Cub prospects in the news

[Guest]

No.

 

Jersey's? What wasn't right?

 

4 straight years of being abysmal, 5 straight years with an average payroll, etc. too lazy to break it all down. but it sucked.

 

I suppose abysmal is subjective but they've been bad for each of 2010, 11, 12, and now 13.

[jersey cubs fan]

No.

 

Jersey's? What wasn't right?

 

4 straight years of being abysmal, 5 straight years with an average payroll, etc. too lazy to break it all down. but it sucked.

 

Can't read well can you? It was somebody else that made fun of people who would be unhappy with 5 years of having an average payroll.

 

This team has had four straight years of losing records, that is an abysmal run.

 

Lazy? Look at your own post. What the hell do you want me to break it all down. All this stuff has been said 1000 times by everybody. There is a group of fans that aren't happy with this team and a group of fans who scoff at the fans who aren't happy with this team for somehow being unrealistic and greedy. I think that second group is trying way to hard to pat themselves on the back for being smart fans who understand how this is all going to play out.

[davell]

Goony, you don't buy that the debt structure is currently keeping Theo from spending money in the way he'd prefer to?

[Guest]

Goony, you don't buy that the debt structure is currently keeping Theo from spending money in the way he'd prefer to?

I do not. From my understanding they (the kids) borrowed their own money (dad) to buy the team. They can pump cash into the Cubs product but are not. I get the marginal return argument though and don't know if would make a practical difference in win/loss record.

[TruffleShuffle]

No.

 

Jersey's? What wasn't right?

 

4 straight years of being abysmal, 5 straight years with an average payroll, etc. too lazy to break it all down. but it sucked.

 

I suppose abysmal is subjective but they've been bad for each of 2010, 11, 12, and now 13.

 

abysmal means extremely bad. the 2010 cubs were not extremely bad. but the payroll thing was egregiously false.

[XZero771679666304]

 

Lazy? Look at your own post. What the hell do you want me to break it all down. All this stuff has been said 1000 times by everybody. There is a group of fans that aren't happy with this team and a group of fans who scoff at the fans who aren't happy with this team for somehow being unrealistic and greedy. I think that second group is trying way to hard to pat themselves on the back for being smart fans who understand how this is all going to play out.

 

I doubt one single person on this board is satisfied with the total state of the franchise, or who doesn't think that upping the payroll to where it should be wouldn't make things at least slightly more palatable. No one is reveling in what is going on, or is having their angst over the abysmal state of the big club completely assuaged by Theo and Jed's minor league maneuverings.

 

Ownership is not doing what it can or should, and that pisses us all off, I think. But at the same time, sarcastically lamenting an total organizational lack of "trying" over and over and over ad infinitum and expressing the opinion the money would make it all better right away is an ignorant and meatballish way of expressing that displeasure. Given the circumstances, some people are focusing on what is going well and hoping that the money issue is going to be resolved. There's really no point in doing anything else, at least on NSBB. Sure, there are some smug people who act as if they have some preternatural insight into the grand plan, but they are no less irritating than the "all they need to do is try (i.e. throw money at the problem)" crowd.

 

This is a fan forum, not a focus group for ownership to take cues from. Teeth gnashing and hand wringing here isn't going help in any way, and the blind negativity from some is just a further irritation to the rest. If people are in such a state of displeasure over the state of things that they can't contain it even for a few posts, perhaps a letter to Tom Ricketts or an editorial to one of the papers would be a better outlet than ceaseless one note raging, bitching and sarcasm on a fan message board.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Goony, you don't buy that the debt structure is currently keeping Theo from spending money in the way he'd prefer to?

I do not. From my understanding they (the kids) borrowed their own money (dad) to buy the team. They can pump cash into the Cubs product but are not. I get the marginal return argument though and don't know if would make a practical difference in win/loss record.

 

The family trust structure used to buy the team does not allow for running at a cash-flow loss for any given year.

[Guest]

Goony, you don't buy that the debt structure is currently keeping Theo from spending money in the way he'd prefer to?

I do not. From my understanding they (the kids) borrowed their own money (dad) to buy the team. They can pump cash into the Cubs product but are not. I get the marginal return argument though and don't know if would make a practical difference in win/loss record.

 

The family trust structure used to buy the team does not allow for running at a cash-flow loss for any given year.

I'll need a reference for that. How are they going to fund the construction projects?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'll need a reference for that. How are they going to fund the construction projects?

