Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

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

 

Theo says a lot of things. He also said this yesterday:

 

And Epstein says we’re going to see the fruits of that revenue directly in the team’s payroll.

 

“We need revenues to increase in order for us to execute our baseball plan,” Epstein told the assembled media last night, per the Sun-Times. “We expect [revenues to increase] and we have a lot of folks on the business side working hard for that. We’re not 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 [payroll] will go back up. Now 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.”

 

If that wasn’t on the nose enough, Epstein got very specific when asked further about the payroll situation.

 

“Our payroll now is third in the division. That’s fine. But it should be first in the division. So [the added revenues associated with the renovation] is one of the ways that we’re going to get there.”

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/04/17/theo-epstein-says-the-cubs-should-have-the-highest-payroll-in-the-nl-central/

[Soul]

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

 

Want to believe that. The slightest doubt has begun to creep in now...

[Guest]

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

 

 

 

Or they just didn't think anyone that offseason was worth the investment (especially given the state of the roster)... I'm much happier having traded for Rizzo than signing either Prince or Pujols.

 

Missing on Darvish sucks, but it was a blind bid. Maybe they should have gone higher with their bid, which was reportedly second and in the teens IIRC...we don't truly know what it was, though.

 

I'm not sure wth happened with Cespedes, as we were aggressively after him for a long time.

[davell]

Well [expletive], Kyle, I agree with a very large part of that actually. My differences would be as follows: I think Theo was planning on coming in and spending 25-30 mill on the draft/IFA's last year. I do think he knew they wouldn't be all that competitive immediately and I don't think there was a true budget limitation heading into his first offseason. But he wasn't going to box himself in with guys over 30 either.Losing Darvish though,(no real blame from me on a blind bid) likely set things back anyway. Cespedes was a true mistake and no question he was affordable. But the system wasn't really in a good position to be dealt from, and after losing tax payer money and a lack of impact FA available, they decreased the budget for this past offseason. With money coming off anyway, it left them enough to fill out a relatively decent looking team on paper. My guess is Theo, in private, is very frustrated though. The new CBA kept him from building the system quickly and after a year long assessment, coupled with Ricketts needing to spend money elsewhere, bit his tongue and realized this may take a year longer than he thought. The holes they are leaving unaddressed though- Bullpen and bench mainly, I think they'd much rather find guys from within to handle most of those spots, even if it takes longer to identify who those players are.

[XZero771679666304]

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

 

Want to believe that. The slightest doubt has begun to creep in now...

 

 

I don't know that the Cubs will become the Yankees, but I am absolutely certain that they'll be closer to them than the Rays.

 

And it was mentioned earlier, but the recent prolonged run of Yankee success began with a core of homegrown players, after a run of pretty bad seasons. I think people forget that in light of what they've become.

 

With the added revenue from the renovation and a potential TV deal down the road, I think the potential for a Yankees-esque empire is there. But at the very least, I don't think the renovations, attendance and large market status will allow the Rickettses to run the club like a cash strapped small/mid market club without really, really taking some heat. We'll probably see relatively low payroll until the monies from the renovation start really rolling in, but not beyond that.

 

Part of me has also considered that much of this "we need more revenue streams" tact has just been posturing to help their case for securing the rights to renovate. It's pretty flimsy, but I could see it. I really don't think that spending was in the cards for 2012 or 2013 as it was. Or maybe the Rickettses debt situation is worse than they anticipated and they really do need the money. Only time will tell, but I know I don't for a second buy that frugality for the sake of proving you can win being frugal was/is the plan.

 

As for locking up our homegrown players, I think that we will see that done, unless it means going beyond the players' early-mid 30's. That's not only the smart way to do things, but the way things seem to be trending around the game.

[Guest]

I think it's an interesting mental exercise, listing out where you think both Ricketts and Epstein may have been caught off guard.

 

My take starts with a personal assumption: The Cubs are going to make a profit, and myself I can't blame Ricketts for making sure that comes first. That has limits, but I don't think the organization is near that point for a couple reasons. Now my best guess at what has transpired:

 

- Ricketts as a businessman wants to be able to allocate X dollars to the baseball operations and let the Baseball people take care of how that is allocated. This is why he hired Theo specifically and added so much to the front office.

 

- Theo appealed to Ricketts because he believed that he could get disproportionate results without a Dodgers-sized budget by continuing to build the way he desired in Boston. A well-stocked farm system with liberal draft and IFA spending, and division leading resources to fill in the gaps at the MLB level and retain those farm system products.

