Attendance down

[Guest]

The question isn't really about Steinbrenner vs. Ricketts. It's about the level input and focus on winning. I think it's too early to tell what Ricketts will be about, but the early indications are not promising.

 

I don't really share the philosophy of "a hands off owner who lets others make decisions for him" is a good owner. I don't think such an owner exists. However I think there are plenty of owners who would really like to win so long as there is hefty profit involved. I don't think the there are many owners who would pay to subsidize the rest of the league like the Yankees do.

 

Maybe he's already made up his mind and that's why he left in the middle of his season to assess his "year one" team. If that's the case have fun, but the day after the season is over you better clean house.

[Tracer Bullet]

 

Technically, you could have one in both the AL and NL.

 

no you couldn't. teams from both leagues fight for the same players (except DH-only types).

 

So? A NL team could still spend a crap-ton more than every other NL team. There's more than one good player at each position.

 

technically, you can only have 1 team that spends more than every other team. your statement is incorrect.

[fiver]

 

In short, competitive balance. When you have a team spending over 4x on player's salaries as another team, how is that fair? You see it all the time in sports when the big guys bully the little guys. You see it in European soccer. You see it in racing. You see it in the BCS. This is no different. How is it fair for a franchise to have top notch management, do things the right way, develop the right players, but still can't compete at all because the big spenders will snatch up all your players the minute they become free agents?

 

Keep in mind that a salary cap is going to negatively impact the Chicago Cubs. They lose despite a competitive advantage they possess.

[jersey cubs fan]

In short, competitive balance. When you have a team spending over 4x on player's salaries as another team, how is that fair? You see it all the time in sports when the big guys bully the little guys. You see it in European soccer. You see it in racing. You see it in the BCS. This is no different. How is it fair for a franchise to have top notch management, do things the right way, develop the right players, but still can't compete at all because the big spenders will snatch up all your players the minute they become free agents?

 

Name one freaking team that does all that and can't compete because the big boys are stealing their players. Do it, now.

 

There isn't one. The only teams that aren't competitive are run by morons. Plenty of small market teams compete, and they compete with regularity. Baseball is a sport where players are paid relatively little while they are at their best, and overpaid significantly as they regress. It's in most teams best interest to let the big boys overspend on the older stars.

 

 

The fact is this is how major league baseball is set-up, so if you are a fan of a team, and you want to see them win, you should hope they play the game to the best of their ability. I didn't take any less enjoyment out of the Stanley Cup win because the Blackhawks did it with a roster they could not keep together due to salary cap rules. I would not for a second regret a world series title won by a roster that had to be overpaid to achieve it.

[Tracer Bullet]

i can't believe the point of my post was missed so wildly.

I didn't miss it.

 

Your point was Steinbrenner is a meddling owner and meddling owners are bad. My point was your point is full of [expletive].

 

Andy Pettitte has more world series rings than t's in his name. And it's not solely b/c they spend more than everyone else. The early Jeter teams weren't that expensive.

 

I want an owner who is more concerned with winning than making a profit. I want an owner who is not afraid to put people on notice for poor performance. I don't want a country club type who yucks it up in the bleachers than goes on vacation during the middle of his first season. And I don't particularly care that there are other "family members". He's the CEO.

 

no, you missed the point. or at least, misinterpreted to fit your argument. you can have everything in your last paragraph without having Steinbrenner. I'm not saying whether wanting such an owner is good or bad, but you can be dedicated to winning and hire a GM to run the team without meddling and whoring for attention like GS did.

[jersey cubs fan]

The question isn't really about Steinbrenner vs. Ricketts. It's about the level input and focus on winning. I think it's too early to tell what Ricketts will be about, but the early indications are not promising.

 

I don't really share the philosophy of "a hands off owner who lets others make decisions for him" is a good owner. I don't think such an owner exists. However I think there are plenty of owners who would really like to win so long as there is hefty profit involved. I don't think the there are many owners who would pay to subsidize the rest of the league like the Yankees do.

 

Maybe he's already made up his mind and that's why he left in the middle of his season to assess his "year one" team. If that's the case have fun, but the day after the season is over you better clean house.

 

Steinbrenner "subsidizes" other teams because that's the rules of the league, not because he doesn't give a crap about money.

[dew1679666265]

Life isn't fair.

 

We're talking about sports here.

