Conky

The two sides of this debate were played out in Milwaukee with Braun/ Fielder. Braun signed the early/ team friendly/ security for his family deal, while Fielder gambled for the big payday. Looks in hindsight like both methods worked out for the player. Braun has undoubtedly left money on the table the way his scenario has played out, but he had the early security and payday over Fielder. There is no correct way to go about it. Situations are different for different players.

Ryno's only demand for being cool about getting snubbed was that the Cubs could not hire Davey Martinez either. Bastard.

Exactly what I was thinking. Only problem, though a minor one, is holding back whatever payroll slot they set for Cespedes. If they set his value at say, Fuku's contract, that money has to be allocated and ready in 2 months if he decides to come here. If he doesn't, then you have to figure out what to do with that money, if anything at all.

I really like Maddux. I still think there may be a very good reason so few pitching coaches go on to manage teams. My worry is how he handles the rest of the game besides pitching. Not a knock on Mike Maddux at all. I will be very happy if he gets the job. Still leaning towards Davey Martinez, though. I hope he at least gets a shot here and we get to hear his thoughts on managing.

You need let go of what Pujols has done in the past, and focus on what he's going to do in the future. If you sign him for 9 years, and he's elite for 4 of those but only good -- and vastly overpaid -- for the other 5, it's a bad deal. The absence of an immediately-available better option doesn't justify jumping into a bad deal. A well-run Cubs team can easily take the hit of a player being overpaid in the final years of his deal. Just because they can doesn't mean they should. Yeah, it kinda does. Yeah it does. Owners have no one to thank for this system, but themselves. Owners are the ones writing the contracts and offering guaranteed money. No sense in losing sleep over a system created to benefit a small group of rich investors. The market sets the price for these players. If no one is willing to go more than 6 years on Pujols or Fielder, guess what? They won't have that type of a contract. The money is there to be spent. Fans want success and are willing to shell out big to get it. For once in our lifetimes, we have an owner that gets the concept of putting together a successful organization. TR understands that the fans want a winning product. Let's not complain when he wants to provide us with one.

Z's had last chances before (for example coming off the suspension in 2010). He is who he is. The Cubs can either accept that and move along with him or trade him. I don't think though that being on his best behavior will help either avoid incidents or help his pitching. The falling off of his pitching is not due to any concentration issues but much more likely to be the result of an arm that has logged a lot of pitches. From a psychological standpoint, I see this a bit differently. Zambro is his own worst enemy. He is realizing this I think. As you say, he is what he is, and we love him for that. At least many of us do. He is a fiery competitor filled with desire and at times, frustration. What we don't like is when Z takes things too far. He needs to develop on off switch. Behaviors can be learned and modified if the person in question truly wants to change. But change comes from within. My idea is not for the Cubs to put him on a leash. My thought was to unleash the beast and let him make or break on his own terms. No one can control Z. Only Z can do that. It is a fool's exercise to even try. I say welcome him back. Have a sit down about expectations with no threats or constraints. Then turn him loose on the NL. I think Z will rise to the challenge.

I would think that Z knows by now that this is his last chance and that the only thing he can do now is make an impression for his next employer. The Cubs shutting him down in a meaningless month was the right call. Not allowing him back is a mistake. I think Theo realizes this. Having him pitch in Venezuela is the first step in the process of reconciliation. Bring back Z with a new manager and new front office. He'll be fine. That or he won't have a job come next year. Let's get the benefit of Z in a contract/ career saving year.

Latest speculation at SOSH: The most fun in all of this (aside from seeing the Cubs front office materialize) has been watching the dust-up among Red Sox fans. Some hilarious reading there. Funny, I always thought that our two fan bases were kind of kindred spirits.

