2014 Roster Discussion

[davell]

TT, I'll keep bringing it up, but 175 mill one time payment, dependent upon how it's handled, could most definitely affect payroll for a few seasons.

[Sammy Sofa]

Right, but again, the Ricketts' financial status in regards to what is available to the team seems really up in the air. Until all of the renovations and such are sorted out I'm not going to pretend like we can just pencil in what money is going to the team.

 

I can't begrudge you that line of thinking, it's just really difficult for me to think that Ricketts is going to 1) cut payroll 20% 2) not funnel any revenues from renovations or TV deals back into the team and as a result, 3) put together a product that's sure to continue draining millions in attendance and concession opportunities. Especially since he hasn't done any of those things yet, and he'll need to do all of them for the Cubs to be handcuffed to the extent you're saying here(considering those revenues, the money coming free with Soriano, the fact that there aren't many/any huge raises upcoming, etc).

 

I don't think they're going to significantly cut the payroll (I mean, they basically can't unless they want attendance to keep plummeting), but as davell is pointing out we don't know how what they need to pay is going to play out.

 

And that said, one of the main reasons I'm bummed out over the team isn't a lack of spending so much as they're in such a shitty position AND there's really not much of a FA market even if they were spending. The FO has shown to be adept at bargain signings, but they can only go so far when you're just adding those supplemental pieces to a team that, as it stands right now, doesn't have much in the way in terms of impact players. If there was any time to not spend a ton it's now with the lousy options available, but that unfortunately just means the Cubs are even more bereft of the talent they need to significantly improve.

 

Now obviously they could have Castro and/or Rizzo rebound and actually be the players they need them to be. Baez could burst out of the gate and show up in June next year and give the team a shot in the arm. Lake could continue to be a useful player and maybe we're seeing the Castillo we were hoping for. The farm continues to develop and trades start to happen and things click...it's not like I'm expecting them to fail or hoping that they do; I'm just very wary about things since they don't really have the spending option right now and Castro and Rizzo (and to a lesser degree, Shark) really fell on their faces. There's basically just one front right now: internal development, and it basically has to pay off for things to turn around quickly. I really hope it does, because the other front is a mess because of how money is tied up and how shitty the market is. It's just not an ideal position to be in, and certainly not what any of us were expecting.

[WrigleyField 22]

Just curious what changed between last offseason and now that makes people think payroll will plummet. Last year was a pretty small drop compared to the past few seasons (about 10m less than 2012 I think), yet they added at least $20M in year one payroll dollars. They could be sitting at $85M right now, instead of the roughly $105 they started at.

 

I know one thing people may point to is the payroll saving decisions like Torreyes for essentially cash, DeJesus for cash, and Marmol and International slot for cash, but we have heard before that payrolls won't be done on an annual basis, it could just as easily be them deciding to cut costs from a sinking season to roll over to next year, and not based on some fear Ricketts is bleeding money and can't pay the water bill.

 

Yes we can read comments from Theo that sound like they won't be spending, but there's also been rumors of the Cubs targeting the top 2 FA OF. So it doesn't take that much hoop jumping to chalk up Theo's comments to normal GM speak, tempering the market expectation a little.

 

Now we're also much closer to certainty regarding the future renovations, which could help open the wallet a little.

 

That's not to say the $105 should be enough and we can still complain it can be higher, but wisely spending $25-30M (just to maintain payroll) in FA could bring us to an 80 win team even if Rizzo and Castro continue to disappoint. So again our success will be tied mostly to development of young pieces. Hell even a half assed effort with payroll still dropping should leaving us in the mid-90s and not the 75-80M that's been tossed around.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We've got:

 

1) Payroll saving moves

2) The knowledge that the renovations will need start-up money, even if they are eventually designed to pay for themselves

3) The quotes from the front office

4) Rumblings from reporters, the same sorts of which we used to laugh off when they said we'd be dropping payroll when Epstein was hired.

