New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

[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.

 

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

And they missed the postseason. Huh. I guess spending more wasn't the solution.

[SouthSideRyan]

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

And they missed the postseason. Huh. I guess spending more wasn't the solution.

 

Think of how much better they'd have been if they just spent less.

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

Actually, they do need to be in the top 10 teams in terms of spending, ideally the top 5. It makes it much, much easier to deal with the mistakes and catastrophes that can and will happen. They don't have the farm system in place that can bolster a sub-$100 million payroll and will not for quite some time. They need to maintain a higher payroll while they work to achieve the latter instead of just wallowing in the doldrums as a team that can maybe compete if the division sucks and they can hover around .500.

[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

And they missed the postseason. Huh. I guess spending more wasn't the solution.

 

So "Spending is inversely proportionate to winning" was your point then huh?

[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.

 

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

And they missed the postseason. Huh. I guess spending more wasn't the solution.

 

So "Spending is inversely proportionate to winning" was your point then huh?

No, my point was spending is not the thing that's proportionate to winning.

 

Being smart and well run and having superior drafting and development is the thing that's proportionate to winning. And this is what Epstein has excelled at. He surely has not excelled at the spending part.

[jersey cubs fan]

The fact that spending more doesn't guarantee winning or that lower payroll teams have contended is absolutely meaningless.

 

You can't take a team that already has a high payroll and a pathetic supply of prospects, slash that payroll and expect them to contend anytime soon.

 

If they were a $100m payroll team already, that would be one thing. But they aren't.

[davearm2]

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.

 

Actually, they do need to be in the top 10 teams in terms of spending, ideally the top 5. It makes it much, much easier to deal with the mistakes and catastrophes that can and will happen. They don't have the farm system in place that can bolster a sub-$100 million payroll and will not for quite some time. They need to maintain a higher payroll while they work to achieve the latter instead of just wallowing in the doldrums as a team that can maybe compete if the division sucks and they can hover around .500.

I think we all realize that the transition we're discussing here is going to be phased in over several years. The payroll is not going below $100M immediately, nor is the farm system going to be fixed overnight.

[Guest]

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

And they missed the postseason. Huh. I guess spending more wasn't the solution.

 

So "Spending is inversely proportionate to winning" was your point then huh?

No, my point was spending is not the thing that's proportionate to winning.

 

Being smart and well run and having superior drafting and development is the thing that's proportionate to winning. And this is what Epstein has excelled at. He surely has not excelled at the spending part.

 

 

But even if this idealized situation where the farm system produces a bunch of important consistently productive players comes to fruition, you'd need to then spend lots of money to keep that team together. Unless you really want to handcuff them into having to produce replacements all the time, too...and not being able to spend around injuries.

 

Spending more helps. A lot.

[Guest]

The fact that spending more doesn't guarantee winning or that lower payroll teams have contended is absolutely meaningless.

 

You can't take a team that already has a high payroll and a pathetic supply of prospects, slash that payroll and expect them to contend anytime soon.

 

If they were a $100m payroll team already, that would be one thing. But they aren't.

 

 

Maybe they don't.

 

I highly doubt it if they're planning on spending "big" on Theo Epstein right now, though.

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

Actually, they do need to be in the top 10 teams in terms of spending, ideally the top 5. It makes it much, much easier to deal with the mistakes and catastrophes that can and will happen. They don't have the farm system in place that can bolster a sub-$100 million payroll and will not for quite some time. They need to maintain a higher payroll while they work to achieve the latter instead of just wallowing in the doldrums as a team that can maybe compete if the division sucks and they can hover around .500.

I think we all realize that the transition we're discussing here is going to be phased in over several years. The payroll is not going below $100M immediately, nor is the farm system going to be fixed overnight.

 

It shouldn't be phased into reality ever. Not for the Cubs. They don't have to go cheap, even relatively speaking. They can have both.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

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).

 

just because the money wasn't efficiently spent, doesn't mean that it was unnecessary.

 

that fact is, having more money and having a higher payroll gives you more margin for error and gives you the ability to take high-dollar risks, even if 1 in 5 pan out and help you win a world series.

 

i'd rather have that ability than have to wait on 10 prospects.

