The nameless, faceless Trib

[davell]

It seems to me like we haven't changed anything by having a new owner honestly. He talked alot about accountability and there would be someone to answer the tough questions, but since this season turned into a train wreck, has there been a peep from him? Other than to say he knew what was going on during the Z blowup anyway?

 

I was under the impression he was going to communicate with season ticket holders and keep them up to date with where money was going to be going......The troubling part to me is that we've known for a while we were going toi be going through somewhat of a rebuilding process, which is fine by me. Hell, a full one would be fine with me, but it doesn't appear to be in the cards, with some of Hendry's comments. But, with this being the case, we certainly didn't spend money in the amateur draft, nor have we made a huge splash in the international free agency period. Although, we have saved close to 5 million off THIS year's payroll by trading away Lilly, Theriot, Fontenot, and Lee. Meanwhile, we were supposed to have money available for deadline deals, if we needed it. So, not only have we saved the 5 mill, we've also not had to spend anything extra obviously. This has raised a huge red flag with me.

 

I have no issue whatsoever in lowering the payroll. But, if we're going to trumpet our youngsters as the future of this organization, then it only makes sense that this is where the money should be spent and this season, quite honestly, it just hasn't been. We've discussed this some in the minor league forum and the amateur draft forum as well, but I know quite a few people don't read those forums as much as they do this one.....

 

So anyway, to any of the season ticket holders I ask this: Has there been anything come out from the Ricketts family? A direction we're taking? Why money hasn't been spent in the scouting department when it looks like this is what we're banking on as the future of this organization?

 

I understand that this is just year 1 of this regime, but since it has probably gone worse than what anyone could have imagined, I would have thought that they would have shown some sort of commitment to the team by spending on our future, if for nothing else, as some goodwill actually.......

[UMFan83]

It's an interesting discussion you bring up, although to refer to Ricketts, or what we've seen of him so far as a continuation of the Tribune era isn't fair in my opinion.

 

I wish I had answers, but the impression I get just based on words that were said, and things that have been done is that the Ricketts paid a little more than they expected/could handle, and don't seem to have a lot of extra money available to do much. So I'm guessing their goal is to bring payroll down to like 110 million and build a team that relies equally from its farm system and free agents/trades.

 

But then again, you hear things from Hendry that we're only a couple of moves away, so it makes it seem like the Cubs aren't willing to punt any more years, meaning they are going to try the nearly impossible task of building a farm system while trying build a contender at the same time. It's ok for the Red Sox and Yankees to do that. They already have cores that can handle it, not to mention larger payrolls (especially the Yankees). But we're a team whose "core" is old and ending its useful years, so we need a ton of help. We don't have any perrenial all stars on the team, and while we have young talent ready to help out, I feel like other than Castro don't have any potential superstars. Even in 2008, we had a bunch of good and very good guys, but not great guys. Lee, Ramirez, Soriano, Dempster, Zambrano, Lilly, etc.

[dew1679666265]

Do we know why more money wasn't spent in the draft? I've seen quite a few complaints about not spending more, but spending just to spend doesn't seem to be Wilken's MO.

 

I'll admit I don't put nearly the attention into the draft as many guys on here, but looking at guys like Colvin, Simpson and others, Wilken seems to be a guy who takes guys he likes without the thought of whether or not he'll be an overslot or not. I may be way off here, but nothing's come out about ownership limiting the draft budget that I've heard.

 

What do others think? Am I crazy?

[UMFan83]

Do we know why more money wasn't spent in the draft? I've seen quite a few complaints about not spending more, but spending just to spend doesn't seem to be Wilken's MO.

 

I'll admit I don't put nearly the attention into the draft as many guys on here, but looking at guys like Colvin, Simpson and others, Wilken seems to be a guy who takes guys he likes without the thought of whether or not he'll be an overslot or not. I may be way off here, but nothing's come out about ownership limiting the draft budget that I've heard.

 

What do others think? Am I crazy?

 

I dunno our first round pick was somewhere around the 200th best prospect on most people's draft boards. Maybe Wilken really loves him, but he probably could have gotten him a round or two later. So why was he picked in the 1st round? I'm not knowledgeable enough about those things to say definitively but on the surface it looks like they were trying to limit their spending in the draft.

[davell]

Do we know why more money wasn't spent in the draft? I've seen quite a few complaints about not spending more, but spending just to spend doesn't seem to be Wilken's MO.