Which brings up a good point. Wondering how many no trade clauses Theo has given out over the years? On the current roster, looks like Daisuke has the only full no trade. Crawford and A-Gon have partials. Crawford's stipulates that he may block 2 teams. Further, no team may trade for him and them deal him to the Yankees. lol Personally I would do 6/200 for either and give them the no trades if that is what it took. 6 years for Pujols because of his age, 6 years for Fielder due to weight concerns. Anything longer than 6 years would have to be structured favorably for the organization. I realize the perceived effects of inflation on front-loading, but in a case like Pujols, it might make some sense.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/8678901-419/cubs-interview-dale-sveum-hope-to-talk-to-mike-maddux.html Wittenmeyer, but still. Maybe this means Theo/ Hoyer have at least asked permission. Red Sox can keep Hale. Compensation settled. We'll take Davey.

Coincidence? http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y134/jpicco/zappastache.jpg

Agreed. Is he left-handed? nm.

This post makes very little sense. I merely said that he is apparently never going to fulfill expectations of a high first round draft choice. Seems to be the same thing you are admitting with the bold. I said at this point I didn't see a reason to expect to rely on Vitters in future plans. That could always change. My question was how much longer should he be given to show return on investment? The way I see it, the Cubs are not looking at playing "serviceable" players at key offensive positions moving forward. If the ceiling for Vitters is now "serviceable", then I see a #3 overall pick that was wasted, yes. That would mean he has become a disappointment, not necessarily a "bust". I don't see how you think I underrate Vitters at all. By all accounts, he is no longer seen as an elite talent. Is he now seen as having the potential to be an average MLB 3B? I think that is debatable, but certainly not what he was drafted to become. I hope Vitters does turn it around, as I said. I just happen to think the holes in his game are in critical areas with questions surrounding his lack of position (glove), plate discipline, and lack of power for any position he might be capable of playing. Drafting high school players is always a crapshoot, as we know. It is understood that they may take longer to develop. In cases like Jason Heyward, or Starlin Castro, they bloom early. That is always the hope. That being said, kids drafted out of high school are players seen as having the athleticism, skills, and frame to develop ahead of the curve. That hasn't happened here. In fact, Vitters has arguably regressed in comparison to his peers. His peers are no longer high school or college players. They are professional players in the Cubs and other organizations. Vitters has now had his 4 years (equivalent to a college career) to grow physically and develop mentally. He has been a part of a professional organization for 4 years focused entirely on baseball. Let's hope the new regime can get coaches in place quickly enough to help him turn it around before it's too late.

Apparently, you missed that he played at age 21 this year. I guess my point is that he is apparently never going to fulfill the expectations of a high first round pick. Looking forward, why discuss the future Bakers and Dewitts of the Cubs system? He is young, but he has had 4 full years in pro ball without the distractions of college. I would love to see him "flip the switch" as many hope every year with Vitters. Sadly, I just see that ship as having sailed. Maybe I'm too down on him, though.

Who is this theoretical full time 3B? If you can get a real one, sure, but that's a lot easier said than done. You also have bench spots to fill, and you might as well fill them with people who do something useful, like mash lefties and play multiple spots. The fact that somebody might not be a part of this team in 3 years is no reason to get rid of them today. You put the best players you have in 2012 on the 2012 team. There are really only 4 spots for infielders on a team. Castro is 1. Barney is 2, although I'd prefer he be the backup MI than starting 2B. Then, there are 2 spots leftover for DeWitt, Baker, LeMahieu, and Flaherty, with Vitters and Lake hopefully a few years away. My choice would be to give LeMa and Flaherty to opportunity to see what they can do for now and save 3-4 mil between both Baker and DeWitt. Baker could potentially stay on as he can also play 1B and a bit of outfield as well, and he does mash lefties where as the majority of the bench options (DeWitt, Flaherty, Colvin, LaHair, Campana) are lefites, so I guess that if it were to come down to Baker or DeWitt, that would give Baker a leg up but I'd just as soon see what we can get for him. Basically, there are 4 bench spots available beside the backup C. There will be a lot of guys competing for those jobs, unless 1 or 2 end up as starters which I'd really rather not see unless it's at 2nd. How many more years does Vitters get to show something? This guy is just languishing in the Cubs system or so it appears. Never seen him in person, so I have no frame of reference. Looking at his numbers, I wonder what people see in him? He was supposed to be ready or even push A-Ram at some point. Ram is gone now. If Vitters can't play, I don't really see the reason for keeping him in conversations regarding the future. What am I missing?

