2014 Roster Discussion

[Guest]

- we still have a healthy payroll (with lots of money to be spent this offseason)

 

Calling the 14th highest payroll while playing in a major market is letting Ricketts off easy. The payroll may be "healthy" relative to the rest of baseball, it is not where it should be.

 

this is your problem. you're unable to get over this entitlement of where it "should be", when all that really matters to the team is where it actually is. we're right in the middle of the pack. that's healthy. i'm not going to spend 2 years crying that we no longer have this advntage that was gifted to us (as fans) in the first place.

 

The problem I have trouble accepting is WHY we don't have it anymore.

 

because ricketts is broke. it is what it is, i just think there's enough to be excited about with the cubs that we should be able to get over having an average payroll for like 5 years.

[Guest]

And I'm really having trouble reconciling the concurrent points of:

 

It's not the front office's fault, they are restricted by the budget. Once they get renovations/TV deals/McDonald's increases their prices they'll be able to spend and supplment the farm system (valid)

 

and

 

Look at all these teams that are in the playoffs with lower payrolls! You don't need money to win.

 

really? money helps you be better, obviously. that doesn't mean you have to have a huge payroll to be good. seems like you think payroll is everything.

[Guest]

And I'm really having trouble reconciling the concurrent points of:

 

It's not the front office's fault, they are restricted by the budget. Once they get renovations/TV deals/McDonald's increases their prices they'll be able to spend and supplment the farm system (valid)

 

and

 

Look at all these teams that are in the playoffs with lower payrolls! You don't need money to win.

 

It's hard because we started our overhaul at the absolute worst time to do stuff money-wise both in terms of free agency (as really good players don't go to FA anymore) and player development/minor leagues (new rules).

[davell]

Why we're not allowed to say holy [expletive] this sucks when Ricketts has forced the team to be terrible for years because of his cheapness is beyond me.

Bingo. And Kyle, I thought I just saw you mention that even with the financial restrictions, a contender could have been put out on the field. Sorry, but even you haven't gone that far yet. I've seen plenty of "if we had done this and that, well then maybe" stuff, but it wasn't EVER done with a truly restricted payroll, as we certainly have.

 

So, either clarify, tell me I misread you, or actually come up with something that's reasonable(not literally looking back and getting every single FA that produced cheaply, since there happens to be 29 other teams in MLB) If you can't and go with "well, they're the ones getting paid to do this" I'll know you were just talking out of your ass.

 

Sorry, I've been doing alternative offseasons for literally years now, and I'm done with them. It involves hours and hours of work, only to have the person decide "Well, you used all these parameters I set out, but there's one more I just thought of that you didn't, so it's all invalid."

 

Sorry, but [expletive]. You're NOW saying they could have put a winner on the field in a case where our payroll was THIS restricted. You've never put out an offseason like that before and you know it. Just admit you can't, because with the inherited roster, it would have taken a crystal ball that no other team is privy to and literally make 100% correct decisions. And even then, I'm not sure it would have been possible.

[Guest]

And I'm really having trouble reconciling the concurrent points of:

 

It's not the front office's fault, they are restricted by the budget. Once they get renovations/TV deals/McDonald's increases their prices they'll be able to spend and supplment the farm system (valid)

 

and

 

Look at all these teams that are in the playoffs with lower payrolls! You don't need money to win.

 

 

It's a spectrum, right? You can make the playoffs if you spend through the roof(Yankees, Dodgers), you can make the playoffs by having a great system of player development(A's, Rays), and you can do a little of both(Cardinals, Red Sox). What Theo/Jed inherited was a current team that wasn't close to the playoffs, did not have a system of player development to make an immediate/short-term impact, meaning the only way to be a contender in the short term would be to go the Yankees/Dodgers route. Now that we're two years in, the player development funnel is getting filled again, and even though there haven't been incredible strides to the current talent, that combination of "almost there" player development and middle of the pack payroll can lead to success, and then adding to the financial ceiling afterwards can sustain and grow that success.

