Getting up to speed - payroll and the Ricketts

[Brock Beauchamp]

As an outsider, let's just say that I'm... not a fan... of the Ricketts. I kinda assume the sentiment here doesn't disagree with that take.

 

Given the size of the Cubs market and the sheer weight of their revenue, what they've been doing in the past couple of years seems pretty hard to swallow. Sure, the Ricketts aren't Bob Nutting but they also don't have the last name "Nutting" so we should expect better from them.

 

So what are Cubs fans vibes about the Ricketts and how much they're spending right now? Adding Swanson is obviously a pretty big get but it feels like they've passed on several players they could have paid... like pretty much anyone from 2016?

[Clem Fandango]

They're scumbags who, after getting their world series title, completely turned into hardcore conservative "Woe is me I'm just a poor billionaire we can't spend any money" pricks who say they took on biblical losses during COVID and then turn around and make an attempt to buy one of the most valuable sport franchises on the planet while acting like they don't have money to spend on one of the largest market money making teams on Earth.

 

horsefeathers the Ricketts. That's the vibe

 

And yes they've passed, or made poor offers, for players they absolutely should've signed all in the name of either not having enough money or having spent too much already.

[Brock Beauchamp]

They're scumbags who, after getting their world series title, completely turned into hardcore conservative "Woe is me I'm just a poor billionaire we can't spend any money" pricks who say they took on biblical losses during COVID and then turn around and make an attempt to buy one of the most valuable sport franchises on the planet while acting like they don't have money to spend on one of the largest market money making teams on Earth.

Oh, see this is why I wanted to get up to speed. It appears they posted an offer for Chelea FC? Seriously? And they were doing that to the Cubs at the same time?

 

I believe the term you all appear to use in this situation is HORSEFEATHERS

[Clem Fandango]

Here's a gif that's both a response to you and a representation of how our owners operate:

 

[Irrelevant Dude]

They're scumbags who, after getting their world series title, completely turned into hardcore conservative "Woe is me I'm just a poor billionaire we can't spend any money" pricks who say they took on biblical losses during COVID and then turn around and make an attempt to buy one of the most valuable sport franchises on the planet while acting like they don't have money to spend on one of the largest market money making teams on Earth.

Pretty much this, but also while continuing to gobble up real estate and spin it like like they are doing Cubs fans a favor by doing so.

[UMFan83]

My current Twitter name is "Biblical Losses" so yeah....horsefeathers the Ricketts family.

 

PS I know you are trying to generate discussion with new topics and all of that but this thread titled "The Ricketts family sucks in all kinds of ways" will tell you everything you need to know.

 

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2630

[Transmogrified Tiger]

When it comes to payroll specifically, my take is ownership is consistent(with one exception) at a level that makes building a great team possible even if I would never describe them as generous. It’s generally been my understanding that payroll is there up to the tax line if the front office wants to use it, and in the right circumstances they are willing to go into the tax. Since the Cubs don’t have one outlier revenue stream like the Dodgers or an overwhelming market size like the Yankees(plus the potential competitive penalties for exceeding the LT), I can understand that logic even if it’s not my absolute preference. Especially when basically every team(even mega market teams like the Yankees) are resetting their LT penalties every few years.

 

As it relates to the last few seasons, that includes the one exception, which was that they were overly conservative with payroll during the 2020-2021 offseason. The main consequence of that was missed opportunity and the FO cutting bait with Schwarber a year before FA after his poor 2020. As for the rest of the 2016 core, that’s 100% a front office decision. Hoyer is very mindful about long term deals to guys in their 30s*(note that his 2 big FA splashes in charge have been 28 year olds Suzuki and Swanson), and the younger members of that core were players like Baez who they didn’t believe would age gracefully. Given the roster refresh needed as the 2016 core reached FA and the lack of impact talent in the farm system, it would have been a narrow path to spending back into a place of consistent contention, so while payroll didnt bottom out to 2012 levels, it was still dropped as a mostly front office decision(as proven by the investment in Suzuki, Stroman, Swanson, Taillon, etc the last two years).

 

 

*I also appreciate that it’s probably not a coincidence that Ricketts hired/promoted an exec with Jed’s worldview, and that ownership probably wouldn’t hire a Preller or Dombrowski type to run the team. This doesn’t bother me but I can understand that it rankles others.

[CubinNY]

Since the Cubs don’t have one outlier revenue stream like the Dodgers .

 

I don't think this is true. At all.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Since the Cubs don’t have one outlier revenue stream like the Dodgers .

