Cubs in Violation of MLB's Debt Service Rules

[CUBZ99]

That Sun Times article scares the crap out of me. If accurate, the Cubs are not going to be competing for years.

[javy knows my name]

Wittenmeyer continually trying to outclown himself for hits is really funny to me

[Little Slide Rooter]

I hope Selig is right, but truth be told its very easy for us to take his side, because we like what je has to say and to discredit Wittemyer because we don't like what he's saying, but the fact of the matter is we won't know whose right until this winter.

[javy knows my name]

I hope Selig is right, but truth be told its very easy for us to take his side, because we like what je has to say and to discredit Wittemyer because we don't like what he's saying, but the fact of the matter is we won't know whose right until this winter.

 

Erm, Wittenmeyer was contending that the Cubs were on Selig's [expletive] list and he would put spending restrictions on them in favor of a steep debt paydown (or something like that). He just said that they aren't and he won't.

[CUBZ99]

I hope Selig is right, but truth be told its very easy for us to take his side, because we like what je has to say and to discredit Wittemyer because we don't like what he's saying, but the fact of the matter is we won't know whose right until this winter.

 

Erm, Wittenmeyer was contending that the Cubs were on Selig's [expletive] list and he would put spending restrictions on them in favor of a steep debt paydown (or something like that). He just said that they aren't and he won't.

 

I'm assuming you meant Wittenmeyer "wasn't contending"...? Here is relevant snippet from the Suntimes article.

 

While it may be true that the Cubs are technically not in compliance with Major League Baseball’s debt-service rules — one of nine such teams, according to a Los Angeles Times report — that’s nothing.

 

Both the team and commissioner Bud Selig said publicly Friday that the Cubs’ debt issues are unique (because of the sale) and not considered a problem with MLB.

[javy knows my name]

Debt May Impact Cubs' Free Agency Plans

By Mike Axisa [June 4 at 9:34am CST]

The Cubs are one of nine teams in violation of MLB's debt service rules, and Gordon Wittenmyer of The Chicago Sun-Times hears that the debt might impact the team's ability to pursue big free agents over the next few years. Wittenmyer estimates the debt at $400MM or so.

 

On paper, a free agent first baseman like Prince Fielder or Albert Pujols would make perfect sense for the Cubs, who have a ton of money coming off the books after the season as Tim Dierkes explained in his 2012 Contracts Issues post. Now their ability to pursue players of that caliber is in question. Chairman Tom Ricketts has been preaching player development since purchasing the team in 2009, and the draft will be even more important if the Cubbies are unable plug holes with free agents.

 

 

Looks like he did some serious backpedaling or was horribly misinterpreted, then

[Sammy Sofa]

"I'm hearing" is code for "The person who told me isn't important enough to be credible if I said it. Probably myself."

 

It seems like a scare tactic to get a lot of hits built up with little substance behind it.

 

And then, not at all ironically, this is the post to follow the one above:

 

That Sun Times article scares the crap out of me. If accurate, the Cubs are not going to be competing for years.

 

That's the kind of response hacks like Wittenmyer are going for.

[imb]

*sensationalist hacks

[CubmanPi]

...[we] discredit Wittemyer because we don't like what he's saying...

There are plenty of other reasons to discredit him.

[UMFan83]

...[we] discredit Wittemyer because we don't like what he's saying...

There are plenty of other reasons to discredit him.

 

There are enough pessimists on the site that people would be freaking out if there was any legitimacy to what he wrote. He quoted one unnamed source and really stretched what he said into a sensationalist article painting a picture of misery.

[XZero771679666304]

I hope Selig is right, but truth be told its very easy for us to take his side, because we like what je has to say and to discredit Wittemyer because we don't like what he's saying, but the fact of the matter is we won't know whose right until this winter.

 

Erm, Wittenmeyer was contending that the Cubs were on Selig's [expletive] list and he would put spending restrictions on them in favor of a steep debt paydown (or something like that). He just said that they aren't and he won't.

 

 

Yeah, who to believe about where the Cubs stand with the commisioner of baseball...Gordon Wittenmeyer or the commissioner of baseball. Hmmmmm. This is a tough one.

[Scotti]

LOL MLB. I'm sure Mark Cuban would have never landed on this list...for any of the franchises, not just the Cubs.

 

Wrong. The deal for the Cubs was influenced by Sam Zell's desire that, for tax purposes, was heavy into debt. The "winner" for Zell was NOT the team that could come up with the most cash but the most financed cash. If Cuban had "won" then he would have landed on the same list--guaranteed.

