Wrigley Renovation Thread

[apete6]

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.

 

You could make an argument (not a great one) that the amount of $$$ used to upgrade the player facilities could be considered "in the baseball department".

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

But other than the infrastructure, none of the renovations are necessary. They're designed to make more money for a club with the 3rd highest revenue in baseball.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

The significant payroll drop came between 2011 and 2012, which means it predates the Cubs giving up on a public subsidy.

 

The timeline doesn't add up at all for that explanation. It's just the Cubs' latest attempt to spin and deflect.

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

 

I don't see how it depends on that at all. They chose to reduce payroll despite the fact that they could afford it. That's all there is to it.

[Guest]

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.

 

 

I don't see how it depends on that at all. They chose to reduce payroll despite the fact that they could afford it. That's all there is to it.

 

I'm just saying that if something else is reasonably deemed a higher priority, then it's not that cut and dried.

 

I mean, there are a lot of things they spend money on that they could dump out and ship to MLB payroll. What does "afford to provide" mean?

[Andy]

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.

 

 

I don't see how it depends on that at all. They chose to reduce payroll despite the fact that they could afford it. That's all there is to it.

 

I'm just saying that if something else is reasonably deemed a higher priority, then it's not that cut and dried.

 

I mean, there are a lot of things they spend money on that they could dump out and ship to MLB payroll. What does "afford to provide" mean?

Well, given that MLB has taken away the ability to outspend other teams in the draft and internationally, I have to imagine the list of alternate financial pipelines isn't all that long.

[Guest]

But other than the infrastructure, none of the renovations are necessary. They're designed to make more money for a club with the 3rd highest revenue in baseball.

 

Fair enough...although I'd argue that the player facility upgrades are a necessity and long overdue (and embarrassing in their current state).

 

Could still be a better long term use of their money, though.

 

If all of this [expletive] ultimately (and in a relatively timely matter) takes us from what would otherwise be the Yankees of just the NL Central (but well behind other teams in MLB who have pulled way ahead or already were ahead) to Yankees/Dodgers of MLB status, I'm OK with it.

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

 

I don't see how it depends on that at all. They chose to reduce payroll despite the fact that they could afford it. That's all there is to it.

 

I'm just saying that if something else is reasonably deemed a higher priority, then it's not that cut and dried.

 

I mean, there are a lot of things they spend money on that they could dump out and ship to MLB payroll. What does "afford to provide" mean?

 

It means what it means. The quality of the play on the field is the product they sell and they have intentionally reduced the quality of that product.

[jersey cubs fan]

But other than the infrastructure, none of the renovations are necessary. They're designed to make more money for a club with the 3rd highest revenue in baseball.

 

Fair enough...although I'd argue that the player facility upgrades are a necessity and long overdue (and embarrassing in their current state).

 

Could still be a better long term use of their money, though.

 

If all of this [expletive] ultimately (and in a relatively timely matter) takes us from what would otherwise be the Yankees of just the NL Central (but well behind other teams in MLB who have pulled way ahead or already were ahead) to Yankees/Dodgers of MLB status, I'm OK with it.

 

Whether or not it is a better choice in the long run to cut back on payroll and funnel operating revenues into infrastructure upgrades, that doesn't change the facts of exactly what Wittenmeyer said and what every media member reporting on the Cubs should say. Don't get mad at the media who reports on that fact. If you are fine with it, fine. But the resources that were once there are not there now.

[davell]

I'm with David. As long as it eventually turns the Cubs into the Yankees of the NL Central, I'm fine with it. It doesn't mean we can't contend until 2016 or some crap. We'll have 40 mill to spend next year, if we keep the payroll the same. We'll need a CFer, a 3B, and a TOR starting pitcher. It's not THAT tall of a task.

[Guest]

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.

 

 

I don't see how it depends on that at all. They chose to reduce payroll despite the fact that they could afford it. That's all there is to it.

 

I'm just saying that if something else is reasonably deemed a higher priority, then it's not that cut and dried.

 

I mean, there are a lot of things they spend money on that they could dump out and ship to MLB payroll. What does "afford to provide" mean?

Well, given that MLB has taken away the ability to outspend other teams in the draft and internationally, I have to imagine the list of alternate financial pipelines isn't all that long.

 

I'm just saying that some money the Cubs makes goes to payroll and some goes to a bunch of other stuff they need to spend on to actually run the team. Where do you draw the line between what they can and can't afford on payroll if new ownership just decided that spending a chunk of what used to be payroll money on renovations (obviously the biggest one here) or on a Dominican facility or on marketing, or anything else rather than what the Tribune saw fit?

