Sammy Sofa

Why? I mean, it didn't even play out that way. It did play out that way. Zambrano, Soto, Maholm and Dempster last season. Marmol, Harriston, Feldman, Garza, Soriano and DeJesus this season. While not 24 months, it took nearly two complete seasons to trade six core players from the old team. What is the "old team?" How do Maholm, Hairston and Feldman fit into whatever that is since none were on the team before 2012 and none lasted an entire season? The rest of those players all had very different legths in terms of their time with the Cubs, so, again, what exactly is "the old team (DeJesus was only on the team for a year and a half and was signed by the current FO, so how is he a "core player from the old team?")?" Why would it have been necessary to "unwind it?" What is "unwinding" in the first place? Maholm (and Johnson) were moved because the team liked the package and Dempster balked. Marmol had no value because there was zero chance he'd be with the team beyond his contract. Harriston . . . we actually got something for him? I'm still in shock. Feldman was signed to replace Maholm whom they intended to trade this season and they found a taker. All of these deals bring back multiple minor leaguers who create greater competition in the minors allowing management to cull the herd, so to speak. But that's seemingly a completely separate goal/action from "unwinding the old team." I don't know how you can lump in players who were signed by the current FO and lasted less than a year with any kind of effort to dismantle the "old team."

That doesn't explain why they had to "unwind" anything; nevermind most of the "older" players weren't preventing the FO from rebuilding the organization and most of them were moved near or the end of the contracts with the Cubs (and most of them for crappy or unremarkable returns, too).

Why? I mean, it didn't even play out that way. It did play out that way. Zambrano, Soto, Maholm and Dempster last season. Marmol, Harriston, Feldman, Garza, Soriano and DeJesus this season. While not 24 months, it took nearly two complete seasons to trade six core players from the old team. What is the "old team?" How do Maholm, Hairston and Feldman fit into whatever that is since none were on the team before 2012 and none lasted an entire season? The rest of those players all had very different legths in terms of their time with the Cubs, so, again, what exactly is "the old team (DeJesus was only on the team for a year and a half and was signed by the current FO, so how is he a "core player from the old team?")?" Why would it have been necessary to "unwind it?" What is "unwinding" in the first place?

Why? I mean, it didn't even play out that way.

Oh, Rose is an awesome player and I love watching him play...when I say worst Chicago sports superstar it's based on how boring/stupid he is. I demand entertaining stars, dammit.

Anyone who disagrees can got [expletive] out an emu.

Most unlikable Chicago superstar athlete ever. EVER.

That is awesome. And shut the [expletive] up, Arizona. You put a stupid pool in your stadium.

Mmmmm, dog meat.

Perfect.

OMFG WHAT THE [expletive] [expletive] this sport is [expletive] killing meeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Sets an artificial ceiling to prevent them from bidding against themselves maybe? Something tells me that with all the money out there nobody gives a [expletive] if the Cubs are going to dog-paddle around in the pool or not.

To set expectations that they aren't going to go on a spending binge, even if we get news about renovations being finalized, new WGN deal, etc? There's also the bit that we're reading into pretty general statements about free agency he's making to the media, but I don't really care to debate platitudes v. hidden meanings again. Not addressing the issue or being much more vague or "diplomatic" also helps temper expectations, too. Just seems like there's a better path to do that than flat-out singling a specific player/signing and all but saying, "yeah, we won't be doing THAT again any time soon."

My thing is this: why even come out there and make these statements if they're going to just turn around and sign someone like Choo or Ellsbury? What's accomplished?

Fine, then I guess I do actually expect them to cut payroll as the most likely option. To be perfectly honest I really have paid so little attention to the team this year I just assumed that most of their bargain signings for this season were just one year-deals.

You're not Quint, you lazy eyed psycho, so stop saying "hooper."

What's incompatible? I think me flat out saying "I think they're going to spend, but...." should make it pretty clear that I don't think they're cutting the payroll. I do think it's effectively capped or hindered or limited or however you want to put it for a variety of reasons, both self-imposed and dictated by the market and additional expenses, and they're in a lousy situation because of it. I mean, you get down to it a ton of is just terrible, terrible timing, but that's how it is. I mean, if I'm wrong I'm wrong and I really, really hope I'm wrong.