 

I'll admit I don't put nearly the attention into the draft as many guys on here, but looking at guys like Colvin, Simpson and others, Wilken seems to be a guy who takes guys he likes without the thought of whether or not he'll be an overslot or not. I may be way off here, but nothing's come out about ownership limiting the draft budget that I've heard.

 

What do others think? Am I crazy?

 

I dunno our first round pick was somewhere around the 200th best prospect on most people's draft boards. Maybe Wilken really loves him, but he probably could have gotten him a round or two later. So why was he picked in the 1st round? I'm not knowledgeable enough about those things to say definitively but on the surface it looks like they were trying to limit their spending in the draft.

 

 

The story was someone from Anaheim was there scouting Simpson while Wilken was there and they had a few picks in between the Cubs first and second round picks, so Wilken was sure they would use one on him. Which is fine, in all honesty, if true(probably is actually). The problem stems from that point forward in the draft, where a team like the Red Sox outspent the Cubs by probably 10 million or so, not counting 1st round picks. It was considered a weaker draft, but there were guys available that the Cubs could have spent on for sure. Especially considering the fact that they got Simpson signed for 500,000 UNDER what slot value for the pick was. When all is said and done, it looks like the Cubs were one of the weakest spending teams in this year's draft and the only teams behind them were the teams that couldn't get their 1st rounders signed. So, for a team that appears to be emphasing younger talent, this certainly raises a red flag with me. Especially considering he said that the scouting and player development budget would be raised and they don't appear as if they were whatsoever.

[apete6]

The Ricketts family DID have a season ticket holder day in July and they answered just about any question asked without ruffling any feathers. They mentioned their disappointment in the season.

 

Besides not spending on this draft, what did everyone expect them to do? Fire everyone mid season, call the team out in the media, and promise to spend $200MM on next year's payroll? Steinbrenner didn't buy the team.

 

First and foremost, Ricketts is a business man. He's not going to throw all of his cards on the table right away. He's going to analyze everything in the offseason, take stock in what they have, and make a plan. He sees the empty seats and knows the only way to keep them full is to put out a good team. I would imagine they'll do whatever they see fit to make that happen while still making money.

 

Now, if he sits on his hands, brings everyone back, and cuts payroll, then we can worry, but let's give them a chance first.

[shnsajax]

Do we know why more money wasn't spent in the draft? I've seen quite a few complaints about not spending more, but spending just to spend doesn't seem to be Wilken's MO.

 

I'll admit I don't put nearly the attention into the draft as many guys on here, but looking at guys like Colvin, Simpson and others, Wilken seems to be a guy who takes guys he likes without the thought of whether or not he'll be an overslot or not. I may be way off here, but nothing's come out about ownership limiting the draft budget that I've heard.

 

What do others think? Am I crazy?

 

Seems like we have increased the international efforts though.

[SouthSideRyan]

Listening to season ticket holder's ideas on what should be done with the team is probably the last thing I want Ricketts to do. Sports fans are generally morons.

[davell]

Like I said, I'm not asking Ricketts to promise a payroll of infinity. Not by any stretch. What I am saying though, is in the 1st year of their tenure, in having a horrible season, they could and should have spent money on the future. Especially since this is what they said they would do and also what it appears they are trumpeting at this point through Hendry.

 

In the end, it may or may not matter in the grand scheme of things, but it could also very easily be the first sign of things to come as well.

 

At any rate, what kind of questions were asked?

[dew1679666265]

The problem stems from that point forward in the draft, where a team like the Red Sox outspent the Cubs by probably 10 million or so, not counting 1st round picks. It was considered a weaker draft, but there were guys available that the Cubs could have spent on for sure. Especially considering the fact that they got Simpson signed for 500,000 UNDER what slot value for the pick was. When all is said and done, it looks like the Cubs were one of the weakest spending teams in this year's draft and the only teams behind them were the teams that couldn't get their 1st rounders signed. So, for a team that appears to be emphasing younger talent, this certainly raises a red flag with me. Especially considering he said that the scouting and player development budget would be raised and they don't appear as if they were whatsoever.

 

Could it be that Wilken simply liked the guys he took better? I don't know the answer to that, but I think to write it off and assume he simply went the cheap route because he was ordered to is potentially assuming too much. You may be right, but my question was do we know for sure?