 

I don't think this is true. At all.

 

The Dodgers have an $100 million per year head start on every other team in the league via their tv deal, the Cubs are far from poor but they don’t have a structural advantage that approaches it. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

[CubinNY]

Since the Cubs don’t have one outlier revenue stream like the Dodgers .

 

I don't think this is true. At all.

 

The Dodgers have an $100 million per year head start on every other team in the league via their tv deal, the Cubs are far from poor but they don’t have a structural advantage that approaches it. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

How many concerts happen at Wrigley a year that they don't have to split the profits with any other team?

[CubColtPacer]

 

I don't think this is true. At all.

 

The Dodgers have an $100 million per year head start on every other team in the league via their tv deal, the Cubs are far from poor but they don’t have a structural advantage that approaches it. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

How many concerts happen at Wrigley a year that they don't have to split the profits with any other team?

 

Looks like about 10 per year. How much do you think that adds to the bottom line?

 

BTW, the Dodgers who were only averaging 3-4 concerts in the years before the pandemic had 9 last year. If that continues, that's not even a revenue booster for the Cubs over a team like the Dodgers.

[CubinNY]

 

The Dodgers have an $100 million per year head start on every other team in the league via their tv deal, the Cubs are far from poor but they don’t have a structural advantage that approaches it. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

How many concerts happen at Wrigley a year that they don't have to split the profits with any other team?

 

Looks like about 10 per year. How much do you think that adds to the bottom line?

 

BTW, the Dodgers who were only averaging 3-4 concerts in the years before the pandemic had 9 last year. If that continues, that's not even a revenue booster for the Cubs over a team like the Dodgers.

This year alone they have 6 concerts already scheduled including big ticket ones for Bruce (2 dates), Pink, and Guns N Roses. Not to mention hotels and rental property surrounding Wrigley.

 

Don't give me this [expletive]. The bottom line is that they can afford to spend whatever it takes to make the team better. They are not doing so to maximize profit. They care about winning baseball so long as it makes them obscene amounts of money.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Don't give me this [expletive]. The bottom line is that they can afford to spend whatever it takes to make the team better. They are not doing so to maximize profit. They care about winning baseball so long as it makes them obscene amounts of money.

 

No one is saying they can’t afford to spend more, the point you were quoting was that they do not have a huge unique revenue advantage compared to other teams. The Dodgers and Yankees are not run by philanthropists either, but they (and afaik they alone) have a big head start in revenue so they can get the same margins at higher payrolls.

[Backtobanks]

Since the Cubs don’t have one outlier revenue stream like the Dodgers .

 

I don't think this is true. At all.

 

The Dodgers have an $100 million per year head start on every other team in the league via their tv deal, the Cubs are far from poor but they don’t have a structural advantage that approaches it. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

 

Instead of comparing them to the Dodgers or the Yankees/Mets, why don't we compare them to the Phillies, Padres, Blue Jays, Angels, Braves, Astros, and the Rangers. They certainly have the funds to outspend these teams.

[Tim]

 

I don't think this is true. At all.

 

The Dodgers have an $100 million per year head start on every other team in the league via their tv deal, the Cubs are far from poor but they don’t have a structural advantage that approaches it. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

 

Instead of comparing them to the Dodgers or the Yankees/Mets, why don't we compare them to the Phillies, Padres, Blue Jays, Angels, Braves, Astros, and the Rangers. They certainly have the funds to outspend these teams.

If you look at the payrolls over the past 10 years, they mostly have.

[BigbadB]

I'm pretty much in agreement with everything except spending on the 2016 guys. That was an amazing year and an amazing group of players, but reliving those years with mega contracts was not the direction to go. Rizzo was older, Bryant was always hurt and Baez was not the type of megastar to build a team around.

 

I'm okay with not spending wildly on a team that isn't going to make the playoffs, but I do believe that when you feel you are in a position to be competitive, you do what's necessary to make that happen. I'm also not really a fan of just buying a championship team. I like exactly what Theo did with this team. He built up the minor leagues and then built around those guys as they started advancing to the bigs.

 

I'll always cherish that 2016 season and everyone that played on the team, but I was all for tearing it down in the name of rebuilding the minors and doing it all over again. Unfortunately, most of the talent coming back in trade for those guys weren't high minors/major league ready talent to only make the rebuild a year or two at most.

