Would you have sacrificed a season to spend big next year?

[Chocolate Milk]

Somebody mentions this idea every offseason, and every next offseason the free agent class sucks again.

 

Probably because there isn't very many good players. Why wait forever for some mythical cornacopia of flawless free agents that will all be availavle at reasonable prices? Seems pretty silly to me.

[SouthSideRyan]

Somebody mentions this idea every offseason, and every next offseason the free agent class sucks again.

 

Probably because there isn't very many good players. Why wait forever for some mythical cornacopia of flawless free agents that will all be availavle at reasonable prices? Seems pretty silly to me.

 

With the huge influx of money, teams have gotten stupid and spent too much of their money on guys like Marquis. But what teams are also doing with these huge wads of money is not letting their key guys touch free agency. The Albert Pujolses, the Carlos Zambranos, the Roy Oswalts, these types of talents just aren't going to be seeing free agency anymore until there's a big market correction, or should they actually survive 6 full seasons on a dirt cheap team like the Marlins.

[frostwyrm]

Cubs fans are dying every day without ever having seen a championship.

 

The answer is no. Always, always no.

 

So you'd rather the Cubs spend a bunch of money on a mediocre FA crop and tying the team down financially for the next 3 years while not improving nearly enough to compete for a WS title?

When option B is a just-as-mediocre FA crop the following year? Yes.

 

Signing free agents is not the only way to improve a baseball team, unless that team is in a panic to win right away.

[oldstyle81]

Vernon Wells is a good example of why you spend now and not hope good players are still there next year

[C.C.]

I'm curious to know how old some of you are, that you are willing to give up or lose for another year to play for 2008? As a lifelong Cubs I'm sick and tired of waiting for next year, let alone the year after that. With the Cubs money and market you play to win the WS every damn year. You should never rebuild, but reload. You never know what can happen next year. Did anyone see the Sox winning the WS in 2005 or the Cards this year? Look at our division, our starting staff matches up with anyone's. What's with the defeatist attitude?????

[Backtobanks]

I'm curious to know how old some of you are, that you are willing to give up or lose for another year to play for 2008? As a lifelong Cubs I'm sick and tired of waiting for next year, let alone the year after that. With the Cubs money and market you play to win the WS every damn year. You should never rebuild, but reload. You never know what can happen next year. Did anyone see the Sox winning the WS in 2005 or the Cards this year? Look at our division, our starting staff matches up with anyone's. What's with the defeatist attitude?????

 

I agree, let the Tribune spend some of their money. It's not like they're going to give us fans a break on ticket prices anyhow. The object is to win the Division and the playoffs are a crapshoot. Whoever gets the hot hitter or pitcher goes to the WS. These teams have been making a ton of profits every year and finally some of them (Cubs, Royals, Blue Jays, etc.) have decided to start spending the money. I've been a fan for over 50 years and I agree....win it in 2007 and reload again every year after that.

[3Dog]

This question/thread gives birth to another interesting one....

 

Does the "spend, spend, spend" mandate of this offseason represent a permanent change in strategy for ownership and the F.O.? Are we seeing a new paradigm that will continue until the Cubs finally win a pennant and/or World Series? Or wil the purse strings be re-tightened should these Cubs fall short in 2007 ("see, you said we were too cheap, but this proves that spending lots of money doesn't work either")?

 

I guess that was three questions instead of one.... :oops:

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

If they fall short, spending will be cut.

 

But either way I'm a fan of a young team, not an oldish, mediocre, expensive team.

 

We aren't even that good, and we just blew like 250 million on contracts.

 

I wouldn't care if we spent WISELY, but we don't, and won't.

[Backtobanks]

This question/thread gives birth to another interesting one....

 

Does the "spend, spend, spend" mandate of this offseason represent a permanent change in strategy for ownership and the F.O.? Are we seeing a new paradigm that will continue until the Cubs finally win a pennant and/or World Series? Or wil the purse strings be re-tightened should these Cubs fall short in 2007 ("see, you said we were too cheap, but this proves that spending lots of money doesn't work either")?

 

I guess that was three questions instead of one.... :oops:

 

I really don't think the owners of the Cubs (Tribune or whomever) can go very far backwards on the budget. Chicago is a major city and the Cubs have competition from the WS, Bears, and Bulls so keeping their fanbase is going to be an ongoing commitment. Once you make the move to play with the big boys (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.) you can't go back.

[Backtobanks]

If they fall short, spending will be cut.

 

But either way I'm a fan of a young team, not an oldish, mediocre, expensive team.