 

I don't think anyone knows for sure what payroll will be next year, but dropping from the $95m we are currently at is a legitimate concern.

[Guest]

I don't think they're going to significantly cut the payroll (I mean, they basically can't unless they want attendance to keep plummeting), but as davell is pointing out we don't know how what they need to pay is going to play out.

 

In order to be limited in FA the way you and others are worrying about here, they have to significantly cut payroll. There's too little under contract now and too few gaping holes(or heck, 40 man spots) to spend on otherwise.

[WrigleyField 22]

The renovation was always a cost factored in and as of last off season a cost they knew they'd be picking up the tab for. Since that time many hurdles have been cleared getting them closer, so there should be more cost certainty, which could allow them to loosen a little bit more money or at the least is neutral. The odds of the cost projection going up are slim because based on their trust structure and debt we should really assume they would be conservative in their projections. But there's no way they were acting last off season like it was a cost that wasn't going to exist, so it's not a new cost, but one already built into our $105M payroll. But, even if you throw out the one and two year deals, Edwin Jackson's 12M for 4 years has to fall in line with renovation plans or they wouldn't have done it. If they were cash strapped, they should have let the payroll drop the extra 12M this year, but that still puts us at $92M worse case.

 

As far as the payroll saving moves, if we still believe the payrolls are multi year budgets, with cost savings available to be re allocated, it's just as easy to say its a baseball decision to free up payroll for next year than a business decision to acquire cash.

 

There's also the issue of revenues. Maybe they wildly projected too high on attendance and revenues, but they all seem like reasonably smart people who had to know attendance wasn't going to turn yet, right?

 

And finally, we just saw a new/extended exclusive marketing/advertisement agreement reached -always a good sign for $$.

[SouthSideRyan]

Right, but again, the Ricketts' financial status in regards to what is available to the team seems really up in the air. Until all of the renovations and such are sorted out I'm not going to pretend like we can just pencil in what money is going to the team.

 

I can't begrudge you that line of thinking, it's just really difficult for me to think that Ricketts is going to 1) cut payroll 20% 2) not funnel any revenues from renovations or TV deals back into the team and as a result, 3) put together a product that's sure to continue draining millions in attendance and concession opportunities. Especially since he hasn't done any of those things yet, and he'll need to do all of them for the Cubs to be handcuffed to the extent you're saying here(considering those revenues, the money coming free with Soriano, the fact that there aren't many/any huge raises upcoming, etc).

 

You mean again? Because he's already done #s 1 and 3.

[SouthSideRyan]

There's also the issue of revenues. Maybe they wildly projected too high on attendance and revenues, but they all seem like reasonably smart people who had to know attendance wasn't going to turn yet, right?

 

I think they expected this year's team to not be such a [expletive] sandwich, thus keeping attendance/revenues fairly steady.

[Guest]

Right, but again, the Ricketts' financial status in regards to what is available to the team seems really up in the air. Until all of the renovations and such are sorted out I'm not going to pretend like we can just pencil in what money is going to the team.

 

I can't begrudge you that line of thinking, it's just really difficult for me to think that Ricketts is going to 1) cut payroll 20% 2) not funnel any revenues from renovations or TV deals back into the team and as a result, 3) put together a product that's sure to continue draining millions in attendance and concession opportunities. Especially since he hasn't done any of those things yet, and he'll need to do all of them for the Cubs to be handcuffed to the extent you're saying here(considering those revenues, the money coming free with Soriano, the fact that there aren't many/any huge raises upcoming, etc).

 

You mean again? Because he's already done #s 1 and 3.

 

Yes, I should've made "cut payroll to ~80 million" number 1 instead, and 3 is an effect of 1 and 2. Not the best organization of words there.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Where's the dogs-stealing-Homer's-chips gif?

[WrigleyField 22]

There's also the issue of revenues. Maybe they wildly projected too high on attendance and revenues, but they all seem like reasonably smart people who had to know attendance wasn't going to turn yet, right?