[Guancous]

Theo Epstein already signed. They haven't announced it yet because he enjoys reading pages of semantic gymnastics and people arguing past each other.

[davearm2]

No, my point was spending is not the thing that's proportionate to winning.

 

Being smart and well run and having superior drafting and development is the thing that's proportionate to winning. And this is what Epstein has excelled at. He surely has not excelled at the spending part.

 

 

But even if this idealized situation where the farm system produces a bunch of important consistently productive players comes to fruition, you'd need to then spend lots of money to keep that team together. Unless you really want to handcuff them into having to produce replacements all the time, too...and not being able to spend around injuries.

 

Spending more helps. A lot.

Agreed, and that's a good problem to have. Fortunately the Cubs have a virtually flawless record of retaining their key young players (Sosa, Wood, Ramirez, Lee, etc) when they reach their free agent years.

 

We're surely not at the point right now where the payroll has to be maintained at its current level or else key guys are going to get away, though.

[jersey cubs fan]

Theo Epstein already signed. They haven't announced it yet because he enjoys reading pages of semantic gymnastics and people arguing past each other.

 

It's not semantics when somebody tries to make an idiotic point.

[SouthSideRyan]

Theo Epstein already signed. They haven't announced it yet because he enjoys reading pages of semantic gymnastics and people arguing past each other.

 

It's not semantics when somebody tries to make an idiotic point.

 

Based on what some clueless hack said on the radio.

[davearm2]

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.

 

Actually, they do need to be in the top 10 teams in terms of spending, ideally the top 5. It makes it much, much easier to deal with the mistakes and catastrophes that can and will happen. They don't have the farm system in place that can bolster a sub-$100 million payroll and will not for quite some time. They need to maintain a higher payroll while they work to achieve the latter instead of just wallowing in the doldrums as a team that can maybe compete if the division sucks and they can hover around .500.

I think we all realize that the transition we're discussing here is going to be phased in over several years. The payroll is not going below $100M immediately, nor is the farm system going to be fixed overnight.

 

It shouldn't be phased into reality ever. Not for the Cubs. They don't have to go cheap, even relatively speaking. They can have both.

I don't think we'll see the Cubs fall out of the top 5 payrolls in the NL, nor am I proposing that they should. And I'm fine with being in that range. Frankly what the Yankees and Red Sox or anyone else in the AL want to spend doesn't concern me.

[Magnetic Curses]

I don't think we'll see the Cubs fall out of the top 5 payrolls in the NL, nor am I proposing that they should. And I'm fine with being in that range.

 

well, that's certainly a load off of everyone's mind. i'm glad you're fine with a team you have no financial stake in spending money.

[hawkeyecub]

I saw 3 new pages from this morning and got really excited that something was breaking.

 

This sucks.

[Magnetic Curses]

I saw 3 new pages from this morning and got really excited that something was breaking.

 

This sucks.

 

if something breaks, the threat title will change

[Elrhino]

I saw 3 new pages from this morning and got really excited that something was breaking.

 

This sucks.

 

Something important did happen. Someone was wrong on the internet.

[Banedon]

I saw 3 new pages from this morning and got really excited that something was breaking.

 

This sucks.

 

if something breaks, the threat title will change

 

Might even just start a new one and lock this sucker.

[jersey cubs fan]

I saw 3 new pages from this morning and got really excited that something was breaking.

 

This sucks.

 

if something breaks, the threat title will change

 

Threat Level Midnight?

[Little Slide Rooter]

I really don't know how they'd manage a 100MM team next year with 75 MM already on the books between Z(18), Soriano(18), Dempster(14 option), Garza(7-8), Byrd(6.5) Marmol(7), and the 5 MM owed to Pena. Lets not forget any raises due to guys like Soto, Marshall, Castro, and Samardzjia. Pick up Aramis' option, and were well over 90MM without any additions.

[mookie]

The plot thickens. I can't wait till everything comes into focus. This place is going to blow up, down, and all around once something is announced.

[Guest]

The plot thickens. I can't wait till everything comes into focus. This place is going to blow up, down, and all around once something is announced.

 

 

Site has already been having issues when there hasn't even been even small news.