Posts: 1,436
Threads: 28
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71623:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71612:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71602:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rotation should be the least of our concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
Posts: 7,162
Threads: 138
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71624:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM:name=Brock)-->QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71623:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71612:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71602:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rotation should be the least of our concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. <b>I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. </b> Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd want him... but we had really no situation possible to make it work. I mean look what the Phillies have to give up to get him, and then have to sign him to a massive $ extension through late 30s. We don't have the financial ability to do something like this, nor can afford to give up what it would take to get him.
@TheBlogfines
Posts: 2,331
Threads: 20
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71626:date=Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71624:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71623:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71612:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71602:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rotation should be the least of our concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. <b>I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. </b> Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd want him... but we had really no situation possible to make it work. I mean look what the Phillies have to give up to get him, and then have to sign him to a massive $ extension through late 30s. We don't have the financial ability to do something like this, nor can afford to give up what it would take to get him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Cubs made 200mil in revenues in 2007, and reported 214mil in '08. Assuming it went up again in 09, where should their payroll be? I think that's what I'd like to know. And I won't pretend to know, I'm just asking...
I don't expect the Cubs to spend like the Yankees, they don't make nearly as much, but a quick look at the differences in players expenditures (end of year/after bonuses) and revenue in 07 and 08, even after the Cubs started spending, would still suggest to me the Cubs aren't overspending on payroll, in fact what they spend on players represents a smaller piece of costs compared to revenue than some of the other big boys. So yeah, the Cubs opening day payroll is now very high and a lot of money is tied up, but compared to what the team generates...?? Let's just say it doesn't seem the team is going to go poor anytime soon...
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71715:date=Dec 15 2009, 02:17 AM:name=MrSheps)-->QUOTE (MrSheps @ Dec 15 2009, 02:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71626:date=Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71624:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71623:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71612:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71602:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rotation should be the least of our concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. <b>I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. </b> Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd want him... but we had really no situation possible to make it work. I mean look what the Phillies have to give up to get him, and then have to sign him to a massive $ extension through late 30s. We don't have the financial ability to do something like this, nor can afford to give up what it would take to get him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Cubs made 200mil in revenues in 2007, and reported 214mil in '08. Assuming it went up again in 09, where should their payroll be? I think that's what I'd like to know. And I won't pretend to know, I'm just asking...
I don't expect the Cubs to spend like the Yankees, they don't make nearly as much, but a quick look at the differences in players expenditures (end of year/after bonuses) and revenue in 07 and 08, even after the Cubs started spending, would still suggest to me the Cubs aren't overspending on payroll, in fact what they spend on players represents a smaller piece of costs compared to revenue than some of the other big boys. So yeah, the Cubs opening day payroll is now very high and a lot of money is tied up, but compared to what the team generates...?? Let's just say it doesn't seem the team is going to go poor anytime soon...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you think the Ricketts are lying, and are pocketing the extra $$, rather than putting it into payroll? (and by the way, the cubs revenue in 09 was almost certainly less than 08, since there were no playoff games).
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=71717:date=Dec 15 2009, 07:50 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 15 2009, 07:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71715:date=Dec 15 2009, 02:17 AM:name=MrSheps)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MrSheps @ Dec 15 2009, 02:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71626:date=Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71624:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71623:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71612:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71602:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rotation should be the least of our concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. <b>I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. </b> Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd want him... but we had really no situation possible to make it work. I mean look what the Phillies have to give up to get him, and then have to sign him to a massive $ extension through late 30s. We don't have the financial ability to do something like this, nor can afford to give up what it would take to get him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Cubs made 200mil in revenues in 2007, and reported 214mil in '08. Assuming it went up again in 09, where should their payroll be? I think that's what I'd like to know. And I won't pretend to know, I'm just asking...
I don't expect the Cubs to spend like the Yankees, they don't make nearly as much, but a quick look at the differences in players expenditures (end of year/after bonuses) and revenue in 07 and 08, even after the Cubs started spending, would still suggest to me the Cubs aren't overspending on payroll, in fact what they spend on players represents a smaller piece of costs compared to revenue than some of the other big boys. So yeah, the Cubs opening day payroll is now very high and a lot of money is tied up, but compared to what the team generates...?? Let's just say it doesn't seem the team is going to go poor anytime soon...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you think the Ricketts are lying, and are pocketing the extra $$, rather than putting it into payroll? (and by the way, the cubs revenue in 09 was almost certainly less than 08, since there were no playoff games).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The lack of 3 playoff games offsets increased ticket revenue for 81, and increased other revenue for 162? Doubt it.