Can he play 1st base? :-" Get it done, Theo.

Why would a Cubs fan want a salary cap? Because I'm a fan of the game as well as the team. For one thing, a salary cap would help to mediate runaway salary demands by players. Note that a salary cap could be set at any arbitrary number. No one is saying set the cap at whatever the Pirates/ Rays of the world can afford. However, having one or two or even three teams that are head and shoulders above the rest of the league in terms of spending is just not a level playing field. I understand those that want to see the Cubs become the Yankees of the National League. Not everyone sees that as a good thing. The Cubs have one of the best front offices in the game assembled. A salary cap of $150M or even $175M would benefit the Cubs rather than hurt them. My point was about limiting the spending of the Yankees/ Red Sox first and foremost.

I count 23 Type A free agents if the site I saw was correct. This means the Yankees are allowed to sign 2 Type A. Really gets tiresome seeing them allowed to spend whatever they want year in and year out. Only saving grace is watching the Bronx Bombers fail more often than not. Still and all, the game would be much more entertaining/ competitive if there were a salary cap/ floor in place. Funny that every other major sport recognizes this fact, but Baseball owners/ players refuse to see the light.

All things being equal, what side of the plate a guy stands on means nothing. Certainly not a viable metric to base a Fielder/ Pujols decision on.

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). NIce evaluation of the situation, Scotti. I agree with a great deal of what you say in your posts here on the topic of the Ricketts and organizing funding for Wrigley. I was painting in broad strokes, whereas you have narrowed scope and highlighted some of the finer details of the situation. The one place where I disagree somewhat is the numbers regarding the Ricketts family net worth. Since we do not have access to books for either TD Ameritrade or the Cubs franchise, we are forced to speculate on worth a bit. Further, the actual details of the Cubs sale have never been made public to my knowledge. What we do know is that the deal hinged on the Ricketts financing a large portion (reportedly up to $700M) of the purchase price in order to save Tribco creditors some $300M in capital gain taxes. Forbes also lists the Cubs sale at $700M. (Current value $775M). http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/baseball-valuations-11_Chicago-Cubs_335092.html We also know that the Ricketts reportedly sold off 4.3% of their holdings in TD Ameritrade, leaving them a 17.7% stake in the company (right at 100M shares by my calculations) raising $403M for the purchase of the Cubs. What we don't know is how the final deal came together or the debt structure of the Cubs currently. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/brokerage/2009-02-18-td-ameritrade-cubs_N.htm Current market capitalization values TDA holdings at $9.96B. A better way of looking at the value of the company would be to look at enterprise value. The company had an enterprise value of $8.71B in January of 2009 and $12.16B in September 2009, close to the time of the finalized sale of the Cubs. TDA enterprise value currently stands at $9.65B. Although unclear, it would appear that the Ricketts sold the 4.3% of shares needed for the sale in the final quarter of 2009. Using the 17.7% number we have for Ricketts holdings in TDA in 2009, that would place their current TDA share value at roughly $1.7B. http://ycharts.com/companies/AMTD/enterprise_value http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=AMTD http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/21/news/companies/zell_tribune_chicago_cubs.fortune/index.htm A search of Forbes this morning does not turn up the Ricketts family in the current list of over 1000 billionaires. This could be for many reasons, but my guess would be that the Ricketts family is no longer being lumped together by Forbes due to diversification of their interests. Point being, Tom Ricketts is by no stretch of the imagination, a billionaire. What he is however, is a shrewd investment banker. He owns his own venture, Incapital, a securities and investment banking firm founded in 1999. With offices in several major cities, including Chicago and London, Tom Ricketts is a leader among today's investment bankers. Forbes describes the company as a "technologically-oriented investment bank focused exclusively on the underwriting and distribution of fixed income products to individual investors." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapital From Wikipedia: Incapital underwrites and distributes fixed income securities and structured notes through more than 700 broker-dealers, banks and institutional accounts in the U.S., Europe and Asia. With a diverse range of new issue and secondary market offerings, Incapital specializes in U.S. Agency securities, corporate notes, Certificates of Deposit (CDs), Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs), municipal bonds, and structured notes and CDs. Incapital also provides resources for financial advisors and investors to create income-producing portfolios and notes linked to a wide range of asset classes. Incapital is a leading distributor of corporate bonds designed for individual investors. Since 2000, over $250 billion of new issue corporate and U.S. Agency securities have been issued through retail note programs. . Incapital’s capital markets team offers a cost effective way to customize and diversify funding needs while expanding an investor base nationally. Incapital is lead agent for over 30 investment grade issuers, with secondary trading specialists covering a wide range of previously offered and similar issues. Based in both Chicago and Boca Raton, Incapital’s institutional group offers multiple products to a range of institutional investors. Simply stated, Tom Ricketts knows financing. I have every confidence that he has the ability to broker the best deal for the Chicago Cubs in financing a Wrigley renovation if that is feasible, or a move to a more forgiving and beneficial climate in another venue. As Scotti said, he has begun to rack up quite the impressive track record here in dealings with Zell, MLB, the city of Mesa, and the Boston Red Sox (not to mention the coup of luring in some of the top minds in all of baseball to run his team). The city of Chicago may think they have the Cubs over a barrel. My money is on Tom Ricketts' vision and apparent ability to achieve results. Chicago can landmark Wrigley all they want. However, they simply can't force the Cubs to continue to handicap themselves financially in an antique and unsafe ballpark. Looks to me like Ricketts MO is to work things out amicably at first in any deal, but to do what is necessary when forced to. Go ahead, Chicago. Make his day.