 

Sports aren't fair either. I'm not necessarily for or against a salary cap in baseball, but until there is one, teams will - and should - take advantage of monetary advantage. It's always been part of the game.

[chuckywang]

 

In short, competitive balance. When you have a team spending over 4x on player's salaries as another team, how is that fair? You see it all the time in sports when the big guys bully the little guys. You see it in European soccer. You see it in racing. You see it in the BCS. This is no different. How is it fair for a franchise to have top notch management, do things the right way, develop the right players, but still can't compete at all because the big spenders will snatch up all your players the minute they become free agents?

 

Keep in mind that a salary cap is going to negatively impact the Chicago Cubs. They lose despite a competitive advantage they possess.

 

With all the stupid big money contracts the Cubs have given out (Fukudome, Z, Grabow, Soriano in a few years), it might actually be a positive thing for the Cubs.

[dew1679666265]

The question isn't really about Steinbrenner vs. Ricketts. It's about the level input and focus on winning. I think it's too early to tell what Ricketts will be about, but the early indications are not promising.

 

I don't really share the philosophy of "a hands off owner who lets others make decisions for him" is a good owner. I don't think such an owner exists. However I think there are plenty of owners who would really like to win so long as there is hefty profit involved. I don't think the there are many owners who would pay to subsidize the rest of the league like the Yankees do.

 

Maybe he's already made up his mind and that's why he left in the middle of his season to assess his "year one" team. If that's the case have fun, but the day after the season is over you better clean house.

 

What – besides you viewing a safari trip to Africa as not caring – has Ricketts done to make you think he's not focused on winning? He's said the payroll will increase, that we're going to put more focus into the farm system and he's spending lots of money renovating Wrigley.

 

I understand he hasn't fired Hendry or Lou yet, but that's not an indication that he's not trying to win.

[chuckywang]

In short, competitive balance. When you have a team spending over 4x on player's salaries as another team, how is that fair? You see it all the time in sports when the big guys bully the little guys. You see it in European soccer. You see it in racing. You see it in the BCS. This is no different. How is it fair for a franchise to have top notch management, do things the right way, develop the right players, but still can't compete at all because the big spenders will snatch up all your players the minute they become free agents?

 

Name one freaking team that does all that and can't compete because the big boys are stealing their players. Do it, now.

 

There isn't one. The only teams that aren't competitive are run by morons. Plenty of small market teams compete, and they compete with regularity. Baseball is a sport where players are paid relatively little while they are at their best, and overpaid significantly as they regress. It's in most teams best interest to let the big boys overspend on the older stars.

 

 

The fact is this is how major league baseball is set-up, so if you are a fan of a team, and you want to see them win, you should hope they play the game to the best of their ability. I didn't take any less enjoyment out of the Stanley Cup win because the Blackhawks did it with a roster they could not keep together due to salary cap rules. I would not for a second regret a world series title won by a roster that had to be overpaid to achieve it.

 

Brewers? They've already lost Sabathia, and will most likely lose Fielder as well. I guess small market teams are able to keep one or two of their players, but not all of them. And yes, I agree that any team that is run well can be competitive based on free agency rules. But can you envision the Brewers making the postseason every year? No.

[Guest]

The question isn't really about Steinbrenner vs. Ricketts. It's about the level input and focus on winning. I think it's too early to tell what Ricketts will be about, but the early indications are not promising.

 

I don't really share the philosophy of "a hands off owner who lets others make decisions for him" is a good owner. I don't think such an owner exists. However I think there are plenty of owners who would really like to win so long as there is hefty profit involved. I don't think the there are many owners who would pay to subsidize the rest of the league like the Yankees do.

 

Maybe he's already made up his mind and that's why he left in the middle of his season to assess his "year one" team. If that's the case have fun, but the day after the season is over you better clean house.

 

Steinbrenner "subsidizes" other teams because that's the rules of the league, not because he doesn't give a crap about money.

The question then is "why"? I don't think the answer is, "because he can". I think it kills the hard core conservative family to pay the tax, but I think it would hurt a lot more if they didn't win. And if they continued to not win I don't think the salary would go that high for long.

 

But like I said, I think this is not really the point. The Cubs don't need a Steinbrenner, but they don't need a Tribune Co. either. What I hope for is a Mark Cuban type. So far Ricketts has said all the right things, but it hasn't translated to action other than hiring a real statistical analyst. The draft was his first chance to make a good impression and that doesn't look so good, right now (not just b/c of the 1st rounder either).

