Wrigley Renovation Thread

[SouthSideRyan]

Why do people keep trying to discount the enormous advantage a high payroll gives you?

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/PayrollWins3.png

 

 

Just imagine how much worse those low payroll teams would've been if they spent an extra 100 million. Just because you can be good without a high payroll, and that you can be bad with a high payroll doesn't make it a correlation (or non-correlation in that regard I guess)

[Guest]

Why do people keep trying to discount the enormous advantage a high payroll gives you?

 

Well, part of it is that the Cubs have a pretty healthy payroll as it is, somewhere between 103 and 110 million depending on your math. If you're of the same mind as me, they're able to have a payroll up to 15 million higher without much issue.

 

The other reason is that the benefit to having a high payroll has been mitigated in recent years. Young stars are being extended long term, fewer teams are selling off talented players, and FA salaries have become even less of a value as they have in the past.

 

And to combine the league and Cubs-specific reason, money isn't a mitigating factor right now. Castro got his money, they wanted to give Shark his, they talked extension with Garza, and they were players this offseason in free agency. The issue is that the way to get talent with just money has been funneled to the worst value, and the Cubs aren't willing to part from their other principles in order to get those marginal upgrades.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why do people keep trying to discount the enormous advantage a high payroll gives you?

 

Well, part of it is that the Cubs have a pretty healthy payroll as it is, somewhere between 103 and 110 million depending on your math. If you're of the same mind as me, they're able to have a payroll up to 15 million higher without much issue.

 

They used to have a healthy payroll, but they cut off their arm because of a hangnail and ripped out their tongue because of a sore throat and now they aren't that healthy anymore.

[sneakypower]

Just imagine how much worse those low payroll teams would've been if they spent an extra 100 million. Just because you can be good without a high payroll, and that you can be bad with a high payroll doesn't make it a correlation (or non-correlation in that regard I guess)

payroll is repeatedly being presented here as the only important variable, in nearly every post

 

it's just become so tiresome

[Guest]

Just imagine how much worse those low payroll teams would've been if they spent an extra 100 million. Just because you can be good without a high payroll, and that you can be bad with a high payroll doesn't make it a correlation (or non-correlation in that regard I guess)

payroll is repeatedly being presented here as the only important variable, in nearly every post

 

it's just become so tiresome

 

 

Well it is, inefficient as it may be, the easiest way to make the team better in a hurry (and I am fully aware that accomplishing that would mean overpaying a lot of not so great, not so young players - especially now) is through free agency...if you have enough money at your disposal, you can pull that off and absorb the negative ramifications in the future.

Edited April 18, 2013 by David

[jersey cubs fan]

Just imagine how much worse those low payroll teams would've been if they spent an extra 100 million. Just because you can be good without a high payroll, and that you can be bad with a high payroll doesn't make it a correlation (or non-correlation in that regard I guess)

payroll is repeatedly being presented here as the only important variable, in nearly every post

 

it's just become so tiresome

 

 

The fact that they so drastically reduced payroll in such a short amount of time is directly related to how poorly they've done on the field. Paying more isn't the only way to get better, and it's not a guarantee to getting better, but gutting payroll to the extent the Cubs have is a guarantee for getting worse.

[sneakypower]

Well it is, inefficient as it may be, the easiest way to make the team better in a hurry (and I am fully aware that accomplishing that would mean overpaying a lot of not so great, not so young players)...if you have enough money at your disposal, you can pull that off and absorb the negative ramifications in the future.

there is no realistic easy way to make the team better in a hurry if you've got virtually nothing to speak of at the high levels of the minors

 

the Angels have done exactly what many people here were desperate to see (only with the benefit of already having Trout in the fold); i'll be very interested to see how it all pans out

[Guest]

Well it is, inefficient as it may be, the easiest way to make the team better in a hurry (and I am fully aware that accomplishing that would mean overpaying a lot of not so great, not so young players)...if you have enough money at your disposal, you can pull that off and absorb the negative ramifications in the future.

there is no realistic easy way to make the team better in a hurry if you've got virtually nothing to speak of at the high levels of the minors

 

the Angels have done exactly what many people here were desperate to see (only with the benefit of already having Trout in the fold); i'll be very interested to see how it all pans out

 

i'd actually more meant to sign a bunch of mid tier guys (like the guys we signed in 06 other than soriano) than go after guys like Hamilton and Pujols (both of which I thought were awful contracts the moment they were signed).

