The Ricketts Ownership

[Guest]

And when we win 65 games this year, should we try in in 2014?

 

If there are guys they can sign (either older guys to shorter term deals or younger guys to whatever length) within the budget that don't harm the long term, then by all means.

 

That's pretty much what they've said they're doing, too.

 

There are a few guys like this that we've missed on that I regret not getting... Cespedes, Darvish, and Upton come to mind immediately.

 

What I don't want is guys signed now who will provide nearly all of their value in the near term and then weigh down what could otherwise be a ridiculously good situation in a few years.

[Tracer Bullet]

What I don't want is guys signed now who will provide nearly all of their value in the near term and then weigh down what could otherwise be a ridiculously good situation in a few years.

 

Yes. This. Paying Utley $15m now is ok for the Phils bc they were paying him to be really good when they were contending for and winning the WS. I'm perfectly on overpaying some guys if we get real talent when we have a strong chance of contending. (Note I don't want to be the Phils, SSR brought them up and I've been running with the comparison).

 

Even Upton is questionable to me. Would we want to pay him $15m when he's 31 in 2016? Maybe. Maybe he didn't want to sign knowing we'd suck for a year or two.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd point out that that sort of attitude locks in down cycles and forces the team to be bad for several years between load-ups, but you don't seem to consider that a downside.

[Sammy Sofa]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck, Cespedes would have changed everything. EVERYTHING.

 

...

 

I need a moment.

[Guest]

I'd point out that that sort of attitude locks in down cycles and forces the team to be bad for several years between load-ups, but you don't seem to consider that a downside.

 

Or just the opening cycle.

 

Ideally, we'll be drafting and developing (although it's not going to be as easy without high picks or overslots) while we're good and will be able to reload much more painlessly in the future.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'd point out that that sort of attitude locks in down cycles and forces the team to be bad for several years between load-ups, but you don't seem to consider that a downside.

 

Or just the opening cycle.

 

Ideally, we'll be drafting and developing (although it's not going to be as easy without high picks or overslots) while we're good and will be able to reload much more painlessly in the future.

 

If we can do it in the future, we could have done it now.

[Tracer Bullet]

There aren't constant cycles unless you load up in a year or two and all those big contracts go bad at the same time and then you load up again. We suck now bc the prior regime was horrible and our farm and org was terrible. I'm willing to be bad for another couple years if it means sustained success for a long period thereafter. I'm not willing to be crappy for 3 years every decade in order to really contend 5 years in the same span. I don't believe that's the plan.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There aren't constant cycles unless you load up in a year or two and all those big contracts go bad at the same time and then you load up again. We suck now bc the prior regime was horrible and our farm and org was terrible. I'm willing to be bad for another couple years if it means sustained success for a long period thereafter. I'm not willing to be crappy for 3 years every decade in order to really contend 5 years in the same span. I don't believe that's the plan.

 

We suck right now because our current regime decided to take a big old pass on the 2011-12 offseason and let payroll drop by ~$35m.

 

Our farm system was not nearly as terrible as people at the time or now want to act like it was.

[Guest]

This team needs some positive variance in the first half of the season in the worst way so we can at least have different goalposts for this debate. The roster as currently constructed is better than given credit for in this thread.

 

Money is not the problem. The problem, that was way more severe than I gave credit for because I try to lean optimistic, is one of talent. Starting from the bottom, there was little worthwhile talent in the farm system when Theo took over. In 18+ months, the farm system has supported the MLB roster with Castillo, maybe a middle reliever, and hopefully Jackson in a few months. Not good enough, and the next 18 months don't look any more promising(the lack of pitching is especially galling).

 

The MLB roster had some talent, but it wasn't concentrated well. Ramirez, Dempster, Zambrano, Soriano, all guys with high dollar contracts on the other side of 30 who were the chief supplements to a core of Castro and Garza. To build off that would require playing catch up as those supplements decline and leave for free agency. And especially since the farm system offered little currency to go get other young players, the main way to do that was to take the Kenny Williams/Jim Hendry route and perpetually play catch up by plugging those holes with decent but flawed players.

