Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
You want rational? How about raw figures?
The Cubs spent a BILLION dollars on payroll. A <i>billion</i>. Mostly by Jim.
Total Payroll (1999-2009)
Club '09 rnk '08 rnk Total (1999-'08) 09 EOY Total (1999-'09)
Yankees 1 1 $1,658,849,589 $220,024,917 $1,878,874,506
Red Sox 2 2 $1,164,321,757 $140,454,683 $1,304,776,440
Mets 3 3 $1,046,910,087 $142,229,759 $1,189,139,846
Dodgers 4 4 $1,039,853,163 $131,507,197 $1,171,360,360
<!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->Cubs<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc--> 5 6 $872,048,397 $141,632,703 <!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->$1,013,681,100<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->
Braves 6 5 $902,043,428 $100,078,591 $1,002,122,019
Angels 7 7 $856,855,281 $121,947,524 $978,802,805
Cardinals 8 8 $855,274,544 $102,678,475 $957,953,019
Mariners 9 9 $845,949,923 $102,343,617 $948,293,540
Phillies 10 13 $778,115,204 $138,286,499 $916,401,703
Astros 11 12 $781,490,161 $108,059,086 $889,549,247
Giants 12 11 $790,847,387 $95,202,185 $886,049,572
Rangers 13 10 $808,126,133 $77,208,810 $885,334,943
Tigers 14 16 $709,782,099 $139,429,408 $849,211,507
D-Backs 15 14 $770,742,420 $73,800,852 $844,543,272
Orioles 16 15 $742,194,153 $79,308,066 $821,502,219
White Sox 17 17 $697,463,083 $105,287,384 $802,750,467
Blue Jays 18 18 $667,832,680 $84,130,513 $751,963,193
Indians 19 19 $666,513,932 $77,192,253 $743,706,185
Rockies 20 20 $618,433,487 $84,450,797 $702,884,284
Padres 21 21 $583,880,812 $43,210,258 $627,091,070
Reds 22 22 $551,129,804 $72,693,206 $623,823,010
Brewers 23 24 $516,650,959 $90,006,172 $606,657,131
Athletics 24 23 $517,246,246 $61,688,124 $578,934,370 (Yes, Beane and Terry Ryan suck)
Twins 25 25 $479,586,284 $73,068,407 $552,654,691
Royals 26 26 $439,099,774 $81,917,563 $521,017,337
Nats/Expo 27 27 $433,376,729 $69,321,137 $502,697,866
Pirates 28 28 $420,564,146 $47,991,132 $468,555,278
Rays 29 29 $386,782,311 $71,222,532 $458,004,843
Marlins 30 30 $366,704,357 $37,532,482 $404,236,839
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73419:date=Dec 30 2009, 03:42 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 30 2009, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73416:date=Dec 30 2009, 03:31 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Dec 30 2009, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73413:date=Dec 30 2009, 03:23 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 30 2009, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73384:date=Dec 30 2009, 11:58 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 30 2009, 11:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->In the end, Hendry doesn't suck. He was infinitely better than KB will ever admit but not nearly as good as BT or scarey think he is.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yeah, see. THIS is why sometimes after reading this board, I want to kill myself.
Tom, quick, do me a favor and show me a time when I said anything remotely resembling "Jim Hendry is a GREAT GM!" (at least in the last 3 or 4 years). <b>I have continuously (and apparently pointlessly) referred to him as average to below average.</b> But on this board, when you take that controversial stand that "hey, maybe Hendry doesn't ass rape newly born puppies", that is the exact SAME thing as saying you LOVE him.
Countering KB's absurd disdain for Hendry is not the same thing as saying Hendry is great.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
Bt, do you realize how ironic that is? In the exact same post where you insist that people are wrongly stigmatizing you, you wrongly stigmatize me!
I agree with the part of your post that I boldened. (although I lean slightly more toward slightly below average instead of average. And even that is only because of his colossal payroll advantage. Otherwise, I'd say he's close to average. So, is it wrong to say that with an <i>above</i>-average GM, we might be closer to winning a World Series?)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, you can sit there and type that you think Hendry is an average Gm until your fingers fall off. Most of the rest of your posts say completely the opposite.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, I'm totally aware that we categorize board members according to extreme examples of their views. That's cool. I'm the "hate Hendry guy." According to the board, I want to squeeze his skull in a vise, and BT and Scarey want to lick his scrotum for 14 straight hours.
A rational person would concede that the truth is somewhere in between. But being rational means you can't categorize and stigmatize people. And that kind of thing would never fly on a sports forum.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
KB, you have SAID Hendry is "the worst GM in the majors" on at least one occasion. I've seen you post it on ESPN comments. You have categorized his failure to sign Furcal as inexcusable. You have mocked virtually every supposed bad move he has made as "typical Hendry". When anyone posts some imaginary scenario that Hendry would "probably" screw up, you immediately tell them how spot on they are.
