2014 Cubs Payroll under $75 mil?

[Sammy Sofa]

Rizzo needs to earn back my love. He's been a stale fart in the second half and is just getting worse.

[Guest]

This is not a specific response to any one poster, but I think it is germane to the discussion in this thread: Which of the free agents listed below would posters like to see the Cubs target this offseason? Apologies if this is being discussed elsewhere.

 

We've kinda bandied it about in a couple different threads, but there's no centralized place for it.

 

Personally, my wishlist looks something like this:

 

Guys who I really really want them to add if they're available, even at a somewhat "unreasonable" cost: Tanaka, Stanton

 

Guys who would make very good additions: Ellsbury, Choo, Abreu

 

Guys who would make smart additions depending on other moving pieces: Sweeney, Vargas, Lincecum, Hughes, Benoit, Gutierrez, Haren, Francis, Josh Johnson, Balfour, Crain, Joba

 

The Cubs are (finally?) In a position where they can field a roster next year that has averageish options at every position without making any moves. This offseason will be very important as there may be the opportunity to add one or two big pieces, which combined with some smart bargain hunting and progress from young guys could make 2014 competitive. I also think an eye has to be put on next offseason as well, because Baez, Alcantara, and Bryant all appear to be on track to make an impact on 2015. That doesn't mean open up holes for all 3, but I think it means you don't close off the infield by giving Kelly Johnson and Valbuena guaranteed 3 year deals either.

[Guest]

so is stanton a 3-4 win pretty good player who hits amazing monster HRs or is he a 5-6 and up win beast?

[Sammy Sofa]

Take the chance on beast.

[Guest]

so is stanton a 3-4 win pretty good player who hits amazing monster HRs or is he a 5-6 and up win beast?

 

He's 23, if he's not the latter he will be soon.

[Guest]

so is stanton a 3-4 win pretty good player who hits amazing monster HRs or is he a 5-6 and up win beast?

 

He's 23, if he's not the latter he will be soon.

 

I still worry that he doesn't make enough contact (not to mention the fact that he's so hurty) for that to necessarily ever come to fruition on a consistent basis... but i'd certainly take the chance on it.

[Guest]

so is stanton a 3-4 win pretty good player who hits amazing monster HRs or is he a 5-6 and up win beast?

 

He's 23, if he's not the latter he will be soon.

How about Justin Upton?

[Guest]

he doesn't say "never," i'll give you that.

 

maybe when they're going to try to be good again in 3 years or whatever, they'll be in on a big free agent.

 

clever. i don't think it's ever been put that way.

[Guest]

so is stanton a 3-4 win pretty good player who hits amazing monster HRs or is he a 5-6 and up win beast?

 

He's 23, if he's not the latter he will be soon.

How about Justin Upton?

 

If UZR liked Upton's defense this year as much as they did when he was 23, he'd be a 5 win player even with the horrific stretch he had.

[Guest]

so is stanton a 3-4 win pretty good player who hits amazing monster HRs or is he a 5-6 and up win beast?

 

He's 23, if he's not the latter he will be soon.

How about Justin Upton?

 

If UZR liked Upton's defense this year as much as they did when he was 23, he'd be a 5 win player even with the horrific stretch he had.

Stanton went from +9 in the OF last year to negative value out there this season. He could be on that same type of path with his defense given his injuries and aging.

 

I'm just using Upton as a cautionary tale on Stanton's development. I'd love to have either one, really.

[abuck1220]

there's obviously risk in spending big money to get ANY player. just as there is risk in betting on prospects to pan out.

 

i guess the risk in the spending scenario is money, while the risk in the prospects scenario is a terrible team.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

there's obviously risk in spending big money to get ANY player. just as there is risk in betting on prospects to pan out.

 

i guess the risk in the spending scenario is money, while the risk in the prospects scenario is a terrible team.

 

You can't let the payroll get to $150m because you might have $30m in overpayments to bad FA bets. Much better to let it drop down to $95m, that way you don't have to risk any overpaying.

[Guest]

assuming you have a payroll that you have to abide by, the risk of spending on big free agents is more than just money. you only have a certain amount of that stuff, so it obviously hinders the team when you can't spend anymore. we followed the 05-11 cubs, right?

[Guest]

so is stanton a 3-4 win pretty good player who hits amazing monster HRs or is he a 5-6 and up win beast?

 

He's 23, if he's not the latter he will be soon.

How about Justin Upton?

 

If UZR liked Upton's defense this year as much as they did when he was 23, he'd be a 5 win player even with the horrific stretch he had.