 

That's not to bring up whether the Ricketts should just be funding that work on their own (or if they can't and therefore you question whether they should own the franchise)...

Edited April 17, 2013 by David

[Guest]

I'm with David. As long as it eventually turns the Cubs into the Yankees of the NL Central, I'm fine with it. It doesn't mean we can't contend until 2016 or some crap. We'll have 40 mill to spend next year, if we keep the payroll the same. We'll need a CFer, a 3B, and a TOR starting pitcher. It's not THAT tall of a task.

 

We had better be the Yankees of baseball if we're doing all this. We can be the Yankees of the central without it.

[Backtobanks]

But other than the infrastructure, none of the renovations are necessary. They're designed to make more money for a club with the 3rd highest revenue in baseball.

 

Fair enough...although I'd argue that the player facility upgrades are a necessity and long overdue (and embarrassing in their current state).

 

Could still be a better long term use of their money, though.

 

If all of this [expletive] ultimately (and in a relatively timely matter) takes us from what would otherwise be the Yankees of just the NL Central (but well behind other teams in MLB who have pulled way ahead or already were ahead) to Yankees/Dodgers of MLB status, I'm OK with it.

 

Let's get one WS championship before we start comparing us to the Yankees.

[Gmoney08]

But other than the infrastructure, none of the renovations are necessary. They're designed to make more money for a club with the 3rd highest revenue in baseball.

 

Fair enough...although I'd argue that the player facility upgrades are a necessity and long overdue (and embarrassing in their current state).

 

Could still be a better long term use of their money, though.

 

If all of this [expletive] ultimately (and in a relatively timely matter) takes us from what would otherwise be the Yankees of just the NL Central (but well behind other teams in MLB who have pulled way ahead or already were ahead) to Yankees/Dodgers of MLB status, I'm OK with it.

 

Let's get one WS championship before we start comparing us to the Yankees.

 

We were already the Yankees of the 1800's. Hell [expletive] the Yanks, they were the Cubs of the 1900's ;)

 

Mod edit: Just let the word filter do its thing and don't misspell words to try and get around it.

[Soul]

I'm with David. As long as it eventually turns the Cubs into the Yankees of the NL Central, I'm fine with it. It doesn't mean we can't contend until 2016 or some crap. We'll have 40 mill to spend next year, if we keep the payroll the same. We'll need a CFer, a 3B, and a TOR starting pitcher. It's not THAT tall of a task.

 

We had better be the Yankees of baseball if we're doing all this. We can be the Yankees of the central without it.

 

Eh, I'm with jersey. They've got to start spending money at the major league level at some point, and over the past few months I've been disappointed with what appears to be a clear signal that they will delay that part of the plan.

 

I was expecting contention in 2014, and it seemed quite reasonable back when Ricketts took over. I don't like the shifting sands of expectations that are taking place here. It doesn't need to take forever to do this. 2016 is forever -- too long.

[Guest]

I'm with David. As long as it eventually turns the Cubs into the Yankees of the NL Central, I'm fine with it. It doesn't mean we can't contend until 2016 or some crap. We'll have 40 mill to spend next year, if we keep the payroll the same. We'll need a CFer, a 3B, and a TOR starting pitcher. It's not THAT tall of a task.

 

We had better be the Yankees of baseball if we're doing all this. We can be the Yankees of the central without it.

 

Eh, I'm with jersey. They've got to start spending money at the major league level at some point, and over the past few months I've been disappointed with what appears to be a clear signal that they will delay that part of the plan.

 

I was expecting contention in 2014, and it seemed quite reasonable back then. I don't like the shifting sands of expectations that are taking place here. It doesn't need to take forever to do this. 2016 is forever -- too long.

 

I don't really know how that's a response to my post. Aside from not thinking it'll take til 2016, I don't disagree, though.

[SouthSideRyan]

But other than the infrastructure, none of the renovations are necessary. They're designed to make more money for a club with the 3rd highest revenue in baseball.

 

Fair enough...although I'd argue that the player facility upgrades are a necessity and long overdue (and embarrassing in their current state).

 

Could still be a better long term use of their money, though.

 

If all of this [expletive] ultimately (and in a relatively timely matter) takes us from what would otherwise be the Yankees of just the NL Central (but well behind other teams in MLB who have pulled way ahead or already were ahead) to Yankees/Dodgers of MLB status, I'm OK with it.

