Cubs (Imanaga) vs Brewers (Ashby): 10/6/25, 8:08pm

[Brian707]

2 minutes ago, Connor McConnor said:

Saying he did positive things is "licking boots"?  F off.. 

[ILMindState]

8 minutes ago, Connor McConnor said:

Like the Mets this year?  Spending a lot does not guarantee you a winner.  

I'm not defending Rickets. But we did win a World Series (after 100 years or whatever the timeframe was) with him as owner and Wrigley was a joke.  

They have been more competitive since he took over.  That is a fact.  

If you are under 40 , you have know idea how bad it was.   

My point was that he has done some positive things.  

I'm over 40 and yeah it's great that things are better than they were before. But if we're just gonna be happy about being competitive once or twice a decade then the 2016 Cubs will be the 1985 Bears. I don't want to be celebrating that as the only championship in my lifetime 40 years from now.

[gflore34]

Main problem I have with the Ricketts is Cubs have the resources to be the Dodgers/Yankees of the Midwest, they could make the pissant Brewers, Reds, Cardinals and Pirates mostly inconsequential.  Yet, they choose to operate like those small market teams.

[Rcal10]

8 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

That’s true. And matching Bostons offer would put them at risk of going over the LT either in 2025 or 26 depending on deferrals, something Tom explicitly wants to avoid. I should say he vetoed paying the LT.

I would still disagree. Tom didn’t want to give that particular contract. The Cubs offer was as good as the Red Sox. So that is not vetoing signing him. That is not structuring a contract a particular way. Bregman could have just as easily taken the Cubs offer as presented and been a Cub. He chose the Red Sox. I also think he knew playing for the Red Sox would make his numbers look better than has been played for the Cubs. That is not Ricketts fault. And, I am not someone who defends Ricketts. I just don’t think saying he vetoed a signing is fair. 

[Andy]

4 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

Main problem I have with the Ricketts is Cubs have the resources to be the Dodgers/Yankees of the Midwest, they could make the pissant Brewers, Reds, Cardinals and Pirates mostly inconsequential.  Yet, they choose to operate like those small market teams.

While approving CBAs that not only incentivize them to act that way, but also give their small market opposition advantages (extra draft picks) that they don't have, leaving them only one advantage (money) that they choose to underutilize. 

 

[Geographyhater8888]

7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I would still disagree. Tom didn’t want to give that particular contract. The Cubs offer was as good as the Red Sox. So that is not vetoing signing him. That is not structuring a contract a particular way. Bregman could have just as easily taken the Cubs offer as presented and been a Cub. He chose the Red Sox. I also think he knew playing for the Red Sox would make his numbers look better than has been played for the Cubs. That is not Ricketts fault. And, I am not someone who defends Ricketts. I just don’t think saying he vetoed a signing is fair. 

3/$120 even with deferrals and the ability to walk if you have a great year is better than 4/$120 with a player opt when he’s a year older. I agree with you that the ball park factor might have played a role in his decision. Why didn’t the cubs want to match it is the question I have.

Edited October 8, 2025 by Geographyhater8888

[Jason Ross]

40 minutes ago, Connor McConnor said:

Other than the World Series and the updating of Wrigley?  No small feats those.  

The World Series was really cool! Wrigley Field looks nice! I think these are base expectations for an ownership; maintain a baseball field and put the Chicago Cubs in a position to win baseball games. The field update isn't one of simple generosity, as it's turned him into a real estate mogul and made him plenty. And the WS should be more attributed to the Cubs FO and players. 

I can't entirely take these things away from him. But I'm also not going to say I like him because of it. Was it better than previous owners? Sure. But I think two things can be true at once; I don't like Tom Ricketts and think he's not nearly as invested in making the Cubs a good baseball team as he should be. He has put forth more effort than some previous owners. 

[Connor McConnor]

6 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

Main problem I have with the Ricketts is Cubs have the resources to be the Dodgers/Yankees of the Midwest, they could make the pissant Brewers, Reds, Cardinals and Pirates mostly inconsequential.  Yet, they choose to operate like those small market teams.

