The nameless, faceless Trib

[davell]

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.

 

 

Exactly. I don't really even care if the money comes off the major league payroll for the next couple of seasons, but if Wilken was given 10-12 million to work with for the draft and international signees, I truly believe we'd see some serious talent come through Wrigley within the next 4-5 seasons.

[davell]

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.

 

 

The reason that it IS a good idea to spend on these guys is the fact that the ones that DO pan out become cheap, good, controllable players for a while. Even if the risk is higher, it pays off more in the longrun by hitting on a couple of them every once in a while. It makes alot more sense to augment your team with free agents than it does to go try and buy a team, which is basically what the Cubs have done recently.

[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.

 

 

Exactly. I don't really even care if the money comes off the major league payroll for the next couple of seasons, but if Wilken was given 10-12 million to work with for the draft and international signees, I truly believe we'd see some serious talent come through Wrigley within the next 4-5 seasons.

And what I'm asking is, what's the basis for the assumption that spending big will yield big results at the major league level?

 

I don't mean to single you out because this is how everybody seems to think.

 

I'd be interested to see a list of the 25 highest paid international free agents from, say, 2003 through 2007. Guys that got signing bonuses in excess of $1M.

 

How many of those guys are impact major leaguers right now?

 

Seems like you'd have to have an understanding of those results before you could say confidently that spending the sort of money you mentioned is indeed worthwhile and advisable.

[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.

 

 

The reason that it IS a good idea to spend on these guys is the fact that the ones that DO pan out become cheap, good, controllable players for a while. Even if the risk is higher, it pays off more in the longrun by hitting on a couple of them every once in a while. It makes alot more sense to augment your team with free agents than it does to go try and buy a team, which is basically what the Cubs have done recently.

Oh I get the theory. I just question whether the empirical data would support the notion that it's effective, especially as it pertains to the top-level guys that cost upwards of $1M to land.

[davell]

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.

 

 

The reason that it IS a good idea to spend on these guys is the fact that the ones that DO pan out become cheap, good, controllable players for a while. Even if the risk is higher, it pays off more in the longrun by hitting on a couple of them every once in a while. It makes alot more sense to augment your team with free agents than it does to go try and buy a team, which is basically what the Cubs have done recently.

Oh I get the theory. I just question whether the empirical data would support the notion that it's effective, especially as it pertains to the top-level guys that cost upwards of $1M to land.

 

 

I scanned thru BA for a little bit but haven't found it yet. I'll find it later if someone doesn't beat me to it. I'm curious as to what the findings are myself.

 

That said, if given my choice, I would spend much MORE on the draft than on International FA personally. If given 12 mill to spend, I'd probably break it up 9-3 or 8-4 depending on how the draft looks. It's simply much easier to get good looks at guys in the draft, while it's totally hit and miss in Central America. Basically, you had better really trust your scouts. Which is one reason I like the fact that recently we've been doing a ton in the Pac Rim. It may be quibbling, but all I want from Central America is maybe one extra bigger signing per year honestly. Last year we supposedly got a guy for around 800,000 and this year we spent on a guy somewhere in the mid six figures as well. If you add one more of those types to our budget and then add a couple of solid overslots to our draft, I think that we'd have one of the best systems in baseball with Wilken running things.

 

For what it's worth, our strategy in Central America appears to be a "strength in numbers" approach. Which is a good way to go, if you ask me. Castro only got a 50,000 bonus, if I'm not mistaken, for instance. Like I said, I'd just like to see a little more splash than what we've done. But, the bottom line is this: Upping the budget to 12 mill or so would almost definitely increase our odds of acquiring one of the best farm systems in baseball. And what brought this whole topic up to begin with was that Ricketts had said he was upping our budget, yet we haven't seen anything yet here. To me, if it comes off the major league payroll for a couple of years, I'm perfectly fine with that. Since, it doesn't appear as if we're very close to becoming a true contender overnight.

[Outshined_One]

And what I'm asking is, what's the basis for the assumption that spending big will yield big results at the major league level?

 

I don't mean to single you out because this is how everybody seems to think.

 

I'd be interested to see a list of the 25 highest paid international free agents from, say, 2003 through 2007. Guys that got signing bonuses in excess of $1M.

 

How many of those guys are impact major leaguers right now?

 

Seems like you'd have to have an understanding of those results before you could say confidently that spending the sort of money you mentioned is indeed worthwhile and advisable.

 

You're conflating international signings and the MLB draft. I'd advise against that.

 

There are enough differences between international signings and the MLB draft that I think those should be discussed separately. davell and myself have spent most of this thread discussing the Cubs' most recent MLB Draft budget, which clocked in at 19th in MLB this year at a little over $4.7m (although I think that number assumes Szczur commits to the Cubs). International signings are another matter altogether; Tim Wilken has nothing do with international scouting. That job belongs to Paul Weaver.

