Off Season Budget

[WrigleyField 22]

There are a lot of variables to consider, obviously, but what do people think we'll have to spend this off season in FA?

 

My assumptions:

We will end up paying most or all of Z's contract.

Dempster and Ramirez back on their option years.

Marlon Byrd could be traded without eating any salary. (replaced by Brett Jackson)

 

The last two big variables are what Ricketts sets the budget at and what the arbitration eligible players get (namely Soto and Garza).

 

Just playing with numbers, we could have as little as $15M to spend or as much as $30M. I'm thinking $20-25 assuming we don't trade any higher salary players to clear additional room. And we'll probably have the following needs:

 

Starting OF- I guess you could keep Byrd too, but our OF would look like Soriano, Jackson, Colvin, and Campana. I would live with a Colvin/Soriano split in LF. So you need to keep Byrd and one of him or Jackson plays RF or trade Byrd and look for a cheaper RF option. I'm going with the latter. Hand over the spot to Jackson

 

2 Starting pitchers. We'll have Garza and Dempster. The 5th spot could probably be handled with a spring training competition of Cashner, Wells, or other cheap guy in system.

 

1st Base. Obviously there is Pujols and Fielder. You could bring back Pena, but there isn't much opportunity to backload Pena since the deal won't be as long. Is it realistic to start Fielder or Pujols at a contract the starts at only 11-15M for the first year? That would leave us with enough room to fill out the other spots we need to fill.

 

How much is the new GM going to have to spend, and will he have to severely back load contracts just to fill the teams' needs?

[CubColtPacer]

Accounting for all three of your variables and assuming payroll remains the same, the Cubs would have 53.9 million left before arbitration players, deciding on Samardzija's option, and minimum salary players (also depending on how Pena's money is budgeted). The players who will have a chance for arbitration next season made 11.91 million this year. They probably will be somewhere between 15-20 million. So depending on those factors, the Cubs will have somewhere between 21-38 million to spend.

[MSG T]

Are you subtracting the money owed Z from the amount coming off the books? If you are, you shouldn't, they'll pay him anyway, his money isn't due to come off until after 2012. Now, if they pick up Aramis' option, then that money would get subtracted. Cot's has Dempster down at $14 next season, not as an option.

 

According to Cots, money coming off this year.

 

Aramis - $14.6 ($2 mil buyout)

Kosuke - $14.5

Pena - $10

Grabow - $4.8

Samardzija - $3.3 (opt)

Wood - $1.5

Johnson - $.9

Silva - $7.25 ($2 mil buyout) (I think I read it correctly)

 

total - $52.85 mil

 

That doesn't include raises or arbitration, just expiring contracts.

[WrigleyField 22]

Yea I used Cots too. Dempsters is a player option. And I did include Z. Here's what I'm seeing, pre arb:

 

$18.00 	Soriano, Alfonso
$18.00 	Zambrano, Carlos
$16.00 	Ramirez, Aramis
$14.00 	Dempster, Ryan
$6.50 	Byrd, Marlon
$7.00 	Marmol, Carlos
$3.10 	Marshall, Sean
$2.00 	Silva, Carlos
$84.60 	

 

My best guess at arb figures (I'm terrible at guessing) and FA retaining:

$3.00 	Samardzija, Jeff
$7.75 	Garza, Matt
$4.55 	Soto, Geovany
$1.90 	Baker, Jeff
$0.80 	Wells, Randy
$0.80 	DeWitt, Blake
$1.75 	Wood, Kerry
$20.55 	

Thats only 13 players. Now maybe Zambrano is traded for a guy who we can plug into the roster and thats 14 guys, but we're pretty sure to pay the same net amount. So thats $105M for 13 players. I could see probably 8 non-arb players filling CF, 2B, SS, bullpen, 5th starter, bench roles. Estimated those at $4M, so we are at about $110. Thats 4 spots for starting RF, 2 SP, and maybe one other bench/bullpen role.

