Scotti

FWIW, the interview and subsequent media of Mackanin and the Boston interview of Sveum have me down on both. Mackanin did a radio spot in Chicago were he was asked about statistical analysis and he said that he was "open to it" and he took a class in college. Doesn't sound like a guy coming in who is ready from a technological standpoint and the dude is 60... Sveum's "I don't want to say it was comical, but if you do the same thing in Milwaukee, there's nothing really said about it" doesn't really look like he knows when not to think out loud.

Citation needed. My wife is a tech/engineering recruiter. Absolutely common practice to run a programmer, an engineer, etc. through several hours long tests. Can take a whole day and sometimes longer. Often the final interview will be with the folks on the team--even if it is a manager being hired. Often, those teams ask the best questions. I don't think it's as common as you think it is. As I said, my wife is a recruiter that specializes in tech/engineering jobs. She has placed hundreds of candidates in hundreds of companies. She has lost countless placements (each a 4-5 figure fee for her) where some guy fails a test on some obscure cert/skill on his resume. My son is in school to become a video game programmer. Every gaming company out there does this. The resume gets you an interview and the interview includes long, detailed tests. In many cases even for interns (I just read a couple days ago where one kid was applying as an intern and the company gives the interns the same tests as the professionals applying for real jobs).

Good research and those are some of the sources I used to get to apx $2.5 billion. Add the $400 million (assumed invested, in part if not whole, in the Cubs) to the 1.7B and you get 2.1B. Add the other Ricketts family holdings (TR's company, land, homes, toys, etc.) and a higher valuation of the Cub investment (IIRC Forbes has not included Mesa yet) and you get to around 2.5B for the family (the owner is the family--TR is the Chairman). If the family wanted they could sell more stock and pay for the Wrigley deal themselves (they are still planing to plop down $200M of their own money for the Triangle building and other local improvements once there is a commitment on Wrigley). But that would assume that it is "just fine" for the City/County/State to rape Cub fans blind without ever committing any resources. And that Cub fans should be expected to pay the gov'ts way out of miserable fiscal management. The City/County/State make bank on the Cubs and they need some skin in the game.

Schaumburg has to be the best location because it is 15 minutes from my doorstep... ;-)

