Bruce at it again....

[goonys evil twin]

We've become spoiled. The average baseball fan would be ecstatic to have a $94 million payroll for his favorite team. Cubs just need to spend more wisely, not spend more.

 

Disagree. How many less of their 26 championships would the Yankees have if they didn't have the highest payroll year after year. I would guess it would be quite a few. It's not a coincidence that the next highest # of WS championships is like 9.

 

Increasing the payroll doesn't guarantee a WS but it does increase your margin for error and with the right GM can help teams remain competitive year after year like the Yankeees and Red Sox.

 

How many of the 26 World Series have the Yankees won with the highest payroll?

 

Obviously you're right that the higher payroll increases flexibility and margin for error, but I think as it pertains to the Cubs we're in more need of better decisions with the money than more money itself, though both are plenty useful.

 

 

All 26.

 

I doubt it. In the mid-to-late 90's, Baltimore had the highest payroll. I'm pretty sure that for at least one, and maybe two or three of those titles, the Yanks were not the highest payroll. And I'd bet they didn't have the highest in some earlier seasons either.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

We've become spoiled. The average baseball fan would be ecstatic to have a $94 million payroll for his favorite team. Cubs just need to spend more wisely, not spend more.

 

Disagree. How many less of their 26 championships would the Yankees have if they didn't have the highest payroll year after year. I would guess it would be quite a few. It's not a coincidence that the next highest # of WS championships is like 9.

 

Increasing the payroll doesn't guarantee a WS but it does increase your margin for error and with the right GM can help teams remain competitive year after year like the Yankeees and Red Sox.

 

How many of the 26 World Series have the Yankees won with the highest payroll?

 

Obviously you're right that the higher payroll increases flexibility and margin for error, but I think as it pertains to the Cubs we're in more need of better decisions with the money than more money itself, though both are plenty useful.

 

 

All 26.

 

I doubt it. In the mid-to-late 90's, Baltimore had the highest payroll. I'm pretty sure that for at least one, and maybe two or three of those titles, the Yanks were not the highest payroll. And I'd bet they didn't have the highest in some earlier seasons either.

 

The Orioles payroll was $7M more than the Yankees in 1998.

[dalgreen]

It's almost sickening to hear people give Hendry credit for the 2003 "five outs away" team. The Houston Astros should be given more credit for that than Hendry. Had Houston not choked the last four games of the year, would we still be talking about 2003? This is the third straight year he's made horrible decisions.

 

I agree with Goony that MacPhail should be in the top five. As I've said for more than ten years, I've never, ever heard MacPhail or Hendry state, "any year we are not contending for the NL Central will be considered a failed season." These were the exact quotes I remember Mark Lamping, Cardinals President, stating when he was hired. The culture of winning begins at the top.

[johnnyba99]

We've become spoiled. The average baseball fan would be ecstatic to have a $94 million payroll for his favorite team. Cubs just need to spend more wisely, not spend more.

 

Disagree. How many less of their 26 championships would the Yankees have if they didn't have the highest payroll year after year. I would guess it would be quite a few. It's not a coincidence that the next highest # of WS championships is like 9.

 

Increasing the payroll doesn't guarantee a WS but it does increase your margin for error and with the right GM can help teams remain competitive year after year like the Yankeees and Red Sox.

 

How many of the 26 World Series have the Yankees won with the highest payroll?

 

Obviously you're right that the higher payroll increases flexibility and margin for error, but I think as it pertains to the Cubs we're in more need of better decisions with the money than more money itself, though both are plenty useful.

 

 

All 26.

 

I doubt it. In the mid-to-late 90's, Baltimore had the highest payroll. I'm pretty sure that for at least one, and maybe two or three of those titles, the Yanks were not the highest payroll. And I'd bet they didn't have the highest in some earlier seasons either.

 

The Orioles payroll was $7M more than the Yankees in 1998.

 

Not sure about early seasons, but from 1977 on they had the highest payroll for 4 out of the 6 world series titles and the other two they were the second highest payroll (1998 & 1977).

[NCCubFan]

It's almost sickening to hear people give Hendry credit for the 2003 "five outs away" team. The Houston Astros should be given more credit for that than Hendry. Had Houston not choked the last four games of the year, would we still be talking about 2003?

No, but if not for the Cubs' last week collapse in 2004 we'd be talking about that year. It works both ways.

[The Voice of Reason]

We've become spoiled. The average baseball fan would be ecstatic to have a $94 million payroll for his favorite team. Cubs just need to spend more wisely, not spend more.

 

Disagree. How many less of their 26 championships would the Yankees have if they didn't have the highest payroll year after year. I would guess it would be quite a few. It's not a coincidence that the next highest # of WS championships is like 9.

