Is more money the answer?

[frostwyrm]

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?

Just goes to show no good deed goes unpunished. Trib ups the payroll and outspends the rest of the division, fans bitch that the Trib won't outspend the whole NL. If the Trib outpent the whole NL fans would bitch that it's still less than the Yankees spend.

[C.C.]

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?

Just goes to show no good deed goes unpunished. Trib ups the payroll and outspends the rest of the division, fans bitch that the Trib won't outspend the whole NL. If the Trib outpent the whole NL fans would bitch that it's still less than the Yankees spend.

 

If you can't win with a 100 million dollar payroll you need to get a new GM. It's that simple!

[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.

 

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?

 

In the proper context, where investments are compared to potential revenue and to the entire Cubs budget (all stadium costs, all employees, travel expenses, announcers, grounds crew, managers/coaches, minor leagues, etc.) it doesn't look so daunting. I've said quite clearly that it is a COMBINATION of being smart and having financial flexibility. In no way am I suggesting a simple-minded increase not founded on sound baseball sense. I'm sure proper safeguards could be in place for stockholders.

 

And, don't get hung up on the $50M hypothetical. Looking at this years FAs and retaining Ramirez, it would be hard to envision going to even $120M. Heck, I'd love to see us get to where 1/2 of our team is made up of outstanding young players and we could even reduce the payroll to $60M and still win. The whole point is not a fixed larger budget, it is a flexible budget that enables us to get the right players for the circumstance.

[SoonerCubFan]

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.

 

Probably, because we'd get a new (hopefully better) baseball strategy to which to build a team around.

[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.

 

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?

Just goes to show no good deed goes unpunished. Trib ups the payroll and outspends the rest of the division, fans bitch that the Trib won't outspend the whole NL. If the Trib outpent the whole NL fans would bitch that it's still less than the Yankees spend.

 

I hope you're not lumping me into this view, because that's not even close to what I am saying. Maybe that's also not what most of those "bitching" are really saying either.

[CubFanPhilly]

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?

 

 

Pick one. Just don't follow the strive for mediocrity and sooner or later you'll catch lighting approach of the MacPhail era.

 

I'd set a flexible payroll budget. Flexible in the sense that you spend AFTER developing young players when you've got a foundation and a real shot at winning the thing.

 

The Cubs could spend $70 mil, $90 mil., and $120 mil. over the next three years and win the thing, and spend less than the $100 mil., $105 mil., $110 mil. they're likely to spend.

 

The Marlins, Diamondbacks, Braves, Dodgers, and Mets have all bumped payrolls during contending periods and reduced payroll during rebuilding periods.

 

CFP

[A New Era]

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?

 

 

Pick one. Just don't follow the strive for mediocrity and sooner or later you'll catch lighting approach of the MacPhail era.

 

I'd set a flexible payroll budget. Flexible in the sense that you spend AFTER developing young players when you've got a foundation and a real shot at winning the thing.

 

The Cubs could spend $70 mil, $90 mil., and $120 mil. over the next three years and win the thing, and spend less than the $100 mil., $105 mil., $110 mil. they're likely to spend.

 

The Marlins, Diamondbacks, Braves, Dodgers, and Mets have all bumped payrolls during contending periods and reduced payroll during rebuilding periods.

 

CFP

 

I wouldn't say "pick one". Infact you do BOTH!!

 

IE you smartly use both assets. An example would be Playing Theroit at SS, Pie in CF. And get rid of jones and sign or trade for a big bopper at RF and 2B. You smartly use your money. But an increase in payroll is never a bad thing. If you use the money wisely, you'll win.

 

I'd like a raised payroll. It can never hurt.

[Fro]

Money for player/scouting development is just as important as bumping payroll.

 

IMHO, I'd rather see the first $5-10 million going there instead of directly to payroll. Imagine us going to every scout and coach in the A's and Braves organization and offering them a huge raise to come to the Cubs!

[soccer10k]

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?

 

 

Pick one. Just don't follow the strive for mediocrity and sooner or later you'll catch lighting approach of the MacPhail era.

