When it comes to payroll specifically, my take is ownership is consistent(with one exception) at a level that makes building a great team possible even if I would never describe them as generous. It’s generally been my understanding that payroll is there up to the tax line if the front office wants to use it, and in the right circumstances they are willing to go into the tax. Since the Cubs don’t have one outlier revenue stream like the Dodgers or an overwhelming market size like the Yankees(plus the potential competitive penalties for exceeding the LT), I can understand that logic even if it’s not my absolute preference. Especially when basically every team(even mega market teams like the Yankees) are resetting their LT penalties every few years. As it relates to the last few seasons, that includes the one exception, which was that they were overly conservative with payroll during the 2020-2021 offseason. The main consequence of that was missed opportunity and the FO cutting bait with Schwarber a year before FA after his poor 2020. As for the rest of the 2016 core, that’s 100% a front office decision. Hoyer is very mindful about long term deals to guys in their 30s*(note that his 2 big FA splashes in charge have been 28 year olds Suzuki and Swanson), and the younger members of that core were players like Baez who they didn’t believe would age gracefully. Given the roster refresh needed as the 2016 core reached FA and the lack of impact talent in the farm system, it would have been a narrow path to spending back into a place of consistent contention, so while payroll didnt bottom out to 2012 levels, it was still dropped as a mostly front office decision(as proven by the investment in Suzuki, Stroman, Swanson, Taillon, etc the last two years). *I also appreciate that it’s probably not a coincidence that Ricketts hired/promoted an exec with Jed’s worldview, and that ownership probably wouldn’t hire a Preller or Dombrowski type to run the team. This doesn’t bother me but I can understand that it rankles others.