Brett's take on Cubs finances

[davell]

Good God. Rehashing this, especially after the way Brett laid everything out is just [expletive] stupid. They had a decision to make extremely early in the Ricketts reign and chose long term over short term. As any fairly intelligent business owner would. Dual fronts? Give me a [expletive] break. Do you think when Theo said that he figured the renovations wouldn't be starting extremely soon? Much less, thinking they wouldnt be starting by now.

Why do people insist on inventing false choices? This isn't a game of Sophie's choice. They've intentionally decided not to try when they very well could have done both.

You still clinging to your idea that finances aren't playing into anything? Oh my.

[jersey cubs fan]

Good God. Rehashing this, especially after the way Brett laid everything out is just [expletive] stupid. They had a decision to make extremely early in the Ricketts reign and chose long term over short term. As any fairly intelligent business owner would. Dual fronts? Give me a [expletive] break. Do you think when Theo said that he figured the renovations wouldn't be starting extremely soon? Much less, thinking they wouldnt be starting by now.

 

Oh yes, by all means. Brett wrote a long article that revealed very little, if any new information and therefore we must praise the decision to lose as much as possible for many years.

 

Makes sense.

No one(I don't think) is praising losing. But it is what it is, I don't see the point of whining about an extra 10 wins in our current situation.

 

Translation, the team sucks but you are a bad person if that disappoints you and you express disappointment. Good people invent a new thing to enjoy and call it cheering the process.

[Guest]

Good God. Rehashing this, especially after the way Brett laid everything out is just [expletive] stupid. They had a decision to make extremely early in the Ricketts reign and chose long term over short term. As any fairly intelligent business owner would. Dual fronts? Give me a [expletive] break. Do you think when Theo said that he figured the renovations wouldn't be starting extremely soon? Much less, thinking they wouldnt be starting by now.

Why do people insist on inventing false choices? This isn't a game of Sophie's choice. They've intentionally decided not to try when they very well could have done both.

You still clinging to your idea that finances aren't playing into anything? Oh my.

What does finances have to do with anything? Your post is [expletive] ridiculous. If they don't have the money they don't have a choice. So no decision needed to be made. So did they have a choice or not?

[jersey cubs fan]

Good God. Rehashing this, especially after the way Brett laid everything out is just [expletive] stupid. They had a decision to make extremely early in the Ricketts reign and chose long term over short term. As any fairly intelligent business owner would. Dual fronts? Give me a [expletive] break. Do you think when Theo said that he figured the renovations wouldn't be starting extremely soon? Much less, thinking they wouldnt be starting by now.

Why do people insist on inventing false choices? This isn't a game of Sophie's choice. They've intentionally decided not to try when they very well could have done both.

You still clinging to your idea that finances aren't playing into anything? Oh my.

 

This blanket excuse that somehow financial pressures outside of their own making forced themselves on the team is ridiculous.

 

 

The Cubs chose to be very bad for a few years. They actively chose that path. It was a decision made by the powers that be. Some people are fine with their favorite team losing a lot. Some people try to convince themselves they are fin with it. Others find it annoying.

[davell]

Good God. Rehashing this, especially after the way Brett laid everything out is just [expletive] stupid. They had a decision to make extremely early in the Ricketts reign and chose long term over short term. As any fairly intelligent business owner would. Dual fronts? Give me a [expletive] break. Do you think when Theo said that he figured the renovations wouldn't be starting extremely soon? Much less, thinking they wouldnt be starting by now.

Why do people insist on inventing false choices? This isn't a game of Sophie's choice. They've intentionally decided not to try when they very well could have done both.

You still clinging to your idea that finances aren't playing into anything? Oh my.

What does finances have to do with anything? Your post is [expletive] ridiculous. If they don't have the money they don't have a choice. So no decision needed to be made. So did they have a choice or not?

Uh, are you really asking if finances play into whether its possible to turn a bad team into a good one? Thanks for proving my point.

[davell]

Good God. Rehashing this, especially after the way Brett laid everything out is just [expletive] stupid. They had a decision to make extremely early in the Ricketts reign and chose long term over short term. As any fairly intelligent business owner would. Dual fronts? Give me a [expletive] break. Do you think when Theo said that he figured the renovations wouldn't be starting extremely soon? Much less, thinking they wouldnt be starting by now.

Why do people insist on inventing false choices? This isn't a game of Sophie's choice. They've intentionally decided not to try when they very well could have done both.

You still clinging to your idea that finances aren't playing into anything? Oh my.

 

This blanket excuse that somehow financial pressures outside of their own making forced themselves on the team is ridiculous.

 

 

The Cubs chose to be very bad for a few years. They actively chose that path. It was a decision made by the powers that be. Some people are fine with their favorite team losing a lot. Some people try to convince themselves they are fin with it. Others find it annoying.

I've assumed we're in the same general age range. I'm 39. The Cubs have sucked the vast majority of my 32 years of fandom. If it means sucking a few more years before that changing, I'm fine with it. All I want is for us to be able to use our large market like large market teams do, to gain every advantage we can. Ricketts can't do that currently. I'm not sure why anyone disputes that, at this point. He may not use it once he has it, but that's TBD. So in the meantime, I'm not getting worked up over our current ML situation, when there are certainly rays of light starting to show very soon.

