MLB Front Office Rankings by the Athletic

[Jfoley89]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6273808/2025/04/16/mlb-top-10-front-offices-executive-vote/

 

MLB execs were asked to rank the top 5 front offices anonymously.  The Cubs were one of 11 teams to receive zero votes for the second year in a row. I don't love Hoyer, but have no idea how we're behind the Marlins and Reds.

[Jason Ross]

1 minute ago, Jfoley89 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6273808/2025/04/16/mlb-top-10-front-offices-executive-vote/

 

MLB execs were asked to rank the top 5 front offices anonymously.  The Cubs were one of 11 teams to receive zero votes for the second year in a row. I don't love Hoyer, but have no idea how we're behind the Marlins and Reds.

I would assume a few things:

1. I would guess that there is a bias from Front Office towards perceived budgetary spending. The Marlins are likely viewed as hampered, where as the Cubs are viewed as flush (or should be flush). 

2. The lack of Cubs success over Hoyer's tenure. He's been here long enough and without a playoff appearance, it'd be hard to say he's a top-10 guy. 

If the Cubs can finish around 90 wins, I think they'll start winning votes. But for the Cubs, they'll be more scrutinized for success than the Marlins, who could probably gain votes simply by getting to 82 wins many years.

[Stratos]

They don't deserve to be in anyone's top 5.  That doesn't mean they're bad.  Lots of resources leading to .500 teams that miss the playoffs every year isn't something people will jump to admire when orgs like the Brewers, Dodgers, Rays, Phillies, Braves etc are out there.

I think Hoyer inheriting a weak farm system from Theo-era and a cheap owner (unwilling to either tank or spend) has been a tough hole to climb out of.

[Backtobanks]

4 hours ago, Stratos said:

They don't deserve to be in anyone's top 5.  That doesn't mean they're bad.  Lots of resources leading to .500 teams that miss the playoffs every year isn't something people will jump to admire when orgs like the Brewers, Dodgers, Rays, Phillies, Braves etc are out there.

I think Hoyer inheriting a weak farm system from Theo-era and a cheap owner (unwilling to either tank or spend) has been a tough hole to climb out of.

Being the only big market team in their division and missing the playoffs every year certainly doesn't help your resume.

[JunkyardWalrus]

12 minutes ago, Backtobanks said:

Being the only big market team in their division and missing the playoffs every year certainly doesn't help your resume.

That is what makes them bad. (The highest in the division they have finished in Jed's tenure is 3rd, which is embarrassing. )

[CubUgly]

21 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

I would assume a few things:

1. I would guess that there is a bias from Front Office towards perceived budgetary spending. The Marlins are likely viewed as hampered, where as the Cubs are viewed as flush (or should be flush). 

2. The lack of Cubs success over Hoyer's tenure. He's been here long enough and without a playoff appearance, it'd be hard to say he's a top-10 guy. 

If the Cubs can finish around 90 wins, I think they'll start winning votes. But for the Cubs, they'll be more scrutinized for success than the Marlins, who could probably gain votes simply by getting to 82 wins many years.

The fact that the Brewers are consistently outperforming us with about half the payroll is definitely a mark against Hoyer and honestly a hard fact to get past.

[Jason Ross]

16 minutes ago, CubUgly said:

The fact that the Brewers are consistently outperforming us with about half the payroll is definitely a mark against Hoyer and honestly a hard fact to get past.

Yeah, I do think that's probably fair to a degree. With that said, I'm not sure it's entirely fair, either. Jed came into a situation in which Ricketts really cut budget post-pandemic, a team that was obviously tearing it down. They traded their best SP for a quartet of teenagers, didn't make a single financial commitment to any of their one-year-remaining players, non-tendered Schwarber...the team was always going to be kind of bad for a few years. 

There's probably enough to quibble over 2023 and whether or no the team has put forth the full-fledged winning mentality, but I do think we lose a little bit of context on Hoyer in what he came into on that aspect. 

You won't win top-5 votes that way, but it's probably not really his fault for not getting past Milwaukee in 2021 and 2022, either.

