New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

[Little Slide Rooter]

Yep, it was probably Trot Nixon that convinced him to sign on as GM.

 

Come on Ryan, at the time he was 26-27, healthy, and better than anyone that we have to offer at this point and had a lot more around him than we do.

[SouthSideRyan]

I want to hear more about how our 2003 payroll proves we can win with a 100M payroll.

[dew1679666265]

The notion that the Cubs can't compete with a $100M payroll is crap.

 

2008: $118,345,833

2007: $ 99,670,332

2004: $ 90,560,000

2003: $ 79,868,333

 

Teams like the Rays and Twins prove the point even more dramatically.

 

As Ricketts has emphasized from the get-go, the key is to dominate at the draft and player development phases, and have a GM that is going to convert those major-league payroll dollars into wins most efficiently.

 

There's no way for this team to contend in the next few years with a $100 million payroll. Overall, sure we can compete with a $100 million payroll, but more like contend for a playoff spot and hope to get lucky to get in the playoffs and then maybe get lucky again in the playoffs rather than be able to build a dominant team that is a World Series favorite.

 

The Cubs have the means to build up the infrastructure and management of the organization and still have a mid-$100M (130-160) payroll at the same time. To not take advantage of that would be to try to compete with one hand tied behind your back.

[CP_414]

Tom Shaer doesn't have any inside information on the Cubs payroll. All these media guys are just reading tea leaves and guessing because none of them can be journalists and find any real information. There is no chance they cut payroll to $100M.

 

The Chicago sports media are too full of dumb bastards to be able to think about two things at once. They hear that Ricketts wants to develop from within and assume that must be all he's going to focus on.

 

 

Exactly. Ricketts is talking about building from within like the Red Sox do, like the the Yankees do, and the Phillies do...they all have really freaking high payrolls as well.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Then pursue someone other than Epstein. The Red Sox formula for success and creating teams that are continually competitive this past decade was a combination of big spending and smart Moneyball-esque team building and farm development.

 

The Red Sox got more WAR from farm products than any of the playoff teams, including Tampa Bay. I don't think you can assume any one executive will copy an organizaton's success, but I see no reason not to pursue Epstein for that reason.

[davearm2]

The notion that the Cubs can't compete with a $100M payroll is crap.

 

2008: $118,345,833

2007: $ 99,670,332

2004: $ 90,560,000

2003: $ 79,868,333

 

Teams like the Rays and Twins prove the point even more dramatically.

 

As Ricketts has emphasized from the get-go, the key is to dominate at the draft and player development phases, and have a GM that is going to convert those major-league payroll dollars into wins most efficiently.

 

why post the exceptions and not the rules? thanks, i'd rather compete every year.

The rule that seems to matter most is spending wisely yields results.

 

Lots of teams spend a lot but have little to show for it (Cubs Dodgers Mets etc). Your premise that having a huge payroll is a prerequisite to being competitive is fundamentally flawed.

[jersey cubs fan]

Those past payroll numbers are not accurate.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I want to hear more about how our 2003 payroll proves we can win with a 100M payroll.

 

Because we still have a young and healthy Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, and Matt Clement. Get with the program.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Little Slide Rooter

[Banedon]

A lot of the Shaer stuff here....

 

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2011/10/11/tom-shaer-on-dc-theo-epstein-is-cubs-no-1-target/

[Sammy Sofa]

Then pursue someone other than Epstein. The Red Sox formula for success and creating teams that are continually competitive this past decade was a combination of big spending and smart Moneyball-esque team building and farm development.

 

The Red Sox got more WAR from farm products than any of the playoff teams, including Tampa Bay. I don't think you can assume any one executive will copy an organizaton's success, but I see no reason not to pursue Epstein for that reason.

 

I just think it's dumb to bring in a guy who owes a large part of his success to being able to spend money and then cut him off well below his typical minimum budget for nearly a decade now (during which he's won 2 WS). The Red Sox haven't had a payroll below $100 million since 2001 and haven't had one below $120 million since 2004. If such stipulations were actually the case I'd actually prefer someone who has more experience with an organization that is constrained by budgets.

 

That said, I agree that this type of speculation is mostly B.S..

[Magnetic Curses]

The notion that the Cubs can't compete with a $100M payroll is crap.

 

2008: $118,345,833

2007: $ 99,670,332

2004: $ 90,560,000

2003: $ 79,868,333

 

Teams like the Rays and Twins prove the point even more dramatically.

 

As Ricketts has emphasized from the get-go, the key is to dominate at the draft and player development phases, and have a GM that is going to convert those major-league payroll dollars into wins most efficiently.

 

why post the exceptions and not the rules? thanks, i'd rather compete every year.

The rule that seems to matter most is spending wisely yields results.

 

Lots of teams spend a lot but have little to show for it (Cubs Dodgers Mets etc). Your premise that having a huge payroll is a prerequisite to being competitive is fundamentally flawed.

 

and lots of teams put a lot of effort into not spending and still end up with their dicks in their hands. what's your point?

[Magnetic Curses]

I want to hear more about how our 2003 payroll proves we can win with a 100M payroll.

 

Because we still have a young and healthy Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, and Matt Clement. Get with the program.

 

it was also before z became a drag queen.

[davearm2]

The notion that the Cubs can't compete with a $100M payroll is crap.

 

2008: $118,345,833

2007: $ 99,670,332

2004: $ 90,560,000

2003: $ 79,868,333

 

Teams like the Rays and Twins prove the point even more dramatically.

 

As Ricketts has emphasized from the get-go, the key is to dominate at the draft and player development phases, and have a GM that is going to convert those major-league payroll dollars into wins most efficiently.