[Tracer Bullet]

I want an owner who is more concerned with winning than making a profit. I want an owner who is not afraid to put people on notice for poor performance. I don't want a country club type who yucks it up in the bleachers than goes on vacation during the middle of his first season. And I don't particularly care that there are other "family members". He's the CEO.

 

+1.

 

Lou should fear Ricketts' reprisal at least enough to avoid making bonehead statements to the press. He should have been fired, from the top if necessary, the moment he said "I don't know what to do" in public. The ridiculous commentary and the insane lineups should not be tolerated by the Chicago Cubs, if this is indeed "YEAR ONE."

 

Ricketts said he wanted the Cubs to be a first-rate organization. The New York Yankees are his only competition if that's the case, and the Steinbrenners sure as hell aren't taking off for the jungle while there is baseball to be played.

 

in what world is it possible for Lou to "fear reprisal" from Ricketts? He's in the last year of his contract, he's ancient, he's filthy rich and he manages a team put together by a crappy GM. What's the worst Ricketts could do? Fire him. Big deal - so you pay him his salary to stay at home rather than go to the ballpark for the next 3 months.

 

Your anger should be directed at Hendry. If the manager is incompetent, the GM should handle it. And for all we know, he has. Maybe he's told Lou that he's finishing the year only b/c there's no point in bringing in a new manager for this sinking ship and after that his contract won't be renewed. Or maybe Hendry is as incompetent as I think he is and he hasn't addressed the issue at all.

 

In either case, the last thing I want is an owner that goes over (under?) a GM's head and publicly calls out the manager. Handling the manager is the GMs job and if you want the GM to fire the manager and he won't, then you fire the GM and let the new GM handle it (or fire both of them and let the new GM hire a manager to take over from the interim guy). I don't understand why public comments from the owner are good for anyone at this point.

[dew1679666265]

Brewers? They've already lost Sabathia, and will most likely lose Fielder as well. I guess small market teams are able to keep one or two of their players, but not all of them. And yes, I agree that any team that is run well can be competitive based on free agency rules. But can you envision the Brewers making the postseason every year? No.

 

I don't know that the Brewers are that well run. They gave $10 mil a year to Randy Wolf and a little more than $4 mil a year to David Riske. They also are paying $7 mil to Bill Hall and $12 mil to Jeff Suppan to play elsewhere.

[jersey cubs fan]

The question isn't really about Steinbrenner vs. Ricketts. It's about the level input and focus on winning. I think it's too early to tell what Ricketts will be about, but the early indications are not promising.

 

I don't really share the philosophy of "a hands off owner who lets others make decisions for him" is a good owner. I don't think such an owner exists. However I think there are plenty of owners who would really like to win so long as there is hefty profit involved. I don't think the there are many owners who would pay to subsidize the rest of the league like the Yankees do.

 

Maybe he's already made up his mind and that's why he left in the middle of his season to assess his "year one" team. If that's the case have fun, but the day after the season is over you better clean house.

 

Steinbrenner "subsidizes" other teams because that's the rules of the league, not because he doesn't give a crap about money.

The question then is "why"? I don't think the answer is, "because he can". I think it kills the hard core conservative family to pay the tax, but I think it would hurt a lot more if they didn't win. And if they continued to not win I don't think the salary would go that high for long.

 

But like I said, I think this is not really the point. The Cubs don't need a Steinbrenner, but they don't need a Tribune Co. either. What I hope for is a Mark Cuban type. So far Ricketts has said all the right things, but it hasn't translated to action other than hiring a real statistical analyst. The draft was his first chance to make a good impression and that doesn't look so good, right now (not just b/c of the 1st rounder either).

 

Why? Because he can, and because he has to. The Yankees are filthy rich. They make a ton of dough. MLB dictated that the big boys have to pay a tax if they go past a threshold, and that threshold doesn't come close to hurting Steinbrenner.

 

Also, what exactly has Mark Cuban accomplished?

[illiniguy]

The question isn't really about Steinbrenner vs. Ricketts. It's about the level input and focus on winning. I think it's too early to tell what Ricketts will be about, but the early indications are not promising.