[CubUgly]

1 minute ago, Jason Ross said:

Yeah, I do think that's probably fair to a degree. With that said, I'm not sure it's entirely fair, either. Jed came into a situation in which Ricketts really cut budget post-pandemic, a team that was obviously tearing it down. They traded their best SP for a quartet of teenagers, didn't make a single financial commitment to any of their one-year-remaining players, non-tendered Schwarber...the team was always going to be kind of bad for a few years. 

There's probably enough to quibble over 2023 and whether or no the team has put forth the full-fledged winning mentality, but I do think we lose a little bit of context on Hoyer in what he came into on that aspect. 

You won't win top-5 votes that way, but it's probably not really his fault for not getting past Milwaukee in 2021 and 2022, either.

I think both things can be true and are, the Rickett's put him in some tough situations, but that in the context of those situations one can still absolutely hold Jed accountable for not even performing to a reasonable standard even within those "restrictions".

[CubinNY]

I'm not into rankings of things, but Jed and his team are a C- on an A-F scale. It seems to me that they have done everything they've wanted to do, their way. My biggest criticism is that Jed is too risk-averse, and it shows in everything they do. They draft guys who project to be good, not great (Happ, Shaw, Nico, Wicks, even Howard). They sign FAs who are good, not great. And when they do sign a potential difference maker, they hedge their bets with short-term contracts and opt-outs. And they don't spend on a volatile commodity like bullpen pitchers. They are happy to be an 80ish win team. That seems to be the goal, and they are there. 

 

[Jason Ross]

33 minutes ago, CubUgly said:

I think both things can be true and are, the Rickett's put him in some tough situations, but that in the context of those situations one can still absolutely hold Jed accountable for not even performing to a reasonable standard even within those "restrictions".

I guess I would ask this: 

1. What was a reasonable outcome for 2021?

2. What was a reasonable outcome for 2022? 

If we want to say "it's unreasonable for the Chicago Cubs to have to tear everything to the ground a second time in a decade" I would agree with that. However, that is almost assuredly a Tom Ricketts complaint, and not one that should be held against Jed Hoyer. 

I do not believe it was reasonable to hold Hoyer to a standard of putting together a playoff team with the limitations placed upon him in 2021, and subsequently, that he was unable to immediately replace Darvish, Baez, Byrant, Rizzo, Schwarber, etc within just a few months. I'm more willing to discuss beyond that but I really think those two years, any reasonable expectation that the Cubs were any better than the Brewers is an unfair bar to clear. 

[CubUgly]

1 hour ago, Jason Ross said:

I guess I would ask this: 

1. What was a reasonable outcome for 2021?

2. What was a reasonable outcome for 2022? 

If we want to say "it's unreasonable for the Chicago Cubs to have to tear everything to the ground a second time in a decade" I would agree with that. However, that is almost assuredly a Tom Ricketts complaint, and not one that should be held against Jed Hoyer. 

I do not believe it was reasonable to hold Hoyer to a standard of putting together a playoff team with the limitations placed upon him in 2021, and subsequently, that he was unable to immediately replace Darvish, Baez, Byrant, Rizzo, Schwarber, etc within just a few months. I'm more willing to discuss beyond that but I really think those two years, any reasonable expectation that the Cubs were any better than the Brewers is an unfair bar to clear. 

Oh, I would agree with 21 and 22 and giving Jed some leeway there.  It's after that. 

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, CubinNY said:

I'm not into rankings of things, but Jed and his team are a C- on an A-F scale. It seems to me that they have done everything they've wanted to do, their way. My biggest criticism is that Jed is too risk-averse, and it shows in everything they do. They draft guys who project to be good, not great (Happ, Shaw, Nico, Wicks, even Howard). They sign FAs who are good, not great. And when they do sign a potential difference maker, they hedge their bets with short-term contracts and opt-outs. And they don't spend on a volatile commodity like bullpen pitchers. They are happy to be an 80ish win team. That seems to be the goal, and they are there. 

 

Did Hoyer draft Nico and Happ? Wasn’t that Theo? And for that matter, how many guys drafted in Nico and Happ’s draft have performed to their level, anyway? Should he really be criticized for those picks? As for Wicks and Howard, I agree with you. But with Shaw, I am not sure he is someone they drafted to be good, not great. Seems lately they are taking bigger swings at great, Horton being an example. Same with some guys they draft later. Hope was another example. They got to use him to get Busch because they swung at a high end guy and got lucky with him, to the point of another team wanting him. I agree they used to take the safe guy, but I think that is changing. As for being risk adverse and too conservative in free agency, I have to put that in ownership. I can’t blame Jed there. We will see what happens with Tucker. If the Cubs don’t extend him, IMO, that is all ownership. And it will confirm it was all ownership all the time. That said, I can’t argue much about your grading. I would but him at a C, as opposed to the C- you suggested. And only because I think he does have his hands tied by ownership so I don’t blame him as much. He isn’t good, but not the worst, either. 

[We Got The Whole 9]

The Cubs lead baseball over the last 5 years I believe in the number of top 100 prospects that have come through the system. Including players he's traded away, his first and 2nd round picks have been excellent, all things considered. The IFA scene has been among the least productive, and the free agency market has been pretty solid, although disturbingly conservative. He finally swung a major trade and it looks like it could be the difference between winning the division and not. Where he is failing hard is the ability to develop power arms internally. They don't have guys that can command a power arsenal and Jed tries to taper over that issue by loading up on competent finesse vets... who subsequently lose their ability to throw strikes under our watch. 

 

 

 

 

[WhyCantWeWin]

I think a lot of fans forget that performance is measured by playoff success. Something the Cubs have had literally zero with as Hoyer in charge

Edited April 17, 2025 by WhyCantWeWin

[Bertz]

God I hate to even at a top line agree with Tom but except for the handful of clinker like the Rockies I do think the differences between FOs at this point are minimal.  Like I'm not sure there are more than 2-3 teams where I'm jealous of their front office.  That's not saying that the Cubs are 3rd or 4th, it's saying the difference between 3rd and like 11th is pretty small.

There's a spectrum of conservative vs. aggressive, which is heavily influenced but not totally determined by resources (and expectations of future resources).  There's also some actual daylight between teams in terms of scouting and player dev, which also has some I would say medium influence from resources.  Hoyer is *clearly* one the most conservative team leads in the league, but also this team is IMO clearly in the top third of the league on a scouting/dev standpoint.

So on the one hand this team is sitting pretty right now.  The team is good, there's a bunch of young talent performing right now, and a bunch more close to being ready.  If you were drafting teams based on how many wins you expect they'll pile up the next three years, I don't think you'd need two hands to count teams you would take ahead of the Cubs.  All that sounds pretty great!

On the flip side, each of the past few offseasons have felt one move short.  In particular in '23 leaving those wins on the table clearly cost the team a playoff spot.  Maybe it ends up being worth it, but there's currently a hole to dig out of.

[Rcal10]

17 minutes ago, Bertz said:

God I hate to even at a top line agree with Tom but except for the handful of clinker like the Rockies I do think the differences between FOs at this point are minimal.  Like I'm not sure there are more than 2-3 teams where I'm jealous of their front office.  That's not saying that the Cubs are 3rd or 4th, it's saying the difference between 3rd and like 11th is pretty small.

There's a spectrum of conservative vs. aggressive, which is heavily influenced but not totally determined by resources (and expectations of future resources).  There's also some actual daylight between teams in terms of scouting and player dev, which also has some I would say medium influence from resources.  Hoyer is *clearly* one the most conservative team leads in the league, but also this team is IMO clearly in the top third of the league on a scouting/dev standpoint.

So on the one hand this team is sitting pretty right now.  The team is good, there's a bunch of young talent performing right now, and a bunch more close to being ready.  If you were drafting teams based on how many wins you expect they'll pile up the next three years, I don't think you'd need two hands to count teams you would take ahead of the Cubs.  All that sounds pretty great!