Cubs payroll was about 10th in league this year.   Brewers was 22nd.   We outspent them 2-1 and the pissants are on the verge of booting us out of the playoffs.   Mets were #1 payroll and they and didn't make it. 

Do we really want 5 "consequential"  teams and 25 "inconsequential" anyway?  

 

[gflore34]

1 minute ago, Connor McConnor said:

Cubs payroll was about 10th in league this year.   Brewers was 22nd.   We outspent them 2-1 and the pissants are on the verge of booting us out of the playoffs.   Mets were #1 payroll and they and didn't make it. 

Do we really want 5 "consequential"  teams and 25 "inconsequential" anyway?  

 

Probably not, wouldn't mind the Brewers, Reds, Pirates and Cardinals being "inconsequential" though.

[Jason Ross]

8 minutes ago, Connor McConnor said:

Cubs payroll was about 10th in league this year.   Brewers was 22nd.   We outspent them 2-1 and the pissants are on the verge of booting us out of the playoffs.   Mets were #1 payroll and they and didn't make it. 

Do we really want 5 "consequential"  teams and 25 "inconsequential" anyway?  

 

Every MLB team is capable of spending more money than they do. As a fan of the Chicago Cubs, I first-and-foremost want the Chicago Cubs to act more in line with what they are capable of. 

Money spent doesn't guarantee outcomes, as you pointed out, anecdotal evidence of the Mets not making (and the Reds and Brewers making it) exist. But spending money generally gives you a far softer floor than not, and teams who don't spend money tend to yo-yo being horrible and good far more often. 

[Connor McConnor]

7 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

The World Series was really cool! Wrigley Field looks nice! I think these are base expectations for an ownership; maintain a baseball field and put the Chicago Cubs in a position to win baseball games. The field update isn't one of simple generosity, as it's turned him into a real estate mogul and made him plenty. And the WS should be more attributed to the Cubs FO and players. 

I can't entirely take these things away from him. But I'm also not going to say I like him because of it. Was it better than previous owners? Sure. But I think two things can be true at once; I don't like Tom Ricketts and think he's not nearly as invested in making the Cubs a good baseball team as he should be. He has put forth more effort than some previous owners. 

When the team wins the WS it's attributed to the players.  When they don't it's because the owner is cheap and should have done more.

When the owner comes in and saves a landmark (it would have been easier, and probably even more profitable,  to move and build another stadium elsewhere) it's strictly a business decision by the greedy owner.  Even though the place was the joke of the league and about to fall down.  And previous owners allowed it to happen.  

The Cubs are in a position to win playoff games, that includes tonight.  

We are not the Yankees or Dodgers (newsflash we never will be, no matter what happens or how much money is spent) but we are competitive and we have a facility that is in line with other MLB ballparks and assists in landing top tier talent.  

I'm ambivalent about Rickets.  But I certainly am happy we won a WS (finally) and the stadium is in better shape.  For whatever hand he had in making that happen, I appreciate it.

More please and win tonight. 

 

[Rcal10]

39 minutes ago, Geographyhater8888 said:

3/$120 even with deferrals and the ability to walk if you have a great year is better than 4/$120 with a player opt when he’s a year older. I agree with you that the ball park factor might have played a role in his decision. Why didn’t the cubs want to match it is the question I have.

Not sure. As Jason pointed out they didn’t want him to be able to opt out after 1 year. But your reasoning that it would have taken them over the LT doesn’t prove correct either. The salary for LT implications (because of deferred money) was no higher than the $30M annual they were offering. Matching the Red Sox exact offer or sticking to their offer would have had the exact same impact on the LT line. Again, no veto by Tom. At least not because of LT. 