 

My point in bringing up Simpson was that he was regarded much more lowly by most experts and he ended up being an underslot guy, but do we know that he was taken because that was the order from ownership? Or did Wilken simply like him more than anybody else at that spot (including overslot guys)? And if so, could that be extrapolated throughout the rest of the draft?

[davell]

The problem stems from that point forward in the draft, where a team like the Red Sox outspent the Cubs by probably 10 million or so, not counting 1st round picks. It was considered a weaker draft, but there were guys available that the Cubs could have spent on for sure. Especially considering the fact that they got Simpson signed for 500,000 UNDER what slot value for the pick was. When all is said and done, it looks like the Cubs were one of the weakest spending teams in this year's draft and the only teams behind them were the teams that couldn't get their 1st rounders signed. So, for a team that appears to be emphasing younger talent, this certainly raises a red flag with me. Especially considering he said that the scouting and player development budget would be raised and they don't appear as if they were whatsoever.

 

Could it be that Wilken simply liked the guys he took better? I don't know the answer to that, but I think to write it off and assume he simply went the cheap route because he was ordered to is potentially assuming too much. You may be right, but my question was do we know for sure?

 

My point in bringing up Simpson was that he was regarded much more lowly by most experts and he ended up being an underslot guy, but do we know that he was taken because that was the order from ownership? Or did Wilken simply like him more than anybody else at that spot (including overslot guys)? And if so, could that be extrapolated throughout the rest of the draft?

 

 

Anything is possible. I just find it hard to believe in some of the cases though. I guess I was expecting more from the draft and more from international free agency, especially due to the season we've had at the major league level. I just don't want this to turn into Ricketts basically staying par for the course, counting on being able to sell Wrigley Field as the attraction and not the team on the field. I know it's early too and I didn't expect him to come in and make wholesale changes immediately. But, when the team has struggled all year, you've said you wanted to model yourself after the Red Sox in lots of ways, and then you come out and kind of lay an egg in a way on the draft(your first chance to make a statement) it raises an eyebrow with me is all.

[Outshined_One]

Seems like we have increased the international efforts though.

 

...actually, that's not true. Last year was the big haul with five six figure signings from the Pac Rim and one from Latin America. This year, there have been only two guys fitting that bill in Cuban defector RHP Juan Yasser Serrano and Korean RHP Jin-Yeong Kim (who reportedly got a $1.2m bonus).

 

It may just be a down year in the international market, but the Cubs have spent less this year compared to last year.

[dew1679666265]

Anything is possible. I just find it hard to believe in some of the cases though. I guess I was expecting more from the draft and more from international free agency, especially due to the season we've had at the major league level. I just don't want this to turn into Ricketts basically staying par for the course, counting on being able to sell Wrigley Field as the attraction and not the team on the field. I know it's early too and I didn't expect him to come in and make wholesale changes immediately. But, when the team has struggled all year, you've said you wanted to model yourself after the Red Sox in lots of ways, and then you come out and kind of lay an egg in a way on the draft(your first chance to make a statement) it raises an eyebrow with me is all.

 

Ricketts doesn't make the decisions on the draft, though. I'd be disappointed if I heard that Ricketts wouldn't allow overslot guys to be drafted, but I'd also be disappointed if he demanded that Wilken take overslot guys no matter what just to make a splash. Ricketts may well have limited Wilken's ability to take overslot guys, but given Wilken's tendency to take guys many are underwhelmed by, that may very well not be the case.

 

Staying par for the course in some areas isn't necessarily a bad thing, anyway. Since Wilken arrived, the minor league system has improved significantly and looks to just be moving up. The international signings from the past few years are also beginning to bear fruit. I have no problem with Ricketts allowing for more money to be spent there, but still letting the guys who are building the farm system do their job their way.

[Outshined_One]

Ricketts may well have limited Wilken's ability to take overslot guys, but given Wilken's tendency to take guys many are underwhelmed by, that may very well not be the case.

 

To me, that signals an attitude on ownership's part, rather than on the scouting department's part. Yes, it very well could be possible that Wilken runs his draft such that the Cubs can get the most out of guys who are unknown, slumping, injured, whatever, and are willing to sign deals for around slot. However, the more likely answer is that Wilken has been given a certain budget for the draft and has been told to draft according to it. With resources so tight, Wilken's best bet is to take the aforementioned approach. Given a $4m budget, signing a first rounder to a $3m bonus would effectively cripple the rest of the Cubs' draft.

