Tom Ricketts SUUUUUUUCKS

[squally1313]

double post

Edited February 18, 2025 by squally1313

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, squally1313 said:

 But these two offset right? On the ownership side, they have to pay a nominal premium vs would it cost up front and so after you discount the amounts you end up with AAV/CBT numbers in line with what everyone was projecting. On the players side, they get to brag about the numbers on the contract, but getting $20m in 5 years vs getting $15m tomorrow and having their investment team go get 8% annual return puts him in (roughly) the same financial situation in 2030. 

Everyone assumed Bregman was trying to beat Devers' annual salary, even if just by a little bit. Ultimately Boston's CBT number on Devers is $29.3m and for Bregman it's $31.7m. Yes, they got to 'lower' the CBT number from $40m to $31.7m. But the $40m is essentially a fake number anyways, besides bragging rights or whatever. 

Yes, the team gets to lower its CBT number and the player/agent gets to inflate his contract beyond what it really is present day. That is a wash. I just don’t see deferring money 10 years out so that you can live in a state better on income tax as something players would have move the needle on a deal. Especially players who have already earned hundreds of mililions of dollars. Once careers are over I can’t imagine someone saying they have to live in Texas or Florida, etc strictly so they don’t have to pay tax on a deferred yearly income of $2M. I have to believe a player will live where they are most comfortable with their family regardless of state  taxes. I think choosing to defer money for that reason is way overblown. 

[squally1313]

3 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Yes, the team gets to lower its CBT number and the player/agent gets to inflate his contract beyond what it really is present day. That is a wash. I just don’t see deferring money 10 years out so that you can live in a state better on income tax as something players would have move the needle on a deal. Especially players who have already earned hundreds of mililions of dollars. Once careers are over I can’t imagine someone saying they have to live in Texas or Florida, etc strictly so they don’t have to pay tax on a deferred yearly income of $2M. I have to believe a player will live where they are most comfortable with their family regardless of state  taxes. I think choosing to defer money for that reason is way overblown. 

To be clear, I meant the offset/wash more just on the team side. The team has to inflate the nominal value of the contract if they want to include deferrals, just due to time value of money, and then they get to discount it back down for CBT. Ultimately you end up materially where you would have been in a no-deferral contract alternate universe. Like, Team A offers 3/$90, no deferrals, Team B offers 3/$90, mostly deferrals. Team B would get a better CBT answer, but the player is going to pick the offer from Team A 99 times out of 100. 

The player preference to defer....I get the argument but I think a situation like Shohei is unique in that he already has so much money coming in through endorsements that he already has complete and total financial freedom before whatever money he takes him in a baseball salary. Someone like Kyle Tucker bringing home $40m next year ($25m post tax) vs $10m next year ($6m post tax) and $35m in 10 years ($25m post tax) probably wants the money up front not have to wait to maximize his quality of life now. 

[squally1313]

It's a little weird to me that Rosenthal and now Buster Olney are using the Bregman saga as the catalyst for trashing the Cubs front office, and specifically the ownership. The Olney article in particular is really sloppy. Offering 4/$115 isn't being 'outbid significantly' by Houston's 6/$156....it's more money per year in a situation where he was going to get opt outs probably either way. And then there's whatever this means: 

Quote

The Cubs' franchise value, as assessed by Sportico, was at $5.3b as of last seasons. That's the fourth highest in baseball, and more than three times greater than the combined value of the Brewers ($1.6b), Reds ($1.5b), and Pirates ($1.4b).

Like, the standard complaints still apply. Tom should put more money back into the team, should care less about the luxury tax penalties, and if the budget is really the $240m, Jed need/needs to be a better job of maximizing the team under those guardrails. 

But not outbidding Boston's 3/$95m (essentially) offer when you have Nico for 2 years, a DH for 2 years, and a top 15 prospect in baseball penciled in is not the definition of a slam dunk. It may seem like that because he was the last solid way to use the money in free agency, but it was definitely a square peg/round hole situation to me. 

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

It's a little weird to me that Rosenthal and now Buster Olney are using the Bregman saga as the catalyst for trashing the Cubs front office, and specifically the ownership. The Olney article in particular is really sloppy. Offering 4/$115 isn't being 'outbid significantly' by Houston's 6/$156....it's more money per year in a situation where he was going to get opt outs probably either way. And then there's whatever this means: 

Like, the standard complaints still apply. Tom should put more money back into the team, should care less about the luxury tax penalties, and if the budget is really the $240m, Jed need/needs to be a better job of maximizing the team under those guardrails. 

But not outbidding Boston's 3/$95m (essentially) offer when you have Nico for 2 years, a DH for 2 years, and a top 15 prospect in baseball penciled in is not the definition of a slam dunk. It may seem like that because he was the last solid way to use the money in free agency, but it was definitely a square peg/round hole situation to me. 

Agreed, Bregman wasn’t  the perfect fit. And probably not the perfect example of Tom needing to spend. But I am glad he is taking some heat. A few guys have written about the Cubs ownership and their failure to act like a large market. And they should be ridiculed for it. He is playing the fan base for fools. Fine if they don’t spend like the Dodgers or the NY teams but they should be a top 5 every year. And the LT line shouldn’t be the payroll cap. 

[Jason Ross]

I do wonder if this pressure will help the Cubs as an organization decide to push a little extra for Tucker. Ricketts has seemed pretty steadfast in how the Cubs have operated in terms of money, but he's also proven more than once that he's vain when it comes to how he's perceived in the media. He's made sure to skip events like Cubs Convention when the Cubs aren't good, the way Hoyer felt the need to have to thank him for his financial contributions makes me feel like he really enjoys the public praise, as well. Enough pressure from Rosenthal, Olney, Passan and crew on the media side could help here. 

I think worse case, it can only help in that front.

(Note - Not saying he'd fully open the pocket books, but Ricketts does come off as someone who cares how he looks)

[Irrelevant Dude]

The national guys, agents, union representation, etc. are really piling on Ricketts and the Cubs for their spending and the larger shell game.  Hopefully they keep the pressure on, especially now that we know how much it bothers Ricketts..  The Score has been playing various different clips this afternoon, some explicitly calling the Cubs out and others that describe exactly what the Cubs are doing without mentioning them by name.  That talk will likely die down if the Cubs have a good season and make the playoffs, but if they disappoint again and fail to make the playoffs... Look out.

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

The national guys, agents, union representation, etc. are really piling on Ricketts and the Cubs for their spending and the larger shell game.  Hopefully they keep the pressure on, especially now that we know how much it bothers Ricketts..  The Score has been playing various different clips this afternoon, some explicitly calling the Cubs out and others that describe exactly what the Cubs are doing without mentioning them by name.  That talk will likely die down if the Cubs have a good season and make the playoffs, but if they disappoint again and fail to make the playoffs... Look out.

I almost think making the playoffs might help push it. "You made it because of Tucker and you let him walk" will only intensify the cheapness.

[We Got The Whole 9]

I doubt they GAF. What's the consequence? 

[Irrelevant Dude]

5 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I almost think making the playoffs might help push it. "You made it because of Tucker and you let him walk" will only intensify the cheapness.

That is true.  I suppose it comes down to how Tucker performs this year.  If he is good, but not great, and the Cubs make the playoffs, then MAYBE they can justify letting him move on and spending that money elsewhere (not what I would do, but that's how they will spin it).  But if he hits like prime Kyle Tucker and carries the offense into the playoffs, it will be a really bad look to let him get away.

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I doubt they GAF. What's the consequence? 

I think it's less the actual, worldly consequences and more comes down to Tom's vanity. He's always come off as someone who cares a decent amount how he's perceived. He's made sure to hide behind others when things go wrong. He's made sure we all sympathize with his biblical losses. He hides from negative consequences at Cubs Con. 

I do wonder if public pressure, if every major reporter calling him cheap will eat at him. 

It really may not. I don't know Tom. But he certainly gives off some vibes that he cares how people view him which can you give you small hope that public pressure may do something.

[Rcal10]

20 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I do wonder if this pressure will help the Cubs as an organization decide to push a little extra for Tucker. Ricketts has seemed pretty steadfast in how the Cubs have operated in terms of money, but he's also proven more than once that he's vain when it comes to how he's perceived in the media. He's made sure to skip events like Cubs Convention when the Cubs aren't good, the way Hoyer felt the need to have to thank him for his financial contributions makes me feel like he really enjoys the public praise, as well. Enough pressure from Rosenthal, Olney, Passan and crew on the media side could help here. 

I think worse case, it can only help in that front.

(Note - Not saying he'd fully open the pocket books, but Ricketts does come off as someone who cares how he looks)

I agree that it can’t hurt. And also, with Bregman they didn’t offer an opt out in year one. Which means they were going to pay him more than $30M in ‘26. That is the biggest question mark in a Tucker deal. Would they go over in ‘26 for Tucker. If they would for Bregman I have to think they would for Tucker. And before Boston came in last minute with their offer there was a chance he would have signed here. I  sure some will suggest the Cubs only made an offer they knew he would refuse. But after reading more about other offers, I am not sure he wouldn’t have come to Chicago had Boston not stepped their offer up. Cubs AAV was better than the Astros and the Tigers. 

[CubinNY]

3 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think it's less the actual, worldly consequences and more comes down to Tom's vanity. He's always come off as someone who cares a decent amount how he's perceived. He's made sure to hide behind others when things go wrong. He's made sure we all sympathize with his biblical losses. He hides from negative consequences at Cubs Con. 

I do wonder if public pressure, if every major reporter calling him cheap will eat at him. 

It really may not. I don't know Tom. But he certainly gives off some vibes that he cares how people view him which can you give you small hope that public pressure may do something.

It will only harden their natural proclivities. Ever since they established ownership they’ve  been outspoken about “the right way” to build a team. And behind the scenes they and few others were the push behind the luxury tax stuff. That’s why he’s so adamant about it. The scheme is his baby. 
 

They’re a rich kids who grown up to be a rich adults and never had to work a real day their lives. They have a sense of entitlement to do whatever they please. 
 

They want praise for turning Wrigleyville into Ricketts World. 

[Post Count Padder]

Yeah I think Tommy cares about his image and ego/pride. Bregman could have been a fun addition but I don't think missing out should be the zenith of all these roster/spending issues.

That said, I am always in favor of publicly shaming billionaires.

[Derwood]

State income tax is based on the state you work in, not the state you live in, right? Am I making that up?

[Backtobanks]

7 hours ago, Derwood said:

State income tax is based on the state you work in, not the state you live in, right? Am I making that up?

You have to file in both states.

[BigbadB]

3 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

You have to file in both states.

Correct. I pay about an equal amount to California as I do Illinois. My source of income is from California, but I live in Illinois. I don't earn anything from Illinois. The little bit of income I get from Missouri doesn't even qualify as owing taxes.

[Derwood]

1 hour ago, BigbadB said:

Correct. I pay about an equal amount to California as I do Illinois. My source of income is from California, but I live in Illinois. I don't earn anything from Illinois. The little bit of income I get from Missouri doesn't even qualify as owing taxes.

Right, so the point is that deferred salary doesn't suddenly become tax-free if you move to Texas before the deferrals kick in

[squally1313]

36 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Right, so the point is that deferred salary doesn't suddenly become tax-free if you move to Texas before the deferrals kick in

I think there's a little bit of grey area that these teams and players are obviously trying to exploit, and it'll probably be an evolving issue as states work to close loopholes like this. Like, take Ohtani's contract. Couldn't it theoretically be written that he's obligated to perform consulting/marketing work (remotely, obviously) for the Dodgers during the time when he's actually getting paid? And so it's like....for the next 10 years he gets paid $10m or whatever to play baseball, and then the 10 years after that he gets paid $70m/year to work remotely for the organization. Obviously it's a sham, but I don't know if states, especially states like California, want to start weeding into what is 'fair' compensation for services and how it should be taxed. 

[squally1313]

1 minute ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Tbf what’s the perfect time? People seem to come out of the woodwork to defend and justify anything this franchise does, taking time to Actually Not That Good any player necessary in the moment, always demanding moar surplus valuez and reiterating in some way that no one (esp those danged aging crooks out of options or pre-arb salaries) is worthy of our cap space. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if Matt Shaw* is the last prospect to enjoy all this free rope esp if he dare slip 

 

I think we should be able to take a levelheaded view at the ability of a particular player relative to their peers without automatically being accused of being in bed with ownership. Bregman had the 54th best wRC in baseball last year. 37th over the last 3 years. 30 teams have had four months to sign him to a deal. Ricketts, specifically, gets trashed at this exact moment (and not for being a non-factor in Soto, missing on Ohtani/Roki, not even being linked to Burnes/other top starters even though we're clearly missing one, etc), is just a weird time to make the point that obviously should be made. Bregman is a good player but looking at the entirely of the offseason he was not the big miss. 

[Brian707]

15 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I doubt they GAF. What's the consequence? 

These horsefeatherss don't give a horsefeathers. Just rich people who never worked a real job in their life thanks to their father. Keep piling on, they deserve it. 

They will get to 85 or 86 wins, probably will win a crap division and then bow out early in the playoffs. Its tiresome watching a majority of the fanbase make excuses for them

[Andy]

17 hours ago, squally1313 said:

It's a little weird to me that Rosenthal and now Buster Olney are using the Bregman saga as the catalyst for trashing the Cubs front office, and specifically the ownership. The Olney article in particular is really sloppy. Offering 4/$115 isn't being 'outbid significantly' by Houston's 6/$156....it's more money per year in a situation where he was going to get opt outs probably either way. And then there's whatever this means: 

Like, the standard complaints still apply. Tom should put more money back into the team, should care less about the luxury tax penalties, and if the budget is really the $240m, Jed need/needs to be a better job of maximizing the team under those guardrails. 

But not outbidding Boston's 3/$95m (essentially) offer when you have Nico for 2 years, a DH for 2 years, and a top 15 prospect in baseball penciled in is not the definition of a slam dunk. It may seem like that because he was the last solid way to use the money in free agency, but it was definitely a square peg/round hole situation to me. 

I feel like Bregman is just the straw that broke the camel's back for some of these guys, which I can appreciate. Personally, I'm cool not paying Bregman $40M per year when he's already in offensive decline, but the general look of having a significantly lower payroll than the past 2 years is bad. The fact that it seems designed to minimize money on the books in anticipation of a lockout after the '26 season is another annoying factor.

To cross sports, it reminds me of when Jerry Richardson basically threw away the Panthers' 2010 season prior to the summer 2011 NFL lockout because he didn't want any money on the books.

[mul21]

The no money on the books thing is kind of baffling to me.  Like, I get not wanting to have a bunch of guys locked into long term deals because nobody knows exactly what the payroll rules/limitations will be going forward, but this weird need to have nothing on the books going into those negotiations is just weird and it feels like something a smart team could take advantage of.  It's not like guys will be getting paid when they're locked out so it's not some huge risk that could cost them millions.  

[CubinNY]

3 minutes ago, mul21 said:

The no money on the books thing is kind of baffling to me.  Like, I get not wanting to have a bunch of guys locked into long term deals because nobody knows exactly what the payroll rules/limitations will be going forward, but this weird need to have nothing on the books going into those negotiations is just weird and it feels like something a smart team could take advantage of.  It's not like guys will be getting paid when they're locked out so it's not some huge risk that could cost them millions.  

It could save them millions if the rules get fundamentally changed. That's the upside. 

[squally1313]

12 minutes ago, Andy said:

I feel like Bregman is just the straw that broke the camel's back for some of these guys, which I can appreciate. Personally, I'm cool not paying Bregman $40M per year when he's already in offensive decline, but the general look of having a significantly lower payroll than the past 2 years is bad. The fact that it seems designed to minimize money on the books in anticipation of a lockout after the '26 season is another annoying factor.

To cross sports, it reminds me of when Jerry Richardson basically threw away the Panthers' 2010 season prior to the summer 2011 NFL lockout because he didn't want any money on the books.

Yeah that's fair. This is tricky to articulate, but we've all been under the assumption that the budget is the first tax line. I don't think Ricketts gets trashed across the baseball media for being willing to spend to the first tax line. Assuming that's actually the budget, being $30m under going into the year is....mostly Jed's fault? Like, yeah, at this point don't go and sign five terrible starters to use all the money and then cut them all in two months, that's just wasted playing time. But being the guy at the auction draft who ends the night with 15% of their budget isn't how you draw it up. 

I'm not sure where I'm at on this aversion to long term deals, 2026 lock out thing. All this unused cash and now media pressure just adds to the Tucker extension importance, and signing that contract ends all the lockout speculation. If they let him walk, there's more reasons to be angry than all the CBA stuff.