 

I think they expected this year's team to not be such a [expletive] sandwich, thus keeping attendance/revenues fairly steady.

In the range of $20M or more off?

 

And then in seeing that decide what exactly, keep slashing to turn around attendance?

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think they're going to significantly cut the payroll (I mean, they basically can't unless they want attendance to keep plummeting), but as davell is pointing out we don't know how what they need to pay is going to play out.

 

In order to be limited in FA the way you and others are worrying about here, they have to significantly cut payroll. There's too little under contract now and too few gaping holes(or heck, 40 man spots) to spend on otherwise.

 

Look, I'm just going by the comments coming from the organization itself. There's too much smoke in regards to them not being willing and/or able to go after FA outside of what sounds like bargain bin signings.

[Guest]

A lot of what they said (including the poopooing of free agency) was said last year, too, with more existing payroll commitments. And then they tried committing $130M to Anibal Sanchez and Jackson.

[Sammy Sofa]

A lot of what they said (including the poopooing of free agency) was said last year, too, with more existing payroll commitments. And then they tried committing $130M to Anibal Sanchez and Jackson.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the comments last year seemed more along the lines of "wouldn't it be crazy if we had an all prospect team..." as opposed to how relatively blunt they're being now.

 

Plus last year might have been a reaction to all of the construction shenanigans being prolonged even further; now that that actually seems to be happening the crunch is a reality.

[Guest]

I don't think they're going to significantly cut the payroll (I mean, they basically can't unless they want attendance to keep plummeting), but as davell is pointing out we don't know how what they need to pay is going to play out.

 

In order to be limited in FA the way you and others are worrying about here, they have to significantly cut payroll. There's too little under contract now and too few gaping holes(or heck, 40 man spots) to spend on otherwise.

 

Look, I'm just going by the comments coming from the organization itself. There's too much smoke in regards to them not being willing and/or able to go after FA outside of what sounds like bargain bin signings.

 

So, you do think they're going to significantly cut the payroll?

[Guest]

A lot of what they said (including the poopooing of free agency) was said last year, too, with more existing payroll commitments. And then they tried committing $130M to Anibal Sanchez and Jackson.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the comments last year seemed more along the lines of "wouldn't it be crazy if we had an all prospect team..." as opposed to how relatively blunt they're being now.

 

Plus last year might have been a reaction to all of the construction shenanigans being prolonged even further; now that that actually seems to be happening the crunch is a reality.

 

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little concerned based on those differences you mention.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't think they're going to significantly cut the payroll (I mean, they basically can't unless they want attendance to keep plummeting), but as davell is pointing out we don't know how what they need to pay is going to play out.

 

In order to be limited in FA the way you and others are worrying about here, they have to significantly cut payroll. There's too little under contract now and too few gaping holes(or heck, 40 man spots) to spend on otherwise.

 

Look, I'm just going by the comments coming from the organization itself. There's too much smoke in regards to them not being willing and/or able to go after FA outside of what sounds like bargain bin signings.

 

So, you do think they're going to significantly cut the payroll?

 

I just think it's sounding like an unwillingness to spend big on any one or two players right now, probably based on a combination of the FA market being so bad and the money issues in place/coming up from all of the construction/renovation. I think they're going to spend, but it's going to be similar dinking and dunking bargain spending like last year (minus the Jackson signing) and going out there with a hope the team simply won't be horrible (largely due to the hopes of Castro and Rizzo rebounding, some contribution from the farm at some point and maybe a trade or two).

[Guest]

You see how those things are pretty incompatible though, right? I mean, we can get into the semantics what's "significantly" cutting payroll, but there's only so many roster spots and even 40 man spots around before they'd have to start having to cut useful players to make room for a bunch of bargain spending(and it'd have to be a bunch if they aren't hacking out a bunch of payroll).

[Sammy Sofa]

You see how those things are pretty incompatible though, right? I mean, we can get into the semantics what's "significantly" cutting payroll, but there's only so many roster spots and even 40 man spots around before they'd have to start having to cut useful players to make room for a bunch of bargain spending(and it'd have to be a bunch if they aren't hacking out a bunch of payroll).