 

- I don't think Ricketts was caught off guard that the city didn't go for the full "public funding" of the renovations, he's too smart to think that was a foregone conclusion given the level of dollars involved. I do think he expected more than "zero funding and we still fight you tooth and nail over every part of your self-funded renovation", because he has a functioning brain. The not so subtle "we are going to crush you for this" messages to the rooftop owners seems to follow that line of thinking. This means that there's a discrepancy from his original expectation in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Given my assumption above I think this has impacted MLB operations as a result, but given the Cubs' payroll I don't think it's more than a few million dollars per year, ten at the absolute most.

 

- In very similar fashion, I think Theo had an idea of the coming CBA, but didn't expect "hard caps on both the draft and IFA with harsh penalties, probably an international draft too, and we're closing the supplemental picks loophole for good measure". This damages a lot of what he was hoping to do to accelerate the rebuilding process. If we could've spent as we wanted in IFA and the draft since Theo was here, I bet the Cubs are plus one Bauer or Justin Upton(maybe both) because they'd have some prospects to spare sooner. I've mentioned this before, but the TV boom has also decreased the amount of talent you can get by simply being able to take on contracts. MLB is getting more competitive in that standpoint, it's not as simple as taking on the last year or two of some other team's Soriano so you can get their Castro/Rizzo like it had been in the past.

 

- I think Theo is pretty averse to building through Free Agency after his Boston years, some might say overly so. We've been down this road so much that I don't want to really rehash it for the sake of this particular post, so I'll leave it that he sees the downside to FAs greater than we probably do, having ringside seats to Boston, and to a lesser extent how he had to handle assets like Soriano and Zambrano due to their contracts. I would also not be surprised if part of that slight tightening of the baseball budget I mentioned above was something like Ricketts saying "I don't want to limit you, but make it count". So Theo is looking for disproportionate benefit in the FA market. That's why he didn't continue to try to escalate with Anibal or Cespedes, that's why he's added guys Fangraphs lauds for being good values(Maholm, Baker, Feldman, Villanueva, maybe DeJesus).

 

- On that note, I don't think Theo is maxing out the payroll available to him. I don't know exactly what happens to that money, but I think there's at least an inkling that it will reap future benefit with reading between the lines of some quotes, the frontloading of Jackson's bonus, etc. I think Theo sees a ~75ish win team that he could spend a little more in the short term to maybe get to 80, but he values the flexibility of being able to try(in sometimes futile fashion) to generate some longer term assets as opposed to paying more for 30+ veterans.

 

 

So where does that leave the Cubs? It leaves them with payroll to make some pretty significant additions in the coming years if they want to. Garza and Marmol this year and Soriano next year means that 19 million dollars will be shed each of the next two offseasons without a ton of actual production to replace. That ignores the "leftover" payroll I mentioned before, and given their aggressiveness in extending quality young players, there shouldn't be a ton of huge jumps either. I think that as long as there's expected development from several in the group of Villanueva, Wood, Schierholtz, and Castillo, and there's no damaging regression from the core of Shark/Castro/Rizzo/Jackson(heck, throw in Barney too), the team will be in a position that it can make a few good moves to be in the playoff hunt next year. Once at that point, they'll be able to make similar strides the following season, at which point there's new TV money, the farm system is almost entirely stocked with Epstein-era players, and we see the Cubs we all expected from this regime going forward. Maybe that's sunny and optimistic, but with these exercises you can really draw a line to whatever outcome you want to see, and I don't see why this one would be so outrageous.

[Guest]

I want a TT blog.

 

My worst nightmare right now is the blackout restrictions being loosened or lifted and us not getting the megadeal... Please don't happen at least before the WGN part is up, but preferably not for much longer than that until the CSN deal is up (sucks for out of towners in inexplicably blacked out areas but yea - there are ways around that anyway).

[Derwood]

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

 

lol

 

Perhaps the renovation should include turning all the seats towards the rooftops

 

You know, so we can enjoy the superior product

[Martin]

Talking about the new T.V deal what would be the big contributing factors in how much we can hope to make a deal for.

 

Is it merely down to the agreement for the Cubs to play more night games which is the biggest part to any new deal and would a competitive team do more to help sell the broadcasting rights?