I must not have type this out clearly since both you and Kyle took what I wrote to mean something different. My bad. Obviously there is the cost to acquire any player and there is the cost to pay any player. However, with posting fees, it seems all too easy to lump them together. They are both two separate costs and, unless you do the same with players like Garza and Gonzalez (and few, if any, really do) it simply doesn't make sense to lump the two costs together as this gives you an over-inflated cost for those posted (Dear Grandmama's socks! Dice-K is $17M a year!) and an under-inflated cost for those received via trade (Cool, Adrian Gonzalez only cost $22 million per year). Neither of those is true. Both have their acquisition cost and both get paid--they are separate and distinct. In terms of relative value, yes. That is why I believe that, in general, you should develop pitchers and buy hitters when possible. Other folks disagree and believe that pitchers are always of less value than hitters (i.e. you don't buy a top pitcher because they are too pricey compared to risk and you don't draft a top pitcher because they are too pricey compared to risk). Obviously a cat with that philosophy only lucks into good pitching and good pitching wins ballgames. That said, I only made the AG comparison (if you can call it a comparison) because of the trade of a top youngish player vs. posting (I also brought up Garza). If CC Sabathia had been traded for Anthony Rizzo, Casey Kelly and Reymond Fuentes, I would have made that comparison. For where the Cubs are today, while Sabathia is an excellent pitcher, I would rather sink what it takes to get Darvish than to have given Sabathia his last two nutty contracts while giving up Rizzo, Kelly and Fuentes. The comparison that I actually DID make was Prior. Remember, while not being a free agent but still having more leverage, Jeff Samardzija was paid what Prior was. If Prior was posted, there would have been tons of interest at legitimate top free agent prices given Prior's scouted talent and age (future production). Yet we know so much more about Darvish than we did about Prior. Darvish has faced professional hitters with wood bats for years and dominated. Darvish has faced MLB hitters. Darvish has pitched in the Olympics (at 21) and the World Baseball Classic (at 22). He's been scouted and he's thrived under the pressure of being a superstar player (that cannot be discounted). Obviously I hope they get him at a low price but I don't consider Matsuzaka a mistake. He won 15 games, was 4th in ROY and they won the World Series his first season. His second season he was 4th in Cy Young (18-3, 2.90 with the best H/9 in MLB). In his third season he was hurt in the WBC. Injuries happen. While his posting fee of $51,111,111.11 (I would have gone with 12 cents) seems huge, the Sox did not have to part with any of their top prospects to get him like they did with Adrian Gonzalez (Rizzo, Kelly and Fuentes) and Josh Beckett (Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez). Had they traded for a player of Matsuzaka's status they would have had to give up a package of really good players (SD's haul for AG were the Red Sox #1, #3 and #6 prospects per BA). Their top six prospects in '07 were Jacoby Ellsbury (ROY in '08), Clay Buchholz (6th in CYA in '10), Michael Bowden (3 years BA top 100), Daniel Bard (career 2.88 ERA in nearly 200 IP), Lars Anderson (3 years BA top 100) and Dustin Pedroia (ROY in '07, MVP in '08, 3 AS games, 2 GG). The Sox also didn't have to give up any picks as compensation to get Matsuzaka (as they would have with a regular FA). Here are some of their recent top/first-round draft picks: Pedroia ('04), Ellsbury, Buchholz, Bowden ('05), Bard ('06), Kelly ('08) and Fuentes ('09). So, giving up comp picks in any of those years would have complicated things in the future to say the least! There is plenty to disagree with in terms of Theo signings but Daisuke Matsuzaka just isn't one of them, IMO. He was a good sign at a good price for a big market team. Unfortunately you can't get to that data until several teams trot out a six-man rotation. We do know that Japanese pitchers (who pitch less often than our five-man rotations because of their schedule) can pitch late into games and have very heavy side sessions with remarkably little damage, but anecdotally, get injured more frequently here in five-man rotations. We also know that college aces (who pitch once a week) can regularly carry heavy pitch counts without much, if any, damage (at ages where injury should be prevalent because of growth plates. Again, if you're always paying someone to sit on the DL, lose seasons/careers (Prior), effectiveness (Zambrano) and roles (Kerry Wood) to injury, you should attempt whatever you can to ameliorate that. Certainly you don't hurt a pitcher by giving him more rest. And if the guy can go deeper into games (removing the worry of your 10th best pitcher losing a game in the 6th inning) and/or miss time on the DL (extending the value of the contract) then money is actually saved by investing it in preemptive care early in the process. I fully admit that all to be theory at this point but this is the time to work that stuff out instead of a year when you are actually expecting to win with all of the associated pressure to cut corners.

This is incorrect. The cost to acquire is very much included in the cost of the player before you buy him. It's just that after you acquire him, it's a sunk cost so there's no point in bringing it up again. My original point wasn't that you don't count the cost before you get a player but that you don't factor it in afterwards (i.e. "paying") as some appeared to do (i.e. "25 million a year"). Darvish would not be making $25 M per year because he doesn't get paid his posting fee just as Garza doesn't get paid Hak-Ju Lee, Guyer and Archer. As I said, and as with any player, a posting fee, players traded, draft pick or any compensation is a sunk cost. That doesn't mean that there is no point in bringing it up, however. A player's contract is just as sunk as a posting fee is sunk. The point is, though, that they are different and distinct and should not be muddled together just because a guy posts vs. getting traded.