 

Unless by the time we become the Yankees of MLB severe restrictions are put into place to prevent that from mattering.

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

The significant payroll drop came between 2011 and 2012, which means it predates the Cubs giving up on a public subsidy.

 

The timeline doesn't add up at all for that explanation. It's just the Cubs' latest attempt to spin and deflect.

 

Spin and deflect from what? It's not like they're tricking people into selling out the park or going nuts over these terrible teams. It's obvious they're already taking a hit and that'll just continue to get worse. What exactly are you accusing them of hiding? If their plan is to simply try and make as much money as possible while spending minimally then they're doing a piss poor job and seemingly are even more stupid than you seem to be implying.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Spin and deflect from what? It's not like they're tricking people into selling out the park or going nuts over these terrible teams. It's obvious they're already taking a hit and that'll just continue to get worse. What exactly are you accusing them of hiding?

 

It's not binary. They aren't just either "taking a hit" or "not taking a hit." Part of their job is to try to spin the public relations of it all to try to minimize the damage to their revenue streams and standing with the fan base. Trying to tie the recent drop in payroll to the Wrigley expansion is part of that effort of spin control.

 

If their plan is to simply try and make as much money as possible while spending minimally then they're doing a piss poor job and seemingly are even more stupid than you seem to be implying.

 

I don't think that's their plan.

 

I don't think there's been one single "plan" that unifies everything that's happened since Ricketts took over. The exact situation that we've arrived at is due to some combination of Ricketts' actions, Epstein's actions and circumstances beyond either's control, and while we can speculate on how much of the blame/credit goes into each of those three categories, we don't have enough information to say definitively and everyone's going to have their interpretation.

 

My best guess? (long)

 

Ricketts took over with a rough outline of what he wanted to do. He wanted to defer to his baseball people while giving them the chance to build a deeper organization, with things such as the Dominican Facility in the back of his mind. He knew he wanted to get public money to renovate Wrigley Field and to use additional revenue streams to pay down (or at least pay the interest on) the debt that was used to buy the team.

 

Unfortunately for him, the baseball situation and his baseball people weren't up to snuff, and things began to degrade almost immediately. Attendance began to erode and put pressures on the revenue.

 

He severely misread the political situation and then handled the renovations rather amateurishly, resulting in it taking much longer and costing the team much more directly than he ever intended.

 

Meanwhile, on the baseball side. Epstein took over and sold Ricketts on the idea that they could abandon the big league team for at least a year and maybe more while they build the dream organization that both Maybe Epstein told him they'd be losing a bunch of games at first . Maybe they both thought that they could find enough buy-low magic to keep things respectable. Either way, that's not gone well either, but they are still focusing on the larger issue and simply trying to keep the fan anger at bay until such time as things turn around.

 

I definitely think they intended for the 2013 team to have a fighting shot at .500, and that was part of the efforts to keep fans at least partially placated. They spent too much money on new players this year to think they were outright aiming for a top draft pick from the beginning. Add it all up, and there's roughly $50 million in new free agents on this team (including $19m for Edwin Jackson's frontloaded first year).

 

I don't think that was just loading up on flip candidates. I think they wanted a respectable team. But unfortunately for them, baseball is not a very forgiving sport. Despite the image this front office likes to present of fighting hard for every edge, they've been disappointingly willing to gloss over parts of the roster that aren't part of their long-term outlook. They stripped the bullpen two years ago and replaced it with virtually nothing but scraps, and they haven't shown much savvy at picking up useful scraps. They let the organizational infield depth go for essentially nothing. And much like the old cliche about the ball finding the worst defenders, the losses have found those weak spots they left through neglect.

 

They've been a bit unlucky on the field this year, and they've got a competent enough team that they could still even fight for adequacy if they hurry up and go on a hot streak. But it's looking less likely with each loss.

 

So to go back to the broader issue of what the organization's "plan" is, Ricketts finds himself in a situation he very much did not imagine four years ago when his bid was accepted. The MLB team is in the tank, the minor league reinforcements are probably two years away, he completely lose the Wrigley renovation negotiations, and fan apathy is beginning to take a noticeable chunk out of revenues.

 

He wants to minimize that revenue damage for at least a few more years, then hope that the waves of prospects and renovated Wrigley combine to reverse the momentum. So in order to minimize, he and his front office spin. They throw around vague words like "unsustainable." They try to tie the low payroll to the renovation delays, without explicitly saying it. They run ad campaigns about being "committed." It's all part of trying to stem the negative tide for a few more years to when they hope that things get better.