[Guest]

So we've cycled back to the obnoxious "they actively chose to lose" rhetoric? Is it really so difficult to remotely try and put a very complex situation in context?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So we've cycled back to the obnoxious "they actively chose to lose" rhetoric? Is it really so difficult to remotely try and put a very complex situation in context?

 

OK.

 

They chose to lose in 2012 because they were trying to get a handle on what was happening.

 

They gave it a shot in 2013 with what money they had, but it fell apart in a lack of pitching depth and some bad luck.

 

They seem to have given up completely for 2014, content to lose and leave millions in payroll unspent.

[jersey cubs fan]

So we've cycled back to the obnoxious "they actively chose to lose" rhetoric? Is it really so difficult to remotely try and put a very complex situation in context?

 

It's really not that complex and the context is very much understood. The Cubs knew they could get away with losing a lot for multiple years because of the inherited brand value established over the years and instead of trying to build up the farm system while trying to succeed at the major league level, they chose to focus their efforts entirely on the farm system.

 

Some people think that was the only way to do it and are totally cool with it. Others don't think that.

[Guest]

So, yes. Cool.

[Clem Fandango]

http://i.imgur.com/Awp0c.gif

[Tyrant]

So we've cycled back to the obnoxious "they actively chose to lose" rhetoric? Is it really so difficult to remotely try and put a very complex situation in context?

 

It's really not that complex and the context is very much understood. The Cubs knew they could get away with losing a lot for multiple years because of the inherited brand value established over the years and instead of trying to build up the farm system while trying to succeed at the major league level, they chose to focus their efforts entirely on the farm system.

 

Some people think that was the only way to do it and are totally cool with it. Others don't think that.

 

What do you think their motive is for "choosing" to lose?

[XZero771679666304]

So we've cycled back to the obnoxious "they actively chose to lose" rhetoric? Is it really so difficult to remotely try and put a very complex situation in context?

 

It's really not that complex and the context is very much understood. The Cubs knew they could get away with losing a lot for multiple years because of the inherited brand value established over the years and instead of trying to build up the farm system while trying to succeed at the major league level, they chose to focus their efforts entirely on the farm system.

 

Some people think that was the only way to do it and are totally cool with it. Others don't think that.

 

There's a lot of grey area. Some people don't think it was the only way to do it, and aren't totally cool with it, but understand the logic and can live with it. One does not either have to be in love with it or loathe it.

 

I am of the opinion that there was very little chance that the Cubs could have contended the past couple years, even with aggressive spending, and I understand the decision not to spend resources on a lost cause. As I alluded to earlier, I don't think overspending in FA to try and add a few wins and be "respectable" while not contending is a particularly worthwhile endeavor. I don't care at all for the MLB team being awful, but non-contention is non-contention, and I take no more pleasure in being mediocre rather than bad.

 

What does not sit well with me, however, is missing on young long term assets like Tanaka, and I personally think the blame for that lies with ownership, not the FO.

[Deeg]

I honestly think the most interesting question raised here is why so few prominent (by web standards) sources have chosen to be hard-nosed and balanced critics of the organization, and so many to be cheerleaders. Really, apart from CCO is there anyone left - anyone credible, anyway - who still holds the organization to an objective standard? Praising when it's warranted and not shying away from accountability?

 

It almost seems as if there's a collective will here to try and get the fanbase through bleak times by denying the bleakness of those times, and praising the infallibility of the men in charge of changing them. Either that or it's simply too much blind loyalty to Theo Epstein, who's certainly earned plenty of credibility but not the free pass almost the entire blogging community gives him. And even if it's the latter, that doesn't explain the eagerness to absolve Ricketts from responsibility for the failures of the big-league product in the short and medium-term.

[Sammy Sofa]

I honestly think the most interesting question raised here is why so few prominent (by web standards) sources have chosen to be hard-nosed and balanced critics of the organization, and so many to be cheerleaders. Really, apart from CCO is there anyone left - anyone credible, anyway - who still holds the organization to an objective standard? Praising when it's warranted and not shying away from accountability?

 

It almost seems as if there's a collective will here to try and get the fanbase through bleak times by denying the bleakness of those times, and praising the infallibility of the men in charge of changing them. Either that or it's simply too much blind loyalty to Theo Epstein, who's certainly earned plenty of credibility but not the free pass almost the entire blogging community gives him. And even if it's the latter, that doesn't explain the eagerness to absolve Ricketts from responsibility for the failures of the big-league product in the short and medium-term.

 

I agree, it is strange how much of a relative pass the whole organization has been getting, even by the usually crappy standards of sports journalism. I'm not saying they should raked over the coals, but there's just so few people even simply questioning or mildly criticizing everything that's going on.

[J.R.]

Call me a Ricketts/Theo sycophant - I had a blast last year at Daytona and Knoxville. The team made a conscious choice to tank the season once again and trade serviceable veteran talent for excellent young talent, and to exchange face for draft position. I made a conscious choice to avoid in-person encounters with the big league club.