I generally agree, but the city has no problem aiding the business interests of Reinsdorf, the McCaskeys and the Wirtzes. Why should TR be treated differently, especially considering that his business brings more bank to the city than the other three combined? The Cubs in Schaumburg? It would be the bluff of the century, as no one can say that with a straight face. It was ridiculous when Dallas Green threatened it, and it would be even more ridiculous now as in the intervening years the Cubs have succeeded in inexorably linking themselves with the neighborhood that causes them so much grief. Of course, Green did bluff his way into getting the lights approved. The difference is that he came in as an outsider with no ties to the park - TR has made no secret of his love for the park. However, TR is also a very successful business guy who has stated that the only goal is making the Cubs better. He was willing, and able, to stare down Zell. He was willing, and able, to stare down Mesa. He was willing, and able, to stare down the "brain trust" of the Red Sox. One way or another the City needs to get some skin in the game and I think TR is equipped to get the job done. He/they are in this for the long haul, so obviously they are willing to wait, if need be (for economic conditions to improve), but Wrigley is literally falling to pieces. Wrigley is, again very literally, antiquated. And, in all honesty, Schaumburg is closer to the Cubs fan base than Sheffield and Addison. TR needs to make a stand and to tell the City that it is screwing over Cub fans and that it is no longer acceptable.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yu-darvish-tearing-japan-pacific-league-bringing-big-time-arm-major-leagues-article-1.972701 http://yudarvish.com/ (scroll 2/3 for career stats) I wouldn't shy away from a higher than Dice-K deal. As Free Agent pitchers go, Dice-K was a very good sign--he just got hurt and that is the risk with FA pitchers (better to sign sluggers and develop pitchers). It doesn't make sense to include the posting fee in what you are paying a guy. We pay Garza X not X plus Lee, Guyer and Archer. Those guys are just what it took to get him. Same with Boston and what they gave up to SD to get Adrian Gonzalez--he's paid $154 million over seven AND they gave up a haul to get him but no one ever includes that in the $154 million. If Darvish signs for 75 for five years then you are paying him $15 M per and the posting fee is the cost to "trade" for him. With Theo talking about paying guys for future and not past performance, a Darvish splash would make more sense that one of the 1B. The guy is 25 and won't turn 26 until next August 16th. He is probably one of the two greatest Japanese players ever (Ichiro being the other). Adrian Gonzalez will be 37 when his current contract expires. If Darvish signs for 5 years he'd just have turned 31 when that contract expires. Yes, Gonzalez has a more concrete track record, but he is also getting paid a lot more than Darvish would get paid and that track record is past performance. In terms of the posting fee (i.e. "think of what prospects you could get for $50 million"), the Cubs just spent $20M this year and none of those kids is likely to be a Darvish. They will be fortunate to get 2-3 solid MLB players out of that haul (maybe 20-30% of first-round picks have good MLB careers). Darvish is Mark Prior. Prior, like Dice-K, got injured but he was the real deal and money well spent. Had he been a FA he would have commanded a HUGE contract. Darvish will cost someone a huge posting fee and he'll get paid. One thing that I would strongly consider is pitching him every 6th day. Have five other starters but it doesn't really have to be a true 6-man rotation. Four guys (say Garza, Dempster, Wells and Samardzija) on a five-day rotation and a sixth guy but just when you need the sixth guy to keep the other guys on a five (and not four) day rotation or Darvish on a six (and not five) day rotation. I actually think that a six-man rotation would be good for the whole staff (pitchers could go deeper into games with, theoretically, fewer injuries). Pay the cost of six good pitchers upfront and, in theory, you will be less likely to pay sunk injury costs on the back end).

Actually, when the family bought the Cubs, their wealth was low, relatively speaking, because the stock price for TD Ameritrade had plummeted. The stock has recovered much of its lost value and my guess is that the family is worth apx 2.5 billion (the family DID take it in the shorts on the $400 M in stock that they sold--it would be worth around a billion now so a rough loss of $600 M). The family also didn't pay the agreed to $900M because Zell, after the agreement but before the actual sale, signed long-term deals with WGN radio and TV that were unfriendly to the Cubs (lowering the Cubs valuation). That was what took so long for the sale to actually happen. An entire season passed before TR got Zell to cut $50-150 off of the price (the sale has been reported at $750 and $850). As to where the funding comes from, that is EXACTLY where TR proposed it come from--a bond backed by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (owners of the Cell) and its 2% sales tax on hotels that would be secured by any growth in the "entertainment tax" (any amount greater than the 2009 level of $16 million that Cub fans already pay). BTW, the ISFA is ALL for the deal. Finding private investors in the bond would be no problem what-so-ever. The only issue is repaying that bond. Yes, the family could sell some stock and pay for it themselves but the Village of Schaumburg would pay for the whole deal and wash TR's car every day. They'd bulldoze seven Children's Hospitals to make room if necessary. They'd rename themselves the Village of Tom Ricketts and Siblings if requested. They wouldn't tax a penny of Cub, or Cub fan, money at the park (and they'd still make bank). They'd even consider digging out Woodfield and creating a mini-Michigan replete with mini-millionaires in their mini-sailboats on sunny days. And they already have more Trixies in Jettas than you can shake a stick at.

