Just to see where everyone stands on the Cubs sucking

[davell]

If you're laying blame, who does it fall on? Edited January 24, 2014 by davell

[davell]

I voted 90/10 by the way. Given what I think are extreme financial limitations, I do still fault the FO for not at least getting one of Puig, Ryu, or Cespedes. I doubt we truly had the ability to get Darvish or Tanaka. My other fault of the FO is if you're taking the max penalty on the IFA class from this past year, go further than you did. Should have spent on another 3-4 high profile guys as well.

 

My issues with the Ricketts are well documented.

[Guest]

Top of my head, 10-15% current FO, 35-40% previous FO, 50% some combination of Ricketts/external factors of which I don't really care about the ratio of responsibility.

[SouthSideRyan]

90/10 on @poortomricketts. The FO is either too stringent on what they see is a value or they were duped by a panhandling owner

[Sammys Boombox]

I want a Sam Zell/Selig/Tribune option.

 

Even the local Chicago politics could be blamed on them for just accepting things like landmark statuses and entering into idiotic agreements with rooftop owners.

 

No renovations to Wrigley. No investment in development. Screwing Cubs on TV deals.

[gscool89]

I don't blame anyone, this was going to be a long process from day one. This shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

[SouthSideRyan]

I want a Sam Zell/Selig/Tribune option.

 

Even the local Chicago politics could be blamed on them for just accepting things like landmark statuses and entering into idiotic agreements with rooftop owners.

 

No renovations to Wrigley. No investment in development. Screwing Cubs on TV deals.

 

#5 in revenue and #1 in profit

[Sammys Boombox]

I want a Sam Zell/Selig/Tribune option.

 

Even the local Chicago politics could be blamed on them for just accepting things like landmark statuses and entering into idiotic agreements with rooftop owners.

 

No renovations to Wrigley. No investment in development. Screwing Cubs on TV deals.

 

#5 in revenue and #1 in profit

 

Where is this information coming from?

[SouthSideRyan]

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/tanaka-fallout-cubs-facing-long-term-questions-about-future

 

Inside a ballroom at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers last Saturday, president of business operations Crane Kenney told the convention audience that the Cubs produced the fifth-highest revenues in baseball last year (while losing 96 games and finishing in last place in the National League Central).

 

 

Industry officials have confirmed the Forbes rankings that identified the Cubs as baseball’s most profitable team in 2012, part of an analysis that assessed the franchise value at $1 billion.

[davell]

I want a Sam Zell/Selig/Tribune option.

 

Even the local Chicago politics could be blamed on them for just accepting things like landmark statuses and entering into idiotic agreements with rooftop owners.

 

No renovations to Wrigley. No investment in development. Screwing Cubs on TV deals.

 

#5 in revenue and #1 in profit

 

Where is this information coming from?

 

From Crane Kenney.

[SouthSideRyan]

To clarify, Houston probably passed us in profitability this season thanks to their 15M payroll.

[Sammys Boombox]

Obviously missed a couple of things today.

 

I remember that Forbes report, but many owners debunked that when it came out. Obviously, there was a lot of truth to the Cubs portion of the Forbes report.

 

I still think the previous ownership has to take a huge portion of the blame, but for the sake of this poll: 90/10 Ricketts/FO.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't blame anyone, this was going to be a long process from day one. This shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

God this is dumb

[davell]

Go ahead and vote again, I changed it up, to include a few new options. It erased the votes.

[rocket]

90/10 ricketts/fo. at some point we have to stop blaming the previous regime.

[davell]

I can't blame Zell, Ricketts signed the docs knowingly.

[Sammy Sofa]

I went 73/25 Ricketts/FO. I was originally 90/10, but I can't help but think that Theo and co. aren't a little gun-shy when it comes to big money at this point (and maybe a little too enamored with the whole make your own baseball team from the ground up thing). I don't know how much of that is restrictions from the FO or feeling burned from the Boston days; probably a combination of both. Guys like Tanaka and Cespedes fit right in with what they say they're looking for, and they rumored/reported Cubs just fall too far under what they need to be spending to land guys like that, and I think if that was only because of the owners refusing to spend more you would have heard rumors of people in the FO being disgruntled or frustrated.

[NOLA]

I went 73/25 Ricketts/FO. I was originally 90/10, but I can't help but think that Theo and co. aren't a little gun-shy when it comes to big money at this point (and maybe a little too enamored with the whole make your own baseball team from the ground up thing).

See, as much as I don't want to believe this, I keep coming back to this thought over and over. I really think this is a part of it.

[Sammy Sofa]

I went 73/25 Ricketts/FO. I was originally 90/10, but I can't help but think that Theo and co. aren't a little gun-shy when it comes to big money at this point (and maybe a little too enamored with the whole make your own baseball team from the ground up thing).

See, as much as I don't want to believe this, I keep coming back to this thought over and over. I really think this is a part of it.

 

I definitely think there's plenty of smoke to the idea that the owners are tied up money-wise and that the FO are dealing with financial constraints that they were not expecting when they were pitched to come here (or not expecting to last as long as they have or to this degree, etc.), so I don't buy into the idea that Theo was brought here effectively with the promise that he could play Baseball Mogul with a big league team. That said, I think with the way that things have gone that that's effectively where they've almost gone all in. That's likely mostly due to necessity, but you'd have to think there's a tempting appeal to basically be building your own team, and with the way things have gone that's basically where they are. I don't WANT to be thinking this, but again, if it was just the Ricketts [expletive] up then why have we heard literally nothing of anyone in the FO being frustrated with being sold a bad bill of goods from the Ricketts?

