2014 Cubs Payroll under $75 mil?

[Guest]

Just want to add one thing... should we take anything coming from the Cubs right now regarding future spending at face value when they're still (to some extent) trying to play politics with regard to the Wrigley stuff?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Just want to add one thing... should we take anything coming from the Cubs right now regarding future spending at face value when they're still (to some extent) trying to play politics with regard to the Wrigley stuff?

 

Depends on whether it agrees with what I believed or not.

[XZero771679666304]

Just want to add one thing... should we take anything coming from the Cubs right now regarding future spending at face value when they're still (to some extent) trying to play politics with regard to the Wrigley stuff?

 

Depends on whether it agrees with what I believed or not.

 

In your mind, sure.

 

It's hard to tell what is really going on behind the scenes, but I'd be surprised if some portion of the "crying poor" isn't political gamesmanship. Most likely it's a combination of that and actually hedging until some of these revenue streams become more certain, perhaps with a dash of being miserly due to debt issues thrown in.

 

And as far as the "we're can't throw around hundreds of millions" quote, I don't think that's a big deal. As you pointed out, the days of the free agent megadeal are likely over (at the very least such deals will come much, much less frequently), at least for the foreseeable future. All the best players will have been locked up early, or will be too old to justify such expenditures. It's not just the Cubs, but all teams that will find fewer and fewer answers available on the FA market.

[seanimal]

i dunno, this whole idea about the end of free agency is reactionary. it's only a matter of time before that bubble is popped

[XZero771679666304]

i dunno, this whole idea about the end of free agency is reactionary. it's only a matter of time before that bubble is popped

 

I wouldn't say it's the end of free agency, but the end of league wide wanton FA spending, at least for a while.

 

Even if the "extend them young" movement fully catches on, there will always be a few players who will accept the risk and gamble that they will be good enough (and stay healthy enough) to hit the FA jackpot. And some GMs are going to extend a young talent and get burned when they don't become the player it seemed they would, and that will dissuade them from employing the same tactic in the future.

 

That said, I think most of the best young players will be extended at a young age, and up to and through their primes. This would of course reduce the number of 150M+ contracts being offered. Bit even as things currently stand, such contracts rarely work out well. Manny and the first ARod deal did to some degree, but more often than not those deals are given to players already at or nearing the end of their peak. Gambling on potential future production is invariably a smarter play than paying through the nose for past production that isn't likely to be repeated, and smart GMs realize this. Players will still hit FA, but far fewer of the best ones will, at least until they are in or nearing their decline phase.

 

This may prove to be wrong, but imo the young, smart GMs who are extending their young talent are likely the vanguard of a industry wide movement that will take hold for at least some period of time. And really, it's not something that the players and the union should be opposed to.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's mostly an outgrowth of what MLB has been trying to do for a long time: Making sure that the small-market teams have enough money to entice these young players to extend.

[davell]

Yeah, especially with young pitching, as its so volatile anyway. A truly special talent, like Harper or Trout, may bet on themselves, to hit FA at an early age. But the financial security at the expense of taking slightly less money going year to year, makes quite a bit of sense for the vast majority. With teams having extra money to spend, on top of that, all I see happening, is overpaying the guys hitting FA in their early 30's anyway.

[SouthSideRyan]

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?

 

Hinders the team when you won't spend anymore.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

Top 1.

 

ETA: Although the Astros will almost certainly pass us this season thanks to their $8 payroll, and guaranteed money from revenue sharing.

[davell]

Arguello and Loxas interviewed Wittenmeyer recently about the Cubs direction. Yes, he may be a tool, but he's been out in front when it comes to the Cubs spending. Direct quote from Wittenmeyer in interview:"The Ricketts family entered a deal with Sam Zell that left them with far more debt than anyone else in baseball with a family trust financing structure that assures the kids stay out of Papa Joe's pockets for more money and that has left other original suitors shaking their heads and/or laughing at the deal."

[davell]

Another quote:" Longterm bottom line is that they have placed a potentially dangerous amount of trust in city politics and a future TV deal that is anything but guaranteed to rise to the levels of the recent news-making deals across the game. And in Crane Kenney to make it happen."

[Guest]

Arguello and Loxas interviewed Wittenmeyer recently about the Cubs direction. Yes, he may be a tool, but he's been out in front when it comes to the Cubs spending. Direct quote from Wittenmeyer in interview:"The Ricketts family entered a deal with Sam Zell that left them with far more debt than anyone else in baseball with a family trust financing structure that assures the kids stay out of Papa Joe's pockets for more money and that has left other original suitors shaking their heads and/or laughing at the deal."

 

I still don't understand why this is a bad thing for the Ricketts if their agreement to that is what allowed them to win the bidding.

 

Sure, it sucks ass for us for as long as this "short term" hit lasts, but if agreeing to that is what locked them in as the winning bidders, how is that not a win?

[Guest]

Another quote:" Longterm bottom line is that they have placed a potentially dangerous amount of trust in city politics and a future TV deal that is anything but guaranteed to rise to the levels of the recent news-making deals across the game. And in Crane Kenney to make it happen."

 

THAT DARN CRANE KENNEY

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I still don't understand why this is a bad thing for the Ricketts if their agreement to that is what allowed them to win the bidding.