 

Then pursue someone other than Epstein. The Red Sox formula for success and creating teams that are continually competitive this past decade was a combination of big spending and smart Moneyball-esque team building and farm development.

 

The Cubs farms system is nowhere near what the Rays' and Twins' are and what the Red Sox' has been (and making it better should obviously be a huge goal, but not at the expense of the Cubs spending like they're a much, much smaller market team than they actual are).

The Red Sox' success has been driven almost entirely by their smart Moneyball-esque team building and farm development.

 

More often than not their big spending has been a massive failure -- Lackey, Dice-K, JD Drew, Lugo, etc.

 

It's clear (to me anyway) that Ricketts covets Epstein for the former skill, and not for his history of spending in free agency.

[Magnetic Curses]

flop flop flop

[Mark Priors Calves]

Tom Shaer is beyond irrelevant.

[Sammy Sofa]

Lots of teams spend a lot but have little to show for it (Cubs Dodgers Mets etc). Your premise that having a huge payroll is a prerequisite to being competitive is fundamentally flawed.

 

Only if he's saying that's the only thing needed. The point is that the Cubs are a big market team with big market money and there's little reason they can't do both big spending and smart player development. It shouldn't be an either/or proposition.

 

Under $100 million would have given the Cubs the 13th highest payroll this season. That would only be acceptable if the farm system was a LOT better.

[Magnetic Curses]

A lot of the Shaer stuff here....

 

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2011/10/11/tom-shaer-on-dc-theo-epstein-is-cubs-no-1-target/

 

Chicago sports media personality Tom Shaer joined Dennis & Callahan Tuesday morning to give the dish on what he knows about the Theo Epstein situation and whether the Cubs are actually pursuing the Red Sox general manager. According to Shaer, the Cubs are not just interested in Epstein; he’s at the top of their list.

 

wow, he's really done his homework!

[SouthSideRyan]

Under $100 million would have given the Cubs the 13th highest payroll this season. That would only be acceptable if the farm system was a LOT better.

 

Well no, it's pretty much never acceptable for the Cubs to have the 13th highest payroll in baseball. Unless we just happen to have elite prospects all over the diamond/mound developed at the same time, the payroll should never drop that low.

[Banedon]

A lot of the Shaer stuff here....

 

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2011/10/11/tom-shaer-on-dc-theo-epstein-is-cubs-no-1-target/

 

Chicago sports media personality Tom Shaer joined Dennis & Callahan Tuesday morning to give the dish on what he knows about the Theo Epstein situation and whether the Cubs are actually pursuing the Red Sox general manager. According to Shaer, the Cubs are not just interested in Epstein; he’s at the top of their list.

 

wow, he's really done his homework!

 

When there's no new news, just repeat the old stuff with enthusiasm.

[davearm2]

Those past payroll numbers are not accurate.

They're taken from Cots. If they're not spot on, they're as good as any other source's.

 

The point surely doesn't change if you tweak the numbers.

[Sammy Sofa]

The notion that the Cubs can't compete with a $100M payroll is crap.

 

2008: $118,345,833

2007: $ 99,670,332

2004: $ 90,560,000

2003: $ 79,868,333

 

Teams like the Rays and Twins prove the point even more dramatically.

 

As Ricketts has emphasized from the get-go, the key is to dominate at the draft and player development phases, and have a GM that is going to convert those major-league payroll dollars into wins most efficiently.

 

Then pursue someone other than Epstein. The Red Sox formula for success and creating teams that are continually competitive this past decade was a combination of big spending and smart Moneyball-esque team building and farm development.

 

The Cubs farms system is nowhere near what the Rays' and Twins' are and what the Red Sox' has been (and making it better should obviously be a huge goal, but not at the expense of the Cubs spending like they're a much, much smaller market team than they actual are).

The Red Sox' success has been driven almost entirely by their smart Moneyball-esque team building and farm development.

 

More often than not their big spending has been a massive failure -- Lackey, Dice-K, JD Drew, Lugo, etc.

 

It's clear (to me anyway) that Ricketts covets Epstein for the former skill, and not for his history of spending in free agency.

 

Yes, massive failures like Johnny Damon, Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz (yes, I know how they got Ortiz. They still ended up paying him a [expletive]-ton of money) (and yes, I know Epstein wasn't behind all of those signings. The point is that the Red Sox spent big money in addition to their smart player development to get them to where they've been the past decade).

[Magnetic Curses]

A lot of the Shaer stuff here....

 

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2011/10/11/tom-shaer-on-dc-theo-epstein-is-cubs-no-1-target/

 

Chicago sports media personality Tom Shaer joined Dennis & Callahan Tuesday morning to give the dish on what he knows about the Theo Epstein situation and whether the Cubs are actually pursuing the Red Sox general manager. According to Shaer, the Cubs are not just interested in Epstein; he’s at the top of their list.

 

wow, he's really done his homework!

 

When there's no new news, just repeat the old stuff with enthusiasm.

 

come on, theo being at the top of the list is pullitzer-type stuff. he's close, he's really really close. through the looking-glass close.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm not sure Shaer has even had a job since being loosely tied to the Webio ponzi scheme

[Magnetic Curses]

Those past payroll numbers are not accurate.

They're taken from Cots. If they're not spot on, they're as good as any other source's.

 

The point surely doesn't change if you tweak the numbers.

 

i wonder what their payrolls were between 1945 and 1984.

[Banedon]

I'm not sure Shaer has even had a job since being loosely tied to the Webio ponzi scheme

 

Man that was a fun time.