 

Now my craziest thoughts have me worried that they're not going to be willing to part with some of these highly thought of prospects in trades...but that's just that: crazy. I think.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

75 Ricketts, 25 front office.

 

The myth that they inherited nothing and thus three offseason on it's not anyone but Hendry's fault is just so ridiculous.

 

The money has been most of the problem, but this really has devolved to the point where they seem to be living out some fantasy or experiment about an idealized way to build a baseball team with no pressure to actually produce or perform.

 

They aren't as good as they think they are. Things like passing on entire offseasons just can't happen if they want to build the sort of success they think they are.

[Sammys Boombox]

So, maybe another idea for a poll is "How optimistic are you about the Cubs future?"

 

I know that within the span of a few weeks I went from very angry at the Ricketts/Tribune/Selig/Chicago politics for putting the Cubs in a situation that seems pretty crappy for years to come (due to a conversation with an MLB reporter and then the Passan article) to extremely excited (TV deals, Tanaka, renovations) to upset that 2014 and it looks like 2015 are being punted (no Tanaka) to angry (renovation litigation) to very angry (this article today and the TV deal is still not in hand).

 

I think I'm moving into the "I hope these guys bring us a perennial winner, but I'll believe it when I see it. And, if it does not turn into playing in the League Division Series 7 out of 10 years and playing in a couple of World Series every 5 years, then it wasn't really worth making my favorite sports team basically unwatchable for half a decade."

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Wrigley Field, just because I hate it.

[davell]

75 Ricketts, 25 front office.

 

The myth that they inherited nothing and thus three offseason on it's not anyone but Hendry's fault is just so ridiculous.

 

The money has been most of the problem, but this really has devolved to the point where they seem to be living out some fantasy or experiment about an idealized way to build a baseball team with no pressure to actually produce or perform.

 

They aren't as good as they think they are. Things like passing on entire offseasons just can't happen if they want to build the sort of success they think they are.

 

I think they truly meant to tank year one. They had an older roster, a couple of bloated contracts, with not a lot of flexibility, and not a bunch to look forward to in the pipeline.(likely with a mandate to drop payroll a bit as it went down 25 mill) They also likely wanted an impact player in the draft and with the new CBA, saw it as a way to enhance that possibility.

 

With the expected ability to start spending soon, I think it was looked at as logical, plus they had to put a bit of money into the Dominican complex, their computer system, a much larger FO, and maybe something else?(can't remember) But the drop of payroll in year 1 definitely had a bit to do with housekeeping things they felt they needed to upgrade.

 

However, things turned south the following year, for whatever reason. Attendance dropped some, but payroll stayed around the same as the previous season. We had a relatively active offseason actually, one that made sense after the year one tank, in my mind. But, I would have thought there to be more money available than what there was, as Theo mentioned they spent every bit.

 

After another shitty season though, where attendance dropped again, the new TV money infusion should have canceled it out. I really think there would have been more activity, if we had lost out on Tanaka earlier in the offseason. As it was, we hinged everything on going after him. Was that smart? In my opinion, no. If we knew we'd be capped at a certain number or if we knew we weren't his top rumored choice, I see no reason to wait around for the guy, even if he WAS the best fit longterm.

 

That said, with payroll being capped at 100 mill or so, it doesn't exactly leave the FO with much room to make mistakes. Gun shy? Yeah, at least somewhat. Not to mention, it's not easy convincing bigtime guys to come into a losing situation. Like I said elsewhere, I think we'd have a better shot at getting TWO, than getting ONE bigtime guy. Hopefully we've seen enough progress that next year is when we make those moves. The payroll will be there anyway.

 

So, to me, the FO gets some blame(not much) for missing out on guys they should have gotten. Ryu, Puig, and Cespedes(less important), not so much on Darvish and Tanaka, as I doubt they were equipped financially to get them. Darvish especially, considering the 50 mill upfront, that I doubt we had.

 

But, they get plenty of leash here, because they're operating on a playing field thats different than they thought they would be operating on, at this time. It sucks, but there isn't the ability to make multiple big moves right now, which isn't their fault.

 

Given the financial restraints, I think the FO has done well in giving us hope and they would have done more, if they had the money to do it. Which falls on the Ricketts and the business side of things much more than on themselves.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

That said, with payroll being capped at 100 mill or so, it doesn't exactly leave the FO with much room to make mistakes. Gun shy? Yeah, at least somewhat. Not to mention, it's not easy convincing bigtime guys to come into a losing situation. Like I said elsewhere, I think we'd have a better shot at getting TWO, than getting ONE bigtime guy. Hopefully we've seen enough progress that next year is when we make those moves. The payroll will be there anyway.

 

I fear MWV is right, and the 100 Million payroll was there for Tanaka(defrayed by marketing or some such nonsense?) and only Tanaka. If we get fucked on this TV deal, or we wind up applying it all to renovations, we're going to be bad for a very long time.

[davell]

 

That said, with payroll being capped at 100 mill or so, it doesn't exactly leave the FO with much room to make mistakes. Gun shy? Yeah, at least somewhat. Not to mention, it's not easy convincing bigtime guys to come into a losing situation. Like I said elsewhere, I think we'd have a better shot at getting TWO, than getting ONE bigtime guy. Hopefully we've seen enough progress that next year is when we make those moves. The payroll will be there anyway.

 

I fear MWV is right, and the 100 Million payroll was there for Tanaka(defrayed by marketing or some such nonsense?) and only Tanaka. If we get [expletive] on this TV deal, or we wind up applying it all to renovations, we're going to be bad for a very long time.

 

Oh sweet Moses, I hope that's not true. Thats too bad to even laugh at. If we legitimately are stuck with an 80 mill payroll, its worse than I even thought. I'm going to keep convincing myself we decided to wait it out on Tanaka and missed the offseason solely because of it.