Actually, when the family bought the Cubs, their wealth was low, relatively speaking, because the stock price for TD Ameritrade had plummeted. The stock has recovered much of its lost value and my guess is that the family is worth apx 2.5 billion (the family DID take it in the shorts on the $400 M in stock that they sold--it would be worth around a billion now so a rough loss of $600 M). The family also didn't pay the agreed to $900M because Zell, after the agreement but before the actual sale, signed long-term deals with WGN radio and TV that were unfriendly to the Cubs (lowering the Cubs valuation). That was what took so long for the sale to actually happen. An entire season passed before TR got Zell to cut $50-150 off of the price (the sale has been reported at $750 and $850). As to where the funding comes from, that is EXACTLY where TR proposed it come from--a bond backed by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (owners of the Cell) and its 2% sales tax on hotels that would be secured by any growth in the "entertainment tax" (any amount greater than the 2009 level of $16 million that Cub fans already pay).

The Cub plan doesn't/didn't ask for the City to give the Cubs any currently generated Chicago money. Cub FANS pay apx $16 million per season as an "entertainment tax" (way more than any other Chicago team) when they purchase their tickets. Generally, these types of taxes exist to offset the cost that a municipality pays in supporting the entertainment (this usually includes the municipality having a financial stake in the stadium but Wrigley is 100% owned by the Cubs). In addition to the $16 M that Cub fans pay, the Cubs pay millions more for extra security (police) and cleanup before, during and after games and events (again, a part of what the "entertainment tax" is SUPPOSED to be for). What the original Cub plan proposed was, in part, for the "entertainment tax" to be capped at 2009's level (the $16M) for a given period (IIRC, 15 years) and any further generated revenue (generated ONLY because of further investments in Wrigley) be used as security for a bond (the expected means of paying off said bond would actually be the 2% sales tax on hotels that also pays off the Bears and Sox bonds). Again, that is WAY fair because: A) Cub FANS pay way more in the "entertainment tax" than Bear fans, Bull fans or Sox fans (nearly double the Bears and quadruple the Sox). B) The Cubs receive BY FAR the smallest benefit from the City. C) The City claims that future Cub "entertainment tax" growth belongs to the City YET the City proposes to do NOTHING to grow it. D) Cub FANS are taxed more than the other teams by the 2% sales tax on hotels because a much higher percentage and number of Cub fans come from outside the area (and, thus, use area hotels--roughly 1/3 of the 3M Wrigley attendees are from outside of the area). E) The Cubs are hamstrung when it comes to improving income sources at Wrigley because of it's monument status (i.e can't generate 20-30 million per year via a JumboTron). The only way to get sufficient revenue increases from crumbling Wrigley is to get substantial structural improvements that allow for greater amenities. All of the above shows that the City/County/State has NO SKIN IN THE GAME! They get taxes ("entertainment tax," 2% hotel tax, 10% sales taxes on Cub fans spending $, income taxes on Cub and area employees), the team pays millions for services, etc. all to the tune of millions and millions of dollars and the City does what in return? They limit when the Cubs can play and what they can do to their own freaking stadium--the Cubs have more restrictions placed on them than any other major sports team in the U.S. Look, it isn't just the Cubs but, ultimately, Cub fans that are getting screwed. The "entertainment" and hotel taxes are paid directly by Cub fans. The millions extra for security and clean up comes from monies generated by Cub fans. To your point of a financial crisis... Neither the Cubs nor Cub fans caused the City's (or county's or state's) crisis and they shouldn't be expected to pay more than they are now to bail them out of their self-made sinking ships. The Cubs are, and will continue to be, a cash cow for the City, etc. (easily over $300 M per year in local revenues NOT including the Cubs take). If the City wants to see that increase then the City needs some skin in the game.

Citation needed. My wife is a tech/engineering recruiter. Absolutely common practice to run a programmer, an engineer, etc. through several hours long tests. Can take a whole day and sometimes longer. Often the final interview will be with the folks on the team--even if it is a manager being hired. Often, those teams ask the best questions.