 

either way, i'm not really advocating it as a way to go, just saying that if you have enough money to absorb it if it goes bad, it can't really hurt.

Edited April 18, 2013 by David

[KingCubsFan]

Just imagine how much worse those low payroll teams would've been if they spent an extra 100 million. Just because you can be good without a high payroll, and that you can be bad with a high payroll doesn't make it a correlation (or non-correlation in that regard I guess)

payroll is repeatedly being presented here as the only important variable, in nearly every post

 

it's just become so tiresome

 

 

The fact that they so drastically reduced payroll in such a short amount of time is directly related to how poorly they've done on the field. Paying more isn't the only way to get better, and it's not a guarantee to getting better, but gutting payroll to the extent the Cubs have is a guarantee for getting worse.

You make it seem like the Cubs are the Marlins now. And the lower payroll is not the reason they're bad. $30 million on the free agent market won't buy you 30 extra wins.They're bad because they don't have enough talent, period. They had the same problem when they had the third highest payroll in baseball in 2010 and lost 87 games.

[XZero771679666304]

Well it is, inefficient as it may be, the easiest way to make the team better in a hurry (and I am fully aware that accomplishing that would mean overpaying a lot of not so great, not so young players)...if you have enough money at your disposal, you can pull that off and absorb the negative ramifications in the future.

there is no realistic easy way to make the team better in a hurry if you've got virtually nothing to speak of at the high levels of the minors

 

the Angels have done exactly what many people here were desperate to see (only with the benefit of already having Trout in the fold); i'll be very interested to see how it all pans out

 

Which is a pretty big benefit, being that he's probably is the best player in the game (or at least was last year). Their TV megadeal hasn't hurt, either.

[sneakypower]

The fact that they so drastically reduced payroll in such a short amount of time is directly related to how poorly they've done on the field. Paying more isn't the only way to get better, and it's not a guarantee to getting better, but gutting payroll to the extent the Cubs have is a guarantee for getting worse.

our highest-ever payrolls netted us 75-, 83-, and 71-win seasons; it's importance is really being vastly overstated

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't understand how you can overstate the value in being able to get good players for free.

[Guest]

I just want Kyle to say who the Cubs would've signed that would've made them good last year since he is positing that 2011 was the last year that the team could have been fixed via free agency (and that they're stuck doing it their way now).

 

Rizzo at his age and salary >>>> prince and pujols

 

Darvish - yes but it's a blind bid and it sucks

 

Cespedes - I have no idea what happened there that kept us from getting him, but yea, him too.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

our highest-ever payrolls netted us 75-, 83-, and 71-win seasons; it's importance is really being vastly overstated

 

And then when we let it drop, we won 61.

 

Developing cheap talent is more important, but not spending what you can is fighting with one hand behind your back.

[KingCubsFan]

our highest-ever payrolls netted us 75-, 83-, and 71-win seasons; it's importance is really being vastly overstated

 

And then when we let it drop, we won 61.

 

Developing cheap talent is more important, but not spending what you can is fighting with one hand behind your back.

Going from 71 wins to 61 wins had more to do with the fact that, in one season, we traded off guys at the deadline, whereas we held onto them during the 71 win season.

[sneakypower]

I don't understand how you can overstate the value in being able to get good players for free.

and we've done that to good success; Villanueva, Jackson, Schierholtz, Maholm, DeJesus, Fujikawa all immediately come to mind

[KingCubsFan]

I just want Kyle to say who the Cubs would've signed that would've made them good last year since he is positing that 2011 was the last year that the team could have been fixed via free agency (and that they're stuck doing it their way now).