 

TL;DR Money undoubtedly helps, but its marginal utility is at an all-time low with this CBA, so not being at peak capacity for payroll isn't the disqualification it was in the past.

[davell]

By the way, Tim, if you did one of those, point me to it. I'd love to see what you came up with, I must have glossed over it.

[Guest]

By the way, Tim, if you did one of those, point me to it. I'd love to see what you came up with, I must have glossed over it.

It pretty much involved a crystal ball and getting 100% of decisions correct. It also involves powers of persuasion to get guys to come to the Cubs at the deals they got elsewhere.

[davell]

By the way, Tim, if you did one of those, point me to it. I'd love to see what you came up with, I must have glossed over it.

It pretty much involved a crystal ball and getting 100% of decisions correct. It also involves powers of persuasion to get guys to come to the Cubs at the deals they got elsewhere.

 

 

Ah OK, thanks Tim. Kyle can go back to thinking our FO needs to be 100% perfect.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Sorry, but [expletive]. You're NOW saying they could have put a winner on the field in a case where our payroll was THIS restricted. You've never put out an offseason like that before and you know it. Just admit you can't, because with the inherited roster, it would have taken a crystal ball that no other team is privy to and literally make 100% correct decisions. And even then, I'm not sure it would have been possible.

 

I have, and I'm not doing all that work again.

 

Sure, it requires being right about a lot of things. But trying to be right about a lot of things is better than giving up.

[davell]

Pretty sure you did two of them altogether and complained from the start that people will see what they want to see. Neither of which were with these kind of budget restraints.

 

And the second part of your comment, I'd much rather not take risky shots with a finite amount of money to spend, in case it doesn't pan out and sets you back further. The time to take risks is when you're further along, especially when the decisions to be made are not exactly cut and dry, everyone knows this is a good move type.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Pretty sure you did two of them altogether and complained from the start that people will see what they want to see. Neither of which were with these kind of budget restraints.

 

I'm pretty sure I've done at least 15,000 of them, one for every Cubs site I visit.

[imb]

saying that the front office has "given up" invalidates literally everything else you can possibly post

[Guest]

By the way, Tim, if you did one of those, point me to it. I'd love to see what you came up with, I must have glossed over it.

It pretty much involved a crystal ball and getting 100% of decisions correct. It also involves powers of persuasion to get guys to come to the Cubs at the deals they got elsewhere.

 

 

Ah OK, thanks Tim. Kyle can go back to thinking our FO needs to be 100% perfect.

I'm bored on my conference call, so I looked up the previous discussion.

 

It's a little different and I was really focused on a particular point from CT, but it was possible to make different choices and come out with better results. But, that's easy to say now with the benefit of hindsight.

 

Though, like sneaky, I really wanted Liriano.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

saying that the front office has "given up" invalidates literally everything else you can possibly post

 

They gave up on 2012 or they weren't good enough. I'm comfortable with either.

[bukie]

saying that the front office has "given up" invalidates literally everything else you can possibly post

 

They gave up on 2012 or they weren't good enough. I'm comfortable with either.

Prioritizing differently than you is not equivalent to either in that false dichotomy.

[davell]

By the way, Tim, if you did one of those, point me to it. I'd love to see what you came up with, I must have glossed over it.

It pretty much involved a crystal ball and getting 100% of decisions correct. It also involves powers of persuasion to get guys to come to the Cubs at the deals they got elsewhere.

 

 

Ah OK, thanks Tim. Kyle can go back to thinking our FO needs to be 100% perfect.

I'm bored on my conference call, so I looked up the previous discussion.

 

It's a little different and I was really focused on a particular point from CT, but it was possible to make different choices and come out with better results. But, that's easy to say now with the benefit of hindsight.

 

Though, like sneaky, I really wanted Liriano.

Getting Sanchez to spurn Detroit and getting the competent bullpen could push that number towards 20 though. Not even taking into affect Puig has since been mentioned as a warm weather guy. May or may not have been a true option. Playoff team with those 3 and a bullpen? Possible, although I honestly wonder if our FO would have brought Puig up as early as the Dodgers(correctly) did.

