12-06-2012, 07:21 AM
[quote name='Coldneck' timestamp='1354740563' post='199963']
[quote name='1060Ivy' timestamp='1354735965' post='199957']
Keppinger agrees to deal with White Sox, 3 years, $12 MM.
Guess that is Valbuena and maybe Stewart for thirdbase platoon. It's difficult to imagine the Cubs not being in last place in the NL Central for 2013. Not that Keppinger would have changed that much but it's apparent that the season is an afterthought.
[url="http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/8714655/jeff-keppinger-agrees-deal-chicago-white-sox-source-says"]http://espn.go.com/c...sox-source-says[/url]
[/quote]
Remind me why you renewed your season tickets? It was apparent the next season is an afterthought 5 minutes after Theo was hired. I'm not sure why you're surprised and complain about every signing that's not made by the Cubs. In the long run you'll be happy that the Cubs aren't overpaying for a utility guy like Keppinger. Keppinger is turning 32 and has played more than 121 games once in his 8 year MLB career. He's basically a 5 years older version Luis Valbuena with no power and little better avg.
[/quote]
You were aware back in October 2011 that the Cubs were planning to cut payroll from $130 - $144 MM range to less than half of that figure and would be OK with losing more than 100 games a year for consecutive seasons? Not certain if you've looked at the Cubs salary obligations for 2013 or the trends in team compensation but what the Cubs are doing appears to be historic.
I mentioned that Keppinger wasn't going to save the season or reverse the trend but this is getting beyond ridiculous.
Current Cubs salary obligations are around $60 MM with Marmol and Soriano representing almost half of that figure. Both of which are on the trading block but with Cubs expecting to take a significant portion of salaries. My initial guess was that with pick up of free agent retreads and arbitration, Cubs will most likely spend $70 - $85 MM on salaries but if they are able to find takers for Marmol and Soriano and decide not to plug holes in the roster, the Cubs could field a team for less than $44 MM for 2013.
Has a team in the MLB ever cut $100 MM from payroll in less than a few years and been competitive within a decade of doing so? The only team that may be comparable would be the Marlins who cut $45 MM from 2005 to 2006 but they were coming off World Series victory; were a small market team and had a solid minor league system in place with a proven track record of success. None of these situations apply to the Cubs. (Note: Just realized that the Marlins could cut around $68 MM for 2013 but again that's a special circumstance as Loria lied to fans, city and players and deserves his own corner of hell.)
The Cubs needed to retrench but are a top 5 team in terms of revenues so why not throw an additional $15 MM to selective free agents every year in the chance that one of these players can become a foundational player; shows the rooks how the hell the game should be played; or, at least assists in keeping the Cubs winning percentage above 38%
The Cubs are a special team and Wrigley can be an amazing place but the Cubs are in the process of doing irreputable damage to the team's future revenue opportunities. Considering that Wrigley renovations will be coming due; and that TV contracts have exploded and Cubs will be renegotiating deals in the near future, the Cubs are being short sided in their decision not to shore up obvious issues with the roster.
[quote name='1060Ivy' timestamp='1354735965' post='199957']
Keppinger agrees to deal with White Sox, 3 years, $12 MM.
Guess that is Valbuena and maybe Stewart for thirdbase platoon. It's difficult to imagine the Cubs not being in last place in the NL Central for 2013. Not that Keppinger would have changed that much but it's apparent that the season is an afterthought.
[url="http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/8714655/jeff-keppinger-agrees-deal-chicago-white-sox-source-says"]http://espn.go.com/c...sox-source-says[/url]
[/quote]
Remind me why you renewed your season tickets? It was apparent the next season is an afterthought 5 minutes after Theo was hired. I'm not sure why you're surprised and complain about every signing that's not made by the Cubs. In the long run you'll be happy that the Cubs aren't overpaying for a utility guy like Keppinger. Keppinger is turning 32 and has played more than 121 games once in his 8 year MLB career. He's basically a 5 years older version Luis Valbuena with no power and little better avg.
[/quote]
You were aware back in October 2011 that the Cubs were planning to cut payroll from $130 - $144 MM range to less than half of that figure and would be OK with losing more than 100 games a year for consecutive seasons? Not certain if you've looked at the Cubs salary obligations for 2013 or the trends in team compensation but what the Cubs are doing appears to be historic.
I mentioned that Keppinger wasn't going to save the season or reverse the trend but this is getting beyond ridiculous.
Current Cubs salary obligations are around $60 MM with Marmol and Soriano representing almost half of that figure. Both of which are on the trading block but with Cubs expecting to take a significant portion of salaries. My initial guess was that with pick up of free agent retreads and arbitration, Cubs will most likely spend $70 - $85 MM on salaries but if they are able to find takers for Marmol and Soriano and decide not to plug holes in the roster, the Cubs could field a team for less than $44 MM for 2013.
Has a team in the MLB ever cut $100 MM from payroll in less than a few years and been competitive within a decade of doing so? The only team that may be comparable would be the Marlins who cut $45 MM from 2005 to 2006 but they were coming off World Series victory; were a small market team and had a solid minor league system in place with a proven track record of success. None of these situations apply to the Cubs. (Note: Just realized that the Marlins could cut around $68 MM for 2013 but again that's a special circumstance as Loria lied to fans, city and players and deserves his own corner of hell.)
The Cubs needed to retrench but are a top 5 team in terms of revenues so why not throw an additional $15 MM to selective free agents every year in the chance that one of these players can become a foundational player; shows the rooks how the hell the game should be played; or, at least assists in keeping the Cubs winning percentage above 38%
The Cubs are a special team and Wrigley can be an amazing place but the Cubs are in the process of doing irreputable damage to the team's future revenue opportunities. Considering that Wrigley renovations will be coming due; and that TV contracts have exploded and Cubs will be renegotiating deals in the near future, the Cubs are being short sided in their decision not to shore up obvious issues with the roster.