

 

[brett05]

None of us can definitely say what happened, but Zell was the person who had the thing lots of people wanted to buy. And he could and did dictate the terms. You can say that Ricketts should have held out for a different deal, but who's to say that someone else wouldn't have agreed to those terms.

Im just saying they could have just cut a check

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[dabynsky]

Im just saying they could have just cut a check

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

Not if Zell wasn't going to accept a check which seems to be the indication given by at least Cuban's description of the process negotiating with Zell.

 

[brett05]

Not if Zell wasn't going to accept a check which seems to be the indication given by at least Cuban's description of the process negotiating with Zell.

It makes no sense not too since todays dollars are more valuable

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[dabynsky]

It makes no sense not too since todays dollars are more valuable

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

It must make some sense since this transaction has been used repeatedly by Zell.

 

[brett05]

It must make some sense since this transaction has been used repeatedly by Zell.

It does to that current owners errored. Its the KISS principle.

Everyone makes mistakes. The most obvious is that this is one of Tom's

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk