New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

Really? You'd argue that outside of the pitching that those 2003 and 2004 teams were constructed to win in the long run?

 

The same for 2007 and 2008?

[Guest]

He really seems to harp on the significantly reduced spending thing there.

[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.

 

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] 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).

 

also, this has nothing to do with the point, but epstein didn't even know who youkilis was until beane started lusting after him.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

If only North went to jail.

[davearm2]

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..

The thing is, he doesn't owe a large part of his success to being able to spend money.

 

He owes a large part of his success to drafting and developing better than everyone else.

 

You can't with a straight face sit here and tell me that the main reason the Red Sox have won is because of the huge free agent money they've thrown around. The truth is, the return they've gotten on those players is pathetic, and they've won more despite them, than because of them.

[Guest]

Hey guys, remember when we all made fun of irrelevant Stephen A. Smith (me included) when he said LeBron, Bosh, and Wade were all going to Miami.

 

 

Just saying.

[davell]

I took the Shaer thing off of PSD. LAura, thanks for posting the actual interview. To clarify, he did say 100 mill plus, not necessarily 100 as a cap.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Don't forget, in 2003 the future and the present were looking very bright for the Cubs. Prior, Wood, Clement, and Z looked to be a world beating rotation for years to come. Sosa was still great, and Ramirez was going to be around for years to come. Hee Sop Choi was sure to pull it together and be a star. As soon as Corey Patterson returned, we'd have an elite CF, no doubt a perenial 30/30 guy, not to mention the farm system. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to leave work early to start drinking heavily.

[Sammy Sofa]

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

The thing is, he doesn't owe a large part of his success to being able to spend money.

 

He owes a large part of his success to drafting and developing better than everyone else.

 

You can't with a straight face sit here and tell me that the main reason the Red Sox have won is because of the huge free agent money they've thrown around. The truth is, the return they've gotten on those players is pathetic, and they've won more despite them, than because of them.

 

Yes, I am telling you that one of the main reasons they won was because of the big FA money they spent.

 

Again, it's not an either/or proposition for them nor is it for the Cubs, so stop pretending like it is.

[SouthSideRyan]

Hey guys, remember when we all made fun of irrelevant Stephen A. Smith (me included) when he said LeBron, Bosh, and Wade were all going to Miami.

 

 

Just saying.

 

Just saying something totally irrelevant

[SouthSideRyan]

Don't forget, in 2003 the future and the present were looking very bright for the Cubs. Prior, Wood, Clement, and Z looked to be a world beating rotation for years to come. Sosa was still great, and Ramirez was going to be around for years to come. Hee Sop Choi was sure to pull it together and be a star. As soon as Corey Patterson returned, we'd have an elite CF, no doubt a perenial 30/30 guy, not to mention the farm system. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to leave work early to start drinking heavily.

 

Cool story.

[Guest]

Hey guys, remember when we all made fun of irrelevant Stephen A. Smith (me included) when he said LeBron, Bosh, and Wade were all going to Miami.

 

 

Just saying.

 

Just saying something totally irrelevant

 

 

Just saying that it's decently possible that this d-bag has some contact somewhere that has given him legitimate information. He certainly is talking like he knows much more than anybody else has.

 

It's also possible, if not likely, that it's totally made up. But some of it indicates that he's at least somewhat informed (i.e. the lack of infrastructure in the Cubs front office and the likely desire for building that up...that's far more than I'd expect someone like Sullivan or Rosenbloom to know/report).

 

And it really wouldn't surprise me at all if ownership intends to attempt to compete with a low 100s payroll in this division. They're probably smart enough to know that that's all that matters because the playoffs are a crapshoot.

[Guest]

 

Yes, I am telling you that one of the main reasons they won was because of the big FA money they spent.

 

Again, it's not an either/or proposition for them nor is it for the Cubs, so stop pretending like it is.

 

 

He's right, though. Most of those acquisitions have been more of a hindrance than a help. Yes, they at least managed to get production out of some of them, but they could've gotten similar or better production for less money (that's not to say that every major FA signing they've made has been a flop, but most have).

[davell]

AZPhil had made mention previously that he expected the payroll to drop somewhat as well, once some of these contracts fell off. To be honest, I don't even think it's a big deal personally. Especially since Ricketts has already proven he's going to spend bigtime on player development. If the major league payroll stabilizes in the 110 to 120 range, I'm OK with that. Because we should start to see a much better pipeline of youngsters coming through than we ever had in the past. Of course, that means I expecr basically the same type spending on the draft and international free agency as we did this past year, but I think we will do this at this point. Personally, I want to see us develop pitching and if we have to spend big money through FA, I want it to be on hitting, since it's usually a little better longterm investment.

[SouthSideRyan]

But some of it indicates that he's at least somewhat informed (i.e. the lack of infrastructure in the Cubs front office and the likely desire for building that up...that's far more than I'd expect someone like Sullivan or Rosenbloom to know/report

 

This is fairly well known information. If Shaer had a history of breaking Cubs news (or any news for that matter), you'd have a point.

 

SAS is a loudmouth buffoon, but he's always been close with players, and been able to get information. Tom Shaer is a generic Chicago sports buffoon

[Guest]

AZPhil had made mention previously that he expected the payroll to drop somewhat as well, once some of these contracts fell off. To be honest, I don't even think it's a big deal personally. Especially since Ricketts has already proven he's going to spend bigtime on player development. If the major league payroll stabilizes in the 110 to 120 range, I'm OK with that. Because we should start to see a much better pipeline of youngsters coming through than we ever had in the past. Of course, that means I expecr basically the same type spending on the draft and international free agency as we did this past year, but I think we will do this at this point. Personally, I want to see us develop pitching and if we have to spend big money through FA, I want it to be on hitting, since it's usually a little better longterm investment.

 

 

110-120 I'd be OK with. 100-105 or something like that would hurt.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

Yes, I am telling you that one of the main reasons they won was because of the big FA money they spent.

 

Again, it's not an either/or proposition for them nor is it for the Cubs, so stop pretending like it is.

 

 

He's right, though. Most of those acquisitions have been more of a hindrance than a help. Yes, they at least managed to get production out of some of them, but they could've gotten similar or better production for less money (that's not to say that every major FA signing they've made has been a flop, but most have).

 

I never said he wasn't right; the Red Sox have had plenty of FA flops. But their success this decade has also been based in part on big FA signings that WEREN'T busts. Again, it's not the either/or situation he's trying to make it out to be.

 

Plus there's no really no reason for the Cubs not to be a team like the Yankees or Red Sox that can absorb bad contracts instead of playing the pauper. Why can't the Cubs be a team that says "OK, yeah, Dice-K sucked, but [expletive] it, we're still signing Adrian Gonzalez to a huge contract"?

Edited October 11, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[davearm2]

The thing is, he doesn't owe a large part of his success to being able to spend money.

 

He owes a large part of his success to drafting and developing better than everyone else.

 

You can't with a straight face sit here and tell me that the main reason the Red Sox have won is because of the huge free agent money they've thrown around. The truth is, the return they've gotten on those players is pathetic, and they've won more despite them, than because of them.

 

Yes, I am telling you that one of the main reasons they won was because of the big FA money they spent.

 

Again, it's not an either/or proposition for them nor is it for the Cubs, so stop pretending like it is.

I'm not pretending anything of the sort.

 

I'm responding to all the misplaced outrage that seems to believe the Cubs need to spend more than everyone else to be competitive. They don't.

 

I am as excited about Epstein as the next guy, but if we're being totally honest, his track record in free agency is pretty alarming. As you yourself admitted, he doesn't get the credit for guys that really did make a difference (Pedro, Manny, Damon, Schilling, etc). He gets credit for the guys that have bombed.

Edited October 11, 2011 by davearm2

[Guest]

But some of it indicates that he's at least somewhat informed (i.e. the lack of infrastructure in the Cubs front office and the likely desire for building that up...that's far more than I'd expect someone like Sullivan or Rosenbloom to know/report

 

This is fairly well known information. If Shaer had a history of breaking Cubs news (or any news for that matter), you'd have a point.

 

SAS is a loudmouth buffoon, but he's always been close with players, and been able to get information. Tom Shaer is a generic Chicago sports buffoon

 

It is, but that doesn't stop the vast majority of the reporters we count on for information from either not talking much about it or not even realizing it (or how big of a deal it is that our front office has been so amateurish).

 

It's a situation that a lot more people should know about. Right now, only people like us really know it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Boston's financial advantage isn't just seen in free agents. It's seen in their ability to combine it with their awesome farm system and make trades like Adrian Gonzalez.

[UMFan83]

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.

 

I'll give you one guess what the Twins payroll was this season

[ArizonaGM]

Payroll is something that allows you to make mistakes in free agency and recover. Some like the Yankees, Phillies and Red Sox are allowed more mistakes. Why would the Cubs be spending 100 MIL for the next few years? This is the 3rd biggest market in the US and the 5th most valuable team in the league. Getting out spent by the freaking Twins wouldn't be acceptable. Give Theo or someone half worth a damn 120 MIL and a few years to undo the mess Hendry left and the NL Central will be obtainable every single year.

 

AZGM

[Banedon]

Bruce Levine chat "at 12"...doesn't say which time zone. Supposed to talk about Theo. Likely nothing new, but here's the link...

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/6733/chat-alert-levine-talks-theo-cubs-at-12

[Guest]

I have no problem with Ricketts. I'm sure it's going to be much more awesome to be a Cubs fan in about 5-10 years (in terms of seeing all the improvements pan out and come to fruition, from stadium/triangle building stuff to the facility in the Dominican and all the extra money being spent on the draft and the improved minor league facilities - I'm not saying it'll take that long to start seeing things... just that it probably will be that long before everything they're attempting to turn around is turned around).

 

I just hope that the years before aren't too painful.

Edited October 11, 2011 by David

[SouthSideRyan]

I hope somebody asks if he's at the top of the Cubs list.