 

 

Is my interpretation the only one? Of course not. None of us has followed Ricketts around with cameras and a microphone 24/7/365 for the last four years. But I read every quote, I follow every move, and I think this fits in with what we know and what he's said.

[Guest]

I'm with David. As long as it eventually turns the Cubs into the Yankees of the NL Central, I'm fine with it. It doesn't mean we can't contend until 2016 or some crap. We'll have 40 mill to spend next year, if we keep the payroll the same. We'll need a CFer, a 3B, and a TOR starting pitcher. It's not THAT tall of a task.

They are intentionally and irrefutably going out of their way NOT to be the Yankees. Their model is in Tampa even though the circumstances are completely different.

 

In the end the Ricketts may be great owners, but their focus will always be on the bottom line.

[Sammy Sofa]

Spin and deflect from what? It's not like they're tricking people into selling out the park or going nuts over these terrible teams. It's obvious they're already taking a hit and that'll just continue to get worse. What exactly are you accusing them of hiding?

 

It's not binary. They aren't just either "taking a hit" or "not taking a hit." Part of their job is to try to spin the public relations of it all to try to minimize the damage to their revenue streams and standing with the fan base. Trying to tie the recent drop in payroll to the Wrigley expansion is part of that effort of spin control.

 

If their plan is to simply try and make as much money as possible while spending minimally then they're doing a piss poor job and seemingly are even more stupid than you seem to be implying.

 

I don't think that's their plan.

 

I don't think there's been one single "plan" that unifies everything that's happened since Ricketts took over. The exact situation that we've arrived at is due to some combination of Ricketts' actions, Epstein's actions and circumstances beyond either's control, and while we can speculate on how much of the blame/credit goes into each of those three categories, we don't have enough information to say definitively and everyone's going to have their interpretation.

 

My best guess? (long)

 

Ricketts took over with a rough outline of what he wanted to do. He wanted to defer to his baseball people while giving them the chance to build a deeper organization, with things such as the Dominican Facility in the back of his mind. He knew he wanted to get public money to renovate Wrigley Field and to use additional revenue streams to pay down (or at least pay the interest on) the debt that was used to buy the team.

 

Unfortunately for him, the baseball situation and his baseball people weren't up to snuff, and things began to degrade almost immediately. Attendance began to erode and put pressures on the revenue.

 

He severely misread the political situation and then handled the renovations rather amateurishly, resulting in it taking much longer and costing the team much more directly than he ever intended.

 

Meanwhile, on the baseball side. Epstein took over and sold Ricketts on the idea that they could abandon the big league team for at least a year and maybe more while they build the dream organization that both Maybe Epstein told him they'd be losing a bunch of games at first . Maybe they both thought that they could find enough buy-low magic to keep things respectable. Either way, that's not gone well either, but they are still focusing on the larger issue and simply trying to keep the fan anger at bay until such time as things turn around.

 

I definitely think they intended for the 2013 team to have a fighting shot at .500, and that was part of the efforts to keep fans at least partially placated. They spent too much money on new players this year to think they were outright aiming for a top draft pick from the beginning. Add it all up, and there's roughly $50 million in new free agents on this team (including $19m for Edwin Jackson's frontloaded first year).

 

I don't think that was just loading up on flip candidates. I think they wanted a respectable team. But unfortunately for them, baseball is not a very forgiving sport. Despite the image this front office likes to present of fighting hard for every edge, they've been disappointingly willing to gloss over parts of the roster that aren't part of their long-term outlook. They stripped the bullpen two years ago and replaced it with virtually nothing but scraps, and they haven't shown much savvy at picking up useful scraps. They let the organizational infield depth go for essentially nothing. And much like the old cliche about the ball finding the worst defenders, the losses have found those weak spots they left through neglect.

 

They've been a bit unlucky on the field this year, and they've got a competent enough team that they could still even fight for adequacy if they hurry up and go on a hot streak. But it's looking less likely with each loss.

 

So to go back to the broader issue of what the organization's "plan" is, Ricketts finds himself in a situation he very much did not imagine four years ago when his bid was accepted. The MLB team is in the tank, the minor league reinforcements are probably two years away, he completely lose the Wrigley renovation negotiations, and fan apathy is beginning to take a noticeable chunk out of revenues.