I have no doubt that you may not personally hate the human being that is Jim Hendry. You may not wish violence upon him. But to suggest that you hate him in his capacity of GM is not an exaggeration of your posts, but I would say, a pretty accurate reading of your posts.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73421:date=Dec 30 2009, 03:57 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 30 2009, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You want rational? How about raw figures?
The Cubs spent a BILLION dollars on payroll. A <i>billion</i>. Mostly by Jim.
Total Payroll (1999-2009)
Club '09 rnk '08 rnk Total (1999-'08) 09 EOY Total (1999-'09)
Yankees 1 1 $1,658,849,589 $220,024,917 $1,878,874,506
Red Sox 2 2 $1,164,321,757 $140,454,683 $1,304,776,440
Mets 3 3 $1,046,910,087 $142,229,759 $1,189,139,846
Dodgers 4 4 $1,039,853,163 $131,507,197 $1,171,360,360
<!--coloro:#0000FF--> <!--/coloro-->Cubs<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc--> 5 6 $872,048,397 $141,632,703 <!--coloro:#0000FF--> <!--/coloro-->$1,013,681,100<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->
Braves 6 5 $902,043,428 $100,078,591 $1,002,122,019
Angels 7 7 $856,855,281 $121,947,524 $978,802,805
Cardinals 8 8 $855,274,544 $102,678,475 $957,953,019
Mariners 9 9 $845,949,923 $102,343,617 $948,293,540
Phillies 10 13 $778,115,204 $138,286,499 $916,401,703
Astros 11 12 $781,490,161 $108,059,086 $889,549,247
Giants 12 11 $790,847,387 $95,202,185 $886,049,572
Rangers 13 10 $808,126,133 $77,208,810 $885,334,943
Tigers 14 16 $709,782,099 $139,429,408 $849,211,507
D-Backs 15 14 $770,742,420 $73,800,852 $844,543,272
Orioles 16 15 $742,194,153 $79,308,066 $821,502,219
White Sox 17 17 $697,463,083 $105,287,384 $802,750,467
Blue Jays 18 18 $667,832,680 $84,130,513 $751,963,193
Indians 19 19 $666,513,932 $77,192,253 $743,706,185
Rockies 20 20 $618,433,487 $84,450,797 $702,884,284
Padres 21 21 $583,880,812 $43,210,258 $627,091,070
Reds 22 22 $551,129,804 $72,693,206 $623,823,010
Brewers 23 24 $516,650,959 $90,006,172 $606,657,131
Athletics 24 23 $517,246,246 $61,688,124 $578,934,370 (Yes, Beane and Terry Ryan suck)
Twins 25 25 $479,586,284 $73,068,407 $552,654,691
Royals 26 26 $439,099,774 $81,917,563 $521,017,337
Nats/Expo 27 27 $433,376,729 $69,321,137 $502,697,866
Pirates 28 28 $420,564,146 $47,991,132 $468,555,278
Rays 29 29 $386,782,311 $71,222,532 $458,004,843
Marlins 30 30 $366,704,357 $37,532,482 $404,236,839<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And in 5 of his 7 years they had winning records. In one of the 2 losing seasons they won 79 games. They have had one truly awful year in his 7 as GM. The others eventually ended in disappointment, but they were all varying degrees of "successful". They went to the playoffs in almost half of those years. Simply accusing "Jim" of spending money is nothing without context.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
How did the teams on either side of the Cubs do in the decade? That's what I want to know (but we've been through this before).
Posts: 11,761
Threads: 388
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->According to the board, I want to squeeze his skull in a vise, <b>and BT and Scarey want to lick his scrotum for 14 straight hours.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. That conjured up an extremely vivid, unwanted image in my brain.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73421:date=Dec 30 2009, 03:57 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 30 2009, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You want rational? How about raw figures?
The Cubs spent a BILLION dollars on payroll. A <i>billion</i>. Mostly by Jim.