Stanton went from +9 in the OF last year to negative value out there this season. He could be on that same type of path with his defense given his injuries and aging.

 

I'm just using Upton as a cautionary tale on Stanton's development. I'd love to have either one, really.

 

Well naturally it's not a guarantee, but if Upton's the cautionary tale that's a pretty good bet.

 

Also, Stanton's value isn't nearly as tied into defense/running like Upton. Up to age 24:

Upton: .355 wOBA

Stanton: .376 wOBA

Upton post age 24: .364

 

Give the same bump to Stanton, and he's one of the 10-15 best hitters in the game.

[Guest]

Like I say, I'd love to have either one. I'd give up quite a bit to get Stanton. Just not Baez or Bryant. I'm trying to picture a lineup with Stanton, Rizzo, Baez and Bryant at 3-6.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

assuming you have a payroll that you have to abide by, the risk of spending on big free agents is more than just money. you only have a certain amount of that stuff, so it obviously hinders the team when you can't spend anymore. we followed the 05-11 cubs, right?

 

Not sure what the '05 Cubs are doing in there.

 

It makes little sense to avoid spending money because you are scared you might end up in a position to not spend money. That's locking in the downside for no additional upside.

[jersey cubs fan]

assuming you have a payroll that you have to abide by, the risk of spending on big free agents is more than just money. you only have a certain amount of that stuff, so it obviously hinders the team when you can't spend anymore. we followed the 05-11 cubs, right?

 

The Cubs could spend more, they choose not to. That isn't that issue.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

assuming you have a payroll that you have to abide by, the risk of spending on big free agents is more than just money. you only have a certain amount of that stuff, so it obviously hinders the team when you can't spend anymore. we followed the 05-11 cubs, right?

 

The Cubs could spend more, they choose not to. That isn't that issue.

 

I don't believe that to be true or that the evidence points in that direction.

[jersey cubs fan]

assuming you have a payroll that you have to abide by, the risk of spending on big free agents is more than just money. you only have a certain amount of that stuff, so it obviously hinders the team when you can't spend anymore. we followed the 05-11 cubs, right?

 

The Cubs could spend more, they choose not to. That isn't that issue.

 

I don't believe that to be true or that the evidence points in that direction.

 

It all points directly in that direction.

[Guest]

assuming you have a payroll that you have to abide by, the risk of spending on big free agents is more than just money. you only have a certain amount of that stuff, so it obviously hinders the team when you can't spend anymore. we followed the 05-11 cubs, right?

 

The Cubs could spend more, they choose not to. That isn't that issue.

 

I don't believe that to be true or that the evidence points in that direction.

They were in top 5 in net profit.

[abuck1220]

assuming you have a payroll that you have to abide by, the risk of spending on big free agents is more than just money. you only have a certain amount of that stuff, so it obviously hinders the team when you can't spend anymore. we followed the 05-11 cubs, right?

 

so you shouldn't spend big now because then you wouldn't be able to spend big later...but when it's later should you spend big? because what if you want to spend big later later?

 

also, there were more good years between 2005 and 2011 than there have been the last two years, that's for sure.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They were in top 5 in net profit.

 

Net operating profit, which does not include debt repayment. It appears that the Tribune/Ricketts alliance screwed us with a rather restrictive sales agreement that is cutting in to our ability to spend.

[jersey cubs fan]

They were in top 5 in net profit.

 

Net operating profit, which does not include debt repayment. It appears that the Tribune/Ricketts alliance screwed us with a rather restrictive sales agreement that is cutting in to our ability to spend.

 

No, it appears the Cubs are choosing not to spend as much money for a few years because they don't think they will take too big of a revenue hit while they reposition the entire organization, from facilities to talent assets.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

They were in top 5 in net profit.

 

Net operating profit, which does not include debt repayment. It appears that the Tribune/Ricketts alliance screwed us with a rather restrictive sales agreement that is cutting in to our ability to spend.

 

No, it appears the Cubs are choosing not to spend as much money for a few years because they don't think they will take too big of a revenue hit while they reposition the entire organization, from facilities to talent assets.

 

Add up the interest payments on the debt and the lost revenue from declining attendance, and I think you'll get pretty close to the lost spending.

 

We're on pace to be down 500,000 fans from 2009. I imagine that's put the tiniest little hit in spending.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Andy]

assuming you have a payroll that you have to abide by, the risk of spending on big free agents is more than just money. you only have a certain amount of that stuff, so it obviously hinders the team when you can't spend anymore. we followed the 05-11 cubs, right?

The problem with the 2005-11 Cubs wasn't the signing of big free agents, it was the utter paucity of contribution from anyone besides free agents.