 

The Cubs have a legit, deep organization for the first time since the mid-80s. NSBB has clamored for this for 11 years, and now that it's here, I'm enjoying it.

[Guest]

Call me a Ricketts/Theo sycophant - I had a blast last year at Daytona and Knoxville. The team made a conscious choice to tank the season once again and trade serviceable veteran talent for excellent young talent, and to exchange face for draft position. I made a conscious choice to avoid in-person encounters with the big league club.

 

The Cubs have a legit, deep organization for the first time since the mid-80s. NSBB has clamored for this for 11 years, and now that it's here, I'm enjoying it.

 

The early 2000s say hello.

[J.R.]

Call me a Ricketts/Theo sycophant - I had a blast last year at Daytona and Knoxville. The team made a conscious choice to tank the season once again and trade serviceable veteran talent for excellent young talent, and to exchange face for draft position. I made a conscious choice to avoid in-person encounters with the big league club.

 

The Cubs have a legit, deep organization for the first time since the mid-80s. NSBB has clamored for this for 11 years, and now that it's here, I'm enjoying it.

 

The early 2000s say hello.

 

I never approached those days with the kind of confidence I have now. And I'm as jaded as they come.

[Soul]

Call me a Ricketts/Theo sycophant - I had a blast last year at Daytona and Knoxville. The team made a conscious choice to tank the season once again and trade serviceable veteran talent for excellent young talent, and to exchange face for draft position. I made a conscious choice to avoid in-person encounters with the big league club.

 

The Cubs have a legit, deep organization for the first time since the mid-80s. NSBB has clamored for this for 11 years, and now that it's here, I'm enjoying it.

 

I get it, but surely you also get that the vast majority of Cub fans aren't going to schedule trips to Daytona and Knoxville in order to witness good baseball. And they shouldn't have to.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Call me a Ricketts/Theo sycophant - I had a blast last year at Daytona and Knoxville. The team made a conscious choice to tank the season once again and trade serviceable veteran talent for excellent young talent, and to exchange face for draft position. I made a conscious choice to avoid in-person encounters with the big league club.

 

The Cubs have a legit, deep organization for the first time since the mid-80s. NSBB has clamored for this for 11 years, and now that it's here, I'm enjoying it.

 

The early 2000s say hello.

 

I never approached those days with the kind of confidence I have now. And I'm as jaded as they come.

 

Then you weren't paying close enough attention.

[Sammy Sofa]

How can anyone say a "legit deep organization is here?" A huge component of that is terrible right now.

[Cubswin11]

How can anyone say a "legit deep organization is here?" A huge component of that is terrible right now.

And the component that has "depth" has the highest likelihood of busting

[J.R.]

Time to argue semantics. Cubs team = third base dugout at Wrigley. Cubs organization = everybody else.

 

I argue the component most likely to "bust" is the hypothetical patchwork of ill-advised free agent signings the meatballs called for all winter long.

[Sammy Sofa]

Time to argue semantics. Cubs team = third base dugout at Wrigley. Cubs organization = everybody else.

 

So the final product ISN'T the most important part? It's the thing that sustains the rest and what everything else is building towards.

 

I argue the component most likely to "bust" is the hypothetical patchwork of ill-advised free agent signings the meatballs called for all winter long.

 

Who exactly was doing this and where?

 

I just don't understand why the previous owners and FO were rightfully lambasted for only being focused on one aspect of the organization, yet the current group shouldn't be. We all wanted the farm system to be improved, but nobody except the most masochistic of stereotypical miserable Cubs fans wanted or thought that that tanking the major league team for years was the way to go. Yeah, that's the reality of the situation at this point and there's no turning back, but the current owners should get [expletive] for fostering an environment and plan that was so lopsided for so long.

[treebird]

Time to argue semantics. Cubs team = third base dugout at Wrigley. Cubs organization = everybody else.

 

So the final product ISN'T the most important part? It's the thing that sustains the rest and what everything else is building towards.

 

I argue the component most likely to "bust" is the hypothetical patchwork of ill-advised free agent signings the meatballs called for all winter long.

 

Who exactly was doing this and where?

 

I just don't understand why the previous owners and FO were rightfully lambasted for only being focused on one aspect of the organization, yet the current group shouldn't be. We all wanted the farm system to be improved, but nobody except the most masochistic of stereotypical miserable Cubs fans wanted or thought that that tanking the major league team for years was the way to go. Yeah, that's the reality of the situation at this point and there's no turning back, but the current owners should get [expletive] for fostering an environment and plan that was so lopsided for so long.

 

this really is a big issue. we dumped several years so we could get good draft picks and improve the farm system. the farm system has improved, but this is the easy part. even if this guys work out to some extent, it's not like we're a big market team that can start buying guys. the front office is going to have to show that they can put together a good farm system without high draft picks.*

 

 

*the fun part here is that if they do so, it proves that we shouldn't have bothered to tank over and over again since a smart group can build up the farm even without picking at the top of the draft every year.