On the flip side, each of the past few offseasons have felt one move short.  In particular in '23 leaving those wins on the table clearly cost the team a playoff spot.  Maybe it ends up being worth it, but there's currently a hole to dig out of.

I think my issue is some grade Jed on the resources the Cubs should have rather than the resources ownership allows Jed to have. Yes, on one hand a large market team in a division with small market teams should dominate. However if that large market team operates like a small market team, without the advantages a small market team does have, based on the current CBA, they are actually putting a team together at a disadvantage over the other teams. Jed definitely makes mistakes. But he also does good at times. That is why I rank him middle of the pick, basically an average front office (C). 

[squally1313]

26 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I think my issue is some grade Jed on the resources the Cubs should have rather than the resources ownership allows Jed to have. Yes, on one hand a large market team in a division with small market teams should dominate. However if that large market team operates like a small market team, without the advantages a small market team does have, based on the current CBA, they are actually putting a team together at a disadvantage over the other teams. Jed definitely makes mistakes. But he also does good at times. That is why I rank him middle of the pick, basically an average front office (C). 

I don't think I would agree that the advantages of a small market team in the CBA outweight just how much more money the Cubs have spent vs the rest of the division. The Cubs have spent like $220m more in salary per the luxury tax calculations over the last four years than the Brewers have, and another $75m this year. It's overly simplistic to blame Jed/the FO solely for underperforming compared to them (players, coaches, etc), but you're not going to get me to believe a handful of picks in the 40-50 range outweigh the money discrepancy. 

I'm 100% with Bertz' last two paragraphs. The results have not been there, and it's a results based business. But to argue the team/organization is currently in bad shape isn't correct either. 

[Rcal10]

1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

I don't think I would agree that the advantages of a small market team in the CBA outweight just how much more money the Cubs have spent vs the rest of the division. The Cubs have spent like $220m more in salary per the luxury tax calculations over the last four years than the Brewers have, and another $75m this year. It's overly simplistic to blame Jed/the FO solely for underperforming compared to them (players, coaches, etc), but you're not going to get me to believe a handful of picks in the 40-50 range outweigh the money discrepancy. 

I'm 100% with Bertz' last two paragraphs. The results have not been there, and it's a results based business. But to argue the team/organization is currently in bad shape isn't correct either. 

I don’t disagree with this. But it is a factor, regardless. And the small market teams also have other advantages the Cubs don’t have. Which brings me right back to Jed isn’t great, but he isn’t the dumbest executive in baseball either. He is probably middle of the pack and definitely not on par with the Brewers FO. 

[Backtobanks]

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

I don’t disagree with this. But it is a factor, regardless. And the small market teams also have other advantages the Cubs don’t have. Which brings me right back to Jed isn’t great, but he isn’t the dumbest executive in baseball either. He is probably middle of the pack and definitely not on par with the Brewers FO. 

"Middle of the pack" is your description of Jed and it's a good description of the Cubs during Jed's tenure.  And yet our finances as large market are way above all the teams in our division and most of the teams in MLB and yet there is no success.  Jed is in charge of all baseball operations, so why shouldn't he take most of the blame?

[Stratos]

9 hours ago, CubUgly said:

I think both things can be true and are, the Rickett's put him in some tough situations, but that in the context of those situations one can still absolutely hold Jed accountable for not even performing to a reasonable standard even within those "restrictions".

Jed definitely hasn't been perfect, but in order to win you basically either need good prospects turning into good cheap MLB players (or trade for good MLB players) and/or enough payroll to buy good players in FA.  Nico, Steele, and Morel isn't enough pre-arb players, and Cubs tax payrolls each year since 2021 have been ranked 15th, 12th, 10th, 9th, and now 12th in 2025.

Even the best FO's would have a tough time sneaking into a wild card spot under those conditions IMO.  I think if Jed had spent wiser on his 1-2 year type deals we could have maybe hit 86 wins the last 2 seasons instead of 83 wins, but it's hard to have seen a path to 90 wins unless the budget was expanded or they traded most of their good prospects they've acquired since Darvish.

[musclemom]

At least the White Sox didn't get votes