 

I think Wilken deserves a lot of credit...but I'm concerned about taking a scaled back approach like this. Yes, Wilken finds his share of diamonds in the rough. The problem is, there usually is a very good reason why players are unknown or slumping. That reason is: those players suck. Trey McNutt managed to slide under the scouting radar, but he was the exception, not the rule. Go back and look through Wilken's first two drafts with the Cubs; they're not pretty. When you draft players in this way, it's incredibly easy to undermine the depth in your system. Occasionally you'll hit the jackpot (see: 2008's draft), but most of the time, you'll be lucky to get one, maybe two quality prospects out of the draft.

 

Now, the Cubs have done a reasonable job of augmenting their drafts with international signings and trades during Wilken's tenure. However, if the international signing budget also goes down...this team's farm system will be in deep trouble.

[Soul]

Listening to season ticket holder's ideas on what should be done with the team is probably the last thing I want Ricketts to do. Sports fans are generally morons.

 

Fine, but what a thread like this tells me more than anything is that there's a growing feeling out there that Ricketts isn't particularly engaged, when we hoped he would be.

 

I'll still withhold final judgement, but I agree a raised eyebrow or two is appropriate at this juncture.

[dew1679666265]

To me, that signals an attitude on ownership's part, rather than on the scouting department's part. Yes, it very well could be possible that Wilken runs his draft such that the Cubs can get the most out of guys who are unknown, slumping, injured, whatever, and are willing to sign deals for around slot. However, the more likely answer is that Wilken has been given a certain budget for the draft and has been told to draft according to it. With resources so tight, Wilken's best bet is to take the aforementioned approach. Given a $4m budget, signing a first rounder to a $3m bonus would effectively cripple the rest of the Cubs' draft.

 

I think Wilken deserves a lot of credit...but I'm concerned about taking a scaled back approach like this. Yes, Wilken finds his share of diamonds in the rough. The problem is, there usually is a very good reason why players are unknown or slumping. That reason is: those players suck. Trey McNutt managed to slide under the scouting radar, but he was the exception, not the rule. Go back and look through Wilken's first two drafts with the Cubs; they're not pretty. When you draft players in this way, it's incredibly easy to undermine the depth in your system. Occasionally you'll hit the jackpot (see: 2008's draft), but most of the time, you'll be lucky to get one, maybe two quality prospects out of the draft.

 

Now, the Cubs have done a reasonable job of augmenting their drafts with international signings and trades during Wilken's tenure. However, if the international signing budget also goes down...this team's farm system will be in deep trouble.

 

That makes sense.

[daske17]

Listening to season ticket holder's ideas on what should be done with the team is probably the last thing I want Ricketts to do. Sports fans are generally morons.

 

Fine, but what a thread like this tells me more than anything is that there's a growing feeling out there that Ricketts isn't particularly engaged, when we hoped he would be.

 

I'll still withhold final judgement, but I agree a raised eyebrow or two is appropriate at this juncture.

 

Maybe not engaged, but certainly not the hands-on type of owners they presented themselves to be when they first bought the team. I think on a scale of Moreno to Loria, they're not distinguishing themselves as anything but middle of the road so far.

[davearm2]

A bunch of foolish overspending just to send a message to fans doesn't sound like the greatest plan, either.

 

Say they've scouted some Latin player, and they like him and according to their intel they think he's worth a $1M bonus.

 

They offer him the $1M and the player comes back and says I'll only sign for $2M.

 

Would you like to see the Cubs pay the $2M just so they have a big $$$ int'l signee to trot out to fans?

[illiniguy]

A bunch of foolish overspending just to send a message to fans doesn't sound like the greatest plan, either.

 

Say they've scouted some Latin player, and they like him and according to their intel they think he's worth a $1M bonus.

 

They offer him the $1M and the player comes back and says I'll only sign for $2M.

 

Would you like to see the Cubs pay the $2M just so they have a big $$$ int'l signee to trot out to fans?

Yes, but only because it would stop Hendry from spending that extra million on some middle reliever this offseason.

[UMFan83]

Listening to season ticket holder's ideas on what should be done with the team is probably the last thing I want Ricketts to do. Sports fans are generally morons.