 

While it would be nice to see the Cubs spend more money on big name prospects in the international arena, it's a completely different beast from amateur scouting. I wouldn't use it as an example in favor of thrifty spending when it comes to scouting and signing amateur players.

 

Furthermore, there's a difference between signing one player to a $3m deal and using that $3m to acquire 5-6 players. Having one guy like Nick Castellanos ($3.45m) would be nice. However, having six guys like Ben Wells ($530k) would also be really good.

[davearm2]

I agree with distinguishing international from draft. It would require two separate, but parallel analyses.

 

I guess I just lumped them together for sake of simplicity.

[Outshined_One]

davell and myself have spent most of this thread discussing the Cubs' most recent MLB Draft budget, which clocked in at 19th in MLB this year at a little over $4.7m (although I think that number assumes Szczur commits to the Cubs).

 

I emailed BA to get further info on that and received a response that the $4.7m does NOT include Szczur's $500k. The Cubs would move up to 17th on that list with $5.2m if Szczur commits to baseball.

[Guest]

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.

 

The Cubs also signed Dominican 16-year old shortstop Daniel Sanchez on July 2nd for approximately $600,000.

 

In years past, the Cubs have signed Pac Rim guys in August and September so there's still hope for this year.

[Guest]

I frankly don't mind them not spending big money in Latin America, it's a cesspool of corruption. MLB should try to do more to clean it up. I like what they've done in Asia although not much has come of it yet. Edited August 29, 2010 by CubinNY

[DivineBovine]

The comparison is simply not fair. It's been less than 1 season, and the Trib handed over a bad team.

 

The difference is that the Ricketts care about winning (at least we can assume so as of now) and the Tribune solely cared about money. They only started spending money in the past few years, and that was when they knew they were selling. And when they started spending money, the spent it on players like Soriano.

 

Give it some time. We're all frustrated that this team sucks now, but I'll take my chances over the coming years that any owner will be better than the Tribune company.

[TruffleShuffle]

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.

 

nobody seems to stop and think that because they actually HAVE done a robust risk/reward analysis and found that spending on the draft has the greatest return on investment of any dollar that a team spends. jim callis did a study that found that going above slot for draft picks has a very high rate of return. hell, a current major league pitcher (ross ohlendorf) did a college thesis that found:

 

"Many of the players in the study did not make the major leagues. However, many of those who did produced tremendous returns for the teams who drafted them. When looked at as a group, the internal rate of return on all the draft picks in the study was 60 percent. This is an extremely high rate of return. It is saying that if you invest $1, it will grow to $1.60 after a year and $2.56 after two years, and so on … I believe the stock market has had a historical rate of about seven or eight percent, prior to the last year. So even though many of the investments did not work out, the upside on those that did was so great, signing the high picks to large bonuses appears to have been a very smart investment.

 

yes, if you have bad scouts and make bad decisions in the draft and int'l free agency, you will be wasting money. but if you have competent people within your organization, it's more important to spend on young talent than on anything else.

[Wilson A2000]

Now the named and faced Tom Ricketts is going to be on Undercover Boss at Wrigley

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/09/cubs-owner-todd-ricketts-stars-in-undercover-boss.html

[UMFan83]

Would be hilarious if Roast was in it.

[davell]

Now the named and faced Tom Ricketts is going to be on Undercover Boss at Wrigley

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/09/cubs-owner-todd-ricketts-stars-in-undercover-boss.html

 

 

Actually, it's Todd, not Tom.

[Wilson A2000]

Now the named and faced Tom Ricketts is going to be on Undercover Boss at Wrigley

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/09/cubs-owner-todd-ricketts-stars-in-undercover-boss.html

 

Actually, it's Todd, not Tom.

 

Nice catch. I really don't think Todd Ricketts would need a disguise.

[davell]

Now the named and faced Tom Ricketts is going to be on Undercover Boss at Wrigley

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/09/cubs-owner-todd-ricketts-stars-in-undercover-boss.html

 

Actually, it's Todd, not Tom.

 

Nice catch. I really don't think Todd Ricketts would need a disguise.

 

 

Yeah, I kind of thought the same thing. Tom is the only one I'd recognize anyway.

[davell]

Ricketts came out Thursday and said the Cubs were a poitive cash flow team this year and basically met their finiancial expectations. He said if there were a better team on the field, maybe they would have done a bit better on the business side. Could mean nothing at all honestly, but MAYBE the early reports of dropping the payroll down a bit were premature? I don't think they even get into these type of things until the organizational meetings after the season is over anyway, but I guess this could be construed as a sign that the Cubs will have some cash to spend this offseason?