 

He wants to minimize that revenue damage for at least a few more years, then hope that the waves of prospects and renovated Wrigley combine to reverse the momentum. So in order to minimize, he and his front office spin. They throw around vague words like "unsustainable." They try to tie the low payroll to the renovation delays, without explicitly saying it. They run ad campaigns about being "committed." It's all part of trying to stem the negative tide for a few more years to when they hope that things get better.

 

 

Is my interpretation the only one? Of course not. None of us has followed Ricketts around with cameras and a microphone 24/7/365 for the last four years. But I read every quote, I follow every move, and I think this fits in with what we know and what he's said.

 

I actually agree with a lot of this, but I disagree with your continued attempts to portray the Ricketts and Theo as automatically being on the same page money-wise. Sure, they're obviously not at the point that they're sniping at each other and they're going to support each other in the press, but as I've said before I could easily see Theo and co. jumping ship when their contracts are up if the bigger money picture doesn't improve. As much as you've joked/complained about Theo and Hoyer wanting to just play with prospects, I seriously doubt they came here with the idea that they wouldn't have big market money behind them. I have little doubt that the proposal that supposedly "blew Theo away" likely hinged on the talks of the renovations and city money new ad revenue streams and the eventual new TV deals and such. That's where I think any talk of "spin" can be valid, that they're trying to dress up how things haven't gone as they've hoped, but not along the lines of them trying to really hide anything. I mean, how can they? All of the hold ups are as public as can be. They're just trying to spin things as positively/optimistically as they can as opposed to trying to hide something.

[Guest]

I'm with David. As long as it eventually turns the Cubs into the Yankees of the NL Central, I'm fine with it. It doesn't mean we can't contend until 2016 or some crap. We'll have 40 mill to spend next year, if we keep the payroll the same. We'll need a CFer, a 3B, and a TOR starting pitcher. It's not THAT tall of a task.

They are intentionally and irrefutably going out of their way NOT to be the Yankees. Their model is in Tampa even though the circumstances are completely different.

 

In the end the Ricketts may be great owners, but their focus will always be on the bottom line.

 

I'm pretty sure where they ultimately stand to be will be much closer to the Yankees than the Rays.

 

The Cubs won't be shipping off their home grown talent before it gets expensive. They'll likely make some free agent signings. They'll acquire big salary guys from other teams if/when the opportunity arises. I really have little doubt of any of that. That's far from being the Rays. The only comparison is having a lot of home grown talent...but the Yankees became the Yankees that way, too.

[Guest]

I'm with David. As long as it eventually turns the Cubs into the Yankees of the NL Central, I'm fine with it. It doesn't mean we can't contend until 2016 or some crap. We'll have 40 mill to spend next year, if we keep the payroll the same. We'll need a CFer, a 3B, and a TOR starting pitcher. It's not THAT tall of a task.

They are intentionally and irrefutably going out of their way NOT to be the Yankees. Their model is in Tampa even though the circumstances are completely different.

 

In the end the Ricketts may be great owners, but their focus will always be on the bottom line.

 

I'm pretty sure where they ultimately stand to be will be much closer to the Yankees than the Rays.

 

The Cubs won't be shipping off their home grown talent before it gets expensive. They'll likely make some free agent signings. They'll acquire big salary guys from other teams if/when the opportunity arises. I really have little doubt of any of that. That's far from being the Rays. The only comparison is having a lot of home grown talent...but the Yankees became the Yankees that way, too.

Nothing they've said indicates what you are saying. And I mean nothing, starting with "paying for past performance" and ending with "unsustainable payrolls".

 

I think they will like to try to buy out arbitration years as opposed to selling off for prospects. I don't think for a minute Rizzo or Castro will be on the Cubs when they approach the other side of 30. I don't know if its a bad thing or a good thing, but I do think it will be part of "The Cub Way".

 

Theo's already been quoted as saying it's better to think like a small market team.

 

"At some point, there's sort of a lot of pressure to have big names or to win every single year, which is not part of the small-market mentality," Epstein said. "It's usually more of a building effort ... It's more of a balancing, a need to take a small step back to ensure a better long-term future. You fight that fight for a while in a big market, I think when you're at your best, you fight it successfully.

 

"Sometimes the sheer force of being a big market kind of takes over. But it is what it is. There's tremendous resources that come with being a big market, there's also potential pitfalls. I think every small market would trade places for the opportunities that come with more resources."