 

We aren't even that good, and we just blew like 250 million on contracts.

 

I wouldn't care if we spent WISELY, but we don't, and won't.

 

I would suggest that we wait until they actually play the season before we decide the Cubs aren't even that good. I would love a young good team over an oldish, mediocre, expensive team too, but I'm at the point where I want to see a winner whether they are young, old, cheap, or expensive. As for the "mediocre" label, I would venture to guess that the passionate fans in most baseball cities think their home team is mediocre. On paper, there might be a few teams that stand out, but most of the teams fall into the mediocre category. Let's not forget that a very "mediocre" team is currently the World Champions.

[Guancous]

I'm curious to know how old some of you are, that you are willing to give up or lose for another year to play for 2008? As a lifelong Cubs I'm sick and tired of waiting for next year, let alone the year after that. With the Cubs money and market you play to win the WS every damn year. You should never rebuild, but reload. You never know what can happen next year. Did anyone see the Sox winning the WS in 2005 or the Cards this year? Look at our division, our starting staff matches up with anyone's. What's with the defeatist attitude?????

 

Amen!

[cubfanfromoz]

the way Hendry has structured most of the contracts this year with heavy backloading makes me believe the "plan" of the organisation is a two year free agent splurge with the aim of 'seriously' competing in 2008. I'd like to think there's no way they want to get beond 100 years of futility, and would really love a 2008 100th year anniversary team built to win everything.

 

Or maybe I'm just dreaming ....

[Coach C]

All I'm going to say is stay away from Sweeney as possible.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I'm pessimistic because we still have significant flaws.

 

Are people actually convinced we are a very good team because we spent so much money?

 

We're decent, our pitching isn't great and potentially could get very bad if Z's control is like this years.

 

The offense will probably be very streaky because we are hoping Lee is fully recovered, and Soriano will put us over the top. I don't think Soriano can or will because of his lack of ability to get on base beyond one year before FAs.

 

Sorry I can't get into the Cubs are "good enough," you shoot for the best.

[TruffleShuffle]

Signing free agents is not the only way to improve a baseball team, unless that team is in a panic to win right away.

 

This team it was. Cubs' prospects are not very impressive right now, meaning they can't really hope to build from within like the Marlins did. The only real option would have been to sell off guys like Lee, Ramirez and Zambrano and get good minor league talent for them, and start from there. That idea wouldn't fly because the Cubs are a big-market team with a fed up fan base, and trading away the only good players would just serve to alienate more fans.

[frostwyrm]

Maybe it's just me but I find it extremely distasteful to knowingly cripple a team's longterm welfare just to win for one season. By 2009 we'll have a backloaded Ted Lilly contract plus an aging Soriano eating up a huge chunk of payroll, along with other expensive mediocrities. IMO Hendry obviously doesn't give a crap about the Cubs except as a source of employment for himself, and for all his obscene spending I don't think the 2007 team will be anything great.

[TruffleShuffle]

Maybe it's just me but I find it extremely distasteful to knowingly cripple a team's longterm welfare just to win for one season. By 2009 we'll have a backloaded Ted Lilly contract plus an aging Soriano eating up a huge chunk of payroll, along with other expensive mediocrities. IMO Hendry obviously doesn't give a crap about the Cubs except as a source of employment for himself, and for all his obscene spending I don't think the 2007 team will be anything great.

 

I don't either, but I don't think the Cubs are going to be crippled financially like you seem to believe.

[Backtobanks]

Maybe it's just me but I find it extremely distasteful to knowingly cripple a team's longterm welfare just to win for one season. By 2009 we'll have a backloaded Ted Lilly contract plus an aging Soriano eating up a huge chunk of payroll, along with other expensive mediocrities. IMO Hendry obviously doesn't give a crap about the Cubs except as a source of employment for himself, and for all his obscene spending I don't think the 2007 team will be anything great.

 

 

Let's win first and then worry about 2009 and Ted Lilly's contract. IMO Hendry does care about the Cubs and it's not his obscene spending. If the Tribune had decided to open their pocketbooks a few years ago, we might be the World Champions now. Yes Hendry is out to save his job, but he is taking orders from above to win now and spend what you need to spend to get a winner.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

If the Trib had opened their pockets at the right time, Beltran would be our CF, and AJ Burnett could have been our #2 because he dominates in the NL (and was pretty good in the AL).

 

Instead we have Soriano, who MIGHT play CF, isn't as good, and is older. Not to mention his contract is longer, AND more expensive.

 

And who is our #2? Hoping Hill builds on his success is our best shot of having one.