 

The Ricketts family actually just plunked tens of millions more in AZ (a good chunk of the rebuid there was actually funded by them) and are able/willing to plunk 200M into the Triangle building (if they can get commitments for Wrigley). They are NOT strapped for cash. The family sold less than 20% of their shares of Ameritrade for over $400M to purchase the club.

 

They are, however, committed to rebuilding the team the way they have built their businesses--heavy commitments for infrastructure early on to pay dividends down the road. That has worked for Ameritrade (twice--first to invest in tele-trading and they purchased the first company to use the Internet for trades less than a year after the first online trade) and with TR's businesses (the one he owns and the one he ran prior to that).

 

Similarly, the Ricketts are investing in the Cubs (farm system, Mesa and, eventually, the Wrigley complex and CUBTV). For decades (under, essentially, two owners) the infrastructure of the Cubs was ignored. Now the team has ownership that is investing in the club's future (and willing to invest much more). That isn't bad ownership. That is very good ownership.

[Sammy Sofa]

LOL MLB. I'm sure Mark Cuban would have never landed on this list...for any of the franchises, not just the Cubs.

 

Wrong. The deal for the Cubs was influenced by Sam Zell's desire that, for tax purposes, was heavy into debt. The "winner" for Zell was NOT the team that could come up with the most cash but the most financed cash. If Cuban had "won" then he would have landed on the same list--guaranteed.

 

The Ricketts family actually just plunked tens of millions more in AZ (a good chunk of the rebuid there was actually funded by them) and are able/willing to plunk 200M into the Triangle building (if they can get commitments for Wrigley). They are NOT strapped for cash. The family sold less than 20% of their shares of Ameritrade for over $400M to purchase the club.

 

They are, however, committed to rebuilding the team the way they have built their businesses--heavy commitments for infrastructure early on to pay dividends down the road. That has worked for Ameritrade (twice--first to invest in tele-trading and they purchased the first company to use the Internet for trades less than a year after the first online trade) and with TR's businesses (the one he owns and the one he ran prior to that).

 

Similarly, the Ricketts are investing in the Cubs (farm system, Mesa and, eventually, the Wrigley complex and CUBTV). For decades (under, essentially, two owners) the infrastructure of the Cubs was ignored. Now the team has ownership that is investing in the club's future (and willing to invest much more). That isn't bad ownership. That is very good ownership.

 

Excellent post.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Similarly, the Ricketts are investing in the Cubs (farm system, Mesa and, eventually, the Wrigley complex and CUBTV). For decades (under, essentially, two owners) the infrastructure of the Cubs was ignored. Now the team has ownership that is investing in the club's future (and willing to invest much more). That isn't bad ownership. That is very good ownership.

 

I see your point, but your average fan really doesnt care much about CUBTV, Mesa, or even the farm system. While it is easy to say to hell with them, they know nothing about baseball, they are still the ones you need filling up the seats. If they do indeed decide not to make an offseason free agent splash, and go with the youth movement, it will be a loooong several years. Our system isnt the Royals or Rays that will be able to compete with it anytime soon. If this is the plan, they may as well start trading pretty much everything of value on the big league roster with the exceptions of Castro and Cashner. This means dont waste money offering arbitration to Garza.

[SouthSideRyan]

Honestly, how dumb do you think the Ricketts family is? I've seen so many people spout this oh, they think the park will sell out on its own and they're not going to bother trying to put a good team out there. The park isn't selling out on their own. The team is bad, so you think their solution is going to be to actively make the team worse? These aren't backwoods hicks who won powerball to amass their fortune, these are highly intelligent businessmen .

[davearm2]

Similarly, the Ricketts are investing in the Cubs (farm system, Mesa and, eventually, the Wrigley complex and CUBTV). For decades (under, essentially, two owners) the infrastructure of the Cubs was ignored. Now the team has ownership that is investing in the club's future (and willing to invest much more). That isn't bad ownership. That is very good ownership.

 

I see your point, but your average fan really doesnt care much about CUBTV, Mesa, or even the farm system. While it is easy to say to hell with them, they know nothing about baseball, they are still the ones you need filling up the seats. If they do indeed decide not to make an offseason free agent splash, and go with the youth movement, it will be a loooong several years. Our system isnt the Royals or Rays that will be able to compete with it anytime soon. If this is the plan, they may as well start trading pretty much everything of value on the big league roster with the exceptions of Castro and Cashner. This means dont waste money offering arbitration to Garza.

Why would investing in infrastructure and making a free agent splash be mutually exclusive options?