Total Payroll (1999-2009)
Club '09 rnk '08 rnk Total (1999-'08) 09 EOY Total (1999-'09)
Yankees 1 1 $1,658,849,589 $220,024,917 $1,878,874,506
Red Sox 2 2 $1,164,321,757 $140,454,683 $1,304,776,440
Mets 3 3 $1,046,910,087 $142,229,759 $1,189,139,846
Dodgers 4 4 $1,039,853,163 $131,507,197 $1,171,360,360
<!--coloro:#0000FF--> <!--/coloro-->Cubs<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc--> 5 6 $872,048,397 $141,632,703 <!--coloro:#0000FF--> <!--/coloro-->$1,013,681,100<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->
Braves 6 5 $902,043,428 $100,078,591 $1,002,122,019
Angels 7 7 $856,855,281 $121,947,524 $978,802,805
Cardinals 8 8 $855,274,544 $102,678,475 $957,953,019
Mariners 9 9 $845,949,923 $102,343,617 $948,293,540
Phillies 10 13 $778,115,204 $138,286,499 $916,401,703
Astros 11 12 $781,490,161 $108,059,086 $889,549,247
Giants 12 11 $790,847,387 $95,202,185 $886,049,572
Rangers 13 10 $808,126,133 $77,208,810 $885,334,943
Tigers 14 16 $709,782,099 $139,429,408 $849,211,507
D-Backs 15 14 $770,742,420 $73,800,852 $844,543,272
Orioles 16 15 $742,194,153 $79,308,066 $821,502,219
White Sox 17 17 $697,463,083 $105,287,384 $802,750,467
Blue Jays 18 18 $667,832,680 $84,130,513 $751,963,193
Indians 19 19 $666,513,932 $77,192,253 $743,706,185
Rockies 20 20 $618,433,487 $84,450,797 $702,884,284
Padres 21 21 $583,880,812 $43,210,258 $627,091,070
Reds 22 22 $551,129,804 $72,693,206 $623,823,010
Brewers 23 24 $516,650,959 $90,006,172 $606,657,131
Athletics 24 23 $517,246,246 $61,688,124 $578,934,370 (Yes, Beane and Terry Ryan suck)
Twins 25 25 $479,586,284 $73,068,407 $552,654,691
Royals 26 26 $439,099,774 $81,917,563 $521,017,337
Nats/Expo 27 27 $433,376,729 $69,321,137 $502,697,866
Pirates 28 28 $420,564,146 $47,991,132 $468,555,278
Rays 29 29 $386,782,311 $71,222,532 $458,004,843
Marlins 30 30 $366,704,357 $37,532,482 $404,236,839<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does that have to do with you saying you don't hate Hendry when you clearly do?
Wang.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
You know what? I honestly and truly don't hate Hendry. For one, obviously I like him as a person. Who doesn't? He seems to be a cool guy, he's widely respected by his players, and he's a Cub.
But I don't even hate him as a GM. As Cub fans, we've had to endure a gruesome parade of Trib penny-pinchers, idiots who drove Greg Maddux out of town at his peak, Wrigley minions who considered the idea of a farm system to be a waste of time, and worse. Hendry has finally brought a modicum of respect and dignity to the job. Plus, I've enjoyed the 3 playoffs runs, and genuinely loved the '08 season.
<b>But</b> he operates under a philosophy that I consider to be flawed, or at least outdated. Thus, I think a billion-dollar, long-suffering franchise could do better. Even tom agrees with that idea.
I realize that we all have roles to play here on the site. I've been assigned the role of
"Hendry-hater #1." It's a gross exaggeration, but I don't mind it, because I do disagree with him on many things, and would not be crestfallen if he were replaced. Besides, my persona on this site is etched in granite, and I can't change it anyway.
And <i>I have</i> said many things that have indicated my displeasure with his philosophies on building a champion...I freely admit it.
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73436:date=Dec 30 2009, 05:07 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 30 2009, 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You know what? I honestly and truly don't hate Hendry. For one, obviously I like him as a person. Who doesn't? He seems to be a cool guy, he's widely respected by his players, and he's a Cub.
But I don't even hate him as a GM. As Cub fans, we've had to endure a gruesome parade of Trib penny-pinchers, idiots who drove Greg Maddux out of town at his peak, Wrigley minions who considered the idea of a farm system to be a waste of time, and worse. Hendry has finally brought a modicum of respect and dignity to the job. Plus, I've enjoyed the 3 playoffs runs, and genuinely loved the '08 season.
<b>But</b> he operates under a philosophy that I consider to be flawed, or at least outdated. Thus, I think a billion-dollar, long-suffering franchise could do better. Even tom agrees with that idea.
I realize that we all have roles to play here on the site. I've been assigned the role of
"Hendry-hater #1." It's a gross exaggeration, but I don't mind it, because I do disagree with him on many things, and would not be crestfallen if he were replaced. Besides, my persona on this site is etched in granite, and I can't change it anyway.
And <i>I have</i> said many things that have indicated my displeasure with his philosophies on building a champion...I freely admit it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
it's not a gross exaggeration though. It's fairly accurate. We both agree it's time for a change though.
Wang.
Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73436:date=Dec 30 2009, 05:07 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 30 2009, 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I realize that we all have roles to play here on the site. I've been assigned the role of
"Hendry-hater #1." It's a gross exaggeration, but I don't mind it, because I do disagree with him on many things, and would not be crestfallen if he were replaced. Besides, my persona on this site is etched in granite, and I can't change it anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't? Or Choosing not to?