 

It was reported by Wittenmeyer. That alone doesn't make it completely believable, but it fits the facts and makes a lot more sense than the alternative explanations ("Ricketts is cheap and would let attendance plummet to save a few bucks" or "Epstein just doesn't want any more money to spend right now.")

 

The Wrigley reconstruction is being paid for by the expanded signage that goes with it. That's why they are building that part first and that's why they couldn't get started until that part was approved.

 

What pays for the initial outlay to put up the signage? Good question. I wouldn't be surprised to see MLB spending take another hit in 2014.

[imb]

How pointless. "They're not trying." I they "tried" under the parameters you want them to, in 3 or 4 years we'd be saddled with horrible players/contracts and the same people would be griping about "they leveraged the future!"

[Hairyducked Idiot]

How pointless. "They're not trying." I they "tried" under the parameters you want them to, in 3 or 4 years we'd be saddled with horrible players/contracts and the same people would be griping about "they leveraged the future!"

 

Completely ridiculous.

[davell]

I bet they sit around and flip coins to decide if the next move is a "try" or "tank" move.

[imb]

Man we'd be awesome with pujols/fielder, Aramis and Cj Wilson. Look out cardinals!

[imb]

I don't even know why we bother having a team without yoenis ".290 obp" cespedes.

[TruffleShuffle]

How pointless. "They're not trying." I they "tried" under the parameters you want them to, in 3 or 4 years we'd be saddled with horrible players/contracts and the same people would be griping about "they leveraged the future!"

 

agreed. a lot of people wanted pujols or fielder (i was in the pujols camp) after the 2011 season. it's still early, but those contracts are looking pretty disastrous at this stage. i'd say the new regime deserves credit for avoiding the obvious solution to plug a gaping hole (lack of power; no first base prospects in the system) and ending up with rizzo, who may end up being better than pujols and fielder for the next several years at a fraction of the cost.

[imb]

How's old by upton looking these days?

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

I don't think anyone wanted him, but Josh Hamilton has a .690 OPS, lol.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd respond, but we're not allowed to reference players who turned out to be good. It's not the front office's job to know more than the consensus of fans and media.

[imb]

Anibal Sanchez didn't want to sign with a loser, we didn't bid enough on darvish and we were one of oh about 29 teams that didn't bid an exorbitant amount on a then-fat unknown puig. I mean what the [expletive] are they supposed to do. Michael Bourn would have made a huge difference!!!!

[imb]

I'd respond, but we're not allowed to reference players who turned out to be good. It's not the front office's job to know more than the consensus of fans and media.

 

They knew more than the Angels on pujols and Wilson. Knew more than the tigers on pujols. Knee more than the braves on upton. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

[KingCubsFan]

Anibal Sanchez didn't want to sign with a loser, we didn't bid enough on darvish and we were one of oh about 29 teams that didn't bid an exorbitant amount on a then-fat unknown puig. I mean what the [expletive] are they supposed to do. Michael Bourn would have made a huge difference!!!!

I still can't believe we didn't bid high enough for Bourn's .319 OBP and 17 steals. I bet Theo and Jed were too busy talking about tanking and how much smarter they are compared to everyone else.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd respond, but we're not allowed to reference players who turned out to be good. It's not the front office's job to know more than the consensus of fans and media.

 

They knew more than the Angels on pujols and Wilson. Knew more than the tigers on pujols. Knee more than the braves on upton. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

 

Didn't we reportedly try to get Pujols to take 5/$150m?

[imb]

Knew more than the Angels on Hamilton, appear to have known more than Oakland on cespedes, brewers on Aramis. Any more?

[imb]

I'd respond, but we're not allowed to reference players who turned out to be good. It's not the front office's job to know more than the consensus of fans and media.

 

They knew more than the Angels on pujols and Wilson. Knew more than the tigers on pujols. Knee more than the braves on upton. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

 

Didn't we reportedly try to get Pujols to take 5/$150m?

 

But but but but didn't we???? If he took it wed have just 90 million left. Don't the angels have $240 million???? Hahahahaha

[TruffleShuffle]

I'd respond, but we're not allowed to reference players who turned out to be good. It's not the front office's job to know more than the consensus of fans and media.

 

no, it's that your response would bash them for not signing puig and darvish but then ignore the truckload of bad signings that the cubs haven't made. not only do you expect them to know more than the consensus of fans and media, you expect them to sign every player who turns out to be awesome (thereby outbidding the other 29 teams for every good signing, all while working within a more constrained budget than most of us had anticipated) while also avoiding every bad signing.