 

What's incompatible? I think me flat out saying "I think they're going to spend, but...." should make it pretty clear that I don't think they're cutting the payroll. I do think it's effectively capped or hindered or limited or however you want to put it for a variety of reasons, both self-imposed and dictated by the market and additional expenses, and they're in a lousy situation because of it. I mean, you get down to it a ton of is just terrible, terrible timing, but that's how it is.

 

I mean, if I'm wrong I'm wrong and I really, really hope I'm wrong.

[SouthSideRyan]

There's also the issue of revenues. Maybe they wildly projected too high on attendance and revenues, but they all seem like reasonably smart people who had to know attendance wasn't going to turn yet, right?

 

I think they expected this year's team to not be such a [expletive] sandwich, thus keeping attendance/revenues fairly steady.

In the range of $20M or more off?

 

And then in seeing that decide what exactly, keep slashing to turn around attendance?

 

No idea, what's a drop in 300,000 in attendance, about ~12M in ticket revenue? Add in concession losses, rooftop losses, Captain Morgan losses, no idea what that adds up to, but that would seem to be close enough.

[Guest]

You see how those things are pretty incompatible though, right? I mean, we can get into the semantics what's "significantly" cutting payroll, but there's only so many roster spots and even 40 man spots around before they'd have to start having to cut useful players to make room for a bunch of bargain spending(and it'd have to be a bunch if they aren't hacking out a bunch of payroll).

 

What's incompatible? I think me flat out saying "I think they're going to spend, but...." should make it pretty clear that I don't think they're cutting the payroll. I do think it's effectively capped or hindered or limited or however you want to put it for a variety of reasons, both self-imposed and dictated by the market and additional expenses, and they're in a lousy situation because of it. I mean, you get down to it a ton of is just terrible, terrible timing, but that's how it is.

 

I mean, if I'm wrong I'm wrong and I really, really hope I'm wrong.

 

I'm saying that they have to do one of 3 things:

 

- Spend a decent chunk of change on a single player (Jackson-level or greater like you mention)

- Significantly cut payroll

- Get rid of a bunch of probably useful players to make room for a bunch of bargain FA signings

 

Mathematically, it's very difficult for them to do none of those things. #3 to me is by far the most illogical, so if that doesn't happen then they have to do one of the first two.

[Sammy Sofa]

Fine, then I guess I do actually expect them to cut payroll as the most likely option. To be perfectly honest I really have paid so little attention to the team this year I just assumed that most of their bargain signings for this season were just one year-deals.

[SouthSideRyan]

Fine, then I guess I do actually expect them to cut payroll as the most likely option. To be perfectly honest I really have paid so little attention to the team this year I just assumed that most of their bargain signings for this season were just one year-deals.

 

Villanueva will make 5M next year

Nate is Arb 3 eligible

Valbuena is Arb 2 eligible.

[Guest]

You see how those things are pretty incompatible though, right? I mean, we can get into the semantics what's "significantly" cutting payroll, but there's only so many roster spots and even 40 man spots around before they'd have to start having to cut useful players to make room for a bunch of bargain spending(and it'd have to be a bunch if they aren't hacking out a bunch of payroll).

 

What's incompatible? I think me flat out saying "I think they're going to spend, but...." should make it pretty clear that I don't think they're cutting the payroll. I do think it's effectively capped or hindered or limited or however you want to put it for a variety of reasons, both self-imposed and dictated by the market and additional expenses, and they're in a lousy situation because of it. I mean, you get down to it a ton of is just terrible, terrible timing, but that's how it is.

 

I mean, if I'm wrong I'm wrong and I really, really hope I'm wrong.

 

He's saying that it would be pretty hard for them to not significantly cut payroll without a significant signing because there are only so many roster spots to dink and dunk on.

[Guest]

bah. took a phone call between typing that and hitting submit.