If revenues were down in 2009, it wasn't because of the playoffs.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71718:date=Dec 15 2009, 06:58 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 15 2009, 06:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71717:date=Dec 15 2009, 07:50 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 15 2009, 07:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71715:date=Dec 15 2009, 02:17 AM:name=MrSheps)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MrSheps @ Dec 15 2009, 02:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71626:date=Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71624:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71623:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71612:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71602:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rotation should be the least of our concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. <b>I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. </b> Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd want him... but we had really no situation possible to make it work. I mean look what the Phillies have to give up to get him, and then have to sign him to a massive $ extension through late 30s. We don't have the financial ability to do something like this, nor can afford to give up what it would take to get him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Cubs made 200mil in revenues in 2007, and reported 214mil in '08. Assuming it went up again in 09, where should their payroll be? I think that's what I'd like to know. And I won't pretend to know, I'm just asking...
I don't expect the Cubs to spend like the Yankees, they don't make nearly as much, but a quick look at the differences in players expenditures (end of year/after bonuses) and revenue in 07 and 08, even after the Cubs started spending, would still suggest to me the Cubs aren't overspending on payroll, in fact what they spend on players represents a smaller piece of costs compared to revenue than some of the other big boys. So yeah, the Cubs opening day payroll is now very high and a lot of money is tied up, but compared to what the team generates...?? Let's just say it doesn't seem the team is going to go poor anytime soon...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you think the Ricketts are lying, and are pocketing the extra $$, rather than putting it into payroll? (and by the way, the cubs revenue in 09 was almost certainly less than 08, since there were no playoff games).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The lack of 3 playoff games offsets increased ticket revenue for 81, and increased other revenue for 162? Doubt it.
If revenues were down in 2009, it wasn't because of the playoffs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want to tie it specifically to those 3 games, fine. I'm speaking more to the point that a 97 win team on it's way to and in the playoffs made more money in September and October than a second place team starting Tyler Colvin did, especially when you add in the extra revenue from parking, concessions, stubhub, etc.
By the way, my ticket prices went up 75 dollars per seat in 2009. That's for the whole year. I'm thinking they may have made that back in the playoffs.
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: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71715:date=Dec 15 2009, 03:17 AM:name=MrSheps)-->QUOTE (MrSheps @ Dec 15 2009, 03:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71626:date=Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71624:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71623:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71612:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71602:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rotation should be the least of our concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. <b>I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. </b> Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd want him... but we had really no situation possible to make it work. I mean look what the Phillies have to give up to get him, and then have to sign him to a massive $ extension through late 30s. We don't have the financial ability to do something like this, nor can afford to give up what it would take to get him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Cubs made 200mil in revenues in 2007, and reported 214mil in '08. Assuming it went up again in 09, where should their payroll be? I think that's what I'd like to know. And I won't pretend to know, I'm just asking...
I don't expect the Cubs to spend like the Yankees, they don't make nearly as much, but a quick look at the differences in players expenditures (end of year/after bonuses) and revenue in 07 and 08, even after the Cubs started spending, would still suggest to me the Cubs aren't overspending on payroll, in fact what they spend on players represents a smaller piece of costs compared to revenue than some of the other big boys. So yeah, the Cubs opening day payroll is now very high and a lot of money is tied up, but compared to what the team generates...?? Let's just say it doesn't seem the team is going to go poor anytime soon...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You act like the Cubs player payroll is it's only expense. They also have to pay for the Manager, the GM, Len and Bob, and all of the other front office and back office people from accountants to janitors. The costs for maintenance and improvements to Wrigley are also substantial. They also have minor league expenses, scouting expenses, and player development expenses, so on and so on.
The bottom line is that $140M should be plenty of payroll, especially in a division that where the next highest payroll is $105M. Basically, the Cubs have been very inefficient in the use of its payroll.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71734:date=Dec 15 2009, 08:53 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 15 2009, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71715:date=Dec 15 2009, 03:17 AM:name=MrSheps)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MrSheps @ Dec 15 2009, 03:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71626:date=Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71624:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71623:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71612:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71602:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rotation should be the least of our concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. <b>I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. </b> Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd want him... but we had really no situation possible to make it work. I mean look what the Phillies have to give up to get him, and then have to sign him to a massive $ extension through late 30s. We don't have the financial ability to do something like this, nor can afford to give up what it would take to get him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Cubs made 200mil in revenues in 2007, and reported 214mil in '08. Assuming it went up again in 09, where should their payroll be? I think that's what I'd like to know. And I won't pretend to know, I'm just asking...