 

Increasing the payroll doesn't guarantee a WS but it does increase your margin for error and with the right GM can help teams remain competitive year after year like the Yankeees and Red Sox.

 

How many of the 26 World Series have the Yankees won with the highest payroll?

 

Obviously you're right that the higher payroll increases flexibility and margin for error, but I think as it pertains to the Cubs we're in more need of better decisions with the money than more money itself, though both are plenty useful.

 

 

All 26.

 

I doubt it. In the mid-to-late 90's, Baltimore had the highest payroll. I'm pretty sure that for at least one, and maybe two or three of those titles, the Yanks were not the highest payroll. And I'd bet they didn't have the highest in some earlier seasons either.

 

OK maybe they didn't have the highest payroll EVERY SINGLE year but they've always been at or close to the top. Starting with the purchase of Babe Ruth they've been willing to spend money to get good players.

 

In the early years, before the draft, the Yankees simply outbid everyone for the best players. Read Bill Veeck's excellent book Veeck as in Wreck sometime. He documents this fact in detail. The Yankees were the reason MLB started the draft.

 

Bruce and I are not saying the Cubs should spend like the Yankees just like the Red Sox.

[goonys evil twin]

OK maybe they didn't have the highest payroll EVERY SINGLE year but they've always been at or close to the top. Starting with the purchase of Babe Ruth they've been willing to spend money to get good players.

 

In the early years, before the draft, the Yankees simply outbid everyone for the best players. Read Bill Veeck's excellent book Veeck as in Wreck sometime. He documents this fact in detail. The Yankees were the reason MLB started the draft.

 

Bruce and I are not saying the Cubs should spend like the Yankees just like the Red Sox.

 

I'm not claiming they don't spend. I just think that the situation today often clouds fans' perceptions about how it's been in the past. They dwarf the competition today much more so than in the past.

 

I'm not so sure the Cubs should spend as much as Boston.

 

A) Boston is the only team in all of New England. It's a huge fish in a gigantic pond, the only fish in fact. The Cubs share a city with another team, and are surrounded by rivals in neighboring states.

 

B) Northeast money blows Chicago money out of the water. There is just a much greater pool of cash to play with there.

 

 

When you look at the money available to the Cubs market, I believe their rightful place is about 4th-7th on the list of teams that "should" spend big money. NYY, NYM and BOS all have greater resources to play with. LAA, LAD and SFG can and should all compete with the Cubs for the next spot.

[dalgreen]

It's almost sickening to hear people give Hendry credit for the 2003 "five outs away" team. The Houston Astros should be given more credit for that than Hendry. Had Houston not choked the last four games of the year, would we still be talking about 2003?

No, but if not for the Cubs' last week collapse in 2004 we'd be talking about that year. It works both ways.

 

I understand and agree it works both ways. If we hadn't have choked in 2004, we could've been swept in the NLDS or won the pennant, I don't know. But we do know we came within 5 outs of the World Series and people still want to give Hendry a pass for that. Prior to 2003, no one predicted the Cubs to make the playoffs. Prior to 2004, many picked the Cubs to win the World Series. He's now had three straight disappointing years.

[Sammy Sofa]

Prior to 2003

 

I am in full support of your brilliant time machine proposal.

[larhur]

A big reason for our collapse. Our youngsters.

I am glad we have played so many but Dusty cannot handle youngsters. How many has he ruined so far and how many are failing now. B. Hill and Patterson are gone and cedeno and murton probably aren't far behind. Young pitcjing is also to blame. Hill kills them in AAA but can't pitch for dusty or rothchild, Williams, marmol, all need more instruction.

I say blow up this team, get rid of the old guys so dusty can't play them and go with the youngsters

I think Theriot can play second, He is hitting over 300 in Iowa, Bring up Restovitch, Bring up Pie, Trade Jones, Trade Walker, Trade Nefti, trade Pierre. Evaluate the youngsters the rest of the year and sign or trade after the season to complete the new team. Cleveland did it, The Marlins did it, we can do it.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

A big reason for our collapse. Our youngsters.

I am glad we have played so many but Dusty cannot handle youngsters. How many has he ruined so far and how many are failing now. B. Hill and Patterson are gone and cedeno and murton probably aren't far behind. Young pitcjing is also to blame. Hill kills them in AAA but can't pitch for dusty or rothchild, Williams, marmol, all need more instruction.

I say blow up this team, get rid of the old guys so dusty can't play them and go with the youngsters

I think Theriot can play second, He is hitting over 300 in Iowa, Bring up Restovitch, Bring up Pie, Trade Jones, Trade Walker, Trade Nefti, trade Pierre. Evaluate the youngsters the rest of the year and sign or trade after the season to complete the new team. Cleveland did it, The Marlins did it, we can do it.

 

Other teams have done it with deeper, more talented farms. Pie is not ready, Theriot is probably nothing more than a utility player, and Restovich may need a platoon partner.