In order to be limited in FA the way you and others are worrying about here, they have to significantly cut payroll. There's too little under contract now and too few gaping holes(or heck, 40 man spots) to spend on otherwise. Look, I'm just going by the comments coming from the organization itself. There's too much smoke in regards to them not being willing and/or able to go after FA outside of what sounds like bargain bin signings. So, you do think they're going to significantly cut the payroll? I just think it's sounding like an unwillingness to spend big on any one or two players right now, probably based on a combination of the FA market being so bad and the money issues in place/coming up from all of the construction/renovation. I think they're going to spend, but it's going to be similar dinking and dunking bargain spending like last year (minus the Jackson signing) and going out there with a hope the team simply won't be horrible (largely due to the hopes of Castro and Rizzo rebounding, some contribution from the farm at some point and maybe a trade or two).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the comments last year seemed more along the lines of "wouldn't it be crazy if we had an all prospect team..." as opposed to how relatively blunt they're being now. Plus last year might have been a reaction to all of the construction shenanigans being prolonged even further; now that that actually seems to be happening the crunch is a reality.

In order to be limited in FA the way you and others are worrying about here, they have to significantly cut payroll. There's too little under contract now and too few gaping holes(or heck, 40 man spots) to spend on otherwise. Look, I'm just going by the comments coming from the organization itself. There's too much smoke in regards to them not being willing and/or able to go after FA outside of what sounds like bargain bin signings.

I can't begrudge you that line of thinking, it's just really difficult for me to think that Ricketts is going to 1) cut payroll 20% 2) not funnel any revenues from renovations or TV deals back into the team and as a result, 3) put together a product that's sure to continue draining millions in attendance and concession opportunities. Especially since he hasn't done any of those things yet, and he'll need to do all of them for the Cubs to be handcuffed to the extent you're saying here(considering those revenues, the money coming free with Soriano, the fact that there aren't many/any huge raises upcoming, etc). I don't think they're going to significantly cut the payroll (I mean, they basically can't unless they want attendance to keep plummeting), but as davell is pointing out we don't know how what they need to pay is going to play out. And that said, one of the main reasons I'm bummed out over the team isn't a lack of spending so much as they're in such a shitty position AND there's really not much of a FA market even if they were spending. The FO has shown to be adept at bargain signings, but they can only go so far when you're just adding those supplemental pieces to a team that, as it stands right now, doesn't have much in the way in terms of impact players. If there was any time to not spend a ton it's now with the lousy options available, but that unfortunately just means the Cubs are even more bereft of the talent they need to significantly improve. Now obviously they could have Castro and/or Rizzo rebound and actually be the players they need them to be. Baez could burst out of the gate and show up in June next year and give the team a shot in the arm. Lake could continue to be a useful player and maybe we're seeing the Castillo we were hoping for. The farm continues to develop and trades start to happen and things click...it's not like I'm expecting them to fail or hoping that they do; I'm just very wary about things since they don't really have the spending option right now and Castro and Rizzo (and to a lesser degree, Shark) really fell on their faces. There's basically just one front right now: internal development, and it basically has to pay off for things to turn around quickly. I really hope it does, because the other front is a mess because of how money is tied up and how shitty the market is. It's just not an ideal position to be in, and certainly not what any of us were expecting.

Right, but again, the Ricketts' financial status in regards to what is available to the team seems really up in the air. Until all of the renovations and such are sorted out I'm not going to pretend like we can just pencil in what money is going to the team.

Plus I really have no idea how the timeframe is going to play out with the spending for all of the renovations and construction and so on. The new WGN money and ad revenue will be great, but I've really given up trying to figure out what the Ricketts actually can or can't spend.

DO A CAPITAL KEG STAND, BRO

The financial situation should get quite a bit better after just 1 more year. Let's say the worst case scenario happens and the payroll goes down to 75 million next year (presumably to pay for the renovations). In 2015 the new WGN contract kicks in, and the construction on some of the revenue generating things should be done. Plus the Cubs won't have nearly the dead money they have just in Soriano after next year. That's a lot of extra potential payroll that should be available after just 1 more year. Potentially. I'm not all that optimistic about the new WGN deal bringing in a ton more money. Sure, the Cubs will get more, but WGN knows it's just a stay of execution until the Comcast deal is up a few years later, so I can't imagine they're going to suddenly start paying a ton. Neither side really has a ton of leverage to really take advantage of anyone.