[Little Slide Rooter]

To be honest, the only way that we would be able to win anytime with a youth movement is if we pulled a '08-'09 Cleveland Indians and sold everything of value. However, Z, Garza, and Soto are good and have plenty of value, but they arent Sabthia, Lee, and V Mart.

[davearm2]

Honestly, how dumb do you think the Ricketts family is? I've seen so many people spout this oh, they think the park will sell out on its own and they're not going to bother trying to put a good team out there. The park isn't selling out on their own. The team is bad, so you think their solution is going to be to actively make the team worse? These aren't backwoods hicks who won powerball to amass their fortune, these are highly intelligent businessmen .

Well said. And apply it to Hendry as well. We may not like the quotes in the media, but they don't have their head in the sand the way some folks seem to believe.

[Sammy Sofa]

Similarly, the Ricketts are investing in the Cubs (farm system, Mesa and, eventually, the Wrigley complex and CUBTV). For decades (under, essentially, two owners) the infrastructure of the Cubs was ignored. Now the team has ownership that is investing in the club's future (and willing to invest much more). That isn't bad ownership. That is very good ownership.

 

I see your point, but your average fan really doesnt care much about CUBTV, Mesa, or even the farm system. While it is easy to say to hell with them, they know nothing about baseball, they are still the ones you need filling up the seats. If they do indeed decide not to make an offseason free agent splash, and go with the youth movement, it will be a loooong several years. Our system isnt the Royals or Rays that will be able to compete with it anytime soon. If this is the plan, they may as well start trading pretty much everything of value on the big league roster with the exceptions of Castro and Cashner. This means dont waste money offering arbitration to Garza.

Why would investing in infrastructure and making a free agent splash be mutually exclusive options?

 

Exactly. WSR's "either/or" musings are completely baseless.

[J.R.]

For decades (under, essentially, two owners) the infrastructure of the Cubs was ignored. Now the team has ownership that is investing in the club's future (and willing to invest much more). That isn't bad ownership. That is very good ownership.

 

Most people don't realize that the Cubs had the smallest front office in MLB, the smallest scouting department in MLB and a general lack of bodies almost everywhere you looked. Tribune picked up where the Wrigleys left off.

[Guest]

LOL MLB. I'm sure Mark Cuban would have never landed on this list...for any of the franchises, not just the Cubs.

 

Wrong. The deal for the Cubs was influenced by Sam Zell's desire that, for tax purposes, was heavy into debt. The "winner" for Zell was NOT the team that could come up with the most cash but the most financed cash. If Cuban had "won" then he would have landed on the same list--guaranteed.

 

The Ricketts family actually just plunked tens of millions more in AZ (a good chunk of the rebuid there was actually funded by them) and are able/willing to plunk 200M into the Triangle building (if they can get commitments for Wrigley). They are NOT strapped for cash. The family sold less than 20% of their shares of Ameritrade for over $400M to purchase the club.

 

They are, however, committed to rebuilding the team the way they have built their businesses--heavy commitments for infrastructure early on to pay dividends down the road. That has worked for Ameritrade (twice--first to invest in tele-trading and they purchased the first company to use the Internet for trades less than a year after the first online trade) and with TR's businesses (the one he owns and the one he ran prior to that).

 

Similarly, the Ricketts are investing in the Cubs (farm system, Mesa and, eventually, the Wrigley complex and CUBTV). For decades (under, essentially, two owners) the infrastructure of the Cubs was ignored. Now the team has ownership that is investing in the club's future (and willing to invest much more). That isn't bad ownership. That is very good ownership.

This was fantastic. Thank you.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If the ownership is so great, why does the team suck? Answer me that.

[UK1679666180]

This is a non-story given the sale of the team.

 

I am glad that they are in it for the long-term rather than a house flip like Zell.

 

I understand and pleased they are patient and willing to pyramid the baseball operations, I just want to see changes in the structure and hope the evaluation process is close to concluding.

[tfarks]

The only thing I haven't liked out of the ownership so far was their, I assume, 1 year evaluation period at the major league level. There's perfectly good arguments for both sides here but again, if it was me, I would have overhauled the front office from day 1 and moved on from there. Now we're balls deep into another [expletive] year and either the crappy front office we're used to stays status quo or there's a big overhaul during a crucial off-season of FA. Neither are optimal. Would have loved to see Ricketts put his stamp at every level from the start.

[Sammy Sofa]

I would have loved to see Hendry and co. gone before this season, too, but let's be realistic: this season wouldn't have been much better, if at all.