 

I don't really share the philosophy of "a hands off owner who lets others make decisions for him" is a good owner. I don't think such an owner exists. However I think there are plenty of owners who would really like to win so long as there is hefty profit involved. I don't think the there are many owners who would pay to subsidize the rest of the league like the Yankees do.

 

Maybe he's already made up his mind and that's why he left in the middle of his season to assess his "year one" team. If that's the case have fun, but the day after the season is over you better clean house.

 

Steinbrenner "subsidizes" other teams because that's the rules of the league, not because he doesn't give a crap about money.

The question then is "why"? I don't think the answer is, "because he can". I think it kills the hard core conservative family to pay the tax, but I think it would hurt a lot more if they didn't win. And if they continued to not win I don't think the salary would go that high for long.

 

But like I said, I think this is not really the point. The Cubs don't need a Steinbrenner, but they don't need a Tribune Co. either. What I hope for is a Mark Cuban type. So far Ricketts has said all the right things, but it hasn't translated to action other than hiring a real statistical analyst. The draft was his first chance to make a good impression and that doesn't look so good, right now (not just b/c of the 1st rounder either).

 

Why? Because he can, and because he has to. The Yankees are filthy rich. They make a ton of dough. MLB dictated that the big boys have to pay a tax if they go past a threshold, and that threshold doesn't come close to hurting Steinbrenner.

 

Also, what exactly has Mark Cuban accomplished?

Cuban took a nothing franchise and has turned them into one of the top 5 in the nba.

[Banedon]

So basically you two would sell out everything baseball should be about in order to win a World Series. Good to know.

 

I'll bite. What "should" it be about? And how does Steinbrenner sell that out?

 

It's a professional sport...it's about winning. (After making a buck that is...)

 

Indeed. Do tell, chuck.

 

In short, competitive balance. When you have a team spending over 4x on player's salaries as another team, how is that fair? You see it all the time in sports when the big guys bully the little guys. You see it in European soccer. You see it in racing. You see it in the BCS. This is no different. How is it fair for a franchise to have top notch management, do things the right way, develop the right players, but still can't compete at all because the big spenders will snatch up all your players the minute they become free agents?

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

Now to answer your question, in short, yes...I'd be happy to sell out what you think baseball should be about in order to win a World Series. Mostly because I don't think that's what baseball, or any professional sport, is about. It's the leagues job to ensure competitive fairness. It's not the team's job. The team's job is to do whatever it can within the rules to play the best team they can. Steinbrenner does that.

[Soul]

Yeah, I don't see that as Steinbrenner selling out baseball. He's allowed to do these things, and has the muscle to do them. The league needs to find a way to curtail it if they collectively don't want it to happen anymore.

 

That said, I really don't like Steinbrenner. But I'd hold my nose and root for him if he was in charge in Chicago.

 

It's a business proposition. :) You give me a championship, and I deal with the fact that I don't really like my owner. Much better than liking the owner and suffering through bad season after bad season.

 

I hope Ricketts can be the nice guy who also wins. I really do...

[J.R.]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/southfork76/young-african-wildlife-safari-2-you.jpg

 

LAURA: HEY TOM I THINK WE LOST AGAIN

 

TOM: DAMMIT CANT YOU SEE IM BUSY HERE

[inari]

Is that picture making fun of your ridiculous position or...?

[17 Seconds]

i heard that lou piniella ate a meal earlier today, even though he had a game tonight. WAY TO FOCUS LOU

[Sammy Sofa]

This whole Africa tangent of J.R.'s is FJM.com-worthy.

[E.J.]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/southfork76/young-african-wildlife-safari-2-you.jpg

 

LAURA: HEY TOM I THINK WE LOST AGAIN

 

TOM: DAMMIT CANT YOU SEE IM BUSY HERE

 

Would you be this pissed if he had installed a Ford sign?

[imb]

i am all for a salary cap in baseball, i think it would be good for the sport, long term. but only if it's instituted after the cubs win a world series with a 250 million dollar payroll

[TruffleShuffle]

if only ricketts hadn't gone to africa, the cubs would be running away with the division

[coldsteel]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/southfork76/young-african-wildlife-safari-2-you.jpg

 

LAURA: HEY TOM I THINK WE LOST AGAIN

 

TOM: DAMMIT CANT YOU SEE IM BUSY HERE

 

Would you be this pissed if he had installed a Ford sign?

 

JOHN: I am John Locke and you'd better watch out while you're with me on this weird island.