 

Then budget is really a huge guess. With all the amateur money we spent, Ricketts could decide to have a $120 budget. Or he could keep it at the $134M it was at. Thats a range of $10-$24M. Trading Byrd for prospects would make it $16.5M-$30M.

 

So the big questions are what the arbitration eligible guys get and what Ricketts sets the budget. What are people's thoughts?

[Little Slide Rooter]

If we do pick up Aramis' 16 mil option, the wise thing to do would be to save that 1.9 mil and let Jeff Baker walk, leaving DeWitt, Flaherty, LeMahieu, Marwin Gonzalez, and Jon Mota fight it out for the 2 backup infield spots. Heck, I'd be all for lettin Baker and DeWitt walk and save over 2.5 mil. May as well trade them by the end of the month. If we do keep Aramis and land Fielder, we'll need to save money somewhere, and it Baker and DeWitts saving might not sound like a ton, but I don't think that they'd provide enough of an advantage over one of the farm hands.

[WrigleyField 22]

If we do pick up Aramis' 16 mil option, the wise thing to do would be to save that 1.9 mil and let Jeff Baker walk, leaving DeWitt, Flaherty, LeMahieu, Marwin Gonzalez, and Jon Mota fight it out for the 2 backup infield spots. Heck, I'd be all for lettin Baker and DeWitt walk and save over 2.5 mil. May as well trade them by the end of the month. If we do keep Aramis and land Fielder, we'll need to save money somewhere, and it Baker and DeWitts saving might not sound like a ton, but I don't think that they'd provide enough of an advantage over one of the farm hands.

I could see letting them both go. They do hold value as utility guys though. And Baker particulary is a nice half of a platoon player if whoever our 2B is sucks (Darwin, LeMahieu, whoever). Dewitt would be easier to get rid of. Wells could be gone as well if someone beats him for the 5th rotation spot. Both of those savings would be pretty small though.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Based on Ricketts' statements, I'm guessing the extra draft/IFA money came straight out of the MLB budget. We may be looking at something like $125 million next year.

[abohnhoff]

IMO the Cubs are in this situation because of so many backloaded contracts.

 

So if the only way they can afford Fielder or Pujols is to severely backload yet another contract, then I think that would be a bad decision.

 

Would going with LaHair and spending the extra $10-$15 mil on a front end starting pitcher be such a bad idea? I know everyone classifies him as a AAAA player but the dude is straight raking in Iowa. Just trying to think out of the box a bit.

[SouthSideRyan]

Backloading is always a good idea.

[Sammy Sofa]

IMO the Cubs are in this situation because of so many backloaded contracts.

 

Explain.

 

I have a feeling you're inflating the reality of the backloaded contracts they have. If Soriano's was spread out equally they'd be saving, what, a million dollars? If Zambrano's was spread out equally they'd save a few hundred thousand. Who has the contracts where the backloading is specifically hampering the Cubs' spending in the offseason?

[jersey cubs fan]

IMO the Cubs are in this situation because of so many backloaded contracts.

 

The Cubs are in this situation because they allowed Jim Hendry to run the damn team for too damn long (which is more than a day).

[Little Slide Rooter]

Would going with LaHair and spending the extra $10-$15 mil on a front end starting pitcher be such a bad idea?

 

Yes. Yes it would. I would love to see what LaHair could do just for the hell of it if we can move Pena, but he is by no means a replacement for Pujols or Fielder, no matter which pitcher we could sign.

[Cubs Fan Dan]

2 players I want are Fielder and Wilson (no shocker), I would also like to monitor Swisher as well but I am sure the yanks will pick up the option on him.

 

The dodgers situation interests me as well and I would be curious to hear their stance on Ethier, Feilder/Ethier would be unbelieveable even without Rammy coming back.

 

Cannot wait for offseason to come...