[jersey cubs fan]

Ricketts came out Thursday and said the Cubs were a poitive cash flow team this year and basically met their finiancial expectations. He said if there were a better team on the field, maybe they would have done a bit better on the business side. Could mean nothing at all honestly, but MAYBE the early reports of dropping the payroll down a bit were premature? I don't think they even get into these type of things until the organizational meetings after the season is over anyway, but I guess this could be construed as a sign that the Cubs will have some cash to spend this offseason?

 

I never understood where those rumors came from in the first place. Every indication has been that they will hold steady. However, a big part of breaking even this year was probably all the tickets sold in February, when people had hope, and all the money saved in trades later in the season. There had to be a few million dollars taken off the payroll by the end. If they had a payroll of 140m going in and end up spending 137 after all the trades, then that could be where they start next year.

[wvcbxl]

Well, now there's a a Businessweek article on the "probably" lower player payroll.

[bhogg]

Now the named and faced Tom Ricketts is going to be on Undercover Boss at Wrigley

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/09/cubs-owner-todd-ricketts-stars-in-undercover-boss.html

 

 

Would love to see a teary-eyed scene when Ricketts says, " I just. . . just didn't. . .. just didn't realize how much Jim (Hendry) sucks at things, but we're gonna have to let him go."

[Illini Iceman]

Well, now there's a a Businessweek article on the "probably" lower player payroll.

 

I think if the end of this season showed the new owners anything it is that if they put out a team that is not in contention they can't count on continuing to get automatic sold out games next season. They need to make some kind of splash in the offseason to build up hope or their attendance is going to be down until they start winning.

[davell]

Ricketts said in his initial press conference that profits would go back into the team. So, if payroll is going to be lowered this upcoming season after being profitable, where's the money going? It hasn't gone into the draft or international signings obviously this past season anyway. Nor, did it go towards improving the big league club.

 

I understand completely that he SHOULD make money off an investment like this, but don't say the money's going back into the team, if it's not going to do so. I'm unaware of what projects he may have going on inside the stadium and around it, but is THAT where alot of money is going right now?

 

In the end, he shouldn't have said anything remotely close to that, as it's just overpromising and underdelivering as far as I can tell. Amd without knowing anything for sure, if you read into things, it kind of sounds like at least some ticket prices will be going up too, since he certainly didn't say anything to deny it. This is a different time to be a Cub fan than it was in the 80's, when he was falling in love with his wife and getting drunk in the bleachers every game. We're a major market team and expectations are different at this point. Wrigley is a drawing card, but there will be a point where it's not enough. You can't charge as much as anyone in baseball does and not put a solid product out on the field and expect people to show up continuously.

 

If year one of the Ricketts regime winds down with a horrible major league team, raised ticket prices, nothing major done to fix the team on the major league level and nothing major done to revamp the farm system, he's going to start running the risk of major fan backlash relatively soon. Because trotting Sandberg out there(if it happens) isn't going to appease the fans after mid May or so when the Cubs are faltering again.

 

And yes, I know it takes time to build an organization from top to bottom. But, after a year, I'd like to see SOMETHING that could be considered a positive coming from Ricketts. I don't think that 's too much to ask. But, at this point, I'm not seeing anything that's a positive that can be construed as something Ricketts has done. Because he can't take credit for the youngsters that appear to be the future building blocks of the team, because they were there before he was. I really hope I'm wrong, but I do think it's already time to start wondering where this family is trying to take the Cubs organization.

[jersey cubs fan]

Ricketts said in his initial press conference that profits would go back into the team. So, if payroll is going to be lowered this upcoming season after being profitable, where's the money going? It hasn't gone into the draft or international signings obviously this past season anyway. Nor, did it go towards improving the big league club.

 

I understand completely that he SHOULD make money off an investment like this, but don't say the money's going back into the team, if it's not going to do so. I'm unaware of what projects he may have going on inside the stadium and around it, but is THAT where alot of money is going right now?

 

In the end, he shouldn't have said anything remotely close to that, as it's just overpromising and underdelivering as far as I can tell.

 

Trades saved the Cubs a few million during this season. It's entirely possible that profits came about from cutting those costs in July. That would leave the break even point at a lower payroll price point. And who knows what those profits are, $100,000, $1,000,000 or $10,000,000. You can also pour that money back into the team in a variety of ways. Improving the stadium, increasing scouting and international free agent signing, the draft, etc.

 

Financially I don't have a problem with where the Cubs are right now. The biggest knock on Ricketts is that he appears to be going forward with proven failure Jim Hendry running the team. He shouldn't need more time than he's had to evaluate Hendry, and if his evaluation is that Hendry has done a good enough job to keep his job, than he's an idiot.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, Hendry still being here is really my only complaint against the new owners so far. Granted, it's a big one, but beyond that I'm fine with them.