 

Sure, it sucks ass for us for as long as this "short term" hit lasts, but if agreeing to that is what locked them in as the winning bidders, how is that not a win?

 

Because presumably nobody else would have been a sucker enough to agree with it and the Tribune would have had to back off the demands.

 

Another quote:" Longterm bottom line is that they have placed a potentially dangerous amount of trust in city politics and a future TV deal that is anything but guaranteed to rise to the levels of the recent news-making deals across the game. And in Crane Kenney to make it happen."

 

I think that's *exactly* what happened. I think Ricketts knew that the deal was extremely restrictive, but he figured that he'd be able to squeeze $300m out of the city for a quick ballpark renovation that would let revenues grow to make up for the restrictive arrangement. Four years later, he's begging to pay for the renovation and attendance has plummeted.

[Guest]

I still don't understand why this is a bad thing for the Ricketts if their agreement to that is what allowed them to win the bidding.

 

Sure, it sucks ass for us for as long as this "short term" hit lasts, but if agreeing to that is what locked them in as the winning bidders, how is that not a win?

 

Because presumably nobody else would have been a sucker enough to agree with it and the Tribune would have had to back off the demands.

 

and then you have to compete with all the other bidders who wouldn't agree to it. It basically served as a trump card.

[davell]

We had better start a Crane Kenney appreciation thread. Our future is up to him, since the kids evidently aren't able to get any extra allowance money from dad.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

and then you have to compete with all the other bidders who wouldn't agree to it. It basically served as a trump card.

 

So I guess that answers your question. If the only acceptable endgame for the Ricketts was owning the Cubs, then literally anything was a "win" for them so long as it ended with them winning the bidding. But that's a pretty circular-logicy way to set up the scenario.

[davell]

I still don't understand why this is a bad thing for the Ricketts if their agreement to that is what allowed them to win the bidding.

 

Sure, it sucks ass for us for as long as this "short term" hit lasts, but if agreeing to that is what locked them in as the winning bidders, how is that not a win?

 

Because presumably nobody else would have been a sucker enough to agree with it and the Tribune would have had to back off the demands.

 

and then you have to compete with all the other bidders who wouldn't agree to it. It basically served as a trump card.

I'm not saying its not a solid deal for the family. But we don't get a World Series based off of owners profits. This deal has kept and is still keeping us from competing the way a major market team should be.

[Guest]

and then you have to compete with all the other bidders who wouldn't agree to it. It basically served as a trump card.

 

So I guess that answers your question. If the only acceptable endgame for the Ricketts was owning the Cubs, then literally anything was a "win" for them so long as it ended with them winning the bidding. But that's a pretty circular-logicy way to set up the scenario.

 

Unless you think they are somehow worse off by owning this cash cow that will only continue to increase in value, I'm not sure I see the circular logic.

[Guest]

I still don't understand why this is a bad thing for the Ricketts if their agreement to that is what allowed them to win the bidding.

 

Sure, it sucks ass for us for as long as this "short term" hit lasts, but if agreeing to that is what locked them in as the winning bidders, how is that not a win?

 

Because presumably nobody else would have been a sucker enough to agree with it and the Tribune would have had to back off the demands.

 

and then you have to compete with all the other bidders who wouldn't agree to it. It basically served as a trump card.

I'm not saying its not a solid deal for the family. But we don't get a World Series based off of owners profits. This deal has kept and is still keeping us from competing the way a major market team should be.

 

I'm referring to the supposed snickering and ridicule from the losing bidders.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Unless you think they are somehow worse off by owning this cash cow that will only continue to increase in value, I'm not sure I see the circular logic.

 

I think it's perfectly plausible that they could end up worse off from owning it.

 

But sure, if you look at it from a "Ricketts doesn't care about the team, only the profits" viewpoint, then I guess he might come out ahead.

[Guest]

Unless you think they are somehow worse off by owning this cash cow that will only continue to increase in value, I'm not sure I see the circular logic.

 

I think it's perfectly plausible that they could end up worse off from owning it.

 

But sure, if you look at it from a "Ricketts doesn't care about the team, only the profits" viewpoint, then I guess he might come out ahead.

 

He doesn't have to not care about the team for that to be the case. No need for that hyperbole.

[davell]

Unless you think they are somehow worse off by owning this cash cow that will only continue to increase in value, I'm not sure I see the circular logic.

 

I think it's perfectly plausible that they could end up worse off from owning it.

This part of the discussion is kind of pointless. I don't give a rats ass how much money our owner makes. I just want someone who is capable of acting like he owns a major market sports team. Right now, ours isn't and evidently can't. Thats my only concern.

[Guest]

Unless you think they are somehow worse off by owning this cash cow that will only continue to increase in value, I'm not sure I see the circular logic.

 

I think it's perfectly plausible that they could end up worse off from owning it.

This part of the discussion is kind of pointless. I don't give a rats ass how much money our owner makes. I just want someone who is capable of acting like he owns a major market sports team. Right now, ours isn't and evidently can't. Thats my only concern.

 

I already acknowledged that it sucks for us. Like I said, my comment is about what was said in the interview.

[davell]

I missed that. To your point, I agree. It'd take an epic meltdown of the economy for them to lose money here. And for it to happen prior to the new TV deal.