 

This site basically got it's history here because of the 2003 team and what we all hoped was the beginning of a long history of winning ways on the North Side. But Dusty killed it.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

The Dodgers have an $100 million per year head start on every other team in the league via their tv deal, the Cubs are far from poor but they don’t have a structural advantage that approaches it. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/

 

Instead of comparing them to the Dodgers or the Yankees/Mets, why don't we compare them to the Phillies, Padres, Blue Jays, Angels, Braves, Astros, and the Rangers. They certainly have the funds to outspend these teams.

If you look at the payrolls over the past 10 years, they mostly have.

They’ve owned the team for a dozen years and attempted to fund a winner in roughly one third of those seasons.

[Tim]

 

Instead of comparing them to the Dodgers or the Yankees/Mets, why don't we compare them to the Phillies, Padres, Blue Jays, Angels, Braves, Astros, and the Rangers. They certainly have the funds to outspend these teams.

If you look at the payrolls over the past 10 years, they mostly have.

They’ve owned the team for a dozen years and attempted to fund a winner in roughly one third of those seasons.

I didn't say they've spent enough or that I agree with their approach.

[SouthSideRyan]

When it comes to payroll specifically, my take is ownership is consistent(with one exception) at a level that makes building a great team possible even if I would never describe them as generous. It’s generally been my understanding that payroll is there up to the tax line if the front office wants to use it, and in the right circumstances they are willing to go into the tax. Since the Cubs don’t have one outlier revenue stream like the Dodgers or an overwhelming market size like the Yankees(plus the potential competitive penalties for exceeding the LT), I can understand that logic even if it’s not my absolute preference. Especially when basically every team(even mega market teams like the Yankees) are resetting their LT penalties every few years.

 

As it relates to the last few seasons, that includes the one exception, which was that they were overly conservative with payroll during the 2020-2021 offseason. The main consequence of that was missed opportunity and the FO cutting bait with Schwarber a year before FA after his poor 2020. As for the rest of the 2016 core, that’s 100% a front office decision. Hoyer is very mindful about long term deals to guys in their 30s*(note that his 2 big FA splashes in charge have been 28 year olds Suzuki and Swanson), and the younger members of that core were players like Baez who they didn’t believe would age gracefully. Given the roster refresh needed as the 2016 core reached FA and the lack of impact talent in the farm system, it would have been a narrow path to spending back into a place of consistent contention, so while payroll didnt bottom out to 2012 levels, it was still dropped as a mostly front office decision(as proven by the investment in Suzuki, Stroman, Swanson, Taillon, etc the last two years).

 

 

*I also appreciate that it’s probably not a coincidence that Ricketts hired/promoted an exec with Jed’s worldview, and that ownership probably wouldn’t hire a Preller or Dombrowski type to run the team. This doesn’t bother me but I can understand that it rankles others.

 

If this post doesn't clear it up, TT is the least miserable jerk on here

Edited March 1, 2023 by SouthSideRyan

[Sammy Sofa]

So did they lie about or completely botch the TV deal, or both?

[Tim]

So did they lie about or completely botch the TV deal, or both?

Some of it was just unfortunate timing that their previous deal didn't expire until the RSN market had significantly softened.

[Sammy Sofa]

So a lovely cocktail of hubris and stupidity, at least based on their rhetoric hyping it up in the build up to it finally rolling out. Of course, they've similarly hyped up all over the other business ventures involving and (sometimes literally) around the Cubs and Wrigley, yet payroll is still what it is, and ticket prices keep going up, so I'm leaning more towards it was just lying.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I mean, they don’t have a *bad* TV deal, that no one else has come close to the Dodgers in a decade is a reflection of that deal being an outlier more than a failure for everyone else.

[CubinNY]

So a lovely cocktail of hubris and stupidity, at least based on their rhetoric hyping it up in the build up to it finally rolling out. Of course, they've similarly hyped up all over the other business ventures involving and (sometimes literally) around the Cubs and Wrigley, yet payroll is still what it is, and ticket prices keep going up, so I'm leaning more towards it was just lying.

They did lower ticket prices, but they are still top 5. Honestly, I think they are trying to pay down a lot of debt they incurred when they remodeled Wrigley. At the same time, they have massive tax breaks due to its "historic" status. But I think they've invested heavily in outside ventures that are tangentially related to the Cubs and using the Cubs to leverage those things. We don't know due to the less than transparent way MLB works.

[Sammy Sofa]

Look, they couldn't shut the horsefeathers up about how the TV money and the hotel money and the bison sausage money and whatever the horsefeathers money was basically going to make them the Yankees of the Midwest. Let me simmer in my bitterness.