Front Office Thread

[SouthSideRyan]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Translated: He keeps giving me fake phone numbers and calling me a weirdo to Jed when I'm within earshot.

[Guest]

Payroll: Ricketts wouldn’t simply commit to a higher payroll now that the team is contending.

 

“It’s not about payroll any more. It’s about what you get. The correlation between the dollars you spend and the wins on the field is going down every single year. In order to have sustainable success, you can’t count on money, you have to count on young talent.

 

“That’s what is going to decide if this team has one or two good years or 10 or 12 good years. It’s about how strong our foundation is over time. That said, winning will help on the financial side too.”

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/34646/cubs-owner-tom-ricketts-its-been-quite-the-journey

 

translated: #PTR continues unabated

Yea I don't like this at all.

[SouthSideRyan]

a lot of those tweets were obscenely idiotic no matter what you thought of what they were doing.

 

Sure. But the only reason it's fun to laugh at *them* and not the millions of other idiots is because they disagreed with you on a specific subject.

 

Just like the only reason it's fun to post stats stripped of context is because they vaguely allude to a real point I like to argue.

 

Most of them showed a fundamental lack of understanding of well, anything.

[Banedon]

Deep pockets? Not so much for Chicago's sports franchise owners

[SouthSideRyan]

Deep pockets? Not so much for Chicago's sports franchise owners

 

Seeing as the team is owned by the Family, they should really be slotted in at 14 no?

[jersey cubs fan]

Deep pockets? Not so much for Chicago's sports franchise owners

 

Seeing as the team is owned by the Family, they should really be slotted in at 14 no?

The Wirtz family dynasty and Ricketts family both have a tremendously large amount of cash not accounted for here.

[sneakypower]

“It’s not about payroll any more. It’s about what you get. The correlation between the dollars you spend and the wins on the field is going down every single year.

let's check in on SSR:

 

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/1037020/head-explodes-o.gif

[Guest]

“It’s not about payroll any more. It’s about what you get. The correlation between the dollars you spend and the wins on the field is going down every single year.

let's check in on SSR:

 

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/1037020/head-explodes-o.gif

I'm right there with him. Is what Tight Wad Tom said even true?

 

Anyway, I wish he'd just keep his yap shut and let us dream of spending money to build a dynasty. I like my fantasy world much better than the real world.

[Guest]

Yes, it's true. Payroll is less correlated with success than it has ever been.

 

But boy is the PTR shrieking every time news comes out that isn't "we are going to buy literally every player in Free Agency so other teams can't fill out a full roster" tiresome.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yes, it's true. Payroll is less correlated with success than it has ever been.

 

But boy is the PTR shrieking every time news comes out that isn't "we are going to buy literally every player in Free Agency so other teams can't fill out a full roster" tiresome.

 

Um, this specific news actually makes it sounds like they won't be able to afford anybody good. Not everybody good.

[Guest]

Um, this specific news actually makes it sounds like they won't be able to afford anybody good. Not everybody good.

 

"Oh no we won't be able to spend on anyone" is certainly A way to interpret those comments. It can also be construed as Ricketts not wanting to raise expectations when he's not the one making the player decisions, and he doesn't want to put the onus on Theo to spend money if that's not the path Theo wants to take. Or maybe he's just punting the question since he genuinely isn't sure how large the payroll will be next year. Not every hedging comment is immediately proof that terrible things are coming.

[Guest]

it's pretty disconcerting when usually the answers to those questions are "yes they will have the resources to do what they want to do"

 

 

that said, at least we have hoyer's comments from a month or two ago that they will have the resources to sign a big ticket player if they choose.

[Guest]

Um, this specific news actually makes it sounds like they won't be able to afford anybody good. Not everybody good.

 

"Oh no we won't be able to spend on anyone" is certainly A way to interpret those comments. It can also be construed as Ricketts not wanting to raise expectations when he's not the one making the player decisions, and he doesn't want to put the onus on Theo to spend money if that's not the path Theo wants to take. Or maybe he's just punting the question since he genuinely isn't sure how large the payroll will be next year. Not every hedging comment is immediately proof that terrible things are coming.

That's one to look at it. I guess we'll have to see what happens this offseason.

[UMFan83]

Yes, it's true. Payroll is less correlated with success than it has ever been.

 

But boy is the PTR shrieking every time news comes out that isn't "we are going to buy literally every player in Free Agency so other teams can't fill out a full roster" tiresome.

 

If you're referring to my comment, it was a joke.

 

I wouldn't expect Tom to publicly commit to a spending spree, but that doesn't necessarily mean he won't spend money in the offseason. Jed has already made comments hinting that the money will likely be there for them this winter.

[SouthSideRyan]

It makes perfect sense to extend the benefit of the doubt to our FO at this point. Why people are giving the benefit of the doubt to ownership when it comes to finances is rather baffling.

[Guest]

Payroll went up about 25 million this year, but that's not really the point. Although if 'benefit of the doubt' means 'don't assume the literal worst case scenario from mild comments in September', then yes I guess I'm asking for the benefit of the doubt.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

10 or 12 good years.

 

This is the kind of empty promise crap that bothers me. You can't realistically make promises like that.

[Guest]

10 or 12 good years.

 

This is the kind of empty promise crap that bothers me. You can't realistically make promises like that.

 

look at it on an "as a whole" basis rather than a year to year basis and it seems far less crazy and far more achievable by competent leadership.

[Banedon]

10 or 12 good years.

 

This is the kind of empty promise crap that bothers me. You can't realistically make promises like that.

 

But he didn't promise that. That's misrepresenting the quote.

 

He's saying that young talent determines long term success vs short term success. The number of years is pure hyperbole.

[imb]

10 or 12 good years.

 

This is the kind of empty promise crap that bothers me. You can't realistically make promises like that.

 

what a pathetic thing to whine about

[Guest]

lmao just realized where he actually got that snippet.

 

wow. kyle gonna kyle.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The number of years is pure hyperbole.

 

Exactly.

[Banedon]

The number of years is pure hyperbole.

 

Exactly.

 

This does nothing to validate your point. Using hyperbole doesn't invalidate his point, which you're intentionally missing.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This does nothing to validate your point. Using hyperbole doesn't invalidate his point, which you're intentionally missing.

 

I don't have to disagree with his point to hate the hyperbole. I'm pretty fine with the Cubs not spending a ton of money this offseason. I don't really want another 30+ pitcher on a megadeal, and I'm not going to go to war over not signing Heyward.

[Banedon]

This does nothing to validate your point. Using hyperbole doesn't invalidate his point, which you're intentionally missing.

 

I don't have to disagree with his point to hate the hyperbole. I'm pretty fine with the Cubs not spending a ton of money this offseason. I don't really want another 30+ pitcher on a megadeal, and I'm not going to go to war over not signing Heyward.

 

I'm sure if I went back through your old posts I might find once or twice when you used hyperbole.

 

You just don't like positive hyperbole. You have no problem with it when you use it in a negative fashion.