[WrigleyField 22]

Yea, its odd because backloading can hurt you, but looking at just next year, it doesn't effect us. It has probably had more potential to hamper us in past years, but our budget was sufficiently large enough to absorb the backloaded portions of deals alright.

 

Length of contract has harmed, us, though really just Soriano.

 

Front loading could be good if you were in a position where you for some reason have a lot of money to spend and very few open roster spots.

[SouthSideRyan]

Front-loading is never a good idea.

[JimSorgi]

Would going with LaHair and spending the extra $10-$15 mil on a front end starting pitcher be such a bad idea?

This is one of those questions that shouldn't be asked ever.

[WrigleyField 22]

Front-loading is never a good idea.

It would be rare, but:

 

1. Few roster spots open

2. Many raises due soon

3. Money to spend

4. Uncertainty about revenue being reinvested. (So for instance with Ricketts, its fairly certain any money we don't spend will be put back into the club. If the owner was still the Trib, maybe not)

 

Given those 4 parameters, front-loading could be advisable. Given our ownership, your statement is true for Cubs purposes.

 

And of course there is backloading and backloading so much that its unrealistic to expect to keep up with your payroll. The latter is bad, obviously. I think if we wanted to get Pujols or Fielder, that could become a reality given a couple other needs we will have. I can't imagine Fielder's or Pujols' first year salary being smaller than $11 for Fielder or $15 for Pujols and not be a major detriment down the road.

[UMFan83]

People should remember to include Pena's $5 mil in their estimations.

[davearm2]

Backloading is always a good idea.

From the perspective of the time-value of money, you're right.

 

From the perspective of managing a payroll, you're not.

 

Imagine if a team like the Royals signed a bunch of veterans to backloaded contracts that ramped up at the same time that guys like Hosmer, Moustakas, etc. were hitting arbitration/free agency. That would not be good, because the backloaded contracts would prevent them from keeping their younger stars.

 

In that instance, they would be better served paying off the veterans while the young guys are still cheap.

[SouthSideRyan]

You pay a certain player one way, you budget another. You should never voluntarily pay out more money to a player at the start of a contract than at the end.

[WrigleyField 22]

People should remember to include Pena's $5 mil in their estimations.

I for some reason though that although part of his salary was deferred, it was just deferred until the end of this year and would then be included with this years budget. Just basically a way to put off the payment rather than making it equal throughout the year. You may be right though.

Edited August 24, 2011 by WrigleyField 22

[Sammy Sofa]

People should remember to include Pena's $5 mil in their estimations.

I for some reason though that although part of his salary was deferred, it was just deferred until the end of this year and would then be included with this years budget. Just basically a way to out off the payment rather than making it equal throughout the year. You may be right though.

 

Yeah, I would hope that it wasn't counted against next year's budget since it has to be paid by January 2012.

[WrigleyField 22]

People should remember to include Pena's $5 mil in their estimations.

I for some reason though that although part of his salary was deferred, it was just deferred until the end of this year and would then be included with this years budget. Just basically a way to out off the payment rather than making it equal throughout the year. You may be right though.

 

Yeah, I would hope that it wasn't counted against next year's budget since it has to be paid by January 2012.

Actually thinking about it Silva's $2M is from a buyout I think, so that is probably counted against 2011 also.

[dew1679666265]

Backloading is always a good idea.

From the perspective of the time-value of money, you're right.

 

From the perspective of managing a payroll, you're not.

 

Imagine if a team like the Royals signed a bunch of veterans to backloaded contracts that ramped up at the same time that guys like Hosmer, Moustakas, etc. were hitting arbitration/free agency. That would not be good, because the backloaded contracts would prevent them from keeping their younger stars.

 

In that instance, they would be better served paying off the veterans while the young guys are still cheap.

 

The problem there would really be the Royals with a tiny budget signing a bunch of veterans period.

[jersey cubs fan]

You pay a certain player one way, you budget another. You should never voluntarily pay out more money to a player at the start of a contract than at the end.

 

Why?