Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Hairyducked Idiot]

No, you're not.

 

Am too.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nah. It's not some kind of mystery.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It means the damn trust fund isn't as large as it could be from Papa Joe. They're bracing for the spending on the renovations. Who gives a [expletive] what kind of profits there are? Its going towards the renovations. Seems pretty cut and dry honestly. If you'd rather just assume the FO, who has said they'd be transparent from the beginning is lying, go for it. As others have said, you don't deserve this FO. Go be a Dodgers fan, they've got money to spend immediately. And then watch us have a better team with half the payroll in 2 years or less.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/6706/ricketts-selling-points-to-epstein

 

Ricketts stated before the last game of the season that the overall baseball budget will remain the same, estimated at $200 million. That is the total amount spent on operations of the baseball department.

 

I simply find it very hard to square that interview, which was given at the end of the 2011 season and referred to 2012, with the implication that the decision to cut the MLB payroll to $109 million was due to a lowered baseball budget from low revenues and/or debt service and/or saving up for renovations. The two statements seem to be contradictory to me, unless you have an explanation that ties them together?

 

Of course, I think that was the same interview in which Ricketts gave this quote:

 

One thing we've seen in baseball over the last few years is that turnarounds can happen pretty quickly. So I don't think it's fair to describe a year as a rebuilding year or reloading year. That fact is you get the right players on the team and they stay healthy and they play hard, a team can go from 70 wins to 90 wins. It can happen pretty quickly. Look at the Diamondbacks and even the Cubs a few years ago. So that's how we look at it.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, they changed the baseball budget. WHOOOOOAAAAA, CRAZY, WE CRACKED THE CASE.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yeah, they changed the baseball budget. WHOOOOOAAAAA, CRAZY, WE CRACKED THE CASE.

 

They changed it between Sept/Oct. of 2011 and Dec. 2011? Why?

[Sammy Sofa]

Because they either didn't want to spend that much or couldn't. See how easy this is?

[SouthSideRyan]

Because they either didn't want to spend that much or couldn't. See how easy this is?

 

Either one is a problem.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because they either didn't want to spend that much or couldn't. See how easy this is?

 

OK, so under this theory, sometime between late Sept./early Oct. of 2011 and when free agency was happening that offseason, Ricketts gained new information about revenue projections that caused him to lower the baseball budget significantly.

 

That seems plausible to you?

[Guest]

Because they either didn't want to spend that much or couldn't. See how easy this is?

 

Either one is a problem.

 

I'll take couldn't because it's a much more fixable and shorter term problem than having an owner who just doesn't want to.

[Guest]

I wonder if it was really true or not that they weren't going to sign Edwin if they signed Anibal. There were reports suggesting both...and I think Jed said they weren't...but that doesn't mean it's true.

 

That'd go a long way toward knowing if the payroll is the result of limitations or the FO just deciding that other guys weren't worthwhile investments.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I wonder if it was really true or not that they weren't going to sign Edwin if they signed Anibal. There were reports suggesting both...and I think Jed said they weren't...but that doesn't mean it's true.

 

That'd go a long way toward knowing if the payroll is the result of limitations or the FO just deciding that other guys weren't worthwhile investments.

 

I can sort of believe that the 2013 payroll is being hamstrung by revenue issues. Ricketts could have realized sometime last year that he wasn't going to get any sort of subsidy and needed to look for alternatives.

 

But it's hard to line up his statements plausibly to believe that the 2012 MLB payroll, and the decisions made in the 2011-12 offseason, were heavily restricted by revenue issues.

[Sammy Sofa]

Because they either didn't want to spend that much or couldn't. See how easy this is?

 

Either one is a problem.

 

Of course; I'm not happy about how shitty the team is. I'm just tired of this constant rehashing of...all of this, like there's some kind of big, nefarious conspiracy to hide the truth from Kyle. They either don't have the money or they don't want to spend it. Either scenario sucks, but that's what it is.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Of course; I'm not happy about how [expletive] the team is. I'm just tired of this constant rehashing of...all of this, like there's some kind of big, nefarious conspiracy to hide the truth from Kyle. They either don't have the money or they don't want to spend it. Either scenario sucks, but that's what it is.

 

I didn't bring this up.

 

But why the heck wouldn't you want to talk about it? Either way, it's probably the most important story in Cubs baseball of the decade.

[Guest]

I wonder if it was really true or not that they weren't going to sign Edwin if they signed Anibal. There were reports suggesting both...and I think Jed said they weren't...but that doesn't mean it's true.

 

That'd go a long way toward knowing if the payroll is the result of limitations or the FO just deciding that other guys weren't worthwhile investments.