 

I'd set a flexible payroll budget. Flexible in the sense that you spend AFTER developing young players when you've got a foundation and a real shot at winning the thing.

 

The Cubs could spend $70 mil, $90 mil., and $120 mil. over the next three years and win the thing, and spend less than the $100 mil., $105 mil., $110 mil. they're likely to spend.

 

The Marlins, Diamondbacks, Braves, Dodgers, and Mets have all bumped payrolls during contending periods and reduced payroll during rebuilding periods.

 

CFP

 

I wouldn't say "pick one". Infact you do BOTH!!

 

IE you smartly use both assets. An example would be Playing Theroit at SS, Pie in CF. And get rid of jones and sign or trade for a big bopper at RF and 2B. You smartly use your money. But an increase in payroll is never a bad thing. If you use the money wisely, you'll win.

 

I'd like a raised payroll. It can never hurt.

 

But it's not necessarily going to improve the team at all without the money being spent in the right ways.

[A New Era]

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?

 

 

Pick one. Just don't follow the strive for mediocrity and sooner or later you'll catch lighting approach of the MacPhail era.

 

I'd set a flexible payroll budget. Flexible in the sense that you spend AFTER developing young players when you've got a foundation and a real shot at winning the thing.

 

The Cubs could spend $70 mil, $90 mil., and $120 mil. over the next three years and win the thing, and spend less than the $100 mil., $105 mil., $110 mil. they're likely to spend.

 

The Marlins, Diamondbacks, Braves, Dodgers, and Mets have all bumped payrolls during contending periods and reduced payroll during rebuilding periods.

 

CFP

 

I wouldn't say "pick one". Infact you do BOTH!!

 

IE you smartly use both assets. An example would be Playing Theroit at SS, Pie in CF. And get rid of jones and sign or trade for a big bopper at RF and 2B. You smartly use your money. But an increase in payroll is never a bad thing. If you use the money wisely, you'll win.

 

I'd like a raised payroll. It can never hurt.

 

But it's not necessarily going to improve the team at all without the money being spent in the right ways.

[chuckywang]

How can it be the answer when we don't even know what the question is.

[BigbadB]

If everyone would like to pay $100 a ticket, I'm sure the Tribune would be happy to increase payroll significantly.

 

The Florida Marlins were better than the Cubs last year with a 15m payroll. It can be done. Just need the right people in place to make it happen.

[Guest]

A bigger payroll is not a necessity for winning. Oakland, Minny and other teams prove this. However, it would be really easy to buy our way out of this mess with an unlimited payroll:

 

FA - Soriano

Trade - JD Drew / Andruw

FA - Schmidt

Quasi-FA - Daisuke

 

Poof - the 2007 Cubs are suddenly a powerhouse-in-waiting.

 

 

Unfortunately, it just isn't realistic to expect this.

[Banedon]

A bigger payroll is not a necessity for winning. Oakland, Minny and other teams prove this. However, it would be really easy to buy our way out of this mess with an unlimited payroll:

 

FA - Soriano

Trade - JD Drew / Andruw

FA - Schmidt

Quasi-FA - Daisuke

 

Poof - the 2007 Cubs are suddenly a powerhouse-in-waiting.

 

 

Unfortunately, it just isn't realistic to expect this.

 

No Cabrera trade?

[kente777]

I guess the reason for starting this thread was to ask the question for the 2007 season. I think most of us can agree that it's not so much the amount of money, but how an organization spends it. Be smart with what you have .... which the Cubs have not done.

 

With the players we have right now, both on the club and in the minors, should we raise the payroll to meet our goal of fielding a winning team? Certainly we can all agree that we need a big time bat in the OF. We also need to get at least one starting pitcher that can be a number 1 on the rotaion (Zito, for example). In fact, I wouldn't count on Prior at all, so I'd go for two starting pitchers. Both of these acquistions are going to cost us significant money (if we want to compete).

 

What do we do with Barrett? Do we keep him at catcher and re-sign Blanco or is there another option.

 

It seems to me that we may have to approach the 100 million mark to get what we want. I think we're going to have to overpay, but at this point, I'm not sure we have many choices.