 

Rizzo at his age and salary >>>> prince and pujols

 

Darvish - yes but it's a blind bid and it sucks

 

Cespedes - I have no idea what happened there that kept us from getting him, but yea, him too.

CJ Wilson was another one that was popular last year. He put up the same WAR as Paul Maholm last year.

[SouthSideRyan]

I just want Kyle to say who the Cubs would've signed that would've made them good last year since he is positing that 2011 was the last year that the team could have been fixed via free agency (and that they're stuck doing it their way now).

 

Rizzo at his age and salary >>>> prince and pujols

 

Darvish - yes but it's a blind bid and it sucks

 

Cespedes - I have no idea what happened there that kept us from getting him, but yea, him too.

CJ Wilson was another one that was popular last year. He put up the same WAR as Paul Maholm last year.

 

Was Paul Maholm not valuable last year?

[sneakypower]

our highest-ever payrolls netted us 75-, 83-, and 71-win seasons; it's importance is really being vastly overstated

 

And then when we let it drop, we won 61.

just thought i'd let you know, you're being willfully ignorant here

[Guest]

I just want Kyle to say who the Cubs would've signed that would've made them good last year since he is positing that 2011 was the last year that the team could have been fixed via free agency (and that they're stuck doing it their way now).

 

Rizzo at his age and salary >>>> prince and pujols

 

Darvish - yes but it's a blind bid and it sucks

 

Cespedes - I have no idea what happened there that kept us from getting him, but yea, him too.

CJ Wilson was another one that was popular last year. He put up the same WAR as Paul Maholm last year.

 

Was Paul Maholm not valuable last year?

 

He was...and our guys got him for 2 years/11.25M while CJ took a hometown discount to get 5/78

 

ETA - I really wanted CJ.

[jersey cubs fan]

our highest-ever payrolls netted us 75-, 83-, and 71-win seasons; it's importance is really being vastly overstated

 

And then when we let it drop, we won 61.

just thought i'd let you know, you're being willfully ignorant here

 

Talk about willful ignorance, you're talking about Jim Hendry's awfulness. A higher payroll with smart people helps you win.

[sneakypower]

Rizzo at his age and salary >>>> prince and pujols

Rizzo projects to be a premier 1B for the foreseeable future; there should probably be about a hundred > signs in this statement

 

Talk about willful ignorance, you're talking about Jim Hendry's awfulness. A higher payroll with smart people helps you win.

somebody needs to be; the lasting effects of his ineptitude are (imo) unquestionably the main reasons we're in the position we are today

 

managing to sign Cespedes, and Darvish would have surely accelerated the process some but that would be like a 95th percentile performance for a GM

Edited April 18, 2013 by sneakypower

[Guest]

Rizzo at his age and salary >>>> prince and pujols

Rizzo projects to be a premier 1B for the foreseeable future; there should probably be about a hundred > signs in this statement

I'm ok with this.

 

Talk about willful ignorance, you're talking about Jim Hendry's awfulness. A higher payroll with smart people helps you win.

somebody needs to be; the lasting effects of his ineptitude are undoubtedly the main reason we're in the position we are today

 

managing to sign Cespedes, and Darvish would have surely accelerated the process some but that would be like a 95th percentile performance for a GM

 

what sucks (well, what hurts... because that doesn't actually suck) is that we were seriously in on both. :(

[SouthSideRyan]

managing to sign Cespedes, and Darvish would have surely accelerated the process some but that would be like a 95th percentile performance for a GM

 

Which is what I was expecting when they came on board. I'm not going to be satisfied with an above average performance from our superteam of a front office.

[jersey cubs fan]

managing to sign Cespedes, and Darvish would have surely accelerated the process some but that would be like a 95th percentile performance for a GM

 

That's why they went after and paid this front office.