 

I can sort of believe that the 2013 payroll is being hamstrung by revenue issues. Ricketts could have realized sometime last year that he wasn't going to get any sort of subsidy and needed to look for alternatives.

 

But it's hard to line up his statements plausibly to believe that the 2012 MLB payroll, and the decisions made in the 2011-12 offseason, were heavily restricted by revenue issues.

 

So, in my world, that just means I'm a little mad at them for not locking up Cespedes (and who knows if they were given a chance to match or if the A's told him he had to take or leave - I seem to remember something like that being suggested) and for not going bigger on Darvish, I guess...on the one hand, it's hard to know what it takes to win a blind bid, especially if the Cubs were second... on the other hand it probably was going to take a lot more than they reportedly did bid (mid teens?).

 

I can't blame them for Aramis because I definitely didn't think he was worth bringing back given his age, recent injury history and the really bad 2010.

 

And I'm definitely glad we got Rizzo instead of signing Pujols to that contract... Fielder too.

[Sammy Sofa]

Of course; I'm not happy about how [expletive] the team is. I'm just tired of this constant rehashing of...all of this, like there's some kind of big, nefarious conspiracy to hide the truth from Kyle. They either don't have the money or they don't want to spend it. Either scenario sucks, but that's what it is.

 

I didn't bring this up.

 

But why the heck wouldn't you want to talk about it? Either way, it's probably the most important story in Cubs baseball of the decade.

 

I'm happy to talk about it when it's actually news. Wailing and gnashing teeth about on a regular basis when there aren't any changes or news doesn't seem terribly meaningful.

[neely crenshaw]

http://geardiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg

 

Story of this board in a nutshell.

[Guest]

I feel like some of this was posted but not all...

 

Addressing the importance of getting the renovations deal done, Epstein alluded to renegotiated TV contracts and ‘‘other factors’’ in addition to the renovations.

 

But make no mistake:

 

‘‘We need revenues to increase in order for us to execute our baseball plan,” he said Tuesday before the Cubs’ 4-2 loss to the Rangers. ‘‘We expect them to, and we have a lot of folks on the business side working hard for that. We’re not where we want to be where we want to be right now in terms of payroll. As you know, it’s gone down.

 

‘‘As we move forward with our baseball plan, eventually it’ll go back up. That in and of itself won’t be a determining factor in our success. We need to generate a stream of young talent through our farm system. But we want to complement that with some aggressiveness in free agency.’’

 

They almost certainly must if they’re going to find enough pitching to compete by 2015.

 

‘‘My job is to come up with a baseball plan and execute it,’’ Epstein said, ‘‘but we need the business plan to come through.’’

 

When pushed for a reason why renovations are a prerequisite for contending again, Epstein said: ‘‘Our payroll now is third in the division. That’s fine. But it should be first in the division. So this is one of the ways that we’re going to get there.’’

 

Of course, Epstein wasn’t around when the Cubs’ payroll was first in the division only a few years ago. Those resources obviously are no longer in the baseball department, despite growing operating revenues.

 

Maybe that Jumbotron will come with a big enough switch to put a charge in the ballclub, too.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/19529027-573/cubs-refrain-only-fixing-wrigley-can-fund-a-winner.html

 

I'm glad he's talking about this and is saying those things. I just want to know it's not going to take a stupidly long time to get there.

 

 

And of course Wittenmyer with the dig at ownership at the end.

[dfnowak]

Nice try rooftop owners...nice try. So, comical:

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-16/news/chi-cubs-rooftop-fans-worry-about-wrigley-field-stadium-plans-20130416_1_rooftop-clubs-cubs-17-percent-wrigley-field

 

If the views were blocked, "we wouldn't have picked this rooftop honestly and pay the prices the rooftop people pay," said Rebecca Lim of Chicago. Lim said she and her husband, Elijah, like watching the Cubs from a rooftop club because of the all-you-can-eat food and the bird's-eye view of the stadium.

 

The Lims, other customers of rooftop clubs and members of nearby neighborhood associations gathered at the Ivy League club at the invitation of the Wrigleyville Rooftop Association, which was holding a neighborhood appreciation event.

 

The proposed renovations to the nearly century-old Wrigley Field also would bring a Jumbotron-like screen to left field, which sources say could be three times as large as the center field scoreboard at 6,000 square feet.

 

Mike Orlando, who also was watching the game from the rooftop club at 3637 N. Sheffield, said it's hard to see how the proposed video screen and the large sign wouldn't block views.

 

"It's going to be terrible," Orlando said before the game, looking out to the stadium from the rooftop club. "There's no way they'd be able to see."