[Guest]

Wittenmyer was on the Score today and talked about this:

 

And it seems no coincidence that the ‘‘news’’ of a ‘‘framework’’ of a deal came the day after a three-day series of meetings at Wrigley involving family patriarch Joe Ricketts, who put up the TD Ameritrade money that paid for the family trust that owns the team and, according to sources, dictates much of the strict spending patterns.

 

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

[Cubswin11]

Wittenmyer was on the Score today and talked about this:

 

And it seems no coincidence that the ‘‘news’’ of a ‘‘framework’’ of a deal came the day after a three-day series of meetings at Wrigley involving family patriarch Joe Ricketts, who put up the TD Ameritrade money that paid for the family trust that owns the team and, according to sources, dictates much of the strict spending patterns.

 

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

I thought Tom and his siblings, but primarily Tom, sold off stock/interest in the company that he/they directly owned or a trust in their names owned? Not Joe putting up money, maybe he bought back some of their stock/interest, but that's not "putting up the money."

[Guest]

Wittenmyer was on the Score today and talked about this:

 

And it seems no coincidence that the ‘‘news’’ of a ‘‘framework’’ of a deal came the day after a three-day series of meetings at Wrigley involving family patriarch Joe Ricketts, who put up the TD Ameritrade money that paid for the family trust that owns the team and, according to sources, dictates much of the strict spending patterns.

 

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

I thought Tom and his siblings, but primarily Tom, sold off stock/interest in the company that he/they directly owned or a trust in their names owned? Not Joe putting up money, maybe he bought back some of their stock/interest, but that's not "putting up the money."

 

I don't know anything about all that, but I do recall that some of the money loaned for the purchase came from TD Ameritrade.

[Guest]

Also, this:

 

The chairman of the Chicago Cubs gave up his bid for local tax dollars to help pay for a $300 million renovation of Wrigley Field. But Tom Ricketts could reap millions of dollars in federal tax breaks for preserving the old ballpark.

 

The Tribune has learned that the Cubs have filed initial paperwork that would open the door to Wrigley Field winning a coveted spot in the National Register of Historic Places.

 

The 99-year-old stadium would join the Adler Planetarium, Shedd Aquarium, Orchestra Hall and other historic Chicago properties on the list. But there's more than prestige attached to the listing.

 

Being listed puts the wealthy Ricketts family in line for a significant financial reward: federal income tax credits on the work done to refurbish Wrigley Field.

 

The government help would basically reimburse the family for some of the $300 million it plans to spend on the stadium. The historic-preservation tax credit is equal to 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation costs.

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0418-wrigley-landmark-20130418,0,6591527.story

[WrigleyField 22]

Didnt Soldier Field have that then lose it when the spaceship landed?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy]

Wrigley's not on the National Register of Historic Places already?

[Banedon]

@facebookcubs

 

Leave Wrigley Field Alone! It's Historical Landmark! We Don't Need No Big Screen TV in OUR Outfield! Ricketts.. Greedy Republicans!

[Guest]

Wittenmyer is Paul Sullivan without the readership.

[BeerHere]

Wittenmyer is Paul Sullivan without the readership.

Agreed. Both are terrible.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I don't begrudge a team owner the right to make a profit, but I think that intelligent team owners understand that the vast majority of that profit is going to come in the resale value of the team.

 

Slashing payroll to maintain that profit, or even to break even, is a losing game. Payroll isn't just an expense, it's an investment in the success that sustains both revenue and brand value.

 

In 2009, the year between Ricketts' bid being accepted and his actually taking over (because nothing is ever easy with this franchise), the Cubs drew 3,168,859. This year, I think we're looking at something like 2,600,000 based on comparing last year's first seven home games to this year (and yes, the weather has been a bit of a factor too).

 

At Wrigley Field ticket and concession prices, I think $70/person would be a conservative estimate, so that drop in attendance represents $43 million in directly lost revenue. That's even before we get into the fact that most of the attendance these days is phantom and not buying concessions. Or the loss in merchandise and TV ratings. And playoff games, though those aren't quite the cash cow you'd think when you start spreading the money to all the various places it goes. Or the loss of rooftop revenues.

 

Maybe Ricketts thinks that this is very temporary, or maybe he thinks 2.6 million fans is in the vicinity of rock bottom so he has nothing more to lose, but with the Cubs' market and ticket prices, it's hard to believe that another $30m in payroll wouldn't be a winning investment, even if he had to borrow it. If Ricketts can't come up with money to run the team like the Tribune did or to pay for the renovations without cutting into payroll, then he's in over his head as an owner.