[larhur]

We will never know about theriot and the rest unless they get a good chance to play. You may be right about Pie not being ready, but he may surprise, theriot may be only a platoon player but you don't have to be a star to play a good second base and hit 7th. He is playing short for Iowa, maybe cedeno can play second. It could be a good defensive infield, you never know. I think it is a excuse to say someone is not ready unless they get a try, But not under Dusty.

[cheapseats]

 

I've always said you have to spend wisely. But for an outfit such as the Tribune Co. to self-impose these type of limits is indeed a problem.

 

I agree, Bruce. The groupthink on this board is that the Trib spends enough money but doesn't spend it wisely, creating a false dilemma (spending wisely vs spending generously).

[goonys evil twin]

 

I've always said you have to spend wisely. But for an outfit such as the Tribune Co. to self-impose these type of limits is indeed a problem.

 

I agree, Bruce. The groupthink on this board is that the Trib spends enough money but doesn't spend it wisely, creating a false dilemma (spending wisely vs spending generously).

 

Cut with the groupthink crap. A lot of people have very different ideas about the payroll situation.

[beowulf28]

Also, I think Mr. Miles was correct in putting part of the blame on Michael Barrett. Barrett was selfish for what he did. He's probably the second best hitter on the club, and he effectively took the bat out of his own hands with the stupid punch he threw. Who could count on Henry Blanco having a career ten games?

 

No one counted on Blanco's performance, but we got it. So losing Barrett for 10 days meant equal production at the plate and probably better defense at C. If you can find any evidence at all that suggests that Barrett's absence actually cost us any games or kept us from contending this year, I'd like to see it. But I don't think you can.

 

No, it wasn't wise of Barrett to punch AJP, but it cost the Cubs nothing. Not a thing. Same offensive production, better D, and the 24-man roster argument doesn't hold water (see my earlier post about Guzman).

 

The problem w/ our team sucking is we go hunting for scapegoats. Barrett isn't one - he's been solid to very good all year. He's one of the few and maybe the only one who can say that (Z sucked for the first month).

 

I have to admit that that punch to AJ was the only dark side to Barrett this year so far. And when I saw how high his OBP is, I thought that was great. But who could've guessed Blanco would've done so well?

[scs_paradise]

 

I've always said you have to spend wisely. But for an outfit such as the Tribune Co. to self-impose these type of limits is indeed a problem.

 

I agree, Bruce. The groupthink on this board is that the Trib spends enough money but doesn't spend it wisely, creating a false dilemma (spending wisely vs spending generously).

 

Cut with the groupthink crap. A lot of people have very different ideas about the payroll situation.

 

I don't think anyone has created a false dilemma. Most people just deal with the fact that the trib or the cubs are only spending the money they are and say if you are only gonna spend that, you could spend it more wisely than rusch and neifi. But most if not all want the trib to spend more....so I'm not sure I see the "dilemma". But its cute how you labeled THE WHOLE BOARD!

[Tracer Bullet]

Also, I think Mr. Miles was correct in putting part of the blame on Michael Barrett. Barrett was selfish for what he did. He's probably the second best hitter on the club, and he effectively took the bat out of his own hands with the stupid punch he threw. Who could count on Henry Blanco having a career ten games?

 

No one counted on Blanco's performance, but we got it. So losing Barrett for 10 days meant equal production at the plate and probably better defense at C. If you can find any evidence at all that suggests that Barrett's absence actually cost us any games or kept us from contending this year, I'd like to see it. But I don't think you can.

 

No, it wasn't wise of Barrett to punch AJP, but it cost the Cubs nothing. Not a thing. Same offensive production, better D, and the 24-man roster argument doesn't hold water (see my earlier post about Guzman).

 

The problem w/ our team sucking is we go hunting for scapegoats. Barrett isn't one - he's been solid to very good all year. He's one of the few and maybe the only one who can say that (Z sucked for the first month).

 

I have to admit that that punch to AJ was the only dark side to Barrett this year so far. And when I saw how high his OBP is, I thought that was great. But who could've guessed Blanco would've done so well?

 

No one, but if we're looking back and saying "who is to blame for getting us here" - how can you say Barrett at all? Solid, one of the top offensive Cs all year, and his replacement for 10 games played as well as Barrett ever has in his best 10 games. At the time, maybe we all thought "crap w/o MB, our offense will be really bad." I sure did. But Blanco played incredible.

 

If you want to say the punch was dumb or whatever, I can respect that opinion. If you want to say Barrett is anywhere on a list of players to blame for this season, you'll need to come up w/ some evidence b/c right now he's been the MVP of the 1st half for us. Some have played better for a month or two - no one has been this good day in/day out all season.

