Is more money the answer?

[kente777]

I was always (and still am) a believer in a home-grown ballclub. I hate the Yankees for the simple reason that they think they can buy a championship every year (though you got to admire Steinbrenner's desire to win).

 

What should we do with the payroll? Should we increase it and go for big name FA's or reduce it and go with guys like Theriot, Guzman, etc?

 

Are Cubs fans too inpatient to wait for a home-grown club to be a contender?

 

Ken

[rocket]

the question isn't necessarily how much to spend. it's how to spend it wisely.

[C.C.]

Having more money can't hurt.

[VanceJergins]

I was always (and still am) a believer in a home-grown ballclub. I hate the Yankees for the simple reason that they think they can buy a championship every year (though you got to admire Steinbrenner's desire to win).

 

What should we do with the payroll? Should we increase it and go for big name FA's or reduce it and go with guys like Theriot, Guzman, etc?

 

Are Cubs fans too inpatient to wait for a home-grown club to be a contender?

 

Ken

 

I think you have to pick and choose. I think you could give Theriot a shot, but I think Guzman is too big a risk to count on for next year. But thats one of the main reasons I really hope they keep Murton. I also wouldnt mind getting someone like Lofton for next season to give Pie a little more time, but I wouldnt like throwing Pie into the majors next season because he doesnt seem quite ready. So I think, like with all things, you have to find a balance.

[kente777]

I was always (and still am) a believer in a home-grown ballclub. I hate the Yankees for the simple reason that they think they can buy a championship every year (though you got to admire Steinbrenner's desire to win).

 

What should we do with the payroll? Should we increase it and go for big name FA's or reduce it and go with guys like Theriot, Guzman, etc?

 

Are Cubs fans too inpatient to wait for a home-grown club to be a contender?

 

Ken

 

I think you have to pick and choose. I think you could give Theriot a shot, but I think Guzman is too big a risk to count on for next year. But thats one of the main reasons I really hope they keep Murton. I also wouldnt mind getting someone like Lofton for next season to give Pie a little more time, but I wouldnt like throwing Pie into the majors next season because he doesnt seem quite ready. So I think, like with all things, you have to find a balance.

 

Is Hendry capable of this maintaining this balance?

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

the question isn't necessarily how much to spend. it's how to spend it wisely.

 

 

*DING* *DING* *DING*

 

We have a winner!!!

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm not seeing how it could be bad.

[Outshined_One]

I'm not seeing how it could be bad.

 

Overspending for mediocre players who become untradeable because of their contracts?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm not seeing how it could be bad.

 

Overspending for mediocre players who become untradeable because of their contracts?

 

But that's not a function of having more money, it's a function of being stupid.

[wastra]

I'm all for spending more both on the payroll and on player development.

 

Looking at the yanks, for example, there are a lot of guys they've bought, but there are also 3-4 home grown guys who are better players than almost anyone on our team (Jeter, Posada, Cano, Bernie a few years ago, etc.) The yanks are exceptional at trading the homegrown players who are borderline and keeping the ones who are going to be real good. We do the opposite, it seems- trading away guys who become solid major leaguers and keeping guys who flop.

 

We'll have Z, Hill, a reliever or two, and that's it next year, most likely.

 

So we're spending less than the yanks, and probably doing a worse job developing our own guys. That's not a good mixture.

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: A lot of my perceptions on the Cubs' minor leagues is irreparably colored by the minor league 3rd base logjam/fiasco of several years ago. ugh.

[Knyption]

Don't forget Murton... he is a keep would love to have the power in the lineup for him to bat 2nd.

[erik316wttn]

the question isn't necessarily how much to spend. it's how to spend it wisely.

 

dingdingdingding.... We have a winner.

 

You could spend $200 million on this team. If it's not spent wisely, we'll just end up like this year.

 

This team could EASILY win a division on the payroll we have now. Not with the players we have now, but the payroll. We just need someone who knows how to spend it correctly.

[goonys evil twin]

the question isn't necessarily how much to spend. it's how to spend it wisely.

 

dingdingdingding.... We have a winner.

 

You could spend $200 million on this team. If it's not spent wisely, we'll just end up like this year.

 

This team could EASILY win a division on the payroll we have now. Not with the players we have now, but the payroll. We just need someone who knows how to spend it correctly.

 

You could spend $200m poorly and probably still win this division.

 

A $30m increase in payroll would probably make this team a 90 game winner, even with some mistakes. Payroll could be part of the answer. And the Cubs absolutely should spend more and more each year. But I see no point in crying for a huge year over year increase, it's not realistic. And it's not necessary. As long as the budget keeps expanding over time, and as long as the GM makes good moves, this team can win. The key though, is the decision making process. If you insist on basing your decisions on vague, subjective, antiquated notions, you will continue to misappropriate funds.

[wastra]

Don't forget Murton... he is a keep would love to have the power in the lineup for him to bat 2nd.

 

I don't count him because we didn't develop him...we traded for him after the Red Sox drafted/developed him.