 

Ricketts being in over his head is something I really don't think is all that bad of a hypothesis. His one largely lauded move has been hiring Theo Epstein, and while I know this is not a popular opinion, it looks to me like he got used as a soft landing spot for an executive who wanted out of Boston and out of the big-market pressure to win. Maybe Epstein really thought he could succeed on his own, major FA averse terms, but the game passes by executives as truly as it does players, and I've seen little evidence (though not none, there's been a few moves here and there that make me long for the consistent genius I thought we were getting) that he has the same touch he did in his first five years in Boston. The point of this post was to bash Ricketts more than Epstein, but like TT said, I can't help but think the utility of a big-market payroll is shrinking in the face of the TV boom and pre-FA extensions, so the winter of 2011 is looking more and more like an opportunity we not only blew but wont' be getting back.

 

Other than that, Ricketts' top priority was renovating Wrigley Field, and he botched it from day one. It's going to end up taking three or four years longer than it should have from the beginning. He got completely bent over by the city and state, who simply spent the years telling him "no" at every turn while he tried to appeal to fairness, set impotent deadlines that went ignored, and win a PR battle that did him no good. And now it seems like we may have to cannibalize the baseball budget to pay for it, along with the revenues that it was supposed to be generating to help the team itself that will now go straight into the project.

 

If Epstein's organization is as good at identifying and developing young players as we hope it is, then this will all be papered over in five years and all we'll have lost is some years (because we all have an infinite number of those?). But I can't help but be annoyed at how little has gone right in the last four years, some of it through poor luck but much of it through simple bad ownership decisions. A microcosm of the entirety of Cubs' history.

[jersey cubs fan]

It goes back to not having the balls and/or foresight to make the very easy decision to fire Hendry on day one. Put a competent management team into place from day one and this team isn't in this position today.

[davell]

Excellentbpost, Kyle.(had to make sure you got at least a dig at Theo though lol). The 2011 offseason as lost opportunity? I can see that, but only when it comes to Darvish and Cespedes. An addition of Darvish would have likely lead to another higher profile move, in my mind. No idea what, but possibly a Headley trade? Just enlarge the Rizzo deal. But I think it would have centered around getting Darvish-I believe and agree with Theo about not buying the older high priced FA until you know you're a contender. Cespedes is the harder to forgive on, but even if we got him, I don't think any other major moves would have accompanied it. At least until this offseason, where I could have saw us go slightly harder at Annibal, maybe grab Bourn. But, in missing on those 2 guys, coupled with the fumblings of the renovations, it gave Ricketts an excuse to drop the baseball ops budget in a time it wasn't clear there was much to spend it on wisely anyway. A horrible season this year(still think we're a slightly under .500 team at ASB), though, will be interesting to watch unfold, from an attendance perspective. Theo says he's sticking to his plan, so my guess is next year will be around 110 mill as well, just with a slightly better team on paper.Instead of projecting 77-78 wins, I figure we'll be projecting 82-83.

[Guest]

FWIW, this link from 2007 says MLB-wide average ticket+concessions spending was $45, and also notes that estimate is criticized by being aggressive by up to 20%. I can't seem to find much else that tries to estimate what that number might be, with or without ticket price.

[jersey cubs fan]

FWIW, this link from 2007 says MLB-wide average ticket+concessions spending was $45, and also notes that estimate is criticized by being aggressive by up to 20%. I can't seem to find much else that tries to estimate what that number might be, with or without ticket price.

 

Cubs would have to be on the extreme high end of that

[CubColtPacer]

FWIW, this link from 2007 says MLB-wide average ticket+concessions spending was $45, and also notes that estimate is criticized by being aggressive by up to 20%. I can't seem to find much else that tries to estimate what that number might be, with or without ticket price.

 

Here's similar sorts of numbers for each team from 2013:

 

http://www.kshb.com/dpp/sports/baseball/mlb-average-ticket-price--fan-cost-index-for-all-30-baseball-teams

 

MLB average is up to 52.50 a person, but the Cubs are estimated at almost $75 a person.

[Guest]

It goes back to not having the balls and/or foresight to make the very easy decision to fire Hendry on day one. Put a competent management team into place from day one and this team isn't in this position today.

 

So true.