I don't expect the Cubs to spend like the Yankees, they don't make nearly as much, but a quick look at the differences in players expenditures (end of year/after bonuses) and revenue in 07 and 08, even after the Cubs started spending, would still suggest to me the Cubs aren't overspending on payroll, in fact what they spend on players represents a smaller piece of costs compared to revenue than some of the other big boys. So yeah, the Cubs opening day payroll is now very high and a lot of money is tied up, but compared to what the team generates...?? Let's just say it doesn't seem the team is going to go poor anytime soon...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You act like the Cubs player payroll is it's only expense. They also have to pay for the Manager, the GM, Len and Bob, and all of the other front office and back office people from accountants to janitors. The costs for maintenance and improvements to Wrigley are also substantial. They also have minor league expenses, scouting expenses, and player development expenses, so on and so on.
The bottom line is that $140M should be plenty of payroll, especially in a division that where the next highest payroll is $105M. Basically, the Cubs have been very inefficient in the use of its payroll.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And while I can justify on an individual basis many of Hendry's moves, in the end, THIS is what he is responsible for. He should be able to win with this payroll.
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: 301
Threads: 3
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71736:date=Dec 15 2009, 09:02 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 15 2009, 09:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71734:date=Dec 15 2009, 08:53 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 15 2009, 08:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71715:date=Dec 15 2009, 03:17 AM:name=MrSheps)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MrSheps @ Dec 15 2009, 03:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71626:date=Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71624:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71623:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71612:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71602:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rotation should be the least of our concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. <b>I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. </b> Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd want him... but we had really no situation possible to make it work. I mean look what the Phillies have to give up to get him, and then have to sign him to a massive $ extension through late 30s. We don't have the financial ability to do something like this, nor can afford to give up what it would take to get him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Cubs made 200mil in revenues in 2007, and reported 214mil in '08. Assuming it went up again in 09, where should their payroll be? I think that's what I'd like to know. And I won't pretend to know, I'm just asking...
I don't expect the Cubs to spend like the Yankees, they don't make nearly as much, but a quick look at the differences in players expenditures (end of year/after bonuses) and revenue in 07 and 08, even after the Cubs started spending, would still suggest to me the Cubs aren't overspending on payroll, in fact what they spend on players represents a smaller piece of costs compared to revenue than some of the other big boys. So yeah, the Cubs opening day payroll is now very high and a lot of money is tied up, but compared to what the team generates...?? Let's just say it doesn't seem the team is going to go poor anytime soon...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You act like the Cubs player payroll is it's only expense. They also have to pay for the Manager, the GM, Len and Bob, and all of the other front office and back office people from accountants to janitors. The costs for maintenance and improvements to Wrigley are also substantial. They also have minor league expenses, scouting expenses, and player development expenses, so on and so on.
The bottom line is that $140M should be plenty of payroll, especially in a division that where the next highest payroll is $105M. Basically, the Cubs have been very inefficient in the use of its payroll.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And while I can justify on an individual basis many of Hendry's moves, in the end, THIS is what he is responsible for. He should be able to win with this payroll.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think people are losing perspective. The luck we had last year was just about as bad as it could get and we were still tied for first place in August and ended up over .500. I'm not defending Hendry's use of resources, because I think he's given out some terrible contracts, but to say he has not been able to win with the payroll is a bit over the top in my opinion.
Posts: 2,331
Threads: 20
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71717:date=Dec 15 2009, 04:50 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 15 2009, 04:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71715:date=Dec 15 2009, 02:17 AM:name=MrSheps)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MrSheps @ Dec 15 2009, 02:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71626:date=Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71624:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71623:date=Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71612:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM:name=Brock)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Brock @ Dec 14 2009, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71602:date=Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Rotation should be the least of our concerns.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe, but is there a plausible offensive acquistion we could make that would have as much of an impact on the success of this team as Halladay would? I can't think of one.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hanley Ramirez was as plausible of an acquisition as Halladay was though. Never had a chance for a million reasons and I'm just glad we don't have to hear about it anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it's too late now and maybe there wasn't much chance to get him anyway. <b>I do think it's silly not to want to get one of the game's best pitchers because we think our rotation is ok. </b> Players of Halladay's calibre don't become available all that often.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we'd want him... but we had really no situation possible to make it work. I mean look what the Phillies have to give up to get him, and then have to sign him to a massive $ extension through late 30s. We don't have the financial ability to do something like this, nor can afford to give up what it would take to get him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe the Cubs made 200mil in revenues in 2007, and reported 214mil in '08. Assuming it went up again in 09, where should their payroll be? I think that's what I'd like to know. And I won't pretend to know, I'm just asking...
