The WTF are the Dodgers Doing Thread

[SouthSideRyan]

I still think there's plenty that think the FO had their choice as to which path to take.

 

Well I don't, but if that is the case they deserve to be criticized.

[Guest]

I don't see how we can even compare the two situations. One ownership group paid cash for their team and immediately landed a historic mega deal for their TV rights. The other has a debt load that's possibly the worst in baseball that hampers them even attempting to "buy" a championship. If we had the same ownership the Dodgers do, we'd have a 200+ mill payroll right now, constructed a hell of a lot better than what the Dodgers have.

I'm sorry I really don't think you have it right here. The Ricketts bought the team with their own money. They took a loan FROM THEMSELVES to buy the team. The debt load is a paper trick so Zell doesn't have to pay windfall profit taxes or whatever they are calling it. Bud Selig said their debt ratio is ok. The Ricketts can afford to keep a payroll around 100m, they are choosing not to do that. I can understand why they are doing so, but I don't see any reason to not call a spade what it is. They're using money to rebuild Wrigley. However, the Cardinals did much the same thing a few years ago and didn't miss a beat. The Ricketts family and management need to stop getting a free pass at some point.

[Guest]

Cot's has the Cubs payroll obligations for this year at just under 107 million, after trades. If they drop it to 75-80 like some people are predicting, then they should very much be questioned. They haven't yet done that though.

[davell]

http://www.suntimes.com/19200327-573/undercurrent-of-cubs-rebuilding-is-baseballs-heaviest-debt.html

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Cot's has the Cubs payroll obligations for this year at just under 107 million, after trades. If they drop it to 75-80 like some people are predicting, then they should very much be questioned. They haven't yet done that though.

 

Cot's isn't including the money we dropped in trades in that total. And they do all kinds of weird things with signing bonuses and whatnot.

 

We're spending about $95m on MLB payroll this year after the trades.

[Guest]

Cot's has the Cubs payroll obligations for this year at just under 107 million, after trades. If they drop it to 75-80 like some people are predicting, then they should very much be questioned. They haven't yet done that though.

 

Cot's isn't including the money we dropped in trades in that total. And they do all kinds of weird things with signing bonuses and whatnot.

 

We're spending about $95m on MLB payroll this year after the trades.

 

Okay, quibble with signing bonus stuff all you want, I agree Cot's does some un-intuitive things because they don't want to act as interpreter. The end point is the same, the payroll has been hovering around that threshold this year. If a 100M payroll is your level for commitment, they've checked that box.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Cot's has the Cubs payroll obligations for this year at just under 107 million, after trades. If they drop it to 75-80 like some people are predicting, then they should very much be questioned. They haven't yet done that though.

 

Cot's isn't including the money we dropped in trades in that total. And they do all kinds of weird things with signing bonuses and whatnot.

 

We're spending about $95m on MLB payroll this year after the trades.

 

Okay, quibble with signing bonus stuff all you want, I agree Cot's does some un-intuitive things because they don't want to act as interpreter. The end point is the same, the payroll has been hovering around that threshold this year. If a 100M payroll is your level for commitment, they've checked that box.

 

I'm not particularly sure it did, unless you want to count things like Soler and Concepcion on the MLB payroll. And even then, I'm not sure we ended up spending $100m this year.

[Guest]

Cot's has the Cubs payroll obligations for this year at just under 107 million, after trades. If they drop it to 75-80 like some people are predicting, then they should very much be questioned. They haven't yet done that though.

 

Cot's isn't including the money we dropped in trades in that total. And they do all kinds of weird things with signing bonuses and whatnot.

 

We're spending about $95m on MLB payroll this year after the trades.

 

Okay, quibble with signing bonus stuff all you want, I agree Cot's does some un-intuitive things because they don't want to act as interpreter. The end point is the same, the payroll has been hovering around that threshold this year. If a 100M payroll is your level for commitment, they've checked that box.

 

I'm not particularly sure it did, unless you want to count things like Soler and Concepcion on the MLB payroll. And even then, I'm not sure we ended up spending $100m this year.

 

I get 101 million opening day without counting Soler, Concepcion, buyouts, and only counting guaranteed money + minimum contracts to fill out a 25 man roster(i.e. Baker & Stewart count).

[TruffleShuffle]

http://www.suntimes.com/19200327-573/undercurrent-of-cubs-rebuilding-is-baseballs-heaviest-debt.html

 

i have a hard time getting upset with ricketts, though. hell, if i had a chance to buy a baseball team, i'd do whatever i could to make it happen. if the financing is a mess and ownership is going to have a hard time spending money due to massive debt, then the other owners/commissioner's office shouldn't have approved the sale in the first place.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'll always be upset with the Ricketts for not being Mark Cuban. Plus Tom has a weird, creepy manbabyface.

[Irrelevant Dude]

i have a hard time getting upset with ricketts, though

Especially when that High Plains Bison is just so damn delicious.

[SouthSideRyan]

http://www.suntimes.com/19200327-573/undercurrent-of-cubs-rebuilding-is-baseballs-heaviest-debt.html

 

i have a hard time getting upset with ricketts, though. hell, if i had a chance to buy a baseball team, i'd do whatever i could to make it happen. if the financing is a mess and ownership is going to have a hard time spending money due to massive debt, then the other owners/commissioner's office shouldn't have approved the sale in the first place.

 

This is silly. Would you have a hard time being upset with Jeff Loria?

[TruffleShuffle]

http://www.suntimes.com/19200327-573/undercurrent-of-cubs-rebuilding-is-baseballs-heaviest-debt.html

 

i have a hard time getting upset with ricketts, though. hell, if i had a chance to buy a baseball team, i'd do whatever i could to make it happen. if the financing is a mess and ownership is going to have a hard time spending money due to massive debt, then the other owners/commissioner's office shouldn't have approved the sale in the first place.