 

My problem is NOT the spending, its how we did it.

[TruffleShuffle]

If the Trib had opened their pockets at the right time, Beltran would be our CF, and AJ Burnett could have been our #2 because he dominates in the NL (and was pretty good in the AL).

 

Yeah, and if my mom had a weiner, she'd be my dad. There's no sense dealing in "ifs." The Cubs don't have Beltran, and they don't have Burnett (who made only 21 starts last year, by the way). What the Cubs did this offseason or do in future offseasons won't change whatever mistakes the Cubs may have made in the past.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

You can always be mad at the stupidity of your favorite team.

 

"Ifs" can't be changed, but they can be questioned. The Cubs had legit shots at great or very good, and settled with good or worse.

[CUBZ99]

If the Trib had opened their pockets at the right time, Beltran would be our CF, and AJ Burnett could have been our #2 because he dominates in the NL (and was pretty good in the AL).

 

Instead we have Soriano, who MIGHT play CF, isn't as good, and is older. Not to mention his contract is longer, AND more expensive.

 

And who is our #2? Hoping Hill builds on his success is our best shot of having one.

 

My problem is NOT the spending, its how we did it.

 

Its exactly that type of mentality that kept the Cubs from competing last year. You can't keep sitting on your hands and blaming it on this or that. This year may not have had the best free agent class, but with the nature of sports there is no telling what may be available next year.

 

Hendry had some big holes and did exactly what a team that wants to win does. He went out started filling them. It was unfortunate that the Cubs didn't take this approach prior to this year when there may have been some better options, but it is better now than never. For once, it appears that the Cubs "so called" commitment to winning is more than just hyperbole.

[frostwyrm]

As far as I can tell everyone on this message board other than myself believes in going all out for a WS each and every year, regardless of how unlikley success may be in the coming season or how much longterm financial damage might be incurred in a likely doomed effort. Fact is, I have a hard time imagining a less favorable time to go totally win-now in strategy. We had an absolutely godawful team in 2006, the farm can't be counted on for any real help in 2007, and the FA market was weak and hideously overpriced - IMO the worst market in the history of sports. Only possible justification for not retooling in 2007 is that the personnel budget went up. In my mind that doesn't even come close to outweighing the arguments for a retooling period.

[CubsWin]

Well, its a dangerous game waiting to fill your holes with possible FAs in next year's class. What if they get extended like Vernon Wells? What if they get traded and then extended like Andruw Jones might? You can only take action in the now and I agree fully with those that say the Cubs should have overspent for Beltran. I was calling for it. I also felt they should have gotten Brian Giles. Of course, now I'll happily take Alphonso Soriano in RF with his arm, his speed and his bat over an aging Giles. So its a give and take kind of thing.

 

Calling this year's FA market in baseball the worst in history is a difficult position to defend, but more importantly completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We're talking about next year in comparison to this year. Next year's FA market isn't a part of history yet, obviously, so that comment is pointless. What makes anyone think that next year's will be any better than this one? Baseball has experienced a resurgence in revenues lately and the agents know it. That's not likely to change in one season.

 

So given that there isn't a lot of reason for the prices to be drastically different next season, and there is no way of really knowing who will be available next year, I think it is a poor strategy to leave your team's holes unfilled for an entire season when you've got the revenue just sitting there waiting to be spent.

 

Now we can debate whether Hendry spent the Trib's money wisely, but that is for a different thread.

[TruffleShuffle]

As far as I can tell everyone on this message board other than myself believes in going all out for a WS each and every year, regardless of how unlikley success may be in the coming season or how much longterm financial damage might be incurred in a likely doomed effort. Fact is, I have a hard time imagining a less favorable time to go totally win-now in strategy. We had an absolutely godawful team in 2006, the farm can't be counted on for any real help in 2007, and the FA market was weak and hideously overpriced - IMO the worst market in the history of sports. Only possible justification for not retooling in 2007 is that the personnel budget went up. In my mind that doesn't even come close to outweighing the arguments for a retooling period.

 

The problem is that people started to not care about the Cubs last year. They had worse ratings than the Sox and attendance was lousy during the last month. Cub fans actually expect ownership to field a competitive team. Last year in the offseason, next to nothing was done to make the team better. The team shouldn't be awful in 2006, whereas if they'd gone with your rotooling period, it would've been. So attendance is even worse this year, ratings are worse, revenue is down and then the payroll either stagnates or goes down. I'm aware that you think the Cubs are not giving themselves the best chance to win down the road, but the team has to consider things other than that, because most fans are not like you.