 

To be explicitly clear, this would not have worked. It didn't when Hendry tried it, and it wouldn't with this FO and different free agents. To do so would require hitting on big dollar FAs at a rate achieved by no one ever. In hindsight we can maybe stitch something together if we add a ton of money to the payroll and cherry pick the guys we added(say Darvish, Fielder, Cespedes), but it's hindsight for a reason, and that just as easily could have been Wilson, Pujols, and Buehrle.

 

The landscape is the other reason why things have gone slower than I would've liked. I'm pretty sure the idea was to buy all the things in IFA and the draft, and the CBA killed that. More than killing that avenue, the spending ceiling combined with increased revenues league-wide meant there are fewer sell-offs to take advantage of. That's of large importance when you're doing as much as you can to build up a farm system and a great way to add talent in trade would be to take on money. They still happen, Boston (irony!) and Miami spring to mind, but it's an avenue that's far less open than it has been in the past, to the detriment of the rebuild.

 

And to make sure this is coming off the right way, that doesn't mean the FO has been flawless. They missed on a couple prime-aged guys last year who had big years(posting system caveat and doubts about Cespedes' production going forward go here) and I wanted to see another bat added to the lineup(Brett Jackson caveat goes here). I was hoping they'd find a way to be a part of the Kevin Towers chemistry clearance sale. But these are marginal complaints, and ones that in the best case add a couple wins to a mid-70s win team. Not issues that make me question the viability of the front office.

 

Maybe Ricketts is holding the FO back a bit. Maybe there's a cap until the hundreds of millions of dollars for the renovations(bad) or TV deals(good) are actually in contract form. Maybe he hired Theo to win with a lower payroll and pocket the proceeds. The former looks more possible and I'm not inclined to believe the latter given what we know, but at this point I just don't care. Money(read: not F U money) isn't the limiting factor, and there's a couple huge monetary uncertainties that keep me from drawing any real conclusions on what that means for when those do become certainties.

 

So to the poll question, yes I'm glad the Ricketts own the team. Is it possible that there's someone better out there? Someone who bought the team, beefed up the front office with more quantity and quality, then started dropping hundreds of millions(if not billions) to get their way in player procurement, getting a new TV deal, and getting the rooftop owners to shut up and let them renovate their own park? I suppose it's all possible. But in the neighborhood of likely options, I'm pretty pleased with what Ricketts has done. Just get the renovation and the TV stuff resolved as quickly as possible, because it's really then I think you'll see the true colors.

 

TLDR; Ownership isn't the problem, and money isn't the problem. The problem is 1) lack of good baseball players in Fall 2011 2) changing landscape with the CBA and 3) Epstein/Hoyer only being "real good" instead of "historically good"

[mookie]

darn it all to heck, that didn't work. this conversation is hilarious btw.

 

kyle, you are seriously wrong bro.

Edited March 26, 2013 by mookie

[Guest]

I'd point out that that sort of attitude locks in down cycles and forces the team to be bad for several years between load-ups, but you don't seem to consider that a downside.

 

Or just the opening cycle.

 

Ideally, we'll be drafting and developing (although it's not going to be as easy without high picks or overslots) while we're good and will be able to reload much more painlessly in the future.

 

If we can do it in the future, we could have done it now.

 

Now = one year of drafts from the new regime...

[Guest]

There aren't constant cycles unless you load up in a year or two and all those big contracts go bad at the same time and then you load up again. We suck now bc the prior regime was horrible and our farm and org was terrible. I'm willing to be bad for another couple years if it means sustained success for a long period thereafter. I'm not willing to be crappy for 3 years every decade in order to really contend 5 years in the same span. I don't believe that's the plan.

 

We suck right now because our current regime decided to take a big old pass on the 2011-12 offseason and let payroll drop by ~$35m.

 

Our farm system was not nearly as terrible as people at the time or now want to act like it was.

 

You're understating how bad the organization was...and the farm system would've been pretty [expletive] terrible if not for the 2011 draft propping it up.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why do you keep engaging him?