 

Fine, but what a thread like this tells me more than anything is that there's a growing feeling out there that Ricketts isn't particularly engaged, when we hoped he would be.

 

I'll still withhold final judgement, but I agree a raised eyebrow or two is appropriate at this juncture.

 

Maybe not engaged, but certainly not the hands-on type of owners they presented themselves to be when they first bought the team. I think on a scale of Moreno to Loria, they're not distinguishing themselves as anything but middle of the road so far.

 

True, but you could probably still make the argument that they are in the evaluation stage until this offseason. If their plan was to have a mostly hands off approach for one season to observe and evaluate where the Cubs are at and what needs to be improved, then it would make sense that they've been so out of the spotlight.

 

But yeah I did expect to see more involvement at this point, although I personally can't think of many instances where their involvement would have changed things all that much.

[daske17]

Maybe not engaged, but certainly not the hands-on type of owners they presented themselves to be when they first bought the team. I think on a scale of Moreno to Loria, they're not distinguishing themselves as anything but middle of the road so far.

 

True, but you could probably still make the argument that they are in the evaluation stage until this offseason. If their plan was to have a mostly hands off approach for one season to observe and evaluate where the Cubs are at and what needs to be improved, then it would make sense that they've been so out of the spotlight.

 

But yeah I did expect to see more involvement at this point, although I personally can't think of many instances where their involvement would have changed things all that much.

 

I don't think we can put them in the evaluation stage any more. They had their hands on the Cubs' books as part of the purchasing process so they knew what they were getting into financially. They supposedly raised revenue with the Toyota sign and Kraft Mac and Cheese sculpture outside the park, but what we're seeing is salary dump along with the expectation of decreased payroll in 2011.

 

Does this mean that they're going on the cheap? Not necessarily as there isn't a player or prospect worth throwing money at this year to save the team. The true test will be this off-season. Will they be willing to pay for Adam Dunn/Cliff Lee-type players to contend while build the farm system or are we in full salary dump and rebuild mode?

[mul21]

Total gut feeling here, but it looks to me like they're setting things up for major off season changes. I almost expect Hendry to be gone. This whole first year of ownership really looks like an evaluation period to see where everything/everyone is and then this winter, they make changes based on how they feel things are going and where they need to go.

 

I was also going to bring up McNutt. Is it possible that the Cubs and Angels got a bit of a different look at the kid than everyone else based on when they saw him? Wilken does have a pretty decent record of finding guys nobody else was real high on and getting the to the bigs.

[Outshined_One]

A bunch of foolish overspending just to send a message to fans doesn't sound like the greatest plan, either.

 

Say they've scouted some Latin player, and they like him and according to their intel they think he's worth a $1M bonus.

 

They offer him the $1M and the player comes back and says I'll only sign for $2M.

 

Would you like to see the Cubs pay the $2M just so they have a big $$$ int'l signee to trot out to fans?

 

I would, actually, but not because they spent $2m to get him. A Latin American arm worth $1m would be pretty special; that's more than some first round draft picks get. Basically, by saying the guy is worth $1m, the Cubs are saying he has the potential to develop into a top of the rotation starter or a closer. That's special for someone who's 16/17. If the Cubs feel that he's worth $1m and he has the leverage to ask for $2m and get it from some other team, then I wouldn't have a problem with that sort of signing.

 

Now, from the spirit of your post, I'm guessing you're talking about spending money for the sake of spending money; i.e. if the Cubs randomly decide a player is only worth $50,000 and end up giving him $2m just so they can say they spent in the draft. Judging from what some other posters have said and what I have said, that is not at all what we are arguing the Cubs should do.

 

We're saying the Cubs need to spend money in order to obtain high end talent and bolster the farm system. The Cubs are not a small market team that needs to pinch pennies. Cripes, even some of those teams actually spend in the draft compared to the Cubs (Pirates, Royals, etc.). Highly talented players with a lot of leverage cost money and the fact of the matter is, the Cubs rarely draft those sorts of players. This is a team that has the revenue streams and the resources to spend the money needed to develop a consistently high quality farm system, rather than a farm system that relies on lottery tickets. For the draft, all it would take is another $2m-$3m a year. That would make all the difference in the world.

 

I'd rather the team spend that money on the draft than on miserably overrated relief pitchers.