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120131&content_id=26530906&c_id=chc

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I can't absolve Epstein because of the offseason of 2011-12 and the statements Ricketts made at the time.

 

For 2011 season, Ricketts describes Cubs' baseball budget as "around $200 million." The Cubs had $135 million payroll and dropped almost $20 million on amateur signings. He also said the Cubs did not lose money on that budget. Based on the few times we have seen financial documents from MLB teams, $45 million for everything else that would fall under "baseball ops" seems about right.

 

In October of 2011, almost simultaneous to convincing Epstein to join the Cubs, Ricketts states that the baseball budget for 2012 is essentially the same. The new CBA restricts how much they can spend on ordinary IFAs and the draft. So combined MLB/amateur spending drops by several dozen million dollars. You can throw in the costs for the Dominican facility, the front office expansion, the software, but it's hard to come up with a reasonable estimate of all those costs that makes up for even half of the lowered spending on players.

 

So the only conclusions would seem to support are:

 

A) Ricketts was lying in October of 2011 when he said the baseball budget would be about the same.

B) Sometime between when he hired Epstein and when free agent signings began, he pulled the rug out from under Epstein and slashed his budget.

C) Epstein left money on the table and part of the payroll drop was due to his choice.

 

Before the Epstein signing, Ricketts was adamant that he didn't believe in rebuilding years and that he expected the team to try to make a quick turnaround. When you combine that with Epstein's comments about his frustrations at being forced to try to win in Boston even when he wanted a gap year to help the farm system catch up and his waxing philosophical about homegrown players, I think C is the most plausible of those conclusions by a wide margin.

 

Now, since then, I find it completely plausible that the lack of public financing for renovations and declining attendance have begun to put a squeeze on the baseball budget, so now that payroll level is what we're facing whether Epstein likes it or not. But for the 2011-12 offseason? It sure looks to me like it was Epstein who convinced Ricketts that we should pass on the big free agent opportunities and go with a slower rebuild.

 

And it's going to be very hard to convince me at this point that the slower rebuild was optimal for the franchise. We spent too much time in 2011 absolutely convinced that the 2011-12 offseason was a unique chance to strike for the Cubs. We had payroll room cleared, we had a clear need for exactly what the FA class had to offer, we had the decline of some key division rivals, we had an emerging farm system that just needed a few bridge years at the MLB level before it would start producing consistently. It was a golden opportunity, and Epstein blew it. Now we probably are stuck with his lame, slow rebuild as the optimal solution.

[Guest]

I'm with David. As long as it eventually turns the Cubs into the Yankees of the NL Central, I'm fine with it. It doesn't mean we can't contend until 2016 or some crap. We'll have 40 mill to spend next year, if we keep the payroll the same. We'll need a CFer, a 3B, and a TOR starting pitcher. It's not THAT tall of a task.

They are intentionally and irrefutably going out of their way NOT to be the Yankees. Their model is in Tampa even though the circumstances are completely different.

 

In the end the Ricketts may be great owners, but their focus will always be on the bottom line.

 

I'm pretty sure where they ultimately stand to be will be much closer to the Yankees than the Rays.

 

The Cubs won't be shipping off their home grown talent before it gets expensive. They'll likely make some free agent signings. They'll acquire big salary guys from other teams if/when the opportunity arises. I really have little doubt of any of that. That's far from being the Rays. The only comparison is having a lot of home grown talent...but the Yankees became the Yankees that way, too.

Nothing they've said indicates what you are saying. And I mean nothing, starting with "paying for past performance" and ending with "unsustainable payrolls".

 

I think they will like to try to buy out arbitration years as opposed to selling off for prospects. I don't think for a minute Rizzo or Castro will be on the Cubs when they approach the other side of 30. I don't know if its a bad thing or a good thing, but I do think it will be part of "The Cub Way".

 

Of course they'll buy out arbitration years when the opportunity arises. That's a very smart way to do things. I think that (and having young home grown talent to begin with) is far from being unique to the Rays and ignores a great deal about what the Rays do and why they have to do it.

 

The unsustainable payrolls comment had to do with them trying to convince the public (for whatever reason) that the Cubs couldn't afford to have the payroll where it was a few years ago within the constraints of the current revenue situation. I don't think that it means they'll be pinching pennies when they have their new revenue streams (both from the renovations and as they get their TV deals taken care of). At the very least, it's far too early to jump to that conclusion. I can't see them having all that going and still not using financial resources to their advantage. Kyle did a pretty good job of describing why they are where they are right now.