[SoonerCubFan]

Looking at the yanks, for example, there are a lot of guys they've bought, but there are also 3-4 home grown guys who are better players than almost anyone on our team (Jeter, Posada, Cano, Bernie a few years ago, etc.) The yanks are exceptional at trading the homegrown players who are borderline and keeping the ones who are going to be real good. We do the opposite, it seems- trading away guys who become solid major leaguers and keeping guys who flop.

 

Exactly the essence of the reply I had in mind when reading through the initial post on this thread. The Yanks use their payroll not just to bring in prime players from other teams, but also to keep the cream of their own. THAT is how a payroll should be used. But even more essential is having a BASEBALL strategy to which a budget is fluid enough to permit, not a fixed budget to which a team must be assembled, which has long been the Cub way.

[goonys evil twin]

But even more essential is having a BASEBALL strategy to which a budget is fluid enough to permit, not a fixed budget to which a team must be assembled, which has long been the Cub way.

 

What does that mean?

 

Most every team has a more or less fixed budget in any given year. Hendry often failed to use up the entire budget in the offseason, planning on taking on salary mid year. I say build the best team you can from Day 1, then play the midseason trades however you can. Don't handicap yourself from the start just to make room for theoretical future moves.

[SoonerCubFan]

You could spend $200m poorly and probably still win this division.

 

A $30m increase in payroll would probably make this team a 90 game winner, even with some mistakes. Payroll could be part of the answer. And the Cubs absolutely should spend more and more each year. But I see no point in crying for a huge year over year increase, it's not realistic. And it's not necessary. As long as the budget keeps expanding over time, and as long as the GM makes good moves, this team can win. The key though, is the decision making process. If you insist on basing your decisions on vague, subjective, antiquated notions, you will continue to misappropriate funds.

 

I agree, but would expand the idea to cover two more themes I've been harping on since the late 1990s after viewing the model of the Yankees rebuild a dynasty.

 

Building on your bolded thought, what makes the antiquated notions even worse is the habit of starting with a fixed budget. It's the combination of the two that compounds a Pierre trade with a Jones 3 year contract just because it fits a budget, then scrimp elsewhere by starting unproven rookies in critical position on the field and in the order. We must couple a new baseball strategy with a flexible and significantly expanded budget that allows a GM to pull in the right player whenever he's available, or to extend a player when we know he's exactly what conforms to our baseball strategy.

 

Second, it still boggles my mind that the Cubs' ownership can't recognize that any relatively modest increase in payroll ($50M is a drop in the bucket) that would enable sustained exciting, WINNING baseball would reap orders of magnitude increases in revenues for the foreseeable future.

[goonys evil twin]

You could spend $200m poorly and probably still win this division.

 

A $30m increase in payroll would probably make this team a 90 game winner, even with some mistakes. Payroll could be part of the answer. And the Cubs absolutely should spend more and more each year. But I see no point in crying for a huge year over year increase, it's not realistic. And it's not necessary. As long as the budget keeps expanding over time, and as long as the GM makes good moves, this team can win. The key though, is the decision making process. If you insist on basing your decisions on vague, subjective, antiquated notions, you will continue to misappropriate funds.

 

I agree, but would expand the idea to cover two more themes I've been harping on since the late 1990s after viewing the model of the Yankees rebuild a dynasty.

 

Building on your bolded thought, what makes the antiquated notions even worse is the habit of starting with a fixed budget. It's the combination of the two that compounds a Pierre trade with a Jones 3 year contract just because it fits a budget, then scrimp elsewhere by starting unproven rookies in critical position on the field and in the order. We must couple a new baseball strategy with a flexible and significantly expanded budget that allows a GM to pull in the right player whenever he's available, or to extend a player when we know he's exactly what conforms to our baseball strategy.

 

Second, it still boggles my mind that the Cubs' ownership can't recognize that any relatively modest increase in payroll ($50M is a drop in the bucket) that would enable sustained exciting, WINNING baseball would reap orders of magnitude increases in revenues for the foreseeable future.

 

You're basically just spicing up the old argument that the Trib is cheap and needs to spend more. It's absurd to claim a $50m increase in payroll is a drop in the bucket, or that you can't win with a fixed budget. The Cubs don't have a fixed budget, they've made special provisions in the past for things like Maddux's contract and midseason acquisitions. But they have a budget and it does do much good, or make any sense, to ask them to not stick to one. You act as if a budget is a bad thing.

[SoonerCubFan]

But even more essential is having a BASEBALL strategy to which a budget is fluid enough to permit, not a fixed budget to which a team must be assembled, which has long been the Cub way.

 

What does that mean?

 

Most every team has a more or less fixed budget in any given year. Hendry often failed to use up the entire budget in the offseason, planning on taking on salary mid year. I say build the best team you can from Day 1, then play the midseason trades however you can. Don't handicap yourself from the start just to make room for theoretical future moves.

 

I mean exactly what you later go on to say - build the best team can when you can, and don't handicap yourself. Hendry shouldn't have to bypass a better player just to stay under budget, whether it's offseason or for a theoretical midsummer move.