[soapy]

"How it all unraveled for Baker". An article from Bruce today about Dusty's tenure in Chicago.

 

I think this was the most depressing part:

 

What do Lenny Harris, David Kelton, Ramon Martinez, Trenidad Hubbard, Neifi Perez, Freddie Bynum, Damian Jackson, Rey Ordonez, Corey Patterson, Jose Macias, Jody Gerut and Todd Hollandsworth have in common?

 

They’ve all batted leadoff or second under Baker.

[CuseCubFan69]

"How it all unraveled for Baker". An article from Bruce today about Dusty's tenure in Chicago.

 

I think this was the most depressing part:

 

What do Lenny Harris, David Kelton, Ramon Martinez, Trenidad Hubbard, Neifi Perez, Freddie Bynum, Damian Jackson, Rey Ordonez, Corey Patterson, Jose Macias, Jody Gerut and Todd Hollandsworth have in common?

 

They’ve all batted leadoff or second under Baker.

 

Very good article. It also says something about Hendry too when you're talking about the leadoff guys but Baker and his conventional wisdom likes leading guys off that shouldn't bat above the 8 slot.

 

It's nice to see the abuse point system out there and with Wood and Prior at the top many some will figure out there really is a pattern out there. The horses are broken because they were rode into the ground.

[soapy]

It's nice to see the abuse point system out there and with Wood and Prior at the top many some will figure out there really is a pattern out there. The horses are broken because they were rode into the ground.

Yeah, I was happy to see that as well. Bruce is doing a nice job of throwing in some "non-conventional" stats into his articles. The whole article really broke down a lot of the problems that most people have with Dusty overall, with examples.

[Tracer Bullet]

"How it all unraveled for Baker". An article from Bruce today about Dusty's tenure in Chicago.

 

I think this was the most depressing part:

 

What do Lenny Harris, David Kelton, Ramon Martinez, Trenidad Hubbard, Neifi Perez, Freddie Bynum, Damian Jackson, Rey Ordonez, Corey Patterson, Jose Macias, Jody Gerut and Todd Hollandsworth have in common?

 

They’ve all batted leadoff or second under Baker.

 

Very good article. It also says something about Hendry too when you're talking about the leadoff guys but Baker and his conventional wisdom likes leading guys off that shouldn't bat above the 8 slot.

 

It's nice to see the abuse point system out there and with Wood and Prior at the top many some will figure out there really is a pattern out there. The horses are broken because they were rode into the ground.

 

I'm really glad to see Bruce mention pitch counts. I'm so tired of hearing how Prior and Wood are wimps. They were destroyed in '03. And I've had the same concerns about the way Dusty uses Z. Maybe Cora hit him with a fungo b/c he likes him and wanted to give him a few extra days w/o having to throw 130 pitches for a team that's on pace to lose 100 games.

[wastra]

It's nice to see the abuse point system out there and with Wood and Prior at the top many some will figure out there really is a pattern out there. The horses are broken because they were rode into the ground.

Yeah, I was happy to see that as well. Bruce is doing a nice job of throwing in some "non-conventional" stats into his articles. The whole article really broke down a lot of the problems that most people have with Dusty overall, with examples.

 

Agreed. The advent of computers and microsoft excel has allowed us to compile and examine far more data far easier than ever before. In the sport most easily evaluated by statistical results, there's simply no reason to limit ourselves to JUST very basic, general, and vague stats simply because they've been around forever.

 

IMO, the Cubs are about 15 years behind the bell curve, while other franchises have embraced such radical innovations as OBP.

 

The Cubs are still looking for a team full of Andre Dawsons. Don't get me wrong, he was and is my all-time favorite player. But he was very symptomatic of the era he played in...he wouldn't take a walk if you paid him. In 1988, you could field a team of low obp, high slg guys and win because every other team was doing it too- just as in earlier parts of the 20th century, you could field a team of slap-hitting guys who couldn't hit for power in the dead-ball era.

 

Today, you can't.

 

Teams have to learn to change with the times instead of relying on trends that are 30 years old (especially when this team couldn't do THAT right 30 years ago anyway).

[Fro]

I think the Cubs could definitely have a $120 million dollar payroll, once you count in the revenue the Tribune hides in WGN.

[goonys evil twin]

In 1988, you could field a team of low obp, high slg guys and win because every other team was doing it too- just

 

Except for Boston, Oakland, Yankees and Mets, 3 of whom won the 4 divisions at the time. Boston led the league in walks by a wide margin.

[fromthestretch]

I think the Cubs could definitely have a $120 million dollar payroll, once you count in the revenue the Tribune hides in WGN.

 

What's the justification for it when teams with lower payrolls have better records? They just need to be smarter with their money. Giving this team an extra $25-30 million to spend isn't going to do much good if they keep using it to overpay for mediocrity.