[Guest]

This team needs some positive variance in the first half of the season in the worst way so we can at least have different goalposts for this debate. The roster as currently constructed is better than given credit for in this thread.

 

Money is not the problem. The problem, that was way more severe than I gave credit for because I try to lean optimistic, is one of talent. Starting from the bottom, there was little worthwhile talent in the farm system when Theo took over. In 18+ months, the farm system has supported the MLB roster with Castillo, maybe a middle reliever, and hopefully Jackson in a few months. Not good enough, and the next 18 months don't look any more promising(the lack of pitching is especially galling).

 

The MLB roster had some talent, but it wasn't concentrated well. Ramirez, Dempster, Zambrano, Soriano, all guys with high dollar contracts on the other side of 30 who were the chief supplements to a core of Castro and Garza. To build off that would require playing catch up as those supplements decline and leave for free agency. And especially since the farm system offered little currency to go get other young players, the main way to do that was to take the Kenny Williams/Jim Hendry route and perpetually play catch up by plugging those holes with decent but flawed players.

 

To be explicitly clear, this would not have worked. It didn't when Hendry tried it, and it wouldn't with this FO and different free agents. To do so would require hitting on big dollar FAs at a rate achieved by no one ever. In hindsight we can maybe stitch something together if we add a ton of money to the payroll and cherry pick the guys we added(say Darvish, Fielder, Cespedes), but it's hindsight for a reason, and that just as easily could have been Wilson, Pujols, and Buehrle.

 

The landscape is the other reason why things have gone slower than I would've liked. I'm pretty sure the idea was to buy all the things in IFA and the draft, and the CBA killed that. More than killing that avenue, the spending ceiling combined with increased revenues league-wide meant there are fewer sell-offs to take advantage of. That's of large importance when you're doing as much as you can to build up a farm system and a great way to add talent in trade would be to take on money. They still happen, Boston (irony!) and Miami spring to mind, but it's an avenue that's far less open than it has been in the past, to the detriment of the rebuild.

 

And to make sure this is coming off the right way, that doesn't mean the FO has been flawless. They missed on a couple prime-aged guys last year who had big years(posting system caveat and doubts about Cespedes' production going forward go here) and I wanted to see another bat added to the lineup(Brett Jackson caveat goes here). I was hoping they'd find a way to be a part of the Kevin Towers chemistry clearance sale. But these are marginal complaints, and ones that in the best case add a couple wins to a mid-70s win team. Not issues that make me question the viability of the front office.

 

Maybe Ricketts is holding the FO back a bit. Maybe there's a cap until the hundreds of millions of dollars for the renovations(bad) or TV deals(good) are actually in contract form. Maybe he hired Theo to win with a lower payroll and pocket the proceeds. The former looks more possible and I'm not inclined to believe the latter given what we know, but at this point I just don't care. Money(read: not F U money) isn't the limiting factor, and there's a couple huge monetary uncertainties that keep me from drawing any real conclusions on what that means for when those do become certainties.

 

So to the poll question, yes I'm glad the Ricketts own the team. Is it possible that there's someone better out there? Someone who bought the team, beefed up the front office with more quantity and quality, then started dropping hundreds of millions(if not billions) to get their way in player procurement, getting a new TV deal, and getting the rooftop owners to shut up and let them renovate their own park? I suppose it's all possible. But in the neighborhood of likely options, I'm pretty pleased with what Ricketts has done. Just get the renovation and the TV stuff resolved as quickly as possible, because it's really then I think you'll see the true colors.

 

TLDR; Ownership isn't the problem, and money isn't the problem. The problem is 1) lack of good baseball players in Fall 2011 2) changing landscape with the CBA and 3) Epstein/Hoyer only being "real good" instead of "historically good"

 

I love this post because it says a lot of stuff that I would've wanted to say in a much more clear and organized way than I could've hoped.

[Guest]

Why do you keep engaging him?