 

Every year we see the same thing develop with the Cubs. They start with a fixed budget, attempt to fix last years most glaring weakness, then have very little left to fix other problems. I still say start with a good baseball plan and get the best players available that conform to that plan with no fixed budgetary constraints. Winning will take care of revenue and profits. Every successful enterprise makes up front investments that end up being dwarfed by later success.

[goonys evil twin]

I mean exactly what you later go on to say - build the best team can when you can, and don't handicap yourself. Hendry shouldn't have to bypass a better player just to stay under budget, whether it's offseason or for a theoretical midsummer move.

 

Every year we see the same thing develop with the Cubs. They start with a fixed budget, attempt to fix last years most glaring weakness, then have very little left to fix other problems. I still say start with a good baseball plan and get the best players available that conform to that plan with no fixed budgetary constraints. Winning will take care of revenue and profits. Every successful enterprise makes up front investments that end up being dwarfed by later success.

 

Every single non-Yankees team in the league sticks to a budget and tries to fill holes from the previous season.

 

It makes absolutely no sense to try and pretend a 50% increase in payroll is feasible, or worth discussing.

[Magnetic Curses]

But even more essential is having a BASEBALL strategy to which a budget is fluid enough to permit, not a fixed budget to which a team must be assembled, which has long been the Cub way.

 

What does that mean?

 

Most every team has a more or less fixed budget in any given year. Hendry often failed to use up the entire budget in the offseason, planning on taking on salary mid year. I say build the best team you can from Day 1, then play the midseason trades however you can. Don't handicap yourself from the start just to make room for theoretical future moves.

 

I mean exactly what you later go on to say - build the best team can when you can, and don't handicap yourself. Hendry shouldn't have to bypass a better player just to stay under budget, whether it's offseason or for a theoretical midsummer move.

 

Every year we see the same thing develop with the Cubs. They start with a fixed budget, attempt to fix last years most glaring weakness, then have very little left to fix other problems. I still say start with a good baseball plan and get the best players available that conform to that plan with no fixed budgetary constraints. Winning will take care of revenue and profits. Every successful enterprise makes up front investments that end up being dwarfed by later success.

 

echoing goony, what does this mean?

[SoonerCubFan]

You're basically just spicing up the old argument that the Trib is cheap and needs to spend more. It's absurd to claim a $50m increase in payroll is a drop in the bucket, or that you can't win with a fixed budget. The Cubs don't have a fixed budget, they've made special provisions in the past for things like Maddux's contract and midseason acquisitions. But they have a budget and it does do much good, or make any sense, to ask them to not stick to one. You act as if a budget is a bad thing.

 

No, I don't say the Trib is cheap, I say they're not maximizing their investment. A budget is bad if it limits opportunites, and is all relative to the situation. The Cubs are a major market, and have opportunities for downstream revenues unlike perhaps any team in sports. They don't have to live on a fixed budget like some teams. Yes, spending smarter is job #1, but that includes investing more when necessary to optimize your product. They go hand-in-hand, not independent.

[SoonerCubFan]

echoing goony, what does this mean?

 

Let's just say the Cubs continual patchwork strategy ain't it. There are a few few proven models. Pick one and fund it.

[frostwyrm]

We could throw another $20M at the payroll but it would be far more cost-effective to eat Hendry's contract and get a better GM.

[Fred Hornkohl]

You could spend $200m poorly and probably still win this division.

 

A $30m increase in payroll would probably make this team a 90 game winner, even with some mistakes. Payroll could be part of the answer. And the Cubs absolutely should spend more and more each year. But I see no point in crying for a huge year over year increase, it's not realistic. And it's not necessary. As long as the budget keeps expanding over time, and as long as the GM makes good moves, this team can win. The key though, is the decision making process. If you insist on basing your decisions on vague, subjective, antiquated notions, you will continue to misappropriate funds.

 

I agree, but would expand the idea to cover two more themes I've been harping on since the late 1990s after viewing the model of the Yankees rebuild a dynasty.

 

Building on your bolded thought, what makes the antiquated notions even worse is the habit of starting with a fixed budget. It's the combination of the two that compounds a Pierre trade with a Jones 3 year contract just because it fits a budget, then scrimp elsewhere by starting unproven rookies in critical position on the field and in the order. We must couple a new baseball strategy with a flexible and significantly expanded budget that allows a GM to pull in the right player whenever he's available, or to extend a player when we know he's exactly what conforms to our baseball strategy.

 

Second, it still boggles my mind that the Cubs' ownership can't recognize that any relatively modest increase in payroll ($50M is a drop in the bucket) that would enable sustained exciting, WINNING baseball would reap orders of magnitude increases in revenues for the foreseeable future.

 

Where do get this crap ?

 

When the CUBS traded Sosa to Baltimore, they had to shift approx $20M of his contract from a future period to the present accounting period. This in turn, caused the Tribune Co. to have to restate their financial statements and it literally caused ripples throughout the financial community, and their stock took another hit...... but you tell us that $50M is a drop in the bucket.

 

Geez..... I guess I just don't get it, eh?