The traditional way would be for the city to issue municipal bonds. These bonds are then sold to investors to generate the needed money upfront. In this way, the city becomes the guarantor on the loan. The money can be repaid in numerous ways, and this is where the issue gets sticky. The city seems to have a problem being associated with helping fund a private venture. Taxpayers are paying off the debt on the U.S. Cellular Field construction. The $365M Soldier Field renovation was also 100% publicly funded. One thing to note here is that these two facilities were taken over and are now publicly held facilities. This option was brought up around the time of the sale of the Cubs/ Wrigley, but was shot down by Sam Zell.

There is absolutely no reason that the funding can't come from a new tax on restaurants/ lodging. This is how the Cell money is being repaid. The tax zone created for that venture stops short of the North Side of the city. Politicians/ alderpersons in those wards are hesitant to back increased taxation for their districts. It really has nothing to do with how cash strapped the city of Chicago is at all. It has to do with the current political landscape not favoring raising taxes to fund the Wrigley renovation. When the city revenue stream that is the Chicago Cubs decides that they will be forced to move for economic reasons, politicians will have public opinion on their side. They might even now if they were actually in touch with their constituents. The comment about the Ricketts being billionaires is also a bit of a misnomer. The Ricketts were valued at $1.2B at the time of the $900M sale. While they could technically be valued approximately the same now, a good portion of that worth is wrapped up in the asset that is the Cubs/ Wrigley. I think it is obvious that they do not have access to ready cash to build the stadium currently. If they did, why bother with the city at all and offer to pay interest? Just fund the build yourself and profit. Ricketts family worth mentioned here: http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/ricketts-family-is-high-bidder-for-cubs-900m.html

We want THEBEARD.

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. This. This is what needs to go down, and I think it eventually will. Politicians understand pressure. The threat of the Cubs moving the team will be what it takes to get a deal done. No politician wants to be associated with running the Cubs out of Chicago or out of Wrigley. Ricketts needs to play hardball with the city. I think we are seeing that he is more than willing to do what is necessary to accomplish what is best for the team and fans. The city of Chicago has no leverage here. Ricketts and the revenue generated by the Cubs for the city do.

according to the article it sounds like it already happened. Thanks. I thought that was a re-post of the article from this morning. Didn't read it a second time. Just caught the update on the Score, though. They played a couple of sound bites from the interview. He sounds intelligent enough. Sounded a bit gassed after going through this process for the second time. Hell with the iPad. Bring on the Beard.