 

This is silly. Would you have a hard time being upset with Jeff Loria?

 

no, because he is a despicable human being as well as a terrible owner. i don't need to tell you all of the pathetic things that loria has done with the expos and marlins in the past 15 years.

 

but it is true that the other owners and the commissioner's office bears responsibility for bringing the presence of such a shitty person into the game.

[MWV]

I'm rather surprised that SSR of all people would dole out Loria comps so nonchalantly.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm rather surprised that SSR of all people would dole out Loria comps so nonchalantly.

 

Gotta go for the jugular

[SouthSideRyan]

I mean, how many years is he given a pass because it sure would be fun to own a baseball team?

[TruffleShuffle]

I mean, how many years is he given a pass because it sure would be fun to own a baseball team?

 

i suppose i'm in the same boat as TT (above). if they're spending like $100-105m and continuing to pour money into the draft, international free agency, upgrading wrigley and other facilities, etc, i'm okay with that. obviously i'd want them to spend more, but i understand. if the big league payroll is something like $75-80, as some people have suggested, then that puts the cubs down in the bottom 10 payrolls in baseball, with teams like pittsburgh and oakland and minnesota. if that happens, then absolutely i'll bashing the hell out of ricketts.

[TruffleShuffle]

and if the payroll drops that low, then i'll really start to worry about what happens with epstein and hoyer. i'd like to see them here long term, but i assume they didn't come to the cubs to see payroll slashed in half and start operating as a small market team. if they're looking at payrolls in the area of $75-90m for the next 2-3 years, i suspect that epstein and hoyer start looking to make a move out of town as soon as possible.

[Guest]

and if the payroll drops that low, then i'll really start to worry about what happens with epstein and hoyer. i'd like to see them here long term, but i assume they didn't come to the cubs to see payroll slashed in half and start operating as a small market team. if they're looking at payrolls in the area of $75-90m for the next 2-3 years, i suspect that epstein and hoyer start looking to make a move out of town as soon as possible.

The Cubs are the most profitable team in basesball if you believe that [expletive] article.

[davell]

and if the payroll drops that low, then i'll really start to worry about what happens with epstein and hoyer. i'd like to see them here long term, but i assume they didn't come to the cubs to see payroll slashed in half and start operating as a small market team. if they're looking at payrolls in the area of $75-90m for the next 2-3 years, i suspect that epstein and hoyer start looking to make a move out of town as soon as possible.

The Cubs are the most profitable team in basesball if you believe that [expletive] article.

Considering the spokesperson for the Cubs didn't deny it, maybe you should believe it.

[Guest]

and if the payroll drops that low, then i'll really start to worry about what happens with epstein and hoyer. i'd like to see them here long term, but i assume they didn't come to the cubs to see payroll slashed in half and start operating as a small market team. if they're looking at payrolls in the area of $75-90m for the next 2-3 years, i suspect that epstein and hoyer start looking to make a move out of town as soon as possible.

The Cubs are the most profitable team in basesball if you believe that [expletive] article.

Considering the spokesperson for the Cubs didn't deny it, maybe you should believe it.

Even more reason to be frustrated with the ownership. [expletive] doesn't add up.

[davell]

Unfortunately, I think it adds up perfectly. Papa Joe is only putting so much into this and is making his kids "earn" the rest. The debt structure benefits both Zell and Ricketts. The kids sold Papa that it was a solid investment and would eventually pay for itself. Thinking a new TV deal and renovation money would do it. Naively thinking the renovation money would already be in place, in all likelihood. So, for now, we're in limbo. Payroll drops because attendance is dropping and won't change until either A) the team gets good because of young guys coming through earlier than expected or B) we get added revenue from the renovations that can be put back into the on-field product. Until then, Papa Joe counts his money and hopes his kids are enjoying their cool, new toy.

[Cubswin11]

and if the payroll drops that low, then i'll really start to worry about what happens with epstein and hoyer. i'd like to see them here long term, but i assume they didn't come to the cubs to see payroll slashed in half and start operating as a small market team. if they're looking at payrolls in the area of $75-90m for the next 2-3 years, i suspect that epstein and hoyer start looking to make a move out of town as soon as possible.

The Cubs are the most profitable team in basesball if you believe that [expletive] article.

Considering the spokesperson for the Cubs didn't deny it, maybe you should believe it.

Highest operating income, not net. EBITDA

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Unfortunately, I think it adds up perfectly. Papa Joe is only putting so much into this and is making his kids "earn" the rest. The debt structure benefits both Zell and Ricketts. The kids sold Papa that it was a solid investment and would eventually pay for itself. Thinking a new TV deal and renovation money would do it. Naively thinking the renovation money would already be in place, in all likelihood. So, for now, we're in limbo. Payroll drops because attendance is dropping and won't change until either A) the team gets good because of young guys coming through earlier than expected or B) we get added revenue from the renovations that can be put back into the on-field product. Until then, Papa Joe counts his money and hopes his kids are enjoying their cool, new toy.

 

All of this.

[SABR Gamer]

Unfortunately, I think it adds up perfectly. Papa Joe is only putting so much into this and is making his kids "earn" the rest. The debt structure benefits both Zell and Ricketts. The kids sold Papa that it was a solid investment and would eventually pay for itself. Thinking a new TV deal and renovation money would do it. Naively thinking the renovation money would already be in place, in all likelihood. So, for now, we're in limbo. Payroll drops because attendance is dropping and won't change until either A) the team gets good because of young guys coming through earlier than expected or B) we get added revenue from the renovations that can be put back into the on-field product. Until then, Papa Joe counts his money and hopes his kids are enjoying their cool, new toy.

 

All of this.

 

I really hate how much this seems to add up.