[davell]

Cubs attendance 2.643 mill, down 240k. 17 mill less revenue, close to amount they'll receive from MLB TV deal.

[WrigleyField 22]

When looking at the payroll drop, I have a really hard time saying the FO just didn't try in 2012, (or was worse in 2012 than 2013). They spent FA money on Maholm and DeJesus and each were worth their contract. Pretty much everything else was crap for crap swaps in which our new crap did poorly but so did our old crap. (Well Colvin did out produce Stewart the first year but considering his below average replacement value this year, it's kind of a wash). They didn't do magically better at acquiring affordable talent in 2013. They did about the same value wise and then two of the assets they got in 2012 put up better years.

 

So I really don't get this whole, "well things are looking better based on 2013 but things would have been so much better if they (hadn't punted/done better) in 2012" because they're the same strategy with pretty similar results, just different budget situations.

[davell]

The payroll dropped 25 mill from 11 til 12 and we had around 100 committed. While they certainly added more pieces in 13, they had lots more flexibility as well. That was an extremely bad situation to walk into, needing a 3B, an OF, a 1B, at least 1 SP, and bullpen help as well. All while needing to lower payroll 25 mill from a team that had the 6th worst record in MLB and an average to below average farm system. The "we didn't try" mantra should be replaced with "we couldn't, given those ridiculous parameters".

[Beer Kaese]

I only posted because I wanted something interesting to read. I do understand how message boards work.

[CubsWin]

I think it's fair to say that the Cubs spent their resources on infrastructure/minor league talent more so than the major league club the last two years. But I wouldn't necessarily say that was unwise.

 

The team had some pretty bad contracts on it's payroll when the new regime took over and several holes to fill. With the new philosophy of/firm commitment to building with youth from within and not paying for past results, plus the changes in the new CBA causing teams to lock-up younger talent for longer terms thus making free agency a less viable way to add talent, spending the team's resources on things other than the major league club makes a lot of sense.

 

But whether they "gave up" on the past two seasons at the major league level or not, spending their money elsewhere seems sound logically. Opening the Dominican Academy, completing the new spring training facility, spending on IFA talent, signing value free agents and flipping them for prospects, turning Ramirez and Pena into draft picks, trading Dempster, Garza, Soriano etc., all took resources away from the big league club and reassigned them elsewhere. The cost may have been two losing seasons. But the gains will be worth it in the long run.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The cost may have been two losing seasons. But the gains will be worth it in the long run.

 

We'll see. That investment portfolio (analogies!) is pretty mixed right now.

[CubsWin]

Turning back to 2014 for a moment...

 

Two big ifs. If the Cubs are able to sign Tanaka and if he performs as many expect he will, that would go a long way towards making us all forget about the past two years.

[CubsWin]

The cost may have been two losing seasons. But the gains will be worth it in the long run.

 

We'll see. That investment portfolio (analogies!) is pretty mixed right now.

As far as the young players acquired, I agree. By definition, any player who hasn't succeeded in the majors yet is a "we'll see" proposition. But some of the things in that "investment portfolio" are knowable quantities. The new Dominican Academy, the new state-of-the-art spring training facility, the new closed circuit video system installed in all of their minor league ballparks all provide immediate benefits and value. I don't know if you've seen the new spring training complex, but it looks awesome. Not only will it provide the latest and best facilities to the players, but it should prove an improved revenue stream for the ballclub as well.

 

When it comes to players, everybody's an if. But some ifs are better than others. And not only have the Cubs acquired quality ifs, they also acquired them in good quantity. League-wide prospect rankings are just a way of describing how good of an "if" a player is relative to the other prospects out there. Both quantity and quality improve a team's chances of having enough of the "ifs" payoff. So I'm confident that we will see a payoff to the Cubs investment in talent as well as infrastructure. As far as who, how many and when, I have no idea. But the length of the prospect list is tantalizing. But the depth of this system is remarkable. And finally, enough of these "we'll see" players are close enough that we should be getting some answers this year.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm not privy to the inside finances of it, but I was under the impression we convinced the city of Mesa to pay for the Spring Training facilities.