I don't expect the Cubs to spend like the Yankees, they don't make nearly as much, but a quick look at the differences in players expenditures (end of year/after bonuses) and revenue in 07 and 08, even after the Cubs started spending, would still suggest to me the Cubs aren't overspending on payroll, in fact what they spend on players represents a smaller piece of costs compared to revenue than some of the other big boys. So yeah, the Cubs opening day payroll is now very high and a lot of money is tied up, but compared to what the team generates...?? Let's just say it doesn't seem the team is going to go poor anytime soon...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you think the Ricketts are lying, and are pocketing the extra $$, rather than putting it into payroll? (and by the way, the cubs revenue in 09 was almost certainly less than 08, since there were no playoff games).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I'm saying I don't know what the formula should be for how much extra cash goes to ownership and how much goes to payroll. A team could, make 10 mil total a year after all is said and done in profit, a team could make 30, 20, 5, break even, lose money... Some owners take home less than others at the end of the year is my point.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_ba...ubs_335092.html
You can flip through some team profiles above. Granted this doesn't give a full picture, but its interesting...
Posts: 2,331
Threads: 20
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71734:date=Dec 15 2009, 06:53 AM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 15 2009, 06:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You act like the Cubs player payroll is it's only expense. They also have to pay for the Manager, the GM, Len and Bob, and all of the other front office and back office people from accountants to janitors. The costs for maintenance and improvements to Wrigley are also substantial. They also have minor league expenses, scouting expenses, and player development expenses, so on and so on.
The bottom line is that $140M should be plenty of payroll, especially in a division that where the next highest payroll is $105M. Basically, the Cubs have been very inefficient in the use of its payroll.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I totally agree with you, it doesn't look like a 140mil is on the field. There is no doubt that is a great payroll for the division. And I promise you I know team payroll is only part of what they spend.
But what I said was that in compared to revenues the Cubs aren't spending more on player payouts than they should be, at least not compared to other teams that make as much as they do, in my very, very novice opinion. (I'm assuming the costs of running the cubs is comparable to the cost of running the red sox, yankees, mets, dodgers, etc.) So like in 2008, the Cubs end of player expenses were 130mil, revenues were 214. The Red Sox player expenses were 199, revenues were 263. That means to me that the difference in revenues v. player expenses was 84mil for the Cubs, 64 for the Red Sox. Now I know a ton more goes into this, this says nothing of taxes, differed payments, etc... But I just wonder what the bottom line needs to be for the new ownership.
Posts: 676
Threads: 15
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
A big part of the pie for the Rickett's has to be making the payment for the $600 million debt they just incurred. I am to lazy to look up the actual number, but the $600 million figure is stuck in my head for some reason.
"Drink Up and Beat Off!"
-KBWSB
"Will I be looked on poorly if my religion involved punting little people?"
-Jody
Posts: 14,130
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=71817:date=Dec 15 2009, 07:30 PM:name=savant)-->QUOTE (savant @ Dec 15 2009, 07:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->A big part of the pie for the Rickett's has to be making the payment for the $600 million debt they just incurred. I am to lazy to look up the actual number, but the $600 million figure is stuck in my head for some reason.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought they financed only a bit more than half of the deal (remember the family sold $400+ mil of Ameritrade stock), but also took out a line of credit for renovations and the triangle building development. I could be wrong though, but I believe a large part of that $600 mil is untapped credit thus far.
Posts: 2,331
Threads: 20
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
From Sullivan on the 12th:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->General manager Jim Hendry is suddenly the victim of his team's own largesse and has been ordered to turn off the faucet. Moreover, the Cubs are not accustomed to eating millions.
But the Cubs should have money to spend. They raised ticket prices by an average of $4.82 for next season, according to Team Marketing Report. Assuming they draw at least 3 million in 2010, that's an additional $14,460,000 in their coffers.
The Ricketts family has said all profits will be invested back into the team, which suggests the payroll should rise about 10 percent as well, to around $154 million.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Posts: 2,911
Threads: 67
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=72060:date=Dec 17 2009, 04:32 PM:name=MrSheps)-->QUOTE (MrSheps @ Dec 17 2009, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->From Sullivan on the 12th:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->General manager Jim Hendry is suddenly the victim of his team's own largesse and has been ordered to turn off the faucet. Moreover, the Cubs are not accustomed to eating millions.
But the Cubs should have money to spend. They raised ticket prices by an average of $4.82 for next season, according to Team Marketing Report. Assuming they draw at least 3 million in 2010, that's an additional $14,460,000 in their coffers.
The Ricketts family has said all profits will be invested back into the team, which suggests the payroll should rise about 10 percent as well, to around $154 million.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or they will invest in stadium improvements, or increase the international scouting budget, or build the triangle building, or pay of some debt. There are many ways to invest those proceeds and I'd argue that investing them in player development would be a better solution that spending wildly in free agency. Sullivan is a douche.
|