[Geographyhater8888]

17 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Not sure. As Jason pointed out they didn’t want him to be able to opt out after 1 year. But your reasoning that it would have taken them over the LT doesn’t prove correct either. The salary for LT implications (because of deferred money) was no higher than the $30M annual they were offering. Matching the Red Sox exact offer or sticking to their offer would have had the exact same impact on the LT line. Again, no veto by Tom. At least not because of LT. 

I stand corrected.

[Backtobanks]

42 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

Every MLB team is capable of spending more money than they do. As a fan of the Chicago Cubs, I first-and-foremost want the Chicago Cubs to act more in line with what they are capable of. 

Money spent doesn't guarantee outcomes, as you pointed out, anecdotal evidence of the Mets not making (and the Reds and Brewers making it) exist. But spending money generally gives you a far softer floor than not, and teams who don't spend money tend to yo-yo being horrible and good far more often. 

Spending more money puts the responsibility of spending it wisely on Hoyer.

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Backtobanks said:

Spending more money puts the responsibility of spending it wisely on Hoyer.

I have issues with Hoyer, but one thing people will find a hard time really finding is money Hoyer spent poorly. The worst contracts he's handed out have been to like Trey Mancini and Tucker Barnhart. He's given out very little bad long term money and the Cubs have finished with 83 wins+ three years running. 

The issue in those years really isn't his inability to determine value, but what I would say is too strict of a value proposition. He tends to draw hard lines in the sand and it leaves the Cubs a player short. 

[mul21]

1 hour ago, Connor McConnor said:

When the team wins the WS it's attributed to the players.  When they don't it's because the owner is cheap and should have done more.

When the owner comes in and saves a landmark (it would have been easier, and probably even more profitable,  to move and build another stadium elsewhere) it's strictly a business decision by the greedy owner.  Even though the place was the joke of the league and about to fall down.  And previous owners allowed it to happen.  

The Cubs are in a position to win playoff games, that includes tonight.  

We are not the Yankees or Dodgers (newsflash we never will be, no matter what happens or how much money is spent) but we are competitive and we have a facility that is in line with other MLB ballparks and assists in landing top tier talent.  

I'm ambivalent about Rickets.  But I certainly am happy we won a WS (finally) and the stadium is in better shape.  For whatever hand he had in making that happen, I appreciate it.

More please and win tonight. 

 

This is an absolutely delusional thought process here.  The Cubs draw the way they do in no small part because Wrigley is what it is.  Moving them to the suburbs or wherever and building another cookie cutter stadium wouldn't have been more profitable or easier because if there's anything we know about current ownership, it's that they value maximizing profits over anything else.  The way they've monetized the entire neighborhood should tell you everything you need to know.

[mul21]

1 hour ago, gflore34 said:

Main problem I have with the Ricketts is Cubs have the resources to be the Dodgers/Yankees of the Midwest, they could make the pissant Brewers, Reds, Cardinals and Pirates mostly inconsequential.  Yet, they choose to operate like those small market teams.

Sir, these poor owners are just trying to break even. 🤣

[Transmogrified Tiger]

37 minutes ago, Jason Ross said:

I have issues with Hoyer, but one thing people will find a hard time really finding is money Hoyer spent poorly. The worst contracts he's handed out have been to like Trey Mancini and Tucker Barnhart. He's given out very little bad long term money and the Cubs have finished with 83 wins+ three years running. 

The issue in those years really isn't his inability to determine value, but what I would say is too strict of a value proposition. He tends to draw hard lines in the sand and it leaves the Cubs a player short. 

Yes but have you also considered that Dansby Swanson personally stuffed B2B in a locker in high school

[CubUgly]

6 hours ago, Bertz said:

I actually don't agree with this at all.  Jess Rogers is an idiot, but hes a very well connected idiot.  It's pretty obvious that he's frequently hearing directly from Jed.

Well, he certainly thinks he's well connected, I've seen him be wrong enough to not believe that. 

[Backtobanks]

17 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Yes but have you also considered that Dansby Swanson personally stuffed B2B in a locker in high school

Apparently, you must be dreaming because Swanson and I are two generations apart.