[Outshined_One]

I was also going to bring up McNutt. Is it possible that the Cubs and Angels got a bit of a different look at the kid than everyone else based on when they saw him? Wilken does have a pretty decent record of finding guys nobody else was real high on and getting the to the bigs.

 

McNutt was a weird case.

 

Early in the 2009 season, McNutt's stuff was unremarkable. All the scouts who saw him mentioned he was pitching in the 80s with flat breaking stuff. However, for whatever reason, the Cubs' scout who was responsible for McNutt's geographic area left the organization. By the time the Cubs got that scout's replacement, it was late in the evaluation process and he was getting caught up on the players in the area. At that point, he went to see McNutt and found McNutt working in the 90s with a sharp breaking ball. No other team knew about these improvements (I think with the exception of the Twins). If they did, McNutt probably would have gone in the first 5 rounds.

 

Now...you might be thinking of Hayden Simpson, since you mentioned the Angels. The story on that was the Angels had five picks between the Cubs' first and second round picks. With that many picks in the 1st round and 1st supplemental round, the Angels were looking for guys they could take at some of those picks for under or around slot in order to save some money. Apparently the Angels were hot after Simpson and would have taken him with one of those picks.

 

Both the Cubs and Angels were hot after Simpson late in his season, when he was pitching well and looked sharp. That was especially helpful, considering Simpson is not a big guy and there were concerns about his endurance. At that point, Simpson was somewhere in the 3rd round to 6th round range, from the reports I've read. It wasn't like with Colvin in 2006, when Colvin got a huge dose of helium prior to the draft and probably would have been taken in the back half of the first round.

 

In other words, Simpson wasn't like McNutt. He was a known commodity and teams had evaluated him accordingly. We'll see how that pans out. I'm rooting for the guy given the amount of animosity that pick received, but the Cubs were rightly criticized for picking Simpson where they did.

[davearm2]

A bunch of foolish overspending just to send a message to fans doesn't sound like the greatest plan, either.

 

Say they've scouted some Latin player, and they like him and according to their intel they think he's worth a $1M bonus.

 

They offer him the $1M and the player comes back and says I'll only sign for $2M.

 

Would you like to see the Cubs pay the $2M just so they have a big $$$ int'l signee to trot out to fans?

 

I would, actually, but not because they spent $2m to get him. A Latin American arm worth $1m would be pretty special; that's more than some first round draft picks get. Basically, by saying the guy is worth $1m, the Cubs are saying he has the potential to develop into a top of the rotation starter or a closer. That's special for someone who's 16/17. If the Cubs feel that he's worth $1m and he has the leverage to ask for $2m and get it from some other team, then I wouldn't have a problem with that sort of signing.

 

Now, from the spirit of your post, I'm guessing you're talking about spending money for the sake of spending money; i.e. if the Cubs randomly decide a player is only worth $50,000 and end up giving him $2m just so they can say they spent in the draft. Judging from what some other posters have said and what I have said, that is not at all what we are arguing the Cubs should do.

 

We're saying the Cubs need to spend money in order to obtain high end talent and bolster the farm system. The Cubs are not a small market team that needs to pinch pennies. Cripes, even some of those teams actually spend in the draft compared to the Cubs (Pirates, Royals, etc.). Highly talented players with a lot of leverage cost money and the fact of the matter is, the Cubs rarely draft those sorts of players. This is a team that has the revenue streams and the resources to spend the money needed to develop a consistently high quality farm system, rather than a farm system that relies on lottery tickets. For the draft, all it would take is another $2m-$3m a year. That would make all the difference in the world.

 

I'd rather the team spend that money on the draft than on miserably overrated relief pitchers.

I wonder if you would feel the same way if it could be demonstrated that spending top dollar on the cream of the crop amateurs works out about as well as spending top dollar on the cream of the crop free agents (the Sorianos and Teixeiras and Sabathias and Zitos etc.).

 

What if it's the case that to land that elite caliber of amateur player necessarily requires overspending to the point of yielding a negative expected value?

 

I don't have the data to prove it, but it stands to reason that these markets quite possibly function in a similar way, where the prices at the very top escalate exponentially, and out of proportion to the talent difference.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, there seems to be a presumption that spending (relatively) big in these amateur areas is inherently good and smart. It's pretty much accepted as given that you want your team doing this.

 

Nobody seems to stop and think, maybe it's not smart at all, once a robust risk/reward analysis is applied.