It must be reiterated, any "future gains" that the taxes would bring in would be as a direct result of improvements to the stadium--they are already maxed out in attendance and have the first, or second, highest ticket prices. The city/county refuse to invest but want the Cubs to invest so the city/county can reap even MORE rewards (Cub fans pay higher taxes than any other privately owned stadium AND the team has, by far, the most onerous restrictions placed on it of any sports team in the U.S.). TR and the rest of the family need to get serious about the NW suburbs where a stadium would be paid for 100% by a new city/county. That will get the city's cooperation.

Good job JR, I had forgotten about that thread. For those questioning whether Ryno is a small ball advocate, here's a Bruce Miles interview that confirms it. Ryno on statistical analysis: This doesn't sound like a Theo type of guy. Well, if he isn't a Theo type of guy, then why did Theo offer him his AAA job? Simple fact is that Theo was interested in him. There is something about Ryne Sandberg that Theo likes (and it has nothing to do with the Cub connection since he was at Boston at the time). I don't consider myself a "Sandberg guy" when it comes to Cub manager (he would be an easy hire but a difficult fire) but there is a whole lot of "blowing comments out of proportion" in this thread. Every single player that plays professional baseball is instructed on cliches for the media. Every cliche Sandberg has ever uttered seems to be in this thread. Some of them, for him, are not cliches (playing hard, team first, etc.). But holding a Hendry-era comment against him when he worked for Hendry just doesn't make sense. How many Boston guys talk about their sluggers "grinding out" AB when they really want them to swing away and "make something happen?" These guys push the organizational line (as they should). Simply put, if Theo/Hoyer feel that Sandberg buys into their version of the "Cub Way" then all of the "small ball" complaints here will disappear because Theo can do no wrong. Small ball will somehow become the new Moneyball... What do I think that Theo/Hoyer will look for? A) Someone who can get the best out of his players. Sometimes that is calling a guy out and sometimes that is letting a guy know that you believe in him. It is most always working one-on-one with the player--hands on. Sandberg's brief minor league record is positive in this regard but he obviously lacks major league management experience. Could Sandberg work with a MLB player the way Fry pulled him aside? If there is "more in there" in Soriano (as Theo says) can Sandberg draw it out? B) Someone who works well with younger players--the team expects quite a few in the coming years. Sandberg has a very good record in this regard. Sandberg has already managed/coached many of the Cubs young talent. C) Someone who can work well with/handle/understand the media and Cub strangeness. Sandberg is certainly expert at knowing Cub "history." The media could (by-and-large) give him a pass the first season or two. He'd certainly get longer than most other cats just based on his popularity. However, while he met with media every day as a player, it is a-whole-nother creature to meet with them as manager. Could he handle the pressure? Would he throw players under the bus or say "I don't know what to tell you" daily? Or can he have a presence that stays positive and on message through rough patches? D) Someone who can help engender change. The organization is looking for change--25 men pulling in one direction. Sometimes that DOES mean laying down a sacrifice (even for Theo's teams). Often that DOES mean a well executed hit-and-run or straight steal when the game is on the line (even for Theo's teams). A player putting the team goals (wins, playoffs) before his own stats (RBI, Batting Average, Win or Save) is crucial to success and creating CHANGE. Girardi was that guy in FLA. It takes a real leader to engender change and he got that team working together. He continues to command respect in NY. Is Sandberg that guy? Like any other manager you will never know until someone gives him a shot. I wish the Cubs had given Girardi that shot.

From what was said in the press conference that is about how long the first Theo/Tom meeting was. I guess Theo is a talker... Though seven hours seems a little more reasonable for a meeting with a guy you want to give 20 million dollars to run your billion dollar business. The first meeting was a debriefing meeting (Ok, Mike, tell me how the year went and tell me about player 1, player 2, player 3, etc.)... It also was a get-to-know-you meeting and a vision catching meeting (Ok, Mike, what is your vision for the team?)... As well as a get-to-be-known and vision casting meeting (Ok, Mike, this is what I'm looking to change, can you buy into that). Theo spelled this out on day one.