 

It's hard because he is on a whole other elite level of trolling where he makes somewhat reasoned arguments instead of just spouting stupidity.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This team needs some positive variance in the first half of the season in the worst way so we can at least have different goalposts for this debate. The roster as currently constructed is better than given credit for in this thread.

 

I'm having a lot of trouble saying that right now. They never died fix the infield depth, they never clarified the outfield situation (we've still got DeJesus playing out of position), and we're already in a big variance hole with Baker and Garza combining to miss more than half a season worth of starts. Looks like a 75-win projection, which means a playoff spot is pretty much outside the reasonable error bars.

 

In 18+ months, the farm system has supported the MLB roster with Castillo, maybe a middle reliever, and hopefully Jackson in a few months. Not good enough, and the next 18 months don't look any more promising(the lack of pitching is especially galling).

 

Technically true, but that was after a pretty big wave that had just resolved. Barney became a full-time starter, Samardzija became a starting pitcher of some worth, Cashner became a guy who could be traded for Rizzo. We're loaded with cost-controlled talent right now, in part due to our front office's moves, but that doesn't negate that there was a path to get the cost-controlled talent to support a competitive team.

 

And especially since the farm system offered little currency to go get other young players, the main way to do that was to take the Kenny Williams/Jim Hendry route and perpetually play catch up by plugging those holes with decent but flawed players.

 

As long as you draft better than Jim Hendry and Kenny Williams, that's a fine path to take.

 

Not issues that make me question the viability of the front office.

 

I've got a pretty big laundry list, personally, that includes questionable prospect overpayments, terrible roster decisions and a general lack of ability to find useful replacement players.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You're understating how bad the organization was...and the farm system would've been pretty [expletive] terrible if not for the 2011 draft propping it up.

 

The 2011 draft *did* prop it up though, as did the recent classes of IFAs graduating to the states. Those all had the farm system on the rise.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Why do you keep engaging him?

 

Because I bring more relevant baseball content to this site in a day than you do in a year. We can't all be comic relief.

[Tracer Bullet]

Why do you keep engaging him?

 

Because I bring more relevant baseball content to this site in a day than you do in a year. We can't all be comic relief.

 

Only bc good posters sometimes respond to you

[Tracer Bullet]

Excellent post TT.

[Guest]

You're understating how bad the organization was...and the farm system would've been pretty [expletive] terrible if not for the 2011 draft propping it up.

 

The 2011 draft *did* prop it up though, as did the recent classes of IFAs graduating to the states. Those all had the farm system on the rise.

 

But they were as far away as prospects can be, so saying that the farm wasn't that bad when there was no impact talent anywhere near the major leagues is misleading considering what we're talking about (being able to consistently field a contending team and reload it with young players).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Only bc good posters sometimes respond to you

 

We have like one of those. Every post I draw out of TT is my gift, personally, to you.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

But they were as far away as prospects can be, so saying that the farm wasn't that bad when there was no impact talent anywhere near the major leagues is misleading considering what we're talking about (being able to consistently field a contending team and reload it with young players).

 

I absolutely agree that there was no impact talent near the major leagues.

 

What we had was a big pile of cheap, potentially adequate players who could fill roster spots. We needed to use our financial advantages to go out and get the impact players.

[jersey cubs fan]

You're understating how bad the organization was...and the farm system would've been pretty [expletive] terrible if not for the 2011 draft propping it up.

 

The 2011 draft *did* prop it up though, as did the recent classes of IFAs graduating to the states. Those all had the farm system on the rise.

 

But they were as far away as prospects can be, so saying that the farm wasn't that bad when there was no impact talent anywhere near the major leagues is misleading considering what we're talking about (being able to consistently field a contending team and reload it with young players).

 

Isn't that statement itself misleading, when impact talent had just arrived at the major league level?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Now = one year of drafts from the new regime...

 

It's 18 months of them diverting nearly every resource imaginable to the acquisition of prospects.

 

We spent more money on the Cuban poor man's Dolis to go pretend to be a starter in Daytona than we did on our starting RFer.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Hairyducked Idiot