 

Rooftop club owners have said any sign that partially blocked their customers' view would violate their contract with the team, which ends in 2023. The rooftop clubs give the Cubs 17 percent of their revenue under the contract.

 

Beth Murphy, who owns a rooftop club at 3649 N. Sheffield Ave., said the clubs and the Cubs could work out a compromise.

 

"I'm sure there's some sort of mediation that could be done," Murphy said. "Nobody has talked to us about compensation and the like of it. I think we have in some sense been painted as villains in the face of the Cubs winning the World Series."

 

David Duggan, president of the South Lakeview Neighbors Association, said he hopes the rooftop clubs continue because they are a better place to watch the game.

 

"Wrigley Field is a 100-year-old dump that needs to be renovated to be moderately acceptable," Duggan said. "The rooftops are producing a better product than the Cubs."

[jersey cubs fan]

I feel like some of this was posted but not all...

 

Maybe that Jumbotron will come with a big enough switch to put a charge in the ballclub, too.

 

And of course Wittenmyer with the dig at ownership at the end.

 

Is that what you are referring to? Because I don't see it as a dig at ownership at all, but rather a dig at a crappy baseball team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It sure looks to me like this is Epstein just doing his usual, masterful, vague misdirections to try to reset the standards by which he is judged.

 

Based on what we know of the Cubs' finances and the Forbes report, there's not really any good reason they couldn't have a payroll high enough to compete right now.

 

He makes it sound as if the lack of renovations are the reason payroll has dropped so much in recent years, without actually saying it. It's not lying, but it is spin control of the highest level. He's connecting two ideas that shouldn't have any real connection, in order to deflect attention away from the fact that either he or his boss made a decision to drop payroll that is directly effecting the rather pitiful win percentage we've seen over the last 13 months.

 

Maybe it was the best thing for the franchise to lower payroll, become awful and let the larger contracts expire without replacement. I don't believe it was. But either way, it didn't happen because of the lack of renovations.

[MWV]

Nice try rooftop owners...nice try. So, comical:

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-04-16/news/chi-cubs-rooftop-fans-worry-about-wrigley-field-stadium-plans-20130416_1_rooftop-clubs-cubs-17-percent-wrigley-field

 

"Wrigley Field is a 100-year-old dump that needs to be renovated to be moderately acceptable," Duggan said. "The rooftops are producing a better product than the Cubs."

 

I don't know which is more absurd: The suggestion that the rooftops "produce" anything, or the failure to acknowledge that the objections of rooftop owners are precisely what is preventing Wrigley from being renovated.

[Guest]

I feel like some of this was posted but not all...

 

Maybe that Jumbotron will come with a big enough switch to put a charge in the ballclub, too.

 

And of course Wittenmyer with the dig at ownership at the end.

 

Is that what you are referring to? Because I don't see it as a dig at ownership at all, but rather a dig at a crappy baseball team.

 

I meant this. Thought it fit in with his recent agenda of pushing the idea that the Cubs are pretending to be broke and actually lining their own coffers while going through an unnecessary rebuild.

 

Of course, Epstein wasn’t around when the Cubs’ payroll was first in the division only a few years ago. Those resources obviously are no longer in the baseball department, despite growing operating revenues.

[jersey cubs fan]

I meant this. Thought it fit in with his recent agenda of pushing the idea that the Cubs are pretending to be broke and actually lining their own coffers while going through an unnecessary rebuild.

 

Of course, Epstein wasn’t around when the Cubs’ payroll was first in the division only a few years ago. Those resources obviously are no longer in the baseball department, despite growing operating revenues.

 

I don't know about the lining the coffers idea but it's pretty much an irrefutable fact that they have pulled back payroll they can afford to provide, but choose not to for now. A media member following this team absolutely should include statements like that in a discussion of the circumstances surrounding the team.

[Guest]

I meant this. Thought it fit in with his recent agenda of pushing the idea that the Cubs are pretending to be broke and actually lining their own coffers while going through an unnecessary rebuild.

 

Of course, Epstein wasn’t around when the Cubs’ payroll was first in the division only a few years ago. Those resources obviously are no longer in the baseball department, despite growing operating revenues.

 

I don't know about the lining the coffers idea but it's pretty much an irrefutable fact that they have pulled back payroll they can afford to provide, but choose not to for now. A media member following this team absolutely should include statements like that in a discussion of the circumstances surrounding the team.

 

I guess that depends on how you look at things. If payroll was reduced to privately fund renovations, does that count as money they can afford to provide to payroll but aren't? I suppose, technically, yes, but if they truly need to do that to do what needs to be done, then I understand doing it.

[SouthSideRyan]

"The rooftops are producing a better product than the Cubs."

 

lol