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73424:date=Dec 30 2009, 04:07 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 30 2009, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How did the teams on either side of the Cubs do in the decade? That's what I want to know (but we've been through this before).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the 7 years Hendry has been GM, the Braves have won a total of 11 more games than the Cubs, or less than 2 per season. The Dodgers have won 21 more games, or 3 per season. The Braves have been to the playoffs as many times as the Cubs, and the Dodgers have gone once more.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73442:date=Dec 30 2009, 07:27 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 30 2009, 07:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73424:date=Dec 30 2009, 04:07 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 30 2009, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How did the teams on either side of the Cubs do in the decade? That's what I want to know (but we've been through this before).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the 7 years Hendry has been GM, the Braves have won a total of 11 more games than the Cubs, or less than 2 per season. The Dodgers have won 21 more games, or 3 per season. The Braves have been to the playoffs as many times as the Cubs, and the Dodgers have gone once more.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't literally mean the immediate two teams on either side - I just meant the teams with comparable payrolls. Still, interesting to know.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73456:date=Dec 30 2009, 09:20 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 30 2009, 09:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73442:date=Dec 30 2009, 07:27 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 30 2009, 07:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73424:date=Dec 30 2009, 04:07 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 30 2009, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How did the teams on either side of the Cubs do in the decade? That's what I want to know (but we've been through this before).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the 7 years Hendry has been GM, the Braves have won a total of 11 more games than the Cubs, or less than 2 per season. The Dodgers have won 21 more games, or 3 per season. The Braves have been to the playoffs as many times as the Cubs, and the Dodgers have gone once more.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't literally mean the immediate two teams on either side - I just meant the teams with comparable payrolls. Still, interesting to know.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the Yankees and even the Red Sox (who spent 30 percent more than the Cubs) aren't really comparable. As for the rest, the Cubs are not shining examples, but they are not an embarrassment either . The Mets have been worse with a higher payroll, the Mariners worse (zero playoff appearances) with a lower one, but the Angels and Cardinals have done better.
I think a detailed breakdown of these numbers won't really give either side a decisive edge in an argument as to what Hendry's legacy looks like.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73513:date=Dec 31 2009, 08:24 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 31 2009, 08:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Well, the Yankees and even the Red Sox (who spent 30 percent more than the Cubs) aren't really comparable.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even less comparable when you look at what they spend in addition to the major league payroll. I don't think any team spends more than Boston on the draft. And the Yanks regularly are in the top few. I know the Cubs have signed a few guys over slot (Jeff S comes to mind) but not nearly like Boston or NY. That's a key difference. Those teams each get an extra 1st round talent each year by drafting a guy in the 5th round who requires first round money.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73533:date=Dec 31 2009, 10:03 AM:name=cherp)-->QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 31 2009, 10:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73513:date=Dec 31 2009, 08:24 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 31 2009, 08:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Well, the Yankees and even the Red Sox (who spent 30 percent more than the Cubs) aren't really comparable.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even less comparable when you look at what they spend in addition to the major league payroll. I don't think any team spends more than Boston on the draft. And the Yanks regularly are in the top few. I know the Cubs have signed a few guys over slot (Jeff S comes to mind) but not nearly like Boston or NY. That's a key difference. Those teams each get an extra 1st round talent each year by drafting a guy in the 5th round who requires first round money.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even Samardizja comes with the caveat that the Cubs didn't have a 2nd, 3rd or 4th round pick that year, so his over slot money came out of the money that would have been spent on those picks.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 209
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=73539:date=Dec 31 2009, 10:18 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 31 2009, 10:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73533:date=Dec 31 2009, 10:03 AM:name=cherp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cherp @ Dec 31 2009, 10:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=73513:date=Dec 31 2009, 08:24 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 31 2009, 08:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Well, the Yankees and even the Red Sox (who spent 30 percent more than the Cubs) aren't really comparable.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even less comparable when you look at what they spend in addition to the major league payroll. I don't think any team spends more than Boston on the draft. And the Yanks regularly are in the top few. I know the Cubs have signed a few guys over slot (Jeff S comes to mind) but not nearly like Boston or NY. That's a key difference. Those teams each get an extra 1st round talent each year by drafting a guy in the 5th round who requires first round money.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even Samardizja comes with the caveat that the Cubs didn't have a 2nd, 3rd or 4th round pick that year, so his over slot money came out of the money that would have been spent on those picks.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Totally forgot about that - so they didn't really get themselves an extra first round talent - they got one with money allocated to it, just in a later round. This is very underrated when people discuss the Red Sox and Yanks payroll. Their minor league systems also spend more than anyone elses on